NY Post distorts facts to claim climate change science is "unraveling"
A New York Post editorial baselessly asserted that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) "bogus" statement about the date by which Himalayan glaciers will likely disappear was a "key finding" in order to claim that climate change science is "unraveling." In fact, scientists have noted that the IPCC report's claim should not be described as a central finding because it was not included in the IPCC's larger summaries; moreover, the editorial distorted several of climate scientist Phil Jones' statements on warming trends to suggest that they undermine the consensus that human activities are contributing to higher global temperatures.
Post claims IPCC glacier statement was "key finding"
From the February 22 New York Post editorial:
Looks like the great climate-change unraveling came none too soon.
Three states last week filed papers challenging the Environmental Protection Agency's scheme to use global-warming fears to seize sweeping power over much of the US economy.
Officials in Texas, Virginia and Alabama charge that recent revelations challenging the scientific "consensus" that humans are causing catastrophic warming also undermine the EPA's decision to regulate greenhouse gasses as a pollutant -- which would give it inordinate power over nearly every industry in the country.
But what about that warming? Certainly, it hasn't been a good few months for climate alarmists.
Among the recent revelations:
* Leaked e-mails in December showed that climate scientists at Britain's formerly prestigious Climate Research Unit conspired to hide inconvenient data while attempting to intimidate warming skeptics.
* A key finding of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- which won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 along with Al Gore -- was revealed last month to be utterly bogus.
The IPCC had claimed, with no evidence beyond a citation from a mass-market science magazine, that global warming would cause Himalayan glaciers to disappear by 2035.
* Then, this month, CRU director Phil Jones admitted that temperatures in the Middle Ages may have been even higher than they are today; for technical reasons, this was a huge blow to the alarmists' case. And Jones also confessed that there's been no statistically significant warming in the past 15 years.
In fact, scientists say glacier statement was not a central finding in the IPCC report
RealClimate: Himalayan glacier citation "cannot be described as a 'central claim' of the IPCC." Climate scientists wrote in a January 19 post at RealClimate.org that the erroneous statement on Himalayan glaciers "cannot be described as a 'central claim' of the IPCC" because it "did not make it into the summary for policy makers, nor the overall synthesis report." From the post:
The statement, in a chapter on climate impacts in Asia, was that the likelihood of the Himalayan glaciers "disappearing by the year 2035″ was "very high" if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate (WG 2, Ch. 10, p493), and was referenced to a World Wildlife Fund 2005 report. Examining the drafts and comments (available here), indicates that the statement was barely commented in the reviews, and that the WWF (2005) reference seems to have been a last minute addition (it does not appear in the First- or Second- Order Drafts). This claim did not make it into the summary for policy makers, nor the overall synthesis report, and so cannot be described as a 'central claim' of the IPCC. However, the statement has had some press attention since the report particularly in the Indian press, at least according to Google News, even though it was not familiar to us before last month.
It is therefore obvious that this error should be corrected (via some kind of corrigendum to the WG2 report perhaps), but it is important to realise that this doesn't mean that Himalayan glaciers are doing just fine. They aren't, and there may be serious consequences for water resources as the retreat continues. See also this review paper (Ren et al, 2006) on a subset of these glaciers.
Union of Concerned Scientists: Glacier claim "was not mentioned in its highly visible summaries for policymakers." The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) also noted that the data "was not mentioned in its highly visible summaries for policymakers" and stated that "[p]resumably the working group did not consider the 2035 Himalayan glaciers claim to be reliable enough for its policymaker summary." From UCS' statement on the allegations:
The claim was part of the full review of climate science and impacts provided in the dense, 3,000-page report, but was not mentioned in its highly visible summaries for policymakers. Presumably the working group did not consider the 2035 Himalayan glaciers claim to be reliable enough for its policymaker summary. The statement in the summary was much less specific. "If current warming rates are maintained," it stated, "Himalayan glaciers could decay at very rapid rates."
Given the sprawling nature of the IPCC, it is not surprising to find relatively minor errors. Such mistakes do not undermine the overall conclusions of the organization's reports, which are subject to an exhaustive review process.
Scientists' studies show glaciers throughout the world are melting rapidly
World Glacier Monitoring Service data show that glaciers are thinning. The World Glacier Monitoring Service (WGMS) -- in coordination with the U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP) -- issued a report in March 2008 showing that, according to a UNEP press release, "Data from close to 30 reference glaciers in nine mountain ranges indicate that between the years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 the average rate of melting and thinning more than doubled." The study looked at 30 glaciers in the Alps, the Andes, the Cascade Mountains, Svalbard, Alaska, Scandinavia, Altai, Caucasus, and Tien Shan. WGMS later updated its data for 2007-2008 and asserted that the "new data continues the global trend in strong ice loss over the past few decades."
2009 study shows Swiss glaciers melted by 12 percent over the past decade. Scientists at the ETH Zurich university reportedly issued a study in 2009 showing that Swiss glaciers had retreated by 12 percent over the past decade. A Reuters article quoted Daniel Farinotti, research assistant at the ETH, as saying, "The trend is definitely that glaciers are melting faster now. Since the end of the 1980s, they have lost more and more mass more quickly." The article also noted that "Swiss glaciers have lost 9 cubic km of ice since 1999, the warmest period of the past 150 years, with the most dramatic decline coming in 2003 when they shrunk by 3.5 percent in 2003."
Ohio State glaciologist Lonnie Thompson says glaciers all over the world are melting. According to a January 20 Guardian article, "Lonnie Thompson, a glaciologist at Ohio State University, said there is strong evidence from a variety of sources of significant melting of glaciers -- from the area around Kilimanjaro in Africa to the Alps, the Andes, and the icefields of Antarctica because of a warming climate. Ice is also disappearing at a faster rate in recent decades, he said." From the article:
From the Alps to the Andes, the world's glaciers are retreating at an accelerated pace -- despite the recent controversy over claims by the United Nations' body of experts, leading climate scientists said today.
Lonnie Thompson, a glaciologist at Ohio State University, said there is strong evidence from a variety of sources of significant melting of glaciers - from the area around Kilimanjaro in Africa to the Alps, the Andes, and the icefields of Antarctica because of a warming climate. Ice is also disappearing at a faster rate in recent decades, he said.
"It is not any single glacier," he said. "It is very clear that these glaciers are behaving in a similar fashion."
[...]
But there was evidence gathered from a variety of sources that there has been significant melting of glaciers - from the area around Kilimanjaro in Africa to the Alps, the Andes and the icefields of Antarctica - and that the rate of ice loss was accelerating.
"Those changes -- the acceleration of the retreat of the glaciers and the fact that it is a global response -- is the concerning part of all this. It is not any single glacier," he said
Scientists now had evidence collected over a long period of that decline from samples of the ice core and even collections of plants from mountains that were left ice-free for the first time in more than 5,000 years, Thompson said.
The World Glacier Monitoring Service shows a similar picture. In a 2005 survey of 442 glaciers, 398 -- or 90% -- were retreating, 18 were stationary and 26 were advancing.
"Glacier expert" Michael Zemp: "Glaciers are the best proof that climate change is happening." According to a CNN.com article, glacier expert Michael Zemp said he "believes that the errors shouldn't shake people's belief in climate science." It quoted him as saying, "Glaciers are the best proof that climate change is happening. This is happening on a global scale. They can translate very small changes in the climate into a visible signal."
Post claimed Jones said Middle Ages "may have been" warmer than today and "confessed that there's been no statistically significant warming" in 15 years
From the February 22 New York Post editorial:
* Then, this month, CRU director Phil Jones admitted that temperatures in the Middle Ages may have been even higher than they are today; for technical reasons, this was a huge blow to the alarmists' case. And Jones also confessed that there's been no statistically significant warming in the past 15 years.
Jones said available data is insufficient to establish that Medieval Warm Period was "global in extent"
Jones: "Records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere" insufficient to support claim that Medieval Warm Period was global rather than regional. During a Q&A with BBC, Jones stated that "[t]here is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period [MWP] was global in extent or not," and, contrary to the Post's claim that Jones said "temperatures in the Middle Ages may have been even higher than they are today," Jones stated that "[f]or it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions." Jones further said: "We know from the instrumental temperature record that the two hemispheres do not always follow one another. We cannot, therefore, make the assumption that temperatures in the global average will be similar to those in the northern hemisphere." From the Q&A:
[BBC:] G - There is a debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was global or not. If it were to be conclusively shown that it was a global phenomenon, would you accept that this would undermine the premise that mean surface atmospheric temperatures during the latter part of the 20th Century were unprecedented?
[JONES:] There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.
Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented.
We know from the instrumental temperature record that the two hemispheres do not always follow one another. We cannot, therefore, make the assumption that temperatures in the global average will be similar to those in the northern hemisphere.
Lack of "statistically significant warming" in recent years doesn't undermine climate change science since longer-term data establishes warming trend
Jones: "Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms" is "less likely for shorter periods." When asked in the BBC interview, "Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming," Jones stated:
Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
RealClimate.org: "It is extremely difficult to establish a statistically significant trend over a timer interval as short as 15 years." In a February 15 post, RealClimate.org's staff, which is comprised of several working climate scientists, similarly stated that "it is extremely difficult to establish a statistically significant trend over a time interval as short as 15 years."
Met Office: Climate shows "continued variability, but an underlying trend of warming in the previously steady long-term averages." The Met Office states: "In 1998 the world experienced the warmest year since records began. In the decade since, however, this high point has not been surpassed. Some have seized on this as evidence that global warming has stopped, or even that we have entered a period of 'global cooling'. This is far from the truth and climate scientists have, in fact, recognised that a temporary slowdown in warming is possible even under increasing levels of greenhouse gas emissions." [Met Office, accessed 9/22/09]
The Met Office further notes:
After three decades of warming caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions, why would there suddenly be a period of relative temperature stability -- despite more greenhouse gases being emitted than ever before? This is because of what is known as internal climate variability. In the same way that our weather can be warm and sunny one day, cool and wet the next, so our climate naturally varies from year to year, and decade to decade.
Before the twentieth century, when man-made greenhouse gas emissions really took off, there was an underlying stability to global climate. The temperature varied from year to year, or decade to decade, but stayed within a certain range and averaged out to an approximately steady level.
In the twentieth century we have had continued variability, but an underlying trend of warming in the previously steady long-term averages. This is what we observed in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Now we have seen a decade of little change in the average global temperature -- but that doesn't mean climate change has stopped, it's just another part of natural variability.
2000-2009 was warmest decade on record. NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the National Climatic Data Center of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.K. Met Office, and the World Meteorological Organisation have all stated that 2000-2009 was the warmest decade on record for the globe.
In a statement the authors of the paper said: "Since publication of our paper we have become aware of two mistakes which impact the detailed estimation of future sea level rise. This means that we can no longer draw firm conclusions regarding 21st century sea level rise from this study without further work." -- Guardian
The beat goes on. The argument posed by mmfa is that none of the mistakes individually refute AGW...but the forest is getting pretty thick around mmfa's trees.
Can't wait for the first defender to bleat that "Siddall said that he did not know whether the retracted paper's estimate of sea level rise was an overestimate or an underestimate."
Still hearing unqualified people given large public forums to character assasinate folks who are not in this for the money or political power.
Okay folks, here is how this works - a paper gets written. It is submitted to a journal, which sends it out to various other scientists for review. That review is to verify it's scientific methodology, not it's conclusions, BTW. After the peer review it may be published. Occasionally, after publication, problems come to light and the paper is withdrawn and sometimes reworked and republished.
This is how science works. This is the GOOD part of science - it is self-correcting. This was never much of a problem when the general public had at least an inkling of how science worked. But these days, people want and expect absolutes and the media indulges them by trying to distill science down to sound bites. Then when the sound bites turn out to be less than perfect, people blame the science instead of the media that misrepresented it.
In this case, the problems do not negate the paper all together, they just mean the authors need to rework the details to see how adding new criteria changes the outcome. And yes, it could raise or lower the estimate. There are other recent papers that predict even stronger rises than this one did.
I barely took any science after high school, and I don't find it that confusing. Some of these people must have quit paying attention as soon as they were finished rubbing that balloon on their head and giggling at the static electricity.
That is the problem, I'm sorry you don't see it. Global Warming proponents are trying to push economic policy based on IPCC, CRU, and other data that claim the earth is warming due to carbon emissions from man-made sources. If what you say is true, and the conclusions have yet to be made, then we shouldn't be pushing policies which could dramatically and adversely affect our economies, and weaken national security.
If as you say science is a self-correcting process, then let the science correct itself before pushing policy on us. Lets GET THE FACTS first, according to you the FACTS still aren't in.
However, I realize that you were just making this statement as an excuse, an attempt to justify politicized and shoddy research. If you really believed what you just said, you'd be far more skeptical of the global warming science.
How is moving away from a petrochemical based society (which keep us beholden to a few princes in the Middle East, BTW) and toward cleaner healthier energy sources a bad thing in ANY way?
We should be doing these things for reasons other than global warming.
Needless to say spending more money, digging a deeper pit poses a greater risk to our national security than middle eastern countries who depend on us as much as they depend on them. I'm not arguing the idea that we shouldn't try to find renewable domestic alternatives, just that we shouldn't spend money we don't have to do it.
You prefer spending money we don't have to buy oil from the Middle East while we fall farther and farther behind the rest of the world technologically?
That's what the summary was. I love when you fruitloops beat yourselves in your first sentence.
Don Hussein you should have taken some post-high school science courses. You would have learned that if you cite wikipedia as a credible source you are not going to pass the class. Essentially that is what the IPCC did when they used less than credible sources as the basis for their Himalayan glacier melt prediction.
Wesley was making the point that despite mounting flaws in global warming science, GW supporters (like MMFA) continue to rail against those who feel these inaccuracy might suggest CO2 emissions may not spell the end of the world. But Wesley was not questioning the scientific process itself.
Nobody is questioning the scientific method as far as I've seen. What "deniers" are questioning are the proposed policies that pose serious threats to economic stability which are based on incorrect science. So the summary was an attempt to twist the arguement into something it never was. Meaning, it was not a good summary, and meaning that by your own estimation you conclude the science has flaws and yet you are still willing to bet our economic stability on that science. That would be a pretty good definition of foolishness. Continuing a course of action based on a set of information even when you know that information is misleading.
Rumple maybe I should have given you credit for your summary. Godd summary of the scientific process, however as a rebuttal to Wesley's post, it was a response to a problem never raised.
Twisty, twisty, you'll tie yourself in knots if you don't stop.
This is not about negating all their fine, hard work...it's about negating their assumption on sea-level rise...the point of their study.
If a study required five calculations to reach a conclusion and consequently it was discovered that one of the calculations was incorrect...which invalidated the outcome...it does not mean that we should ignore the "four" correct calculations in the study. It means that the total outcome of the body of work is flawed.
This study is flawed...as admitted by the authors. They also stated that projecting sea-level rises is difficult...because of the lack of scientific knowledge:
-- It is difficult to project sea-level rise in response to warming climates by the end of the century, especially because the response of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to warming is not well understood. --
They found that statement to be inconveniently true.
Your misconception here is that with the removal of this study, it removes a critical building block that supports sea level rise. It doesn't.
Global Climate Change is supported by lots of building blocks. Every aspect of it, including sea level rise, has been tested and retested and has been proven to be accurate and reliable.
I'm sure that means something to somebody. Your mangled cliches would probably trump science at RedState, Wesley. They just look dopey here.
Continue denying it though, hide behind your weak attempts to explain the scientific process as your justification for poor science. If destroyed data, biased peer review practices, weak data gathering, and using wikipedia like sources to make a claim about global warming don't make you raise an eyebrow in concern then I doubt anything will.
I'd say simply, YOU ARE IN DENIAL. Welcome to the cult. :)
Quoted from Wesley's post above, which has the link to the full article.
The scientist admitted they messed up and the overall assumption based on the data were also wrong. That would constitute obvious and admitted flaws in my book. Defending GW science as flawless is a silly, silly arguement. Not even the scientist themselves would argue it is flawless, and again that is the point. The margin of error in GW science is still to great to necesitate dehibilitating economic policies to correct any potential threats.
I love how you love me noticing your cult, then mock me for not observing your cult's mythology.
I just scrolled through your post on this page and realized you have taken the typical "leech" spproach. You never post anything original and never post anything substantive. I realized that the extent of your posts are relegated to cute and rarely comical remarks. I've yet to read a post even bording on informational.
Don't stop posting though, I get a kick out of my memories of Leech.
The forest is NOT getting thick - as your backwards analogy goes. The base is strong and deep and wide, and the 'forest' that is GCC theory is huge. All that's been cut down are a few trees in a huge forest. There are still plenty of species of trees in this forest, and plenty of specimens of each species in this forest.
You got nothing, Weasel.
Blockhead.
But let's look at this - your complaint is that I am using a similar argument and the same analogy on multiple posts. Hmmm, now, is that really a bad thing to do if the argument and analogy works very well? Of course it's not a bad idea. But, like so many people on your side, when you see a strength in someone else's argument, you try to turn that strength into a weakness.
The fact is that the consensus about GCC is very strong, and became strong from the use of the scientific method, testing and retesting other's work. Your side's problem is that you can't win this argument if you look at the whole, so you try to destroy it dishonestly by extrapolating from a tiny part. That's why I argue that the failure of those tiny parts doesn't destroy the whole!
I understand that my methods destroy YOUR argument. Too bad, so sad.
Strengths? You could use a few, believe me. You're just irritated because you can't back up your stupid building block nonsense, it's nothing but an empty catchphrase, and you know it.
I am glad you follow my posts so closely, you always do. Because I expose you for the fraud you are, and you know that too. Happy to be of service my Dear.
Are you truly insane?
Of course I can back up that scientists today don't do hardly any original work that springs from a unique observation. It's all built upon the work of others. That's the way scientists work.
My argument that one building block being removed doesn't shake the foundation of man-made global warming is incredibly strong. So yeah, that's why you attack it and why people of your ilk misrepresent what the import of these questions is.
Now, I see a great deal of dirt being thrown from both sides of the global warming debate, and I don't see that much of it is productive. I am skeptical of AGW, but only because I'm not sure that the science is settled either way, and I think it's prudent to be cautious in such serious matters. What I see, wherever I go however, is that both sides quote studies and authorities to suit their own needs, with little regard for(or perhaps even interest in) finding truth.
The above quote, for instance, made me wonder how a survey of 442 glaciers could carry much weight, given that the World Glacier Inventory identifies over 100,000 glaciers covering 10% of the earth (see: ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/pub/DATASETS/NOAA/G01130/). On the other hand, taking information out of context to proclaim that global warming is dead is very insincere, and no more persuasive. I don't pretend to know what is really going on, but I'd sure like to find out. Trouble is, from my perspective, that nobody else seems to want to.
Everybody wants this issue to be black or white, but I submit that there is probably a middle ground that will ultimately represent the truth.
I think we are all better off seeking the truth here rather than casting stones in each others' direction. A more measured approach is needed.
Here's the link,[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm[/url.
Sure is getting hot in the kitchen.
That interview doesn't say what you think it does.
That interview says exactly what i think it does. It says that policies about global warming have been made based on uncertain science. Phil Jones says it best.
"There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well."
There is a long way to go before the global warming debate is over and we shouldn't take uneccesary risks based on science that is far from complete.
Strange definition of risk you have.
They should have written that is has already unraveled.
Global climate hysteria is already unraveled and the money train will soon stop.
Start focusing on pollution if you want to have any relevance in the post apocalyptic global warming religion.
Ummm, no. Really. It isn't.
The fact that there are scientists who continue to study, debate, and disagree on what future effects Global Warming may have does not conflict, alter, or disprove the data that shows Global Warming is happening. Temperatures are rising. Glaciers are melting. Those are objective facts that cannot be disputed. And still the deniers continue to insist that there's no absolute proof to be found that pumping tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere somehow increases the greenhouse effect, making the absurd argument that since there are still studies being conducted no conclusions can be reached, and that it's money, money money that's driving these claims.
By that standard Galileo wasn't 100%, irrefutably proven to be right when theorized that objects of different mass fall at the same rate until the Apollo astronauts dropped the feather and the hammer on the moon.
But do keep making your all too absurd arguments. They provide me with a lot of laughs. I rather enjoy watching people continue to run into a brick wall while insisting it isn't there.
There's only one part of your post that the DC's might take issue with;
I think when they say "Global Warming is unraveling", they're not saying that there ever was science behind it, and now it's falling apart.
They've been convinced that the entire thing is a hoax. A gigantic, world-wide scam, funded by deep pockets (Big Green, ha!) participated in by thousands of scientists and research organizations, none of whom have have slipped up once in the past few decades and blown the whole racket.
I know, it's about a hundred times too complicated and ridiculous to be plausible for non-cultists, but it seems to make perfect sense to the faithful.
You can't change fraud into truth using populism.
That's what the cultists at MM think they can do.
"Fox News is the highest rated news"
5) If your opponent has an unrefutable argument, change the subject
8) anyone who refutes or debates "correct" science (CreationismIntelligent Design, Ecological Stability) is a "sky-is-falling" reactionary
Remember when James Inhofe proclaimed that Global Warming was a hoax, and cited a NOAA study as "proof" -- a study which actually confirmed surface temperatures were rising?
There's your fraud, jose.
Keep slamming your melon against that wall.
What about this;
They've been convinced that the entire thing is a hoax. A gigantic, world-wide scam, funded by deep pockets (Big Green, ha!) participated in by thousands of scientists and research organizations, none of whom have have slipped up once in the past few decades and blown the whole racket.
Do you find that reasonable ?
1. Global warming scare; and
2. Health care scare.
If either one passes in any form let's hope they can be repealed shortly thereafter.
We need higher taxes, bigger government and you are a dingnut racist.
And I'm not running into a wall (*thump*).
I'm not running into a wall (*thump*).
I'm not running into a wall (*thump*).
Now, it would be a different thing altogether if you threw in with the Skeptics. There's some reputable scientist who have seen the data, have concluded that something is obviously happening, but disagree with the conclusions. I happen to believe they're wrong, but I can respect an opinion formed from an objective examination of evidence that is irrefutable and actually engage in an honest to goodness debate with that person, head to head, fact to fact, scientific theory to scientific theory.
You're not doing that. You're coming in here with wild accusations and attempting to raise tempers. As you can see, we're not biting.
Hone those debating skills with some hard facts. We might not agree, but we will listen. Until that happens all you're doing with your posts is honing your fish in a barrel skills.
Deniers like you would love for the world to go back to the preindustrial period and deny others what you already have because you got yours.
Fish. Barrel. Bang.
No, what I want is to see the world move away from it's dependence on coal and oil. I want to see us move towards solar, wind, alternative fuels, and yes, nuclear energy sources. I see this as being not only good for the environment, but good for the progress of humanity. We have relied on the same, non renewable options too heavily since the end of the 19th century. If we're to move forward we have to make some long overdue technological changes.
For once, I agree with most of what you said except I consider oil to be a renewable resource. Knowing people who work at Shell Oil gives insights that are not generally known.
And then if you could remove CO2 from the list of hazardous substances maybe we could make some progress.
Consider the strategy during the 1970s where the US tried to deplete the oil supply from the Middle East. Offshore drilling was practically banned in the US. The 1980s quickly came and big surprise, the oil was flowing more than ever. Predictions of when the oil supply were to run out kept being moved further into the future.
Then you had the oil fires from the Gulf War. Did that in the least bit affect the supply?
Aren't you the least bit suspicious? The government's belief that we can drain the money supply from the Middle East by depleting their oil supply is a failed policy because oil is a self renewing resource.
So now you can say you heard it first from me.
IDIOTS!!!
Jose, do you also believe the earth to be 6000 years old?
Just checking.
And I'm aware of the theories that oil is produced in deeper pockets of the Earth and renews itself. It's an interesting theory, but even if it is true the world is consuming oil at an increasing rate. Whatever the "natural" process is, we're sucking it down faster than it can be renewed.
But, more oil isn't the answer. Greenhouse gas. Greenhouse effect. Increased global warming effect. All that stuff.
Even if I didn't believe in Global warming I wouldn't believe we should continue to rely on the same technology we've all too eagerly embraced for more than a century.
Oil is great, we can burn it cleaner than ever and we should use it.
If we don't drill, one big earthquake may release one of the biggest oil spills in history.
It's time for the deniers to realize that the Middle East is not going to run out of oil. It is time to let America drill again.
Nevertheless, it is a phenomenon that has been observed and is worthy of study. No scientist on anybody's payroll is going to wager their reputation on this as of yet.
But, to answer you're completely off the topic question, we are seeing folks use a little something known as the Taser. Not quite the Star Trek technology, but there is continuing research into energy particle weapons.
Future technology could provide some solutions to the greenhouse gas problems we are currently creating with the amount of crude oil we use. If it can, that would be great. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't look towards alternative energy sources that are more efficient and kinder to the environment.
Greenhouse gases like CO2 and water vapor are not only good but necessary to supply renewable resources such as oil that is produced from decomposing organic material like tree leaves.
But, to the valid point you raised, yes, life on this planet is indeed dependent on water vapor and some greenhouse gases. But our neighboring planets illustrate that a balance is needed. Too much greenhouse gases are present in the sulfuric hell that is Venus. Too little and water evaporates away as it has on Mars.
The natural levels of greenhouse gases are not the issue. The man made additions are.
I heard that 100 year old ancient technology oil argument from Barbara Boxer.
Just because a technology is 100 years old doesn't mean that it should be retired.
I thought gunpowder was the perfect example of a timeless technology. I know that a gun will easily beat a taser in a shootout.
I believe the idea that man is producing enough CO2 to have any significant difference on the earth's climate is pure vanity.
I remember how I was scoffed at about 30 years ago when I tried to promote Carl Sagan's idea of sending blue green algae to Venus. Did you know at 100,000 feet above the surface on Venus it is 70 degrees F and one atmosphere?
Suspending some rotten oranges in Venus' upper atmosphere made other scientists furious because they wanted to protect the purity of the planet Venus.
It's the same scientific puritanism that is promoting AGW.
Again, sorry for the snipe.
But, just a reminder. I didn't make the case for the US Military to start patrolling with Tasers. You asked, "Where are the phasers," and I responded showing technology has changed.
I certainly wouldn't suggest bringing a Taser to a gun fight (and didn't). But having a family member who is a police officer I appreciate the fact that he's been able to subdue the occasional suspect with non lethal force. And, when that doesn't work, he's often able to call upon an even older form of "technology" that's still quite effective. A dog.
But again, I'll address the actual topic before my step kids take over the computer.
You said you don't believe man has produced enough greenhouse gases to have a great effect on the environment. There are many who agree with you. I'm sure this subject will be tossed around many times in the days, weeks, months, and years to come. Do yourself a favor. Present those arguments. Bring the facts. Let the debate rage. I can promise that if you make a valid point that makes us do a little thinking, I'll say as much and give you a thumbs up for it even if I don't agree with the conclusion (as I've just done.)
What we see here too often coming from those who don't agree with us are comments like, "You're a liar!" "Global warming is a hoax!" "You people are stupid progressive idiots!" No facts. No science. Nothing but insults. Some of us are willing to insult back and have gotten quite good at it (yes, I'm pointing a finger at myself), but what does that accomplish? What does it do other than make anonymous strangers upset with each other?
We can disagree with respect. We can behave like adults. We can reasonably wrestle with issue, and while we might not reach a mutual satisfying agreement, but we can at least be civil.
That's all. The kids are giving me dirty looks. I'll catch up on all of this fun later.
Somehow my friend the sheriff managed to talk the man into letting his family go after which the sheriff decided to tase the man, still wet from the gasoline.
I got to go too.
Your friend the sheriff appears to be one of those bad cops that didn't bother to learn the information presented in his tazer training. You know one of the ones who gives cops a bad name?
So what is this hairbrained idea about sending blue green algae to Venus suppose to accomplish?
The reason it's hot on Venus is because there is no life to consume that CO2.
Fortunately on Earth, there is plenty of algae to consume all the CO2 we can give it.
I have already given some of them away. If I find I can keep them alive, I will try to grow a hundred or more next fall.
And there have been a lot of oil fields discovered.
People like Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi and Diane Feinstein are the big mouths that keep the drilling off of California for clean, easy to extract oil.
Reminds me of some others, such as the Moon Hoaxers, and how the IDiots are all attacking "Darwinism", as if the Science of Biology hasn't gone beyond the original Origin of Species.
Potholer54's YouTube very interesting series on Climate Change.
There are private interests like Goldman Sachs who would love to trade carbon futures.
But I view Goldman Sachs as an arm of the government.
I'd be very interested to hear that.
Goldman Sachs is *already* trading carbon futures. Too late jose :)
And you wonder why you're not taken seriously?
Global warming hate speech, has a nice ring to it.
Cap and tax won't pass and you all should be thankful for that!
regulation = tax
No exceptions.
Any more incoherent or factually challenged wisdom to share with us?
On the creation of oil. Most of it comes with an anerobic body of water. Organic material was deposited in it by erosional means and did not decay. Non organic deposits covered it and compressed it. Continents danced arround a little. The waters became oxygenated, organic erosional materials decayed. The source of the oil went away.
The source of oil is the Sun which creates organic material.
The deniers of prosperity have tried to make you impotent.
You need to think outside the box.
Beyond radioactivity created by some other stars ending its life in a vareity of nova, no other source of power exists except our sun.
Solar power to oil needs a path. If that path dissappears then no more oil is created. The oil fairy does not exist.
The keepers of the wealth have tried to make me feel impotent. They maybe rich, but sillyness occurs so often, inspite of great wealth.
Link to Carbon Cycle
And you don't seem to see why that might be a problem in this discussion.
It has not worked. Maybe scientists are *gasp* wrong.
Can you support that statement with some sort of evidence? A link? A reference? Anything?
ONE TWO THREE
Are you awake yet?
This is a very interesting reality you live in. It does not happen to be the one I live in.
Organic Material - define - 1. any member of a large class of chemical compounds whose molecules contain carbon. 2. plant and animal residues, or substances made by living organisms. All are based upon carbon compounds.
The Sun - uses hydrogen and helium to create photons of electromagnetic energy. The Sun also emits neutrinos, which are teeny tiny particles with no charge and no mass.
So, no, in my reality, there is no oil flowing from the Sun to the earth.
Maybe it's the word create you have an issue with:
Create - to make or cause to be or to become
Maybe you think because the Sun did something in the process it gets full credit for creation?
I'm not saying the sun had nothing to do with oil, the Sun did provide energy to the plants that sequestered the carbon. But that's not the whole story of how oil forms, and yes, it takes a LONG time.
The line of carbon waiting to become oil has been waiting for millions of years. There is plenty in the queue and more is created every day.
The reality is that dry wells are no longer dry.
You have been seriously hypnotized. Snap out of it.
Again, can you provide any links to support your belief that more oil forms as quickly as we are using it?
If what you were taught was true, the Middle East would have dried up by now.
If you want to hold on to your beliefs, the plan to dry up the Middle East oil will be accomplished any day now.
Then the only market left for them would be the drug and maybe the nuclear market.
No one is saying we are going to run out of oil tomorrow. Well, except for your claims that others said it for which I am still waiting for links to sources. In fact WE probably won't be the ones who run out. Our children will most likely be the ones forced to deal with that particular problem if they are still around and nothing changes.
Science does not work by common sense. If it did, we would still think that a heavy object falls faster than a lighter one, as they did in the medieval ages, because common sense tells us so. You apparently don't understand science.
>>If what you were taught was true, the Middle East would have dried up by now.
I don't know what the heck you are talking about. That statement is patently false. The fact that oil does not renew itself instantly (as you claim) does not mean we would have already run out of oil in the middle east.
Oh, sure learning about how carbon circulates in the short term is interesting, but it has very little to do with oil formation.
Here is that process in pictures for you.
Jose, do you think the earth is around 6000 years old?
Probably 30 years from now, we'll be in an ice age and some retard will still try to claim global warming.