January 10, 2007
Please, no jokes about "global cooling"

Seattle Times headline: "Big freeze is next for region battered by storm after storm"

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 10, 2007 09:25 AM | Email This
1. But I've read about "experts" who allege that Global Warming can cause cooling too. Haven't you?

I read yesterday that 2006 was the "all-time" warmest year in history. That is since records have been kept, of course, but they don't mention that in their headlines, do they? But I wonder how accurately worldwide temperature records were kept 100 years ago, or even 50 years ago? After all, the planet is 4 billion years old!

I wonder what global temperatures were at when farming was being done in Greenland during the Middle Ages? I'm referring to that little fact of history that blows the Global Warming "hockey stick" theory apart, that temperatures in the Middle Ages were significantly higher than today.

Global Warming, Global Cooling, yada yada yada, it's all nothing but the global politics of fear and division.

Posted by: MJC on January 10, 2007 09:25 AM
2. stefan:

do you make (infrequent) posts of this nature b/c you don't believe that co2 emissions have an effect on the atmosphere?

or are you just throwing red meat to your readers?

Posted by: dinesh on January 10, 2007 09:33 AM
3. Just because the science is not there to back any of it up and that "consensus" keeps bouncing back and forth over the decades between cooling and warming is no reason to suspect that it is politically driven BS......

We have yet to reach the temperatures of the Medeival Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age just ended less than two centuries ago.

Posted by: H Moul on January 10, 2007 09:36 AM
4. You can always tell someone on the left by their willingness to believe based on emotion instead of fact. Nevermind that there's a lot of cold hard data that completely disproves Global Warming, and definitely shows that humanity is a negligible factor in earth temperature. No, on the left, you put together a good movie and they'll eat it right up.

If the left was truly worried about energy waste and the resultant heat output, the first they would do is to stop recycling. That would remove at least one fleet of garbage trucks from the road and save all the energy used to clean and re-process materials that ends up being far more than it takes to just make them again from scratch.

But the emotional argument for recycling, Global Warming, etc. feels so good, that they just can't let go.

Posted by: Jeff B. on January 10, 2007 09:47 AM
5. How about this. I've read that the western forest fires produce more greenhouse gases each fire season than every vehicle in the US does FOR AN ENTIRE YEAR. Take whatever money government is putting into getting us out of vehicles and put it into stopping forest fires. Then pull whatever research money is going into global warming and put that towards stopping forest fires. Quintuple the budget of every fire service that fights these fires and triple the fire prevention budget. If we are really serious about reducing our carbon output, start with a major preventable source of it.

Posted by: Palouse on January 10, 2007 09:58 AM
6. jeff b.: you are trotting out tired, old lines. the science is there. you just are too politicized to believe it.

as for emotion, over fact---tune in to bush, jr. tonight. he'll pander to your emotion re iraq despite the fact that the screwed up royally (and people like you lined up lockstep behind him without the courage to dissent).

Posted by: dinesh on January 10, 2007 09:58 AM
7. I just hope people like dinesh don't try to start playing God with the weather. I hear that from the tin foil hat 'global warming' fanatics on the west coast.

Posted by: swatter on January 10, 2007 10:05 AM
8. i just hope that wingnuts like you aren't in charge of science. the likes of you would have sided with the pope over galileo.

p.s. the sun does not revolve around the earth.

here's some info from the national science foundation (you know, that lefty organziation). pull you head out of the sand and take a peek.

January 4, 2006

Newly published research results provide evidence that global climate change may have quickly disrupted ocean processes and lead to drastic shifts in environments around the world.

Although the events described unfolded millions of years ago and spanned thousands of years, the researchers, affiliated with the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, say they provide one of the few historical analogs for warming-induced changes in the large-scale sea circulation, and thus may help to illuminate the potential long-term impacts of today's climate warming.

Writing in this week's issue of the journal Nature, scientists Flávia Nunes and Richard Norris explain that they probed a four- to seven-degree warming period that occurred some 55 million years ago during the closing stages of the Paleocene and the beginning of the Eocene eras. The unique data set they constructed, based on the chemical makeup of tiny ancient sea creatures, uncovered for the first time evidence of a monumental reversal in the circulation of deep-ocean patterns around the world. The researchers concluded that it was triggered by the global warming the world experienced at the time.

"The earth is a system that can change very rapidly," said Nunes. "Fifty-five million years ago, when the earth was in a period of global warmth, ocean currents rapidly changed direction and this change did not reverse to original conditions for about 20,000 years."

The global warming of 55 million years ago, known as the Paleocene/Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), emerged in less than 5,000 years, an instantaneous blip on geological time scales. Fossil records indicate that the PETM set in motion a host of important changes around the globe, ranging from a mass extinction of deep-sea bottom-dwelling marine life to key migrations terrestrial mammal species, likely allowed by warm conditions that opened travel routes not possible under previously colder climates. For example, this period is where scientists find the earliest evidence for horses and primates in North America and Europe.

To obtain their data, Nunes and Norris analyzed carbon isotopes--chemical signatures that reveal a host of information--from the shells of single-celled animals called foraminifera, or "forams." Such organisms exist in a variety of marine environments, and their vast numbers per research sample allow scientists to uncover a range of details about the state of the seas.

"A tiny shell from a sea creature living millions of years ago can tell us so much about past ocean conditions," said Nunes. "We know approximately what the temperature was at the bottom of the ocean. We also have a measure of the nutrient content of the water the creature lived in. And, when we have information from several locations, we can infer the direction of ocean currents."

In the study, the scientists looked at a foram named Nuttalides truempyi from 14 sites around the world in deep-sea sediment cores from Deep Sea Drilling Program (DSDP) and Ocean Drilling Program (ODP). The isotopes were used as nutrient "tracers" to reconstruct changes in deep-ocean circulation through the PETM period. Nutrient levels tell the researchers how long a sample has been near or isolated from the sea surface, thus giving them a way to track the age and path of deep-sea water.

The results indicate that deep-ocean circulation in the Southern Hemisphere abruptly stopped the conveyor belt-like process known as "overturning," in which cold and salty water in the depths exchanges with warm water on the surface. Even as it was virtually shutting down in the south, however, overturning apparently became active in the Northern Hemisphere. The researchers believe this shift drove unusually warm water to the deep sea, likely releasing stores of methane gas that led to further global warming and a massive die-off of deep-sea marine life.

Overturning is a fundamental component of the global climate conditions we know today, said Bil Haq, program director in the National Science Foundation (NSF)'s division of ocean sciences, which funded the research. For example, overturning in the modern North Atlantic Ocean is a primary means of drawing heat into the far north Atlantic and keeping temperatures in Europe relatively warmer than conditions in Canada, he said.

Today, "new" deep-water generation does not occur in the Pacific Ocean because of the large amount of freshwater input from the polar regions, which prevents North Pacific waters from becoming dense enough to sink to more than intermediate depths.

In the case of the Paleocene/Eocene, however, deep-water formation was possible in the Pacific Ocean because of global warming-induced changes. The Atlantic Ocean also could have been a significant generator of deep waters during this period.

Modern carbon dioxide input from fossil fuel sources to the earth's surface is approaching the same levels estimated for the PETM period, which raises concerns about future climate and changes in ocean circulation, say the scientists. Thus, they say, the Paleocene/Eocene example suggests that human-produced changes may have lasting effects not only on global climate, but on deep ocean circulation.

"Overturning is very sensitive to surface ocean temperatures and surface ocean salinity," said Norris. "The case described here may be one of the best examples of global warming triggered by the massive release of greenhouse gases. It gives us a perspective on what the long-term impact is likely to be of today's human-caused warming."


Media Contacts
Cheryl Dybas, NSF (703) 292-7734 cdybas@nsf.gov
Mario Aguilera, Scripps Institution of Oceanography (858) 534-3624 maguilera@ucsd.edu
Jon Corsiglia, Joint Oceanographic Institutions, Inc. (202) 787-1644 jcorsiglia@joiscience.org
Nancy Light, IODP-Management International (202) 465-7511 nlight@iodp.org

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent federal agency that supports fundamental research and education across all fields of science and engineering, with an annual budget of $5.58 billion. NSF funds reach all 50 states through grants to nearly 1,700 universities and institutions. Each year, NSF receives about 40,000 competitive requests for funding, and makes nearly 10,000 new funding awards. The NSF also awards over $400 million in professional and service contracts yearly.

Posted by: dinesh on January 10, 2007 10:08 AM
9. Any bets on Dinesh being one of those who frantically warned us about the impending Ice Age in the 1970s?

Posted by: jimg on January 10, 2007 10:09 AM
10. do you make (infrequent) posts of this nature b/c you don't believe that co2 emissions have an effect on the atmosphere? dinesh

OK. Do your part then.
Stop breathing.

Posted by: jimg on January 10, 2007 10:11 AM
11. MJC,

2006 was not the _global_average_ all time high. Not even in the last 10 years.

1998 was the 'local' high, and pretty much every year in the period 1000-1300 AD are contenders for the highs in the last 1000 years.

But the 'Medieval Warm Period' is being discarded as 'anecdotal' because strict temperature data are unavailable. Ignoring the Vikings successfully growing crops in Greenland, and several other types of data that fit the desired story because they weren't observed under scientific conditions.

Posted by: Al on January 10, 2007 10:13 AM
12. Al Gore and the Moonbat brigade never mention sun spot activity. Sun spot activity this year is at exceptionally high levels. Which is why NASA observed the temperature spike on Mars a planet sorely lacking in sport utility vehicles.)During the "cooling period" of the 70's, the sun's activity was low. Since Al Gore invented the Internet, perhaps he can focus his powerful mind on how to control our sun.

Posted by: Walters on January 10, 2007 10:20 AM
13. Dinesh, just for future reference, links are handy and they can easily be inserted into your posts using the "a href" tags.

[a href="http://www.yourlinkhere.com"]Text of the link here[/a href]

Substitute the open/close symbols next to the M on your keyboard for the "[" in the above example. Just makes comments more readable. Thanks.

Posted by: Palouse on January 10, 2007 10:27 AM
14. Al @ 11,

My bad, you're right. Just the warmest in the lower 48 states in the last 112 years of measured temps, assuming of course that those older measurements can be relied upon, huh? I wonder what the temps were 113 years ago, or 500 years ago, or even 10,000 years ago?

I'll tell you what. If we see the planet's next warming period extend for more than a couple hundred years, on par with the last big warming period from 1000-1300 AD, then I'll start to worry.

Posted by: MJC on January 10, 2007 10:32 AM

here's a link to pictures of the polar ice caps.

jimg and others: refer to your talking points to explain this activity.....


Posted by: dinesh on January 10, 2007 10:33 AM
16. dinesh 6 uses Suzanne Sommers house fire trick--

slip in a snide comment about the war or Prez on an unrelated topic. very 'drive by.'

how about Singer's recent book "1500 years of global..." actually written by (gasp) climatologists and not politicos?

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on January 10, 2007 10:37 AM
17. Reminds me a few years ago about a lake water quality study that said the lake is in excellent shape. Then the scientist recommended millions of dollars of storm drain improvements to 'save' the lake that didn't need saving.

That article on the crustaceans reminded me of that.

dinesh, there is a God and you ain't it.

Posted by: swatter on January 10, 2007 10:42 AM
18. Dinesh says, "tune in to bush, jr. tonight. he'll pander to your emotion re iraq despite the fact that the screwed up royally."

Bush did screw up. He engaged America in a war against terrorism with one of this nation's political parties working with the terrorists to defeat us. What dinesh calls "dissent", others would call "sedition", or even "treason" in a time of war.

Who has telegraphed the message to terrorists around the world that all they have to do is kill enough American soldiers and we'll cut and run? Who's been undermining our efforts in Iraq from the beginning? And who's calling now for defunding our soldiers in Iraq and abandoning the Iraqi people and making the 3,000+ Americans deaths mean nothing?

Who will Democrats and Liberals blame if we do pull out and terrorism returns to US cities, perhaps even with dirty nukes? Maybe they don't care as long as they are in power, huh?

Posted by: MJC on January 10, 2007 10:42 AM
19. Personally, I think Mars needs off-road vehicles. Just warm it up a bit and the place looks ideal for a weekend of dirty fun.

Posted by: H Moul on January 10, 2007 10:42 AM
20. dinesh - the martian caps are melting too. Is that because we drove the martian lander too much? Or maybe it has something to do with external factors far beyond our control. As posted earlier, have Al Gore put his mighty mind to work on controlling the sun.

Posted by: Right said Fred on January 10, 2007 10:42 AM
21. From a speech by Sen James Inhofe, Chairman, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Monday Sep 25,2006:
The "hockey stick" was completely and thoroughly broken once and for all in 2006.
Several years ago, two Canadian researchers tore apart the statistical foundation for the
hockey stick. In 2006, both the National Academy of Sciences and an independent
researcher further refuted the foundation of the "hockey stick."
The National Academy of Sciences report reaffirmed the existence of the Medieval
Warm Period from about 900 AD to 1300 AD and the Little Ice Age from about 1500 to
1850. Both of these periods occurred long before the invention of the SUV or human
industrial activity could have possibly impacted the Earth's climate. In fact, scientists
believe the Earth was warmer than today during the Medieval Warm Period, when the
Vikings grew crops in Greenland.
Climate alarmists have been attempting to erase the inconvenient Medieval Warm Period
from the Earth's climate history for at least a decade. David Deming, an assistant
professor at the University of
Oklahoma's College of Geosciences, can
testify first hand about this effort. Dr.
Deming was welcomed into the closeknit
group of global warming believers
after he published a paper in 1995 that
noted some warming in the 20th century.
Deming says he was subsequently
contacted by a prominent global
warming alarmist and told point blank
"We have to get rid of the Medieval
Warm Period." When the "Hockey
Stick" first appeared in 1998, it did just

Posted by: Robert on January 10, 2007 10:55 AM
22. I keep asking Global Warming "experts" what the big scary threat to mankind is - but I never get a concrete answer - UNTIL LAST WEEK..

The worst ramifications are now becoming clear-

[insert sound of screeching violins here]


Posted by: Jefferson Paine on January 10, 2007 11:09 AM
23. iceagenow.com has a great article about glaciers GROWING, including Mt Shuksan.

Posted by: Seabecker on January 10, 2007 11:12 AM
24. and let's not forget all the trouble the U.S. plains areas are having due to global warming (snort, snort)

Posted by: Me on January 10, 2007 11:21 AM
25. MJC, it must've been all those cars they were driving (instead of taking the bus) during the Middles Ages that drove up the temps. (snort, snort)

Posted by: Me on January 10, 2007 11:23 AM
26. It's funny reading that article. Thirty plus years ago Western Washington had winters like we're now having and often worse. Snow and ice were on the ground and roads sometimes for days - even weeks in some areas. Life went on without STORMWATCH *.*. Just Harry Wappler telling us what might happen and to be cautious. No constant bombarding with weather reports. No reports of human beings practicing self-immolation with barbeques in their bedrooms.

Now the weather seems once again like it used to be. The only difference is now the message about it is more intense and foreboding

Posted by: Tyler Durden on January 10, 2007 11:32 AM
27. Dinesh,

Here's a though experiment that I think you can handle. Download and install Google Earth onto your computer. You might need to have someone help you, given that you can't yet figure out how to insert hyperlinks into your comments, rather than post whole articles into the comment text.

Once you get that done, start up Google Earth and zoom out until the Earth about fills the main window of the program. Now click and drag your mouse to rotate the Earth until you are centered over the Pacific Ocean. Note that almost the entire screen is showing water. That's about half of the earth's area alone. Now think about how many Conservative drivers in Escalades, and Republican controlled multi-national corporations belching Greenhouse gases there are in that view. Now center over Antarctica and think again about the SUVs and monstrous corporations. Now rotate to over the middle of Canada, again think about population density. Over the Arctic and Greenland. Over Siberia. Over Africa. Are you getting it yet? The earth is largely uninhabited. The percentage area that man occupies in any significant number is amazingly small. Much less than 10% of the Earth's area. By contrast, all of that water, more than 2/3s of the Earth's area, is an amazing thermal mass, not to mention all of the land. Much greater, than even the largest Cadillac Escalade's heat output, although I know that comes as a surprise to you. Don't you think that thermal mass absorbs a lot of heat from the sun every day?

And what if the sun's output picks up even a tiny bit as a percentage of the total energy emitted from the sun? Ever stood outside in the direct sunlight for an hour without any form of sun protection? There's more energy hitting this planet from the sun in just a few seconds, than we can create in an entire year of running all of mankind's electrical generation plants.

The point is, that even from a non-scientific, back of the napkin thought experiment, it's pretty obvious to see that humans can't contribute more than a relatively meaningless amount of heat to the earth as a whole. And if you really believe the Greenhouse myth, you need to do some reading. CO2 does not act like a glass greenhouse. It is a gas, that flows freely in the atmosphere like Oxygen and Nitrogen. If fact, Nitrogen, which is far more abundant than CO2, actually has a greater influence on the so called, and misnamed Greenhouse effect.

In reality, heat is reflected by the earth, and trapped much more by water vapor in the form of clouds than any other gas. It's that pesky water again. Turns out that water has a far greater thermal mass than CO2. Ever see a picture of the planet taken from space? (oh wait, you probably believe that the moon landing was a hoax.) Notice all the clouds that cover the earth at any given time? Those clouds are made of water. Lots of water, and that's what forms the primary heat trapping blanket. Ever notice how it gets colder when there's no cloud cover overnight? Note that when we have clear skys over the next few days here in the Sound and especially overnight, we are going to see lower temperatures. Especially because the angle of incidence of sunlight in the winter at our latitude is greater, and thus we get less of the suns direct rays. Less sunlight, less clouds, equal colder. If anything, you Global Warming hysterians should be attacking clouds and other forms of water vapor. But most of that is not man made, so that does no appeal, because there's no Republicans to blame that on.

There are thousands of real climatologists that do not believe in Global Warming hype. And now that some major names have spoken up, and challenged the hysteria, more are joining ranks. No longer, will grant money and other prestige be tied to whether or not a scientist is willing to tow the Global Warming line. Instead, a scientist will be allowed to think freely, and possibly even to promote the idea, that gasp, there are more significant factors in the workings of the global temperature than simply those produced by mankind. And even bigger gasp, that perhaps the real question is not whether there is any warming, but wether the warming is so significant that it warrants diverting massive amounts of economic and human capital without more careful scrutiny. Dinesh, do you drive? Do you think it would be prudent to reduce your driving by 50% on the grounds that you might get into an accident some time in the next 50 years?

Go read around, there's plenty out there to at least challenge you to consider more than the narrow sets of sources that say that the debate is over. The debate is never over in science. Unless of course, you've got your mind closed. And I think you've shown that you do.

Posted by: Jeff B. on January 10, 2007 11:34 AM
28. sun spots are also cyclical--11(?) year cycles. i wonder if liberals have statistically tied them into the Republican-only presidential tenures.

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on January 10, 2007 11:42 AM
29. It was amazing how easy it was to merge onto I405 this morning in heavy traffic, since they turned off those silly flow-limiter on-ramp stoplights....

Posted by: Seabecker on January 10, 2007 11:56 AM
30. dinesh said you guys were mindless robots. It doesn't sound that way to me. Keep up the good work!!

Posted by: swatter on January 10, 2007 12:03 PM
31. There is global warming, caused predominantly by the sun. It is a natural cycle that occurs approximately every 1500 years. There may be added effects due to more pollutants in the atmosphere on this cycle than the cycle before it.
In another 200 years +/- there will be a cooling by the sun, which will lower the earth's temperature and global cooling will set in. The effects of global warming are not the same throughout the world.

Even the Kyoto protocol was toned down to reduce the man-made effects by 25% just last year, because more research has turned up further evidence. The politics of hysteria, which comes from the far left are generally not constructive. We should reduce emissions (ie pollutants) in the air for the sake of human health. The government can have a role in setting limits of emissions, so as to not impact our economy. The US can work toward being accountable to itself and the rest of world.
So when is Red China going to be accountable and stop burning a majority of the world's coal, which is a leading contributor of pollutants ?

Posted by: KS on January 10, 2007 12:04 PM
32. mjc: showing your true colors--little red guard, sound familiar? i'm sure you're comfortable with the "new way forward" rhetoric. you would be perfect in mao's china.

jeff b.: i do drive. i'm not saying we can do anything about global warming. i'm saying that human activity contributes to the phenomenon. go ahead, consume all you want--i don't care what you all do. i know you don't believe that any emissions released into the air go straight up and stay there--thus despite the lack of habitation in certain areas, stuff in the atmosphere does move.

finally, can you please identify some of the "major names" in climatology you refer to.

Posted by: dinesh on January 10, 2007 12:35 PM
33. dinesh @15 -

The satellite photos of the northern polar ice cap from September of 1979 and 2003 are lovely, but don't offer much in the way of support for your position.

The article you included @8 states that the warming 55 million years ago developed over a period of 5000 years.

By that standard, 2 photos taken 24 years apart are nowhere near enough data to confirm a trend.

Three or four hundred such annual photos would be much more useful for determining whether the differences observed in the photos from 1979 and 2003 represent a trend, or simply a cycle.

Posted by: ewaggin on January 10, 2007 12:54 PM
34. Please take a look at what Dr. Robert Cihak writes at NewsMax.com

Hope this gives more Authoritive Information.

Posted by: Old Sgt on January 10, 2007 01:09 PM
35. 2 + 2 = 4. This is science. Indisputable fact. Not a scientist on earth would dispute it. Anytime a group is able to argue another groups' findings, it falls into the realm of theory. e.g. the THEORY of evolution. (not the FACTUAL SCIENCE of evolution or global warming)

I don't dispute the earth may be warming, I dispute the OPINION that man is causing it to happen.

Posted by: dan on January 10, 2007 01:24 PM
36. Wow! Leave it to a Liberal to equate supporting the president in a time of war and the desire to win a war and advance democracy as following the murderous advancement of communism under Mao. It's a good thing this kind of thinking was laughed at during previous wars where things didn't always go as planned, or we wouldn't even be hear discussing issues like this.

Liberalism is a mental disorder!

Posted by: MJC on January 10, 2007 01:36 PM
37. mjc: re-read your post. in your formulation, dissent=treason=sedition in a time of war. pretty big words to toss around. perhaps you should revisit the first amendment, then take out a dictionary and look up the words treason and sedition.

if you would have had the courage to stand up and demand more from this president other than rhetoric, perhaps he would not have felt so comfortable, as "decider", for making such poor decisions. only now are so many conservatives waking up to the hangover and realizing their kool aid was spiked.

leave it to (label yourself) to throw around words, then deny your own responsibility.

Posted by: dinesh on January 10, 2007 01:43 PM
38. "leave it to (label yourself)"

Go ahead, call me a derogatory name. No good discussion with a liberal can end until at least one derogatory name is thrown out to rebut all other discussion. Suggesting I would have supported Mao just doesn't reach the liberal standard.

Tell me one thing, when the New York Times revealed the details of the "legal" classified operation watching financial dealings to and from terrorist organizations, that program was stripped of its effectiveness. Without that operation, more American and non-American lives were placed at risk than would have been otherwise. In fact, the New York Times provided terrorist groups around the world with the knowledge of this program so they could avoid detection, in a time of war, and therefore remain safe to harm America and its interests.

Freedom of speech or treason? Or both? Is it your position that Americans are constitutionally protected to sell-out their nation in a time of war?

Posted by: MJC on January 10, 2007 02:38 PM
39. Good question for dinesh, MJC.

Posted by: swatter on January 10, 2007 03:08 PM
40. the whole issue is the dems trying to get the sheep of this country to blame the republicans for the weather.

Human beings have been at odds with the weather on this planet for all of our existance - in one way or another... until we figure out how to control the weather, we always will. But the dems blaming us for rainy days and wind storms is just playing dirty pool.

Posted by: thecomputerguy on January 10, 2007 03:26 PM
41. http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/IceAgeBook/history_of_climate.html

Here's a pretty good and short discussion of climate change. This global warming crap is driven by envy, plain and simple.

Posted by: JDH on January 10, 2007 04:24 PM
42. One has to wonder what the motives by the science-challenged Kyoto "The Sky is Falling" proponents are. Why has the emphasis on man-made cause become so politically oriented, let alone their primary religion?

Simply. Liberals and progressives FEEL BAD that the West has succeeded so. 'We must level the playing field! Exempt China, India and Mexico to allow their economies to catch up'. Hamstring the West's with carbon taxes, etc.

It really is a psychosis, advocating self-destruction in the name of fairness.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen on January 10, 2007 04:31 PM
43. Here's a link to a webcam showing the single greatest source of pollution and CO2 in Upper Left Washington. (Well, it will show it when the weather clears...)

Posted by: Raoul Ortega on January 10, 2007 04:57 PM
44. I have lived in the Puget Sound area all my life, born in the 1950s. I would like to offer some observations:

1) The weather of today, especially in winter, is different than when I was a child. I have photos of huge snow drifts in South Seattle, and of skating on frozen ponds near Boeing field. Area museums have photos of a frozen Lake Washington. It is FACT that the weather is changing. Data does not lie.

2) Geological data shows that climate continously changes over time. Places on earth go from warm to cold, from wet to dry, etc.

3) There are many many sources of "greenhouse" gasses. Human-created sources are only a small fraction, and may or may not be contributing to climate change. I leave that debate for the real scientists, not the politicians, pundits or MSM.

4) I have travelled much of the world. Pollution is terrible in most non-US places. China is especially horrible. IF human-created sources are a significant factor, it is NOT reasonable to put most of the blame on the USA. We are far cleaner than most already.

I suggest that we stop quibbling about which party to blame, and instead figure out how to cope, and how to survive the changes that are coming.

Posted by: Seabecker on January 10, 2007 05:36 PM
45. I like the libs logic that suv's cause global warming. But when you point out to them that 5 of the ten most polluted cities in the world are in China and they don't have Escalades yet, just ruins their day.

Posted by: PC on January 10, 2007 08:03 PM
46. I love the finger pointing and accusations toward SUV's and pollution. It's amusing actually. Amusing since the majority of cars I see belching smoke, having blackened rear-ends from un-burnt gas or leaking fluids are usually those little four-bangers. Unwashed little hatchbacks plastered with stickers expounding "Impeach Bush," "Free Tibet," "Kerry/Edwards," "Choice," "Proud Liberal," "Recycle," or "Dog Is My Copilot."

Posted by: humv on January 10, 2007 08:55 PM
47. 4" of snow in my yard. Darn that global warming!

Posted by: Michele on January 10, 2007 09:10 PM
48. Hey Dinesh,

It is damn cold. Can we get some more global warming?

Posted by: Chester on January 11, 2007 03:02 AM
49. You can't find two thermometers that match today
let alone 100 years ago. Weather forecasters have a hard time predicting the weather for
tomorrow let alone years from now. Just yesterday
the news said 1-2" and Federal Way got 9".
Since human activity affects temperature so much
that Arizona should tell everyone who has air
conditioning to crank it up and open the doors
when it hits 115 degrees. That ought to cool it
down to 70.

Posted by: mark on January 11, 2007 09:00 AM
50. Does anyone know how I can contact Al Gore to come shovel my sidewalk?

Posted by: Steve on January 11, 2007 10:02 AM
51. Belittling science and fact is inevitably a losing proposition. Would you have had any less aplomb arguing that the world was flat? Unlikely. Congratulations on making Republicans the fantasy-based party (no, not that kind, unfortunately...)

Posted by: Nancy on January 11, 2007 10:17 AM
52. Seriously, a recent Seattle Times front page article (Nov. '06 or thereabouts) discussed global warming by describing "scientists" amazed to find a long rod measuring rod in the Cascades nearly covered with snow in April, and then nearly exposed in October. Imagine, the snow melted over the summer! Obviously, proof of global warming caused by SUVs driven by rich Republican guys.

The article also had a map showing the extent of the Nisqually glacier on Mt. Rainier. It had shrunk from 1850 to now. Only problem was the extent of shrinkage was the same during each of the previous half centuries (1850-1900, 1900-1950, 1950-2000). I guess those Pony Express trucks produced a lot of tailpipe emissions.

The mainstream press (wholly owned subsidiary of the left) knows their readership is on average scientifically illiterate and therefore promotes this propaganda as another strategy to give big govt. more control over the details of your life (what you drive - global warming; what you eat - trans-fats, foie gras; what you say - McCain Feingold, "hate speech"; where you live - Kelo decision).

It is absolute nonsense to think that a several year or several decade trend means anything against a background of geologic time which wildly varies with ice ages and hotter periods. In fact it is extreme hubris for a scientist to say, as I saw in the papers recently, that he had never seen such high temperatures in his entire 10 year career. Talk about a lack of perspective.

But remember, you must not resist, because it is for the children!

Posted by: Steve on January 11, 2007 10:21 AM
53. Let's see... whose side do we want to be on - the vast majority of scientists and nobel laureates based global research, or Steve based on his inestimable scientific background and infallible calculations on what he sees happening in his backyard? Burn Galileo at the stake, I say!

Posted by: Nancy on January 11, 2007 10:48 AM
54. Nancy - science has never been a majority vote. 1000 years ago 99.99% of all learned people knew that the Earth was the center of the universe.
Your arguement is an ad hominem one - don't attack me, make a counterargument as to the substance of what I said, if you are able. Thank you.

Posted by: Steve on January 11, 2007 11:15 AM
55. That wasn't an attack, it was a comparison. You're perfectly capable of reading scientific research on the subject and choosing sides, but it's important to acknowledge which side you've chosen, and that fatuously equating science with the left, as you did, is a losing proposition for Republicans.

Posted by: Nancy on January 11, 2007 11:32 AM
56. I was not equating science with the left. I was equating bad science (or selective scientific reporting) with the left. Science is, or should be, neutral as far as politics and policies go.

I do not subscribe to the notion that left = science and rationalism and right = religion and superstition. Both sides use both modes of explaining the world when it suits their purposes.

For instance, the idea that govt. controls on prices and wages can make people richer or commodities more affordable is a staple of the left, contradicted by 3 millenia of experience, and therefore in the nature of a religious belief or superstition.

The idea that poverty causes crime is another example. The amount of material poverty in the world is vastly less now than in the past. Even in the US 100 years ago only a minority of families had refrigeration, radio or motorized transport. Ordinary Europeans and Americans live in far more material splendor than noblemen did 800 years ago. Yet crime has not decreased. There is just no cause and effect. Yet the left will not let go of this idea.

It took 400 years for the Pope to admit Galileo was correct. I doubt that the true believers in the religion of collectivism will respond that quickly.

Thanks for the discussion.

Posted by: Steve on January 11, 2007 11:53 AM
57. You're welcome! Thanks for the non sequiturs!

Posted by: Nancy on January 11, 2007 12:14 PM
58. I'm still waiting for any substantive response to any arguements I have made, whether about climate change, or economics, or crime. Do you have any thoughts, counterarguments, evidence or lines of reasoning you can use to persuade someone who doesn't agree with you? Otherwise, we are just spinning our wheels.

Posted by: Steve on January 11, 2007 01:10 PM
59. please allow me to tie my hands behind my back & lawfully mfg. in the US with Kyoto resrictions.

then, as my sky blackens, radionucleotides and pollutants creep my way (unregulated) from India & China & So America, (who are loving the advantages), i will FEEL better and superior for having "done the right thing."

ironic--the country that sets the standard for clean, reaearch and doing (trying) the right thing is now handcuffed and tosssed on the altar of guilt & one-world-diversity.

i'm not for lessening clean standards, but i AM for not killing ourselves for the benefit of another country who "cares" about us.

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on January 11, 2007 02:14 PM
60. What do you want, a collection of scientific literature? You're perfectly capable of pulling your head out of the sand if you choose to.

In a sense, I guess your responses weren't really non sequiturs. They exemplify your desire to equate liberal dogma with scientific consensus, which means the right loses (not to say scientific consensus can't be wrong, but I don't like your odds). And what in the world is the "religion of collectivism"?? When liberals and scientists agree? What's it called when conservatives and evangelicals agree?

Posted by: Nancy on January 11, 2007 02:25 PM
61. If you don't have a faith you need to find something to believe to keep you sane... Global Warming etc...

Posted by: Faithless on January 11, 2007 03:30 PM
62. Nancy - Are you being obtuse deliberately?
Yes, I do want a satisfactory degree of scientific certainty before accepting a theory which would lead to radical change in our lifestyles. We may differ on the degree of certainty we are comfortable with. If that makes me an ostrich, might it not make you a chicken little?

I still see many problems with the hypothesis that a. current climate change is anything other than noise against a long and noisy background, and b. that the change is caused by excessive combustion of organic material by humans. Some of these problems are methodological (insufficient measurements over time and space, unverified models of atmospheric phenomena) and some are observational (simultaneous polar cap shrinkage on Mars and Earth, climate changes of similar magnitude to now in past times before invention of internal combustion engine).

I never implied and do not believe that scientific consensus equals any dogma, and to infer that from what I wrote is strange. Dogma is anti-science. The germ theory of disease is correct not because most people believe it, but the converse.

The religion of collectivism means the persistant belief that socialist policies will improve the human condition, despite experiments done on hundreds of millions of human subjects between 1917 and 1991. The results were published in all the newspapers.

Posted by: Steve on January 11, 2007 03:45 PM
63. I guess I'll try to explain my deliberate obtuseness. You're conflating separate issues, for one. Whether global warming exists and what causes it are scientific questions. What we should do about it is a political issue. The fact that you have personal problems with a hypothesis doesn't carry much weight in the face of the consensus in the scientific community. To argue that such consensus does not exist is simply parroting political propaganda.

And yes, by implying that the scientific consensus on the existence and cause of global warming is aligned with leftist politics, you're equating science with liberal political views, which generally is going to mean that you're wrong if you're on the other side. And yes, Steve, dogma is anti-science (and anti-fact for that matter).

Thanks for the history lesson on Communism!

Posted by: Nancy on January 11, 2007 04:35 PM
64. Nancy, dinesh and others at the "Altar of Man-Induced Global Change" -

What do you want, a collection of scientific literature? I can 'call' your collection with an equally weighty collection of refutations (example)

...equate liberal dogma with scientific consensus There is NO consensus on your's and AlGore's theories, regardless of what the MSM implies.

Answer the question of post #42: What is/are the true motive(s) behind the hysteria?

Posted by: Concerned Citizen on January 11, 2007 04:56 PM
65. Can you read, CC?

The motives question is one that fascinates me. The motives of the energy industry hacks that argue against a consensus is clear, similar to the motives of the "scientists" who claimed there was no consensus on whether smoking cigarettes was harmful. But why do all these scientists agree on global warming? What kind of conspiracy is paying them all off, all over the world? It doesn't really make sense, does it, compared to the money the oil industry has?

As far as guilt over what to do about it, again, that's a separate issue. Personally, I don't think we should do much.

Posted by: Nancy on January 11, 2007 05:10 PM
66. "But why do all these scientists agree on global warming?"

Just a wild guess; because they are left-wing, university dwelling anti-capitalists.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 11, 2007 05:26 PM
67. We can't really trust ANY scientific consensus, can we, Bill? They're EVERYWHERE!!

Posted by: Nancy on January 11, 2007 05:50 PM
68. Nancy,

Are you part of the "Dave Mathews" group?

Posted by: Chris on January 11, 2007 09:17 PM
69. DM and his ilk need to read my post above concerning a comparable 'scientist' study regarding lake quality.

I don't understand why the 'world is ending' crowd doesn't want anyone to question the science. The technology is really not there to grossly extrapolate minute temperature changes they get in their imprecise measurements.

Posted by: swatter on January 12, 2007 08:19 AM
70. "I don't understand why the 'world is ending' crowd doesn't want anyone to question the science."

I do. It's part of their agenda. "Global warming" is one of the left's most important sacraments. Jeez, they are even showing Gore's idiotic film in public schools now.

The frothing at the mouth provoked by this topic only serves to illustrate my point. You don't dare question one of the left's sacraments.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 12, 2007 10:33 AM
71. Actually, not NSTA isn't rushing to show Gore's film in class. Why? because Exxon spends (double digit) millions to influence the science that is taught in class.


See who writes the checks that fund the "science" debunking global warming.

Posted by: redkittyred on January 13, 2007 10:51 PM
72. Dinesh, you can't have studied this stuff out.The planet goes through cooling and warming trends that last for years ALL THE FREAKING TIME. Read all the sources, not just the ones that tell you what you want to hear.
With all the griping about Carbon Dioxide you're raving about, What do you suggest we do? Hold our breath?
Last I checked gasoline engines emitted Carbon MONOxide.
The great thing about Global warming is that it gives the liberal ding-a-lings something to squabble over and can't be proven wrong for at least another 300 years.
That should give them enough time to divert people's attention to something else. Like...the horrors of Alien weightloss clinics for whales in Peru.

Posted by: Smirk on January 14, 2007 10:22 AM
73. "redkittyred" You might have more credibility if you didn't use as your source the producer of Al Gore's film.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 14, 2007 05:30 PM
74. #73

You're absolutely right. I hoped my terse replies would keep my posts from looking like term paper footnotes.

And in all fairness, here is the NTSA response. http://www.nsta.org/pressroom&news_story_ID=52959

There's a more complete background at the Huffington Post. Yes, I know this is also from the same co-producer of "An Inconvenient Truth", but even ignoring the conjecture there are some good links and documents as more information to help formulate your own conclusion.

Included on the Huffington Post, is an email thread with NTSA asking to donate the DVDs. Noting that one of the bullet point reasons for choosing not to distribute read, "It places unnecessary risk upon the capital campaign, especially certain targeted supporters"

Also as a question, if the DVDs are free, why not distribute along with "Greening Earth Society"(1) funded by Western Fuels Association which have been distributed at previous NSTA conventions(2) to spark lively conversation and debate in classrooms?
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greening_Earth_Society
(2) http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1127-20.htm

Also, reference the comments from Edweek for Teacher, Parent and Student discussion.

As I have taken some considerable time to look these things up for you, I would also like if you can send any links you find with contrary information to help build the clearest picture as possible on this topic. (I have already run across the work of Patrick Michaels but would be welcome others). Thank you.

Posted by: redkittyred on January 15, 2007 03:36 PM
75. "redkittyred", If you are trying to say that both sides of the "global warming" issue should be presented to school children you have my agreement.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 15, 2007 05:33 PM
Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember info?