-
Competitive Enterprise Institute Backs GOP Boycott of EPA Nomination
May 10, 2013 | 1 comment
-
How the OPEC Cartel Undermines American Consumers and Business Operations
May 6, 2013 | 4 comments
-
Tennessee GOP Caves to Education Establishment on Civil Rights Language
April 22, 2013 | 2 comments
-
Some Questions for the EPA Nominee
April 11, 2013 | 2 comments
-
Tennessee Joins the Battle Against Race, Gender Preferences
April 10, 2013 | 1 comment
The Spectacle Blog
Washington D.C. and the Mid-Atlantic States have been hammered by another major snow storm, which exceeds the Dec. 19, 2009 storm that forced President Obama to curtail his time in Copenhagen.
This is the first time since record keeping started that two storms of such magnitude have hit the region during one winter. Already some localities are reporting the largest snowfall ever recorded.
To be sure, these events do not prove or disprove human caused global warming. But the momentum is now very much on the side of skeptical scientists who question these theories and President Obama should at least pull back from his awkward juxtapositions.
Here’s what he said in The State of the Union:
“I know there have been questions about whether we can afford such changes in a tough economy. I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change. But here’s the thing — even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy-efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future — because the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy. And America must be that nation.”
On Saturday, during a gathering of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in Washington D.C., Obama called this most recent storm “Snowmaggeddon” putting it on a par with what he experienced in Chicago.
Looking ahead to the 2010 mid-term elections, Republicans should make more of an issue out of the “climategate” scandal involving leaked emails Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom. It’s always possible to persuade the public on the basis of dire emergencies, which is why scientific evidence undermining alarmism deserves greater expression.
The science the EPA has used to justify its finding that human emissions of carbon dioxide endanger public health and welfare should be subjected to vigorous criticism in the coming months.
In the Federal Register, EPA states:
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.
… Global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries.”
Last year The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) exposed how the EPA had suppressed a scientific study that concludes natural forces as opposed to human activity are largely responsible for temperature changes.
Now is the time to attack the soft underbelly of unsubstantiated global warming alarmism.
More snow is on the way tomorrow.
Just Peeved| 2.8.10 @ 12:05PM
Remember the Ice Age that did not happen in the 70's Reminds me of Global Warming that hasn't happened Either , The Earth has changed and will keep changing we adapt not the earth. The desert of Sahara was once a forest rich with life, change happens we did not cause it.
GFW| 2.8.10 @ 6:12PM
"Cooling predicted in the 1970s" is a myth. Some popular press ran with it, but scientists already knew that AGW was going to dominate the natural trend towards the next glacial period. See http://www.skepticalscience.co.....-1970s.htm
So actually, a *little* AGW is a good thing, but the rate of change we are now causing is faster than that to which natural systems have adapted in the past. In the fossil record, changes anywhere near this rapid tend to lead to massive extinction events.
Charles Masterson | 2.8.10 @ 9:26PM
The d18O records confirm that large and rapid temperature oscillations have occurred through most of the last 110,000 year period. They are of a scale that has not been experienced during the past 10,000 years in which human society mainly developed. Especially astonishing are the very short times needed for major warmings. A temperature increase of 5�C can occur in a few decades. - Greenland Ice Core Project
Flatdog| 2.9.10 @ 4:29AM
I dispute GFW's statement that ""Cooling predicted in the 1970s" is a myth.".
When I was in school in the mid-1960s in East Africa, I was taught that we were headed for another ice-age.
Admittedly the news wasn't communicated to us with the sort of alarmist zealotry that my children have to contend with regarding AGW these days though.
jonesy| 2.10.10 @ 1:57AM
you were taught right. the earth is definotely headed for another ice age. but it's a timeframe of thousands of years till it happens.
there is a "global cooling" myth in that among scientists there was no prediction that there would be cooling within a matter of decades. media reports may have indicated otherwise, but the media is not the science.
Pete| 2.8.10 @ 12:11PM
But you must admit, if ever there was a man who could command the oceans and the skies to do his bidding, it is Obama. What a joke. (if the climate does not obey, is it, too, racist?) The strategy seems to be to push all out corruption on as many fronts as possible in order to guarantee fraudulent cash flow to himself, the D party, and his communist buddies.
Jim Hlavac | 2.8.10 @ 12:16PM
It's always funny to hear the ongoing bleating about the average temperatures going up, the snow and ice melting, and the rising sea as something keeps falling so hard, heavy and thick that all but the biggest things are obliterated in a blanket of white cold stuff that dare not speak its name.
Of course, all that unnameable white stuff will melt and run to the sea, and perhaps give a moments rise, before it is whisked away in humidity to fall again in cold, thick, wet and heavy, but higher average temperatures, white stuff of global warming.
Truly amazing that even the record breaking cold unceasingly befalling the northern hemisphere these past two or three years is still a sign of things getting warmer.
GFW| 2.8.10 @ 6:15PM
Satellite measurements show this January to be globally the warmest ever. It might feel cold where you live, but that's just one place. It happens to have been a record warm January where I live (and clearly, a lot of other places around the earth).
mary| 2.8.10 @ 10:50PM
GFW -- Are you making this stuff up.
In 2002 it snowed in the Sahara. In 38 AD the sea level in the Mediterranean made the city of Ephesus a sea port. The water has receeded many miles.
Now where did all that water go? Who can say with any assurance? What is your take on the big thaw in Iceland in the Middle Ages?
Humans are not stupid. And you cannot override common knowledge or common sense with obtuse scientific diagrams.
Alex_J| 2.9.10 @ 12:01AM
Define "common knowledge" and "big thaw" in the context of global climatic averages. Regional climate events have occurred during the holocene (although some have been exaggerated), but snow in the Sahara in 2002 is weather, not climate. And as noted in the link someone posted below, snowfall is more dependent on moisture availability than severe temperatures. It can be 31 degrees F and you can have three feet of snow. And in a warming world, more water vapor is made available for heavy precipitation where other conditions are favorable.
Despite the 11 year solar cycle and at least two ocean cycles being in their cool phases, along with some regional cold snaps, record highs have outpaced record lows globally, and the decadal averages have continued to rise. The concern for the future is the potential for accelerated global-scale climate change during the long, relatively stable interglacial in which today's ecology and societies of billions have grown.
jonesy| 2.10.10 @ 2:02AM
well said. i would have thought this site would be filled with contrarian blather. pleasantly surprised.
bob lafferty| 2.10.10 @ 11:33AM
send your comments to Vancouver, B.C. They could use some of your optimism to pave the venues.
Christopher Harris| 2.11.10 @ 1:27PM
The current weather in much of the United States and Eurasia has been caused by the largest negative anomaly in the Arctic Oscillation climate mode since 1977. This is a large scale weather event affecting two areas of the planet, the rest of the world (give or take a couple of minute areas) is well above average and has been all winter. Therefore, this winter (December-January-February) is likely to be the warmest ever recorded. Furthermore, increased extremity in climate mode anomalies (and therefore large precipitation-bearing weather systems, be them warm or cold) is to be expected with greater energy in the climate system due to AGW.
Pingback| 2.8.10 @ 12:24PM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : “Snowmageddon” Versus “ links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
commieblaster | 2.8.10 @ 12:45PM
Flash!!
The Brand New Video Blows a Huge Gaping Hole in Obama's Cap & Tax Scheme: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVm5-6H_sH4
Barb | 2.8.10 @ 1:37PM
Does anyone ever consider the enormous glaciers that covered the upper midwest where I live? As a child in school I was told about how our state was sculpted with lakes and kettles, decorated with rocks and stones of all sizes. At some point these glaciers melted and filled the lakes with fresh water which are the envy of the world. There were no SUVs, coal-powered smokestacks or, dare I say, any campfires to speak of when the melting occurred. So tell me, lefties, just how do you explain that? The glaciers were mile high or more from what I learned and it had to take an enormous heat wave to turn them into a puddle. Common sense should be enough to enlighten these liberals. But, alas, their brains are all wet.
Laurie| 2.8.10 @ 4:15PM
um, Barb, that was the Ice Age...that's how I explain it and how Science explained it. Oh, but you don't believe in science do you? Man-made climate change is common sense; for every action, a reaction--when you take substances out of the earth, that have been buried there for billions of years, and then let them loose into the atmosphere, it is going to have a effect. Why wouldn't it?
Christopher Harris| 2.11.10 @ 1:39PM
this would have occurred over geological timescales (millions of years), as climates do change naturally. It is the rapidity of the current climate change that poses the threat to ecosystems as they cannot adapt fast enough to the change in conditions. When the glaciers melted over such a long timescale the life around it would adapt to the new conditions accordingly and therefore survive.
I live in the UK, where Wales was 400 millions years ago a massive rainforest (which later gave the area its abundance in coal). Does this change from a high temperature climate sustaining subtropical-like ecosystems to the current temperate climate over 400 million years also discredit the dangers of anthropogenic climate change in your eyes? obviously not, but its exactly the same scenario as you are putting forward in the upper midwest.
try looking up the Dunning-Kruger effect before you make such flawed claims again
Allan| 2.8.10 @ 1:40PM
To decree a scientific finding of increased "global" temperatures is fraud.
Temperature buoys in the oceans have only been deployed globally for about three years. Satellite readings of ocean temps are useless due to radiant heat from the sun. You need to be at least three feet underwater to get reliable temps.
For anyone to claim a global trend exists based on only three years worth of accurate data from 70% of the earth's surface is criminal.
GFW| 2.8.10 @ 6:36PM
Actually, to get a good picture of ocean heat storage you need measurements much deeper than that - but we have data for more time than you think. Argo has been producing useful data since 2003, and there are less accurate (though good enough to draw estimates from) sources of data from back into the 1950s See http://www.skepticalscience.co.....art-2.html and http://www.skepticalscience.co.....ening.html
Your comment about satellites makes no sense. It's true the satellites only measure the skin temperature of the ocean, but skin temperature (on average, subject to various currents, etc.) has to track bulk temperature. And of course skin temperature is more relevant for atmospheric heating, which is what us land-bound humans experience.
Methuselah| 2.9.10 @ 6:37PM
What about accelerating ocean acidification? We're not just dealing with rising global average temperatures, or more frequent extreme weather events here.
Ocean acidification is independent of temperature records and threatens the marine food chain (and also the human food supply, btw).
Herman King| 2.8.10 @ 2:28PM
Nevertheless we should be good stewards of the earth, respect and keep her clean.
mary| 2.8.10 @ 10:57PM
Yes, this is the point. But why do we have to scare little children in order to do something constructive for the earth.
Pingback| 2.8.10 @ 3:15PM
More proof of global warming « Later On links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Scott| 2.8.10 @ 3:51PM
Kevin Mooney should take a weather class so he stops making an ass out of himself.
http://climateprogress.org/
GFW| 2.8.10 @ 6:39PM
That link will go stale. Here's the permalink http://climateprogress.org/201.....f-masters/ Also see the link therein http://www.wunderground.com/bl.....rynum=1427
Perhaps after Kevin reads those, he can offer a retraction.
Bob| 2.8.10 @ 3:56PM
By the way, who appointed this handful of tyrannical Gaia-worshiping Fern Gully fruitcakes to have any authority over anything? To the left, it's all the same- different means, same end. Money and power for them, serfdom for the rest.
GFW| 2.8.10 @ 6:05PM
Right, because volvo driving, tweed jacket wearing academic scientists are *soo* much more into money and power than the owners of oil and coal companies.
mary| 2.8.10 @ 11:00PM
Did Al Gore get a Volvo?
I suppose you decry all the scientists that do not agree with global warming as "oil company whores"?
GFW| 2.9.10 @ 4:01AM
Hey, it was Bob who said we should follow the money. I was just pointing out the obvious about who's got far more money and power.
As for "all the scientists" who disagree, while truth is not determined by vote, a strong consensus amongst relevant experts is a good clue. So, I give you consensus as a function of expertise: http://www.skepticalscience.co.....sensus.htm
Alex J| 2.9.10 @ 3:20PM
But as usual the issue must be boiled down to whipping boy Gore. Yet despite the political overtones, one confirmed error in the WG2, and at least two overblown accusations, the scientific literature assessments remain strong, as do the position statements of the world's scientific academies, NOAA, AGU, NCAR, MIT's Global Change Program, etc.
Nick| 2.9.10 @ 7:49PM
GFW,
"[... while truth is not determined by vote, [...]"
STOP! Right there. What is true is true.
If one or two assert a scientific truth and can repeat their results, and ALL other scientists assert something else, but can't repeat it, the one or two win.
I refer you to the Wright brothers and the invention of the airplane.
It doesn't matter how many you have on your side or how many I have on my side. All that matters is that you can prove your assertions with repeatable results.
The proponents of AGW cannot. Which is why they hide their data.
Flatdog| 2.9.10 @ 5:01AM
GFW, come into the *real* world for a moment.
Private companies exist to make a profit for their shareholders, and are not going to make multi-billion dollar business decisions based on quack science and dubious hockey sticks.
However, if you have your hand in the public pocket, you are free to make your reputation and a handy life-long income by contributing to the fraud which is AGW.
All the real science indicates that AGW is insignificant at worst, and there are so many unknown and unknowable factors involved in climate dynamics that it is impossible to predict what will happen next month, much less 100 years hence. The so-called "consensus" is based upon nothing more than voodoo bone-throwing, and the snake oil salesmen who peddle the AGW agenda know it. Trouble for them is, most everyone else knows it now, too.
Alex J| 2.9.10 @ 2:47PM
Poppycock. You seem to be implying a global scientific conspiracy, when scientific reputations can be made by finding something new and interesting, or successfully overturning the findings of colleagues. Reputations are also subject to ruin among real scientists if actual malfeasance is discovered.
There are plenty of fossil dollars out there and several tenured contrarian scientists trying to pick apart the preponderance of evidence with no real luck. Meanwhile, others are looking at real trends in a holocene CLIMATE that has otherwise been relatively stable. There's a lot more variability/unpredictable entropy in short-term weather than in climate, and a "climatologist" isn't trying to tell you what the "weather" will be like in your neck of the woods on February 9, 2110. That would be a foolish "meteorologist".
Methuselah| 2.9.10 @ 6:48PM
Um, no. Wishful thinking laced with conspiracy theory does not constitute "real science".
Hope you don't apply the same logic to insurance or business modeling.
Go to SkepticalScience.com, where they use "All the real science" -- the field data from multiple earth systems disciplines that has been gathered in thousands of studies all over the world.
When you find any of your "real science" that overturns basic physics (CO2 interaction with solar radiaiton) and basic chemistry (CO2 interaction with sea water), do let everyone know.
And then please get on with telling NASA and
Methuselah| 2.9.10 @ 6:51PM
...And then please get on with telling NASA, the WMO and the world's leading international scientific research organizations. They will be very interested in your data proving the last decade was NOT the hottest on record after all.
Nick| 2.9.10 @ 8:58PM
Methuselah,
CO2 is a trace molecule in the atmosphere. And is neccessary for plant life.
And even if the global temperature is rising, there is no proof that man-made emissions are the cause.
Lastly, what is the ideal global temperature, by the way? As if there is one.
Methuselah| 2.10.10 @ 12:21AM
There is no 'ideal' global temperature. There is, however, the narrow range of temperature and climate that gave rise to the evolution of our species, a very recent arrival on the global stage. We don't know what range of temperature our crops can stand. We are entering uncharted territory.
CO2 is necessary for plant life, but it is by no means benign -- just lock yourself in a room with too much CO2.
The correlation between rising temperatures and rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere is well established in the Earth's geologic record. Now, the increase in atmospheric CO2 is building up far faster than ever before, on the order of decades rather than millennia. The only input that is different this time around is the human input.
Don't neglect the basic chemistry of CO2 interaction with the ocean, the "evil twin" of atmospheric CO2. This has serious implications for the food chain, yet many are unaware of it.
We can look at the evidence and the trendlines and make choices, or we can wait and see what happens. If your child is about to get in a car that your mechanic says has a 90% chance of exploding, do you let your child get in and wait to see what happens?
Check out SkepticalScience.com, but only if you wish to examine the science for yourself, and only if you truly care to understand the evidence, what we know, what we don't know, etc.
Nick| 2.10.10 @ 12:49PM
Methuselah,
Now I know you don't know what your talking about.
How?
Because you don't give specifics. You only repeat the propaganda you have absorbed, I assume from the website you keep promoting. So, I will give specifics.
You write that "There is [...] the narrow range of temperature and climate [...]" but then write in the next sentence "We don't know what range of temperature our crops can stand." How can we "know" there IS a "narrow range", but not know what that range, in fact, is?
"[...] but it is by no means benign [...]"
Straw man. I never wrote it was "benign."
So, let me enlighten you on CO2. In the atmosphere CO2 levels measure between 350-390 ppm (that is Parts Per Million.) Doing the math, that comes to 0.035-0.039%, call it 0.04%. Written out that is four one hundreths of one percent.
Now, CO2 levels are dangerous to humans when they approach 5%. That's FIVE PERCENT. That would be a 10,000% increase. According to the "experts", CO2 levels have only increased from 200 ppm to 390ppm, or 0.020 - 0.039 %, or almost a 100% increase.
Are you still frightened of rising CO2 levels?
"[...] Don't neglect the basic chemistry of CO2 interaction with the ocean [...]"
You are the one neglecting it. The oceans need all that CO2, because of all the plankton. It is plankton that gives us most of our oxygen, not jungles like the Amazon.
"If your child is about [...]"
If the mechanic is a proven fraud and liar, yes, I would get in the car and drive away. No problem. After demanding he show me the proof first, of coarse.
Nick| 2.10.10 @ 12:56PM
Forgot one thing.
Only 5% of CO2 emissions come from man. That means NINETY-FIVE PERCENT come from nature. Look up how much CO2 is expelled from an erupting volcano.
Global Warming is caused by....I know it's hard to believe......THE SUN!
Methuselah| 2.11.10 @ 6:04PM
"[Y]ou don't give specifics. You only repeat the propaganda you have absorbed, I assume from the website you keep promoting."
Skepticalscience.com is simply a comprehensive, easiest to understand, non-partisan resource that clearly explains the science, with links, for people who don't have a background in earth systems sciences.
I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories. You seem to believe that every major science and research organization in the world has been dispensing "propaganda" for decades, a conspiracy requiring collusion from tens of thousands of scientists around the globe and across multiple disciplines. You don't specify who or what qualifies as your "proven fraud and liar," but while there have been a few studies that have been retracted or superseded by new evidence, the vast majority of evidence from multiple robust lines of data across multiple disciplines is simply not on your side.
There is much that is both wrong and irrelevant in your assumptions, not the least of which is that the oceans actually don't "need" more CO2. In fact, the latest field data indicates that the oceans are becoming increasingly acidic, with serious implications for phytoplankton and zooplankton. Here are some specifics for you:
"Ocean Acidification: A Critical Emerging Problem for the Ocean Sciences" (pdf)
http://www.tos.org/oceanograph.....4_tans.pdf
"Reduced calcification of marine plankton in response to increased atmospheric CO2."
http://www.nature.com/nature/j.....364a0.html
I'm not "frightened by rising CO2 levels", Nick. As my i.d. implies, I won't be around to see the outcome of this global experiment you are running.
But I do hope you're right, for everyone's sake, and wish you the best of luck in gambling that the vast majority of scientists are wrong.
Nick| 2.11.10 @ 10:05PM
Non-partisan? How?
As in they're not Republican or democrat? They state their bias in their heading: "Getting Skeptical About Global Warming Skepticism."
Also, they only give assertions or phony charts, like the one on CO2 levels in the past 10,000 years. They make it look like CO2 has skyrocketed just recently. The red line is from Mauna Loa, which is a VOLCANO!
They're easy to understand alright, for those ignorant of science. SkepticalScience is a propaganda site.
You didn't address your contradictory statements.
You seem to believe that scientists check their humanity at the door when they put their white lab coats on, that they are incapable of lying and greed to keep the grant money coming. It's not a vast conspiracy. It's just a way to keep getting paid by the government.
If there is much "[...] both wrong and irrelevant in your assumptions [...]" why didn't you pick them apart with FACTS, like I did to your claims. All you could do was ASSERT I was wrong. I proved you WERE.
Here is some websites for you to check out:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
http://www.surfacestations.org/
Enjoy!
Nick| 2.11.10 @ 10:10PM
One more thing.
If only one or two people claim X is true, and it is; and ALL of the worlds "scientists" claim it isn't, or that Y is true; THE TWO WIN!
Read up on how the Wright brothers invented the airplane, if you doubt me.
Methuselah| 2.12.10 @ 4:18PM
You've proved nothing, Nick, but that you know how to pick up bits and phrases from other websites to pick apart my purposely general comments. You appear to sincerely believe in what you've posted, so I'll simply reiterate that the preponderance of scientific evidence simply does not support your position, and the data is easily found if one bothers to look.
I didn't waste the time to gather all the evidence to address every assertion you've made, Nick, because it is clear that you won't bother to read them anyway.
I already pointed you to two studies from actual scientists, specialists in their fields, that you clearly didn't bother to read. Their field data directly contradicts your assertions on ocean acidification and plankton, in work that is wholly independent of the temperature record. Even the Ries et al results applied only to crustaceans, not phytoplankton or zooplankton, and then only to 7 of the 18 species studied.
You simply declared them, and the vast majority of scientists, "phony" and biased and only in it for money. (Unlike those who have a vested interest in keeping things just as they are?) Somehow I suspect you don't apply the same blanket condemnation when the research aligns with your beliefs.
How did you go about determining that Watts Up With That is not "phony" or biased or only in it for the money? It's a very popular and entertaining website run by a former TV meteorologist who is not a climate scientist.
It's quite easy to find actual data that debunks much of Watts' content if one bothers to look. Hopefully, anyone who gets this far into this thread will examine all the actual data gathered from actual scientists, and go beyond looking to sources that confirm their suspicions.
It's not about who "wins", but about making choices based on evidence. No matter. You will all eventually see soon enough who is "right". Again, best of luck with that.
Nick| 2.12.10 @ 5:26PM
Methuselah,
"I didn't waste the time to gather all the evidence to address every assertion you've made, Nick, because it is clear that you won't bother to read them anyway."
Really? This is your rebuttal? "I could have provided proof, but you won't read it, so I won't"? Very lame.
I did read your links, by the way. How else would I know about the bogus CO2 chart?
Now, my statement rebuked your assertion that CO2 was bad for the oceans; not that it was, or was not, increasing ocean acidity. So, I will ask: What is the ideal pH level of the world's oceans? Where is the proof that rising acidity levels are bad for the world's oceans?
I have determined that Watts' site is not "phony" because he has actual pictures of USHCN weather monitoring sites. Pictures showing temperature monitoring done next to air conditioning units and black-top parking-lots, both of which emit heat (especially at night).
If it is so "easy" to debunk Watts, agian, provide the data and prove it.
"It's not about who "wins", but about making choices based on evidence."
So, you admit, it doesn't matter how many "scientists" claim X is happening, if X isn't true. Glad we could clear that up.
Also, you have NO evidence. It is your side that has made an assertion. It is up to you guys to provide the proof that MAN is causing global tempetatures to rise, if they are, in fact rising. Suppositions are not science.
By the way, "Nature" is well known for their AGW Hoax bias. The rag's editor-in-chief, Philip Campbell, was just forced to resign from an independent panel that is investigating ClimateGate, in case you were unaware.
Lastly, could you explain, in simple terms, why the increase of a trace gas (CO2) from 0.020% to 0.038% of the atmosphere is dangerous to all mankind?
Methuselah| 2.13.10 @ 4:26PM
Watts' criticisms of USHCN's surface temperature stations were overturned when NOAA ran Watt's data and returned with the same result:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....r_embedded
Here's an easy explanation of the science behind CO2 and solar radiation, and the heat-trapping qualities of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, and the affects on various systems. Field data from around the world is already showing these affects across multiple earth systems disciplines. Human civilization is built on the predictability of these systems. It's not just common sense but also supported by the field data that pouring our wastes, including C02, into the biosphere faster than the earth's systems can absorb them is affecting the systems on which human civilization relies:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_w.....g-faq.html
The explanations are all in the video and at the link above.
Ocean acidification isn't "bad" for the ocean itself. The studies linked above show that changing ocean pH level due to increased absorption of atmospheric CO2 dissolves the shells of phytoplankton and zooplankton, the base of the marine food chain, a major food source for humans.
BTW, the statement from the panel says Philip Campbell stepped down voluntarily because he gave an interview very early on in the Climategate scandal defending the scientists involved; there is no evidence he was "forced". Only those who were in the meeting itself know for sure.
Methuselah| 2.13.10 @ 5:25PM
Here's a video that others might find illuminating, examining rational responses based on what we know, and don't know: "What's the Worst That Could Happen? A Rational Response to the Climate Change Debate"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....Q&NR=1
Methuselah| 2.13.10 @ 5:32PM
Here's the Defense Department's Quadrennial Defense Review, examining the national security implications of climate change on U.S. interests:
http://www.defense.gov/news/d20090429qdr.pdf
Here's a report, ordered by the Bush Administration, from NOAA and 13 other federal science agencies examining specific regional impacts on the U.S.:
http://www.globalchange.gov/
Nick| 2.14.10 @ 1:52AM
Methuselah,
Really? Now you're using YouTube? Next you'll be citing Facebook as a source!
The moron with the chart says he eliminates the argument about whether or not man is causing the warming, then makes "spending trillions by MAN to reduce CO2 emissions" one of the four choices. The choice that is, of coarse, the best decision.
The most abundant "greenhouse gas" is water vapor (humidity). It is between 25 and 100 times more prevalent in the atmosphere, and retains much more heat.
Try looking up the terms Latent Heat, Sensible Heat, and Enthalpy, to learn how heat works in real life.
The IPCC is a disgraced group that issues reports by non-climate scientists. The current head, Rajendra K Pachauri, isn't a climate scientist. His degrees are in engineering and economics! The head of Greenpeace UK has demanded he resign.
Any other Pro-AGW Hoax sources you want to use?
Cambell has shown his bias in favor of the ClimateGate hoaxers. What else were they going to say?
The bottom line is this: The global climate system is a Complex System. It cannot be measured and monitored with our current level of technology. The computer models do not predict current climate trends, like one of your links claimed they do. That's why Mikey Mann hid his hockey stick data all these years.
And, even if the Earth's temperature is rising, there is absolutely no proof man is causing it, nor that we can do anything to stop it.
Methuselah| 2.18.10 @ 8:44PM
No, Nick, those links aren't for you. They're sites with easily digestible non-technical explanations of the scientific evidence and the gaps. They are self-evidently non-scientific.
>"Any other Pro-AGW Hoax sources you want to use?"
Sure: NASA, NOAA, World Meteorological Organization, Royal Society (UK & NZ), National Snow & Ice Data Center, the Arctic Council, the International Arctic Science Committee, American Quaternary Association, International Union for Quaternary Research, the National Academies of Science, American Geophysical Union, International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences, U.S. National Research Council, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, American Institute of Physics, American Physical Society, European Science Foundation, American Meteorological Society, Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society...
.... to name a few. But in your opinion, they are all liars and frauds.
Just to be clear: in your opinion, are ALL scientists liars and frauds, or only the ones who disagree with you?
Nick| 2.20.10 @ 1:02AM
Methuselah,
What happened to all the "experts" from youtube? Ha-ha!
I see you have no answers to my points. Did you look up Latent Heat, Sensible Heat, and Enthalpy yet?
To answer your question, no, not ALL scientists.
Just the ones that hide their data and try to blacklist those that disagree with THEM.
You should read my other comments in the other global warming hoax threads on AS since this one. You will learn much.
Methuselah| 2.21.10 @ 12:00AM
Oh, I have read your other comments, Nick, and your suggested topics, and have learned much about your grasp of science.
>"no, not ALL scientists. Just the ones that hide their data and try to blacklist those that disagree with THEM."
Ohhhhh.... so which ones would that be? That's a long list above, and it doesn't even come close to the full list of major scientific organizations around the world that support the scientific evidence. Apparently they are all in on the hoax.
In the end, regardless of anything said here, this will all boil down to a simple calculation. A gamble, if you will. Either you're right, or the world's scientific community is right.
Best of luck with that.
Methuselah| 2.9.10 @ 7:26PM
Kevin, surely you're aware that that the "scientific report" that CEI claims was 'suppressed' by the EPA was actually from an EPA economist working outside his field, whose "research" consisted of internet links.
You note yourself that the current weather in DC does not prove or disprove the science underlying climate change. Good for you for knowing weather is not climate.
But focusing on inflicting the most short-term political damage, unfortunately, won't change the earth's systems, unmelt the glaciers, unacidify the oceans, bring back the fish, or restore the precipitation or hydrological cycle back to where it was.
Short term political gain won't bring the earth's systems back once they're destabilized. But hey, you've got a job to do, right? All this climate crap is really only interesting for people who will be alive in 2050. As long as you won't be around then, you have nothing to worry about.
Nick| 2.21.10 @ 5:24AM
My "grasp of science"?
Well, then, why don't you refute my points? Show me where my math is wrong. Explain to me how carbon dioxide retains and emits more heat energy than does water vapor. Prove CO2 emissions are a greater threat than humidity, when water vapor is between 25 and 100 times more abundant in the atmosphere.
Which ones?
Are you this ill-informed? Didn't you write that you have been keeping up with the other global warming hoax threads?
How about James Hansen (NASA and tree-hugging activist).
Mikey Mann (Mr. Hockey Stick and chief Hoaxer).
Phil Jones (who is now throwing his colleagues under the bus).
All the defenders of the CRU of East Anglia U.
All the NOAA scientists who, during the 2006 season, made the absurd prediction (May 22) that there would be "[...] 13 to 16 named storms, with eight to 10 becoming hurricanes [...]." There were barely 5 hurricanes that year. None of them made landfall.
Chairman Rajenda Pachauri and all the other non-climate scientists on the UN's IPCC.
Last, but not least, that well known, brilliant global climate scientist- algore.
A hundred years ago, most of the world's scientists didn't believe the Wright brothers and said they were lying. So, again, it doesn't matter how many scientists say X it true. If X is false, or they can't prove X is true, all of them are....WRONG! Can we not agree on at least this statement of fact?
Nick| 2.21.10 @ 5:25AM
Oops!
Replied to the wrong post. Ha-ha!
Nick| 2.21.10 @ 12:43PM
Methuselah,
Did see the blogpost from today, that links to a list of all the AGW hoaxer's scandals?
What a coincidence, huh?