March 02, 2007
Global Warming Update (XIV)

Ron Sims, Feb. 7, "King County Proposes Global Warming Action Plan":

"The best way to protect the people, economy and environment of the region is to take specific actions to reduce greenhouse gases and invest the money needed to adapt to less snow in the mountains...
Seattle Times, March 2, "Blame wacky storm on convergence zone"
The latest storm has added to a robust snowpack in the mountains, which is good for those who rely on snowmelt to fill rivers and reservoirs later in the year -- farmers, dam operators, water utilities and fish.

The water levels in the snowpack range between 130 percent and 93 percent of normal as of yesterday, according to the federal Natural Resources Conservation Service.

"There's no reason at all to think there will be any kind of water problem" as the winter wanes into spring and summer, Mass said.


Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 02, 2007 10:08 AM | Email This
Comments
1. How about we start by getting all the Libs in Montlake to stop using their wood burning fireplaces?

Oh, BTW, more evidence that Global Heating is not anthropogenic:

http://www.news24.com/News24/Technology/News/0,,2-13-1443_2076132,00.html

Climate clues rock science
28/02/2007 12:45 - (SA)

Jena, Germany - Samples of rock drilled out of the Antarctic seabed show there has been a surprisingly wide variation in the world's climate over the past 3.5 million years, a German geo- scientist said on Tuesday.

"It's blown away the prevailing wisdom that we had a steady cold phase during this era," said Lothar Viereck-Goette, a professor at the University of Jena who is examining rock raised by the four-nation Antarctic Geological Drilling (Andrill) project.

"That means that climate variation is something normal, not out of the ordinary," he said.

The drill site was in the seabed under the Ross Ice Shelf, where sediment provides evidence of expanding and contracting ice sheets.

Posted by: John Bailo on March 2, 2007 10:34 AM
2. Global Warming hysterics will be particularly entertaining here in the Puget Sound. As it becomes clear over the next decade or so that there is no cause for alarm, the hysterical overreach will be particularly pronounced here in the land of precipitation. And some folks like Sims, who have hitched themselves to the Al Gore train, will also be going off the cliff to becoming laughing stocks along with Al.

But wait, Sims is doing a great job of becoming a laughing stock on his own. Surely his record for predictions and accuracy is one that any bank would envy.

Posted by: Jeff B. on March 2, 2007 10:36 AM
3. So since when does an issue have to backed up by facts and evidence for a Demorat "crisis pimp" like Sims to exploit it for political gain?

Heck, it's only "our" money he wants to extort to expand government with anyway. If liberals can keep getting elected based on these sort of frauds, what could possibly motivate these clowns to stop?

Posted by: MJC on March 2, 2007 10:46 AM
4. Sorry to clue you, but global warming has nothing to do with global warming that's just a cover -- it has everything to do with global people control -- they'll be back

Posted by: Lew on March 2, 2007 10:48 AM
5. When you talk to anyone on GW, I have a sanity check for you.

"How can you trust the climatologists when they predict climate change over the next several decades when they can't even predict the weather more than 24 hours ahead?"

Makes you go hmmmm.

Posted by: swatter on March 2, 2007 10:52 AM
6. In the mean time, Issaquah School District delayed opening of all schools by two hours on March 1 due to the snow overnight.

Posted by: DopioLover on March 2, 2007 10:54 AM
7. More pesky contrarian science:

"Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says"

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

Posted by: starboardhelm on March 2, 2007 11:09 AM
8. No. 5

I have tried this. Libs just ignore logic and toe the party line. They are never going to miss a chance to extract the maximum amount of cash from the citizenry. Libs are all too happy to pay, and the rest of us are just along for the ride.

Posted by: NW Denizen on March 2, 2007 11:09 AM
9. I doubt the times or the pi will be covering the global warming scare mongers/profiteers like this article: http://newsbusters.org/node/11149

Here is a snippet, but you should read the whole thing...

Gore helped found Generation Investment Management, through which he and others pay for offsets. The firm invests the money in solar, wind and other projects that reduce energy consumption around the globe...

"Gore is chairman of the firm and, presumably, draws an income or will make money as its investments prosper. In other words, he "buys" his "carbon offsets" from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself. To be blunt, Gore doesn't buy "carbon offsets" through Generation Investment Management - he buys stocks."

"Fascinating. So, as Dr. Global Warming travels the world in his private jet while spending 20 times the average American on energy for his home, all the time telling us its okay because he's buying carbon offsets, he's actually purchasing these investments from himself."

"Furthermore, and maybe more important, Gore stands to benefit financially in a potentially huge way if more and more people buy into this junk science."

Posted by: RBB on March 2, 2007 11:16 AM
10. If all living things stopped producing CO2, and all use of fossil fuel were to end, the world would still be getting warmer.

The earth does what it does without consulting us first. We're only part of the bio-mass, not part of management.

Posted by: Libertarian on March 2, 2007 11:23 AM
11. In the interest of saving the planet, I challenge all of those who post here to commit to using no more energy than the environmental role model of their choice. Let me start by making a commitment to limit my gross energy usage to no more than AlGore's gross energy usage. C'mon it's for the children. and remember those who sign on early will get the prime selections from the list of Hollywood and Washington D.C. enviropontificators.

Posted by: JDH on March 2, 2007 11:25 AM
12. There are a LOT of links to leftist blogs where they are crapping in their environmentally friendly hemp diapers here. D U funnies is pretty entertaining too.


http://dummiefunnies.blogspot.com/2007/03/gore-critics-are-right.html

Posted by: JDH on March 2, 2007 11:31 AM
13. Liberals/ Dems/ Progressives know that their true allegiance is to Marxism.

Confront them with facts, dissent, studies, lots of reading material, etc. and it will all be summarily dismissed. They'll tell themselves that any and every scientist that does not fully accept man made, CO2 based, Global Warming is on big oil payroll, etc. Confront them even with the results of their own scientists on the IPCC that show no need for a hysterical reaction that would cause economic upheaval, and they still ignore the results. Confront them with common sense, history, etc. and they still bury their heads. Confront them with even the simple reality that many environmental schemes actually take more energy to implement than they save, and are thus "worse" for the environment, and they still won't accept any discussion.

It's not about solving problems, it's about controlling man. Look at Seattle's forced recycling as an example. And the Kyoto protocol, Montreal, etc. for what the left has in store. The only way to control today's populace, that is ever more aware of their freedom and their manipulation by a left leaning press, is through crisis. And what better than to invent a vague future crisis, to exert that control.

The left will lose this battle, because reality will prove them wrong, just like it has every other time they've tried to invent an environmental scare.

Posted by: Jeff B. on March 2, 2007 11:34 AM
14. This article from Australia is the best one on the topic I have seen today:

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21309812-5006029,00.html

Posted by: JDH on March 2, 2007 11:35 AM
15. Here in Olympia, the city is planning to build a palatial new City Hall on Port property down by the waterfront. Port people are all for it -- calling it an "anchor tenant" for some reason.

Some people here are against building there -- but not a one of the objectors has mentioned the rational questions -- like: How does it meet Port goals of improving the county economy? (it won't) How will it increase tax revenue -- another port goal? (it won't) Is it the best water depenent use for the property? (come on) As an "anchor tenant", how will it draw people to shop downtown? (it won't) Where will people park? And so on.

No -- none of those questions are being raised. Instead, the objectors are "worried about rising water levels with global warming".

Only good thing about this -- the city will be darn sure to give itself preferential treatment in getting permits that would be highly problematical for any (gasp!) Capitalist venture. It's probably the only way anything will ever get built there.

http://www.theolympian.com/112/story/68356.html

"Build, Grow, Move, and Improve

The mission of the Port of Olympia shall be to vigorously manage its assets to provide
maximum benefits to the citizens of Thurston County.

To do this, the port shall Build relationships, facilities, and infrastructures that help the Thurston County economy Grow, while it serves those who Move products and people and accepts a role to Improve Thurston County's recreation options and environment."

Yeah. Right.

Posted by: starboardhelm on March 2, 2007 11:36 AM
16. From the article:

"Calling global warming the defining issue of the 21st Century, King County Executive Ron Sims ..."

Well, duh. It's so much more executive-like to spend one's time on high-profile issues like this, than on mundane, boring ones like fixing KC Elections (which isn't really broken anyway....it has a level of accuracy any bank would envy...).

Posted by: ewaggin on March 2, 2007 11:40 AM
17. Jeff B,
Speaking of forced recycling...let me tell you a little story. I used to live in Lakewood and there was a retired Army fellow who used to pull up in front of my house in his pickup, let himself into the back yard and collect my "recycelables." He made money doing this. Then back about the mid '80s the County informed me that I could not allow him to provide this service any longer. That I MUST place my "recycelables" at the curb and have them picked up by the County. To which I responded with a single raised digit and from that day forward no longer separated out my trash. Not only did the County destroy this individual's way of suplementing his income, they were losing money doing so. Yes that is right, they took what was an income stream for him and a service to me and turned it into a net losing venture that would have become a burden to me if I had not told them to go pound sand.

Posted by: JDH on March 2, 2007 11:44 AM
18. From the article:

(Sims said)
"The best way to protect the people, economy and environment of the region is to take specific actions to reduce greenhouse gases and invest the money needed to adapt to less snow in the mountains and more frequent more damaging floods."

Interesting, how you learn something new every day. Today, I learned that "invest" is a synonym for "piss money down a rathole" (in Ron Sims' thesaurus, anyway).

Posted by: ewaggin on March 2, 2007 11:45 AM
19. What's AlGore going to do now that this has been "snowed out," he was planning to fly in via private jet to share a few words of wisdom


http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/mpr/events.eventsmain?action=showEvent&eventID=544002

Posted by: JDH on March 2, 2007 11:52 AM
20. Doesn't SIM's drive a large fuel sucking car?

Posted by: Army Medic/ Vet on March 2, 2007 11:58 AM
21. Even funnier. The two founders of Google flew their 767 with only 8 people on board to a Global warming meeting.

Hello AL??

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 2, 2007 12:26 PM
22. Build more general-purpose lanes so cars can move faster instead of sit and spew exhaust into the air while going nowhere.

Posted by: Michele on March 2, 2007 01:16 PM
23. Haa---JDH, I've been using less energy than Gore for years. Guess I'm greener than he is already!

Posted by: Michele on March 2, 2007 01:18 PM
24. Hello Everyone,

** YAWN **

There ain't any new thoughts on this thread. It is altogether possible that there isn't any thought on display here at all.

I want to tell you something that I saw this evening as I was driving home from work:

$2.51 a gallon for the cheap gasoline.

And we're not even close to the summertime driving season yet. I wonder how expensive gasoline will be in May?

There is another bit of news which is distressing to me:

El Nino has ended. Why is this of concern to me?

2004 was an active hurricane season, 2005 was a catastrophic hurricane season, and 2006 was ... nothing. El Nino acted as a shield and kept those hurricanes from getting close to America.

Without El Nino we just might have another catastrophic hurricane season.

So there's no telling how bad things could get.

Finally, I was talking to a lady from Nova Scotia the other day and mentioned how the winters in Florida have become distinctly warmer during my lifetime. She has noticed the climate changing as well in Nova Scotia.

The climate is changing. I can sense it. I can see it. The winters have changed dramatically over the last several decades.

If you cannot notice these changes up in Washington perhaps that is only because your just not looking.

Posted by: David Mathews on March 2, 2007 03:17 PM
25. The ice caps on Earth are retreating.
The ice caps on Mars are retreating.

What do they have in common?

Only one thing.

The Sun.

Basic science, you will need to explain both phenomena with a single theory, or be able to definitively explain how the phenomena have distinct and different driving forces.

Posted by: JCM on March 2, 2007 03:24 PM
26. Hello JCM,

> What do they have in common?

The Earth and Mars have very little in common. That much is certain. We both do share the sun, though. You are right about that.

When I hear people mention Mars within the context of Global Warming discussions, I can only reach one conclusion:

Here is a person who must be absolutely ignorant & uninformed regarding science.

But what difference does it make at this point?

A catastrophe is already occurring, another is fast approaching, and several more might materialize before this year is out.

We're not living in good times, JCM. There's substantial evidence that America's economy is not merely on life support, it is in the Intensive Care Unit and the doctors report that its last days are fast approaching.

Posted by: David Mathews on March 2, 2007 03:34 PM
27. starboard,

Followed your link to the National Geographic article on Abdussamatov's work in St. Petersburg, Russia.

This is not new information from ther Russians, they have not really bought into the AGW theory and even their IPCC guy has spoke out against it. However, it is conmforting to see a mainstream organization at least reporting it even if they are trying hard to poo-poo it.

Love the quotes from the GW "experts" in our academic institutions.

"His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University.

Yup, there is that consensus!

"And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report."

What evidence? All there is in the IPCC "Summary for Policy Makers" is opinion! Didn't these guys even read it? The report is still being edited to agree with the summary (strange?).

Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."

Evans gets it backwards - In the Russian report the author (Abdussamatov) is reporting on how his observations don't fit the AGW theory and then saying "Perhaps there's another exaplantion besides AGW for the warming".

And then auhthors remind us to look the other way with these instructions:

"most scientists think it is pure coincidence that both planets are between ice ages right now."

and,

"Perhaps the biggest stumbling block in Abdussamatov's theory is his dismissal of the greenhouse effect, in which atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide help keep heat trapped near the planet's surface."

Abdussamatov doesn't dismiss the greenhouse effect - he says CO2 isn't driving the climate warming on Mars.

They don't cite any evidence to support their theory - just state AGW is right.

Again at least someone is reporting Abdussamatov's work.

Posted by: deadwood on March 2, 2007 03:37 PM
28. WVH has questioned the fake identity of our favorite moonbat troll before. Check out GasPriceWatch.com Something does not add up. I think it might be time for Stefan or Eric to go back though the logs and check IPs.

Posted by: Jeff B. on March 2, 2007 04:00 PM
29. Hello Jeff,

> WVH has questioned the fake identity of our favorite moonbat troll before. Check out GasPriceWatch.com Something does not add up.

I only report what I am seeing with my own two eyes. The gasoline prices have skyrocketed in my neighborhood over the last several weeks.

I bought gasoline in Largo on Tuesday at $2.34 a gallon (spent approximately $22 to fill the tank), but I passed two gas stations today with the price at $2.51 a gallon.

Something really dramatic is happening to gasoline prices. If the trend continues for much longer we're going to see at least $3 a gallon this year.

Posted by: David Mathews on March 2, 2007 04:15 PM
30. DM

"most scientists think it is pure coincidence that both planets are between ice ages right now."

Coincidence isn't science.

Posted by: JCM on March 2, 2007 04:22 PM
31. Hello JCM,

When you say that Mars is "between ice ages" all I can conclude is that you don't have the least idea what you are talking about. Scientists don't have any data regarding Mars' climate. The space probes are not equipped to provide this sort of information.

So I ask: Exactly what are you talking about?

Posted by: David Mathews on March 2, 2007 04:36 PM
32. David Matthews:

You spent $22.00 to fill your tank? What kind of a filthy, polluting, resource wasting vehicle do you operate?

I just spent $4.95 for my gas for the next two weeks. (she was bone-dry, and I topped her off without quite spilling).

Until you get better gas mileage than me, I think you better STFU, you filthy polluter...

(main vehicle is a Suzuki DRZ400, if you're curious, and about 70-75mpg if I'm careful)...

Posted by: thecomputerguy on March 2, 2007 04:44 PM
33. Hello thecomputerguy,

I am pleased to hear that you have excellent gas mileage. That's very good.

Posted by: David Mathews on March 2, 2007 04:49 PM
34. Oh, and just so you know, I've donated all of my carbon credits (from being so efficient) to the wonderful conservative readers and posters on this blog, so they are all now carbon neutral...

What's your excuse?

Posted by: thecomputerguy on March 2, 2007 04:53 PM
35. Hello thecomputerguy,

You've done nothing whatsoever to solve the problem of pollution, America's gluttonous overconsumption, resource depletion or climate change.

You seem to not understand the catastrophe which is fast approaching.

Shall I tell you that your American lifestyle is going to come to an eternal end very soon?

I don't know if I should tell you. Americans are the most entitled people on the planet. Americans right now are like Wile E. Coyote -- off the cliff but not yet aware that only the thin atmosphere stands between them and the hard surface below.

I wonder how Americans will react when they realize that America's privileged status has come to an end & that only troubles ahead?

When gasoline is $5 a gallon and 15% of Americans are unemployed and food has become scarce at the grocery stores ... how will Americans react?

Al Gore's greatest sin is that he fails to tell Americans that the American lifestyle is going to come to an end. Al Gore is merciful in that regard.

If Americans knew what is coming they would radically alter their lifestyle right now. But it is already too late.

Posted by: David Mathews on March 2, 2007 05:03 PM
36. DM

I didn't say the planets where between ice ages.

I said the polar cap on both planets are retreating.

In science you can't brush off inconvenient little things as "coincidence."

Not when you have solar output in all spectrums increasing, and at the same time the polar caps on two planets decreasing. Before you discount that as "coincidence" you have to show how the increase in solar output is not impacting the ice caps, or that the sun and planets are decoupled in some manner.

GW advocates have decided the following: more people, more industry, more CO2, and the concurrent slight increase in global average temperature = man caused global warming.

Sorry fella that just doesn't wash using the scientific method. It's called a hypothesis, it's not even a theory yet. In previous post I linked to a bunch of climate drivers that completely out of the realm of human control.

Before you can say definitively that man causes global warming you have to discount all the other drivers, discount the climatology record of climate change. And be able to discount that the polar caps of Earth and Mars decreasing at the same time the suns output is increasing.

The science of climate is complex, with many factors, man being just one. GW advocates have a lot of work to due to show man is the prime driver of the current warming trend.

Add to the sketchy science the history of those pushing GW hardest. They have been wrong on every issue they pushed as the next crisis for the last 50 years. I've posted on that in previous posts.

Two many questions to run around screeching the sky is falling.

Posted by: JCM on March 2, 2007 05:16 PM
37. "If Americans knew what is coming they would radically alter their lifestyle right now. But it is already too late."

Ah, so that's the real reason Al Gore and David Mathews continue to live consumptive lifestyles is, "it is already too late".

And if it is "too late" I can't help but wonder what is the point of David's endless stream of posts whenever the subject of "global warming" is the topic. Seems like one hell of a waste of time to me.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on March 2, 2007 05:37 PM
38. So David I should "Park the pickup and let it rust away to dust in your front yard. Don't buy another vehicle. Learn to enjoy walking." That wasn't the question, but now let's take it one step further. The Kyotiphiles are letting third world thugs build one coal fired plant every five days. AND then they can shut them down and sell the carbon credits to Americans for hard cash to use to perpetuate their power. So why don't you let me buy a 1976 Power Wagon every 5 days for a hundred $ and let it sit in a lot somewhere and let the income from the carbon credits roll in?

Is this solution acceptable to you?

Posted by: JDH on March 2, 2007 05:47 PM
39. Hello JCM,

> I said the polar cap on both planets are retreating.

On Mars, just as on Earth, there are seasons: Summer and winter. In the Martian winter, the ice caps expand. In the Martian summer, the ice caps retreat.

Humans have observed Mars for centuries and the ice caps exhibit exactly this sort of behavior: expansion in winter, retreat in summer.

Other than this observation, there is no climatic data for Mars.

To claim that Mars is experiencing "Global Warming" is to exhibit egregious ignorance of science.


Posted by: David Mathews on March 2, 2007 05:54 PM
40. I wrote a nice long comment to the Seattle Daily bias post from Jim Miller, but he turned off comments because David Mathews could not stay on topic. So I guess have to post it here, sorry it is in the wrong place:


I've read Lomborg, and a lot of the other GW skeptics. They all make very well researched and technical arguments against Global Warming and a lot of other environmental hysteria. And, as in the case of Lomborg, provide plenty of objective and balanced commentary.

This is precisely what's missing from the Mainstream Media's coverage of environmental issues, and especially here in the Seattle dailies. The media seems to be afraid of allowing the general public to compare and contrast for example, Al Gore's house, with that of George Bush. Or to give a full airing to noted climatologists that disagree with the findings of the IPCC, and have presented well documented research to make their case.

The newspapers seem to be actively against actual reporting, which would present all sides of an argument and allow readers to draw their own conclusions. The media has largely gone from being a profession of reporters, to a bastion of journalists. They feel attacked, and in some cases confounded, by new media. And due to the times and culture in which they learned their trade, and the shelter that has afforded, they've been unwilling to examine the inherent bias of their peer group.

And to be fair, there are some very notable exceptions, such as The Times' David Postman.

Posted by: Jeff B. on March 2, 2007 05:58 PM
41. Hello Bill,

> And if it is "too late" I can't help but wonder what is the point of David's endless stream of posts ...

The point of Americans making substantial sacrifices now is not to avert catastrophe -- because the catastrophe is already here -- but instead to minimize suffering.

If Americans refuse to make any sacrifices the United States of America will experience an Empire-ending apocalypse.

At least, that is my hope. But my expectation is that the United States of America is in reality a terminal patient. In that case, we really are beyond hope and only God's mercy could save us from the suffering which is fast approaching.

Posted by: David Mathews on March 2, 2007 05:58 PM
42. Trust me... Gov. Gregforhire will find a way to declare a water shortage emergency by the Fourth of July... to stop all of those evil and dangerous FIREWORKS!!!

Except the ones you buy from you friendly neighborhood Tribal Store.

Posted by: p on March 2, 2007 05:59 PM
43. Hello JDH,

> The Kyotiphiles are letting third world thugs build one coal fired plant every five days. AND then they can shut them down and sell the carbon credits to Americans for hard cash to use to perpetuate their power. So why don't you let me buy a 1976 Power Wagon every 5 days for a hundred $ and let it sit in a lot somewhere and let the income from the carbon credits roll in?

> Is this solution acceptable to you?

The "thugs" of the Third World are not as evil as the neocon neocolonial thugs who presently inhabit the White House.

As to the carbon-credit concept: It is meaningless. The pollution problem involves the entire human population. No solution at all is possible while humankind's population continues to explode & humankind's appetite continues to expand.

Since humankind has no capacity to cease either of these acrivities, Nature is going to stop us in the harshest and most terrible manner possible. Nature will stop us, civilization will collapse, humankind will go extinct, end of story (for us), but the sun will continue rising, and Nature will continue to flourish for at least another billion years.

Humankind is busy working at self-extermination. Nature appreciates our efforts and guarantees their success.

Posted by: David Mathews on March 2, 2007 06:06 PM
44. Hell Jeff B.,

> I've read Lomborg, and a lot of the other GW skeptics. They all make very well researched and technical arguments against Global Warming and a lot of other environmental hysteria. And, as in the case of Lomborg, provide plenty of objective and balanced commentary.

Ha!

Are you serious?

Yes, of course you are: You are seriously misinformed.

Oh well. So much for this Lomborg fellow.


Posted by: David Mathews on March 2, 2007 06:08 PM
45. O.K. now let's ask this question: Will AlGore ever be raised to cult hero status now that he has twice taken the left's big mo (momentum) and thrown it down a rat hole by choking his free range, cage free, fair trade, carbon neutral chicken in public?

This overheated chimpanze had the presidency practically handed to him, but he couldn't even cary his own state. And made a mess of that. Then the left was on a Anthropogenic GW roll, try as we might we couldn't get the msm to point out the blatent hypocrisy of it's supporters nor get the general public interested in considering to BOTH sides of the issue. This flippin arrogant buffoon has, with his little Oscar charade, focused the entire nation on the gulf between words and the lifestyle choices of ALL of the Anthropogenic GW side. Good going Albert, you've done it again. Something like Anthropogenig GW relies on a stealthy approach your arrogance has blown that. Now the public is genuinely interested and the other side is being heard and considered. Now that our most articulate voices are turned loose, the grandiose designs (including the devestating economic consequences) of the Anthropogenic GW nuts will be heard and are toast. No sane person wants what David Mathews champions for their family. Bye bye suckers.

Posted by: JDH on March 2, 2007 08:36 PM
46. While we are at it, let's consider this guy's rhetoric -vs- investments at the same time.

Billionaire George Soros has quietly invested $62 million in the purchase of more than 2 million shares of Halliburton, the major government contractor criticized by his own Open Society Institute and the activist group he funds, MoveOn.org.

Posted by: JDH on March 2, 2007 08:45 PM
47. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAggxIECe5M&mode=related&search=

Oh no. DM, Al Gore and the profits (not a typo)of doom have declared it's the end of the world.


It's the end of the world as we know it.
It's the end of the world as we know it.
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine...

Posted by: Serf in the land of Queen Christine on March 2, 2007 08:45 PM
48. I wonder how all of our greenhouse gases got to Mars? I'm sure Bush had something to do with it.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

Posted by: MJC on March 2, 2007 10:03 PM
49. David Mathews incorrectly stated (lied?) about the following:

Other than this observation, there is no climatic data for Mars.

Gee, if only that pesky thing called SCIENCE wasn't in your way...

After all, the Martian Polar Caps are RETREATING at 5 meters per year. Yeah, JPL and friends figured that one out...

So, you mean the climate on Mars is constant? The martian polar cap isn't disappearing year-over-year? Got any data that refutes what the scientists at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory measured?

Posted by: Edmonds Dan on March 2, 2007 10:56 PM
50. From your website: ...Until That day Comes I Choose to Live at Peace with All and Refuse to Hate Anyone

You seem to hate many that easily refute your preachy, arrogant, ignorant lectures

Do a Google search:
Results 1 - 10 of about 58,600 for "David Mathews". (0.10 seconds)
No surprise that about 58,579 of these are Sound Politics blog entries!

Can SP restrict posts to those that actually live in Washington? Florida residents like David (click here for his webcam) know nothing about politics here even though it's obvious from his photos that he's burned billions of gallons of petrochemicals taking photos.

How does one fit so much robo-blogging and photography into the day?

Posted by: David Mathews = Boredom on March 3, 2007 12:16 AM
51. Yeah... looks like DM has been at it for a while:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.atheism/browse_thread/thread/3c6f61e6314a8ab1/737a47a2603afc4a?lnk=st&q=%22David+Matthews%22&rnum=5&hl=en#737a47a2603afc4a

>Some on these groups may be vaguely familiar with David Matthews. His
>posts seem to consist of four things:

>1. Outrageous Claims.
>2. Refusal to support those claims in a public forum
>3. Links to his site where he says he supports those claims.
>4. Lies.

--
Agree 100 percent!

He is typical of those here with goofy and unsupportable beliefs.


Been at it for a while, huh? Whatsa matter, they kick you out?

Posted by: thecomputerguy on March 3, 2007 01:31 AM
52. Hello the computerguy,

> Agree 100 percent!

Those are the things that people say when they are emotional after losing an argument. The atheists heard some things that they would rather not hear and they reacted in a predictable fashion.

> Been at it for a while, huh? Whatsa matter, they kick you out?

Your talking ancient history in that case. 1998. Very few conversations can last for nine years. That conversation ended a long time ago.

I have investigated the atheism concept since before there was an internet. Is it any wonder that they atheists heard things that they would rather not hear?

Posted by: David Mathews on March 3, 2007 03:19 AM
53. Hello "David Mathews = Boredom",

> How does one fit so much robo-blogging and photography into the day?

If you would use your own time more efficiently you would get a whole bunch more accomplished in life. Photography is easy because I am surrounded by beauty & life & water. Engaging in conversations is easy because these people can hardly present any sort of intellectual argument.

But if you are bored, there are plenty of other things that you can do. Do whatever you wish.

Posted by: David Mathews on March 3, 2007 03:23 AM
54. Hello Edmonds,

The article about Mars' polar ice caps says the following:

"If one takes the rate of scarp retreat and projects it backwards to fill in all of the pits and troughs with the carbon dioxide that has been removed from them, one finds that the colder climate might only have occurred a few centuries to a few tens of thousands of years ago. This kind of time scale is not unlike that of the climate changes that have been recorded on Earth, including the Ice Ages and the smaller fluctuations that have occurred since the last Ice Age (e.g., the "Little Ice Age" of the mid-14th through mid-19th centuries)."

Which is a matter of common knowledge among climate scientists and the informed public. There is no doubt whatsoever regarding the existence of natural climate change.

But there are some rather substantial differences between Mars and Earth: 6.5 billion humans are pumping millions of tons of pollution into the atmosphere.

What impact does this have upon Earth's climate? It is enhancing the natural climate change into an unnatural global warming.

The impacts of the climate changing are now becoming evident:

Warm Winters Upset Rhythms of Maple Sugar

So it is not any longer even a matter of speculation: The Earth's climate is changing dramatically and these changes are already having a serious impact upon the economy.

Shall we keep on polluting and complete the experiment?


Posted by: David Mathews on March 3, 2007 03:32 AM
55. OK, so now we're getting somewhere...

1. We agree that there IS such a thing as natural climate change.

2. We agree that it is happening on MULTIPLE (i.e.: more than one) planets simultaneously.

3. We agree that the Sun is really the only constant between the planets experiencing warming.

Can we agree on these three statements? If we can't then everything else is irrelevant...

Given those statements above, the issue comes down to just how much of the current climate change is due to humans.

You say "almost all of it!", I say "very little".

Fact: it has been SIGNIFICANTLY WARMER in the past.

Fact: it has been SIGNIFICANTLY COOLER in the past.

Fact: we are coming out of an ice age RIGHT NOW.

Question: who says that the climate RIGHT NOW is how it is supposed to be? What is the equilibrium?

I of course recognize that the old Heisenberg principle applies, and ANY disturbance of a system - even observation - will affect the system. But to what degree is the question?

Is man having an effect? Certainly! But that's not the debate...

The debate is the DEGREE TO WHICH MAN IS HAVING AN EFFECT.

To date, I have seen ZERO data from "your" side that shows man is the primary driver of climate change.

In fact, historical records tend to show that the evil greenhouse gases are a RESULT of warming, not a driver of warming...

If climate change is 95% a natural thing, then there's precious little we can do about it. Really, nothing. That 1 deg Celcius increase that we're supposed to get over the next century? That would mean man is responsible for 0.05 degrees, and nature is responsible for the rest. We can't stop it, it's a natural thing. We should learn to use our technology to thrive with the change.

So, before you continue your rant about how we're unsustainable, and we're "ALL GONNA DIE ANY MINUTE NOW!" hysteria, how about some proof of the degree of man's effect?

Something OTHER than "realclimate.org" who brushed off the PROOF that Mars is warming as showing the Sun has a huge impact on our climate...

Remember, up here in Seattle, we were under a few thousand FEET of ice just 15,000 years ago. If it wasn't for global warming, Seattle wouldn't exist as anything other than a location on a glacier!

Posted by: Edmonds Dan on March 3, 2007 10:36 AM
56. DM,

If you paid more attention to real scientific literature instead of the morbid phobic hype you spew you'd know that the Mars Melt is not seasonal.

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets.

Posted by: JCM on March 3, 2007 11:47 AM
57. "Environmentalism as Religion"
by Michael Crichton
Commonwealth Club
San Francisco, CA
September 15, 2003

I have been asked to talk about what I consider the most important challenge facing mankind, and I have a fundamental answer. The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformation age) it takes on a special urgency and importance.

We must daily decide whether the threats we face are real, whether the solutions we are offered will do any good, whether the problems we're told exist are in fact real problems, or non-problems. Every one of us has a sense of the world, and we all know that this sense is in part given to us by what other people and society tell us; in part generated by our emotional state, which we project outward; and in part by our genuine perceptions of reality. In short, our struggle to determine what is true is the struggle to decide which of our perceptions are genuine, and which are false because they are handed down, or sold to us, or generated by our own hopes and fears.

As an example of this challenge, I want to talk today about environmentalism. And in order not to be misunderstood, I want it perfectly clear that I believe it is incumbent on us to conduct our lives in a way that takes into account all the consequences of our actions, including the consequences to other people, and the consequences to the environment. I believe it is important to act in ways that are sympathetic to the environment, and I believe this will always be a need, carrying into the future. I believe the world has genuine problems and I believe it can and should be improved. But I also think that deciding what constitutes responsible action is immensely difficult, and the consequences of our actions are often difficult to know in advance. I think our past record of environmental action is discouraging, to put it mildly, because even our best intended efforts often go awry. But I think we do not recognize our past failures, and face them squarely. And I think I know why.

I studied anthropology in college, and one of the things I learned was that certain human social structures always reappear. They can't be eliminated from society. One of those structures is religion. Today it is said we live in a secular society in which many people---the best people, the most enlightened people---do not believe in any religion. But I think that you cannot eliminate religion from the psyche of mankind. If you suppress it in one form, it merely re-emerges in another form. You can not believe in God, but you still have to believe in something that gives meaning to your life, and shapes your sense of the world. Such a belief is religious.

Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it's a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.

There's an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there's a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.

Eden, the fall of man, the loss of grace, the coming doomsday---these are deeply held mythic structures. They are profoundly conservative beliefs. They may even be hard-wired in the brain, for all I know. I certainly don't want to talk anybody out of them, as I don't want to talk anybody out of a belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God who rose from the dead. But the reason I don't want to talk anybody out of these beliefs is that I know that I can't talk anybody out of them. These are not facts that can be argued. These are issues of faith.

And so it is, sadly, with environmentalism. Increasingly it seems facts aren't necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief. It's about whether you are going to be a sinner, or saved. Whether you are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the side of doom. Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them.

Am I exaggerating to make a point? I am afraid not. Because we know a lot more about the world than we did forty or fifty years ago. And what we know now is not so supportive of certain core environmental myths, yet the myths do not die. Let's examine some of those beliefs.

There is no Eden. There never was. What was that Eden of the wonderful mythic past? Is it the time when infant mortality was 80%, when four children in five died of disease before the age of five? When one woman in six died in childbirth? When the average lifespan was 40, as it was in America a century ago. When plagues swept across the planet, killing millions in a stroke. Was it when millions starved to death? Is that when it was Eden?

And what about indigenous peoples, living in a state of harmony with the Eden-like environment? Well, they never did. On this continent, the newly arrived people who crossed the land bridge almost immediately set about wiping out hundreds of species of large animals, and they did this several thousand years before the white man showed up, to accelerate the process. And what was the condition of life? Loving, peaceful, harmonious? Hardly: the early peoples of the New World lived in a state of constant warfare. Generations of hatred, tribal hatreds, constant battles. The warlike tribes of this continent are famous: the Comanche, Sioux, Apache, Mohawk, Aztecs, Toltec, Incas. Some of them practiced infanticide, and human sacrifice. And those tribes that were not fiercely warlike were exterminated, or learned to build their villages high in the cliffs to attain some measure of safety.

How about the human condition in the rest of the world? The Maori of New Zealand committed massacres regularly. The dyaks of Borneo were headhunters. The Polynesians, living in an environment as close to paradise as one can imagine, fought constantly, and created a society so hideously restrictive that you could lose your life if you stepped in the footprint of a chief. It was the Polynesians who gave us the very concept of taboo, as well as the word itself. The noble savage is a fantasy, and it was never true. That anyone still believes it, 200 years after Rousseau, shows the tenacity of religious myths, their ability to hang on in the face of centuries of factual contradiction.

There was even an academic movement, during the latter 20th century, that claimed that cannibalism was a white man's invention to demonize the indigenous peoples. (Only academics could fight such a battle.) It was some thirty years before professors finally agreed that yes, cannibalism does indeed occur among human beings. Meanwhile, all during this time New Guinea highlanders in the 20th century continued to eat the brains of their enemies until they were finally made to understand that they risked kuru, a fatal neurological disease, when they did so.

More recently still the gentle Tasaday of the Philippines turned out to be a publicity stunt, a nonexistent tribe. And African pygmies have one of the highest murder rates on the planet.

In short, the romantic view of the natural world as a blissful Eden is only held by people who have no actual experience of nature. People who live in nature are not romantic about it at all. They may hold spiritual beliefs about the world around them, they may have a sense of the unity of nature or the aliveness of all things, but they still kill the animals and uproot the plants in order to eat, to live. If they don't, they will die.

And if you, even now, put yourself in nature even for a matter of days, you will quickly be disabused of all your romantic fantasies. Take a trek through the jungles of Borneo, and in short order you will have festering sores on your skin, you'll have bugs all over your body, biting in your hair, crawling up your nose and into your ears, you'll have infections and sickness and if you're not with somebody who knows what they're doing, you'll quickly starve to death. But chances are that even in the jungles of Borneo you won't experience nature so directly, because you will have covered your entire body with DEET and you will be doing everything you can to keep those bugs off you.

The truth is, almost nobody wants to experience real nature. What people want is to spend a week or two in a cabin in the woods, with screens on the windows. They want a simplified life for a while, without all their stuff. Or a nice river rafting trip for a few days, with somebody else doing the cooking. Nobody wants to go back to nature in any real way, and nobody does. It's all talk-and as the years go on, and the world population grows increasingly urban, it's uninformed talk. Farmers know what they're talking about. City people don't. It's all fantasy.

One way to measure the prevalence of fantasy is to note the number of people who die because they haven't the least knowledge of how nature really is. They stand beside wild animals, like buffalo, for a picture and get trampled to death; they climb a mountain in dicey weather without proper gear, and freeze to death. They drown in the surf on holiday because they can't conceive the real power of what we blithely call "the force of nature." They have seen the ocean. But they haven't been in it.

The television generation expects nature to act the way they want it to be. They think all life experiences can be tivo-ed. The notion that the natural world obeys its own rules and doesn't give a damn about your expectations comes as a massive shock. Well-to-do, educated people in an urban environment experience the ability to fashion their daily lives as they wish. They buy clothes that suit their taste, and decorate their apartments as they wish. Within limits, they can contrive a daily urban world that pleases them.

But the natural world is not so malleable. On the contrary, it will demand that you adapt to it-and if you don't, you die. It is a harsh, powerful, and unforgiving world, that most urban westerners have never experienced.

Many years ago I was trekking in the Karakorum mountains of northern Pakistan, when my group came to a river that we had to cross. It was a glacial river, freezing cold, and it was running very fast, but it wasn't deep---maybe three feet at most. My guide set out ropes for people to hold as they crossed the river, and everybody proceeded, one at a time, with extreme care. I asked the guide what was the big deal about crossing a three-foot river. He said, well, supposing you fell and suffered a compound fracture. We were now four days trek from the last big town, where there was a radio. Even if the guide went back double time to get help, it'd still be at least three days before he could return with a helicopter. If a helicopter were available at all. And in three days, I'd probably be dead from my injuries. So that was why everybody was crossing carefully. Because out in nature a little slip could be deadly.

But let's return to religion. If Eden is a fantasy that never existed, and mankind wasn't ever noble and kind and loving, if we didn't fall from grace, then what about the rest of the religious tenets? What about salvation, sustainability, and judgment day? What about the coming environmental doom from fossil fuels and global warming, if we all don't get down on our knees and conserve every day?

Well, it's interesting. You may have noticed that something has been left off the doomsday list, lately. Although the preachers of environmentalism have been yelling about population for fifty years, over the last decade world population seems to be taking an unexpected turn. Fertility rates are falling almost everywhere. As a result, over the course of my lifetime the thoughtful predictions for total world population have gone from a high of 20 billion, to 15 billion, to 11 billion (which was the UN estimate around 1990) to now 9 billion, and soon, perhaps less. There are some who think that world population will peak in 2050 and then start to decline. There are some who predict we will have fewer people in 2100 than we do today. Is this a reason to rejoice, to say halleluiah? Certainly not. Without a pause, we now hear about the coming crisis of world economy from a shrinking population. We hear about the impending crisis of an aging population. Nobody anywhere will say that the core fears expressed for most of my life have turned out not to be true. As we have moved into the future, these doomsday visions vanished, like a mirage in the desert. They were never there---though they still appear, in the future. As mirages do.

Okay, so, the preachers made a mistake. They got one prediction wrong; they're human. So what. Unfortunately, it's not just one prediction. It's a whole slew of them. We are running out of oil. We are running out of all natural resources. Paul Ehrlich: 60 million Americans will die of starvation in the 1980s. Forty thousand species become extinct every year. Half of all species on the planet will be extinct by 2000. And on and on and on.

With so many past failures, you might think that environmental predictions would become more cautious. But not if it's a religion. Remember, the nut on the sidewalk carrying the placard that predicts the end of the world doesn't quit when the world doesn't end on the day he expects. He just changes his placard, sets a new doomsday date, and goes back to walking the streets. One of the defining features of religion is that your beliefs are not troubled by facts, because they have nothing to do with facts.

So I can tell you some facts. I know you haven't read any of what I am about to tell you in the newspaper, because newspapers literally don't report them. I can tell you that DDT is not a carcinogen and did not cause birds to die and should never have been banned. I can tell you that the people who banned it knew that it wasn't carcinogenic and banned it anyway. I can tell you that the DDT ban has caused the deaths of tens of millions of poor people, mostly children, whose deaths are directly attributable to a callous, technologically advanced western society that promoted the new cause of environmentalism by pushing a fantasy about a pesticide, and thus irrevocably harmed the third world. Banning DDT is one of the most disgraceful episodes in the twentieth century history of America. We knew better, and we did it anyway, and we let people around the world die and didn't give a damn.

I can tell you that second hand smoke is not a health hazard to anyone and never was, and the EPA has always known it. I can tell you that the evidence for global warming is far weaker than its proponents would ever admit. I can tell you the percentage the US land area that is taken by urbanization, including cities and roads, is 5%. I can tell you that the Sahara desert is shrinking, and the total ice of Antarctica is increasing. I can tell you that a blue-ribbon panel in Science magazine concluded that there is no known technology that will enable us to halt the rise of carbon dioxide in the 21st century. Not wind, not solar, not even nuclear. The panel concluded a totally new technology-like nuclear fusion-was necessary, otherwise nothing could be done and in the meantime all efforts would be a waste of time. They said that when the UN IPCC reports stated alternative technologies existed that could control greenhouse gases, the UN was wrong.

I can, with a lot of time, give you the factual basis for these views, and I can cite the appropriate journal articles not in whacko magazines, but in the most prestigious science journals, such as Science and Nature. But such references probably won't impact more than a handful of you, because the beliefs of a religion are not dependent on facts, but rather are matters of faith. Unshakeable belief.

Most of us have had some experience interacting with religious fundamentalists, and we understand that one of the problems with fundamentalists is that they have no perspective on themselves. They never recognize that their way of thinking is just one of many other possible ways of thinking, which may be equally useful or good. On the contrary, they believe their way is the right way, everyone else is wrong; they are in the business of salvation, and they want to help you to see things the right way. They want to help you be saved. They are totally rigid and totally uninterested in opposing points of view. In our modern complex world, fundamentalism is dangerous because of its rigidity and its imperviousness to other ideas.

I want to argue that it is now time for us to make a major shift in our thinking about the environment, similar to the shift that occurred around the first Earth Day in 1970, when this awareness was first heightened. But this time around, we need to get environmentalism out of the sphere of religion. We need to stop the mythic fantasies, and we need to stop the doomsday predictions. We need to start doing hard science instead.

There are two reasons why I think we all need to get rid of the religion of environmentalism.

First, we need an environmental movement, and such a movement is not very effective if it is conducted as a religion. We know from history that religions tend to kill people, and environmentalism has already killed somewhere between 10-30 million people since the 1970s. It's not a good record. Environmentalism needs to be absolutely based in objective and verifiable science, it needs to be rational, and it needs to be flexible. And it needs to be apolitical. To mix environmental concerns with the frantic fantasies that people have about one political party or another is to miss the cold truth---that there is very little difference between the parties, except a difference in pandering rhetoric. The effort to promote effective legislation for the environment is not helped by thinking that the Democrats will save us and the Republicans won't. Political history is more complicated than that. Never forget which president started the EPA: Richard Nixon. And never forget which president sold federal oil leases, allowing oil drilling in Santa Barbara: Lyndon Johnson. So get politics out of your thinking about the environment.

The second reason to abandon environmental religion is more pressing. Religions think they know it all, but the unhappy truth of the environment is that we are dealing with incredibly complex, evolving systems, and we usually are not certain how best to proceed. Those who are certain are demonstrating their personality type, or their belief system, not the state of their knowledge. Our record in the past, for example managing national parks, is humiliating. Our fifty-year effort at forest-fire suppression is a well-intentioned disaster from which our forests will never recover. We need to be humble, deeply humble, in the face of what we are trying to accomplish. We need to be trying various methods of accomplishing things. We need to be open-minded about assessing results of our efforts, and we need to be flexible about balancing needs. Religions are good at none of these things.

How will we manage to get environmentalism out of the clutches of religion, and back to a scientific discipline? There's a simple answer: we must institute far more stringent requirements for what constitutes knowledge in the environmental realm. I am thoroughly sick of politicized so-called facts that simply aren't true. It isn't that these "facts" are exaggerations of an underlying truth. Nor is it that certain organizations are spinning their case to present it in the strongest way. Not at all---what more and more groups are doing is putting out is lies, pure and simple. Falsehoods that they know to be false.

This trend began with the DDT campaign, and it persists to this day. At this moment, the EPA is hopelessly politicized. In the wake of Carol Browner, it is probably better to shut it down and start over. What we need is a new organization much closer to the FDA. We need an organization that will be ruthless about acquiring verifiable results, that will fund identical research projects to more than one group, and that will make everybody in this field get honest fast.

Because in the end, science offers us the only way out of politics. And if we allow science to become politicized, then we are lost. We will enter the Internet version of the dark ages, an era of shifting fears and wild prejudices, transmitted to people who don't know any better. That's not a good future for the human race. That's our past. So it's time to abandon the religion of environmentalism, and return to the science of environmentalism, and base our public policy decisions firmly on that.

Thank you very much.

Posted by: JCM on March 3, 2007 12:42 PM
58. Hello Edmonds,

> Question: who says that the climate RIGHT NOW is how it is supposed to be? What is the equilibrium?

Nobody claims or desires for the climate to remain constant. The climate is not subject to humankind's wishes and desires.

Those opposed to humankind's pollution and environmental destruction are seeking to limit humankind's damage to the climate. It is humankind's impact upon the climate which is the dangerous wildcard.

I would explain the problem in this fashion: While it is true that a person can die naturally and unnaturally most people prefer to die naturally.

> I of course recognize that the old Heisenberg principle applies, and ANY disturbance of a system - even observation - will affect the system. But to what degree is the question?

> Is man having an effect? Certainly! But that's not the debate...

> The debate is the DEGREE TO WHICH MAN IS HAVING AN EFFECT.

I'd say -- and this is strictly my own opinion and nothing else -- that humankind has only a slight impact upon the climate, but that this slight impact is enough to destroy civilization and render the planet inhospitable to human life.

Posted by: David Mathews on March 3, 2007 12:53 PM
59. Hello JCM,

> If you paid more attention to real scientific literature instead of the morbid phobic hype you spew you'd know that the Mars Melt is not seasonal.

The evidence presented is insufficient to prove the above assertion.

Humans don't understand the Earth's climate in spite of centuries of intense observation and investigation. Mars is a great mystery and there is only six years of direct observation and these observations are at best incomplete.

By adding Mars to the equation all that you are doing is increasing the confusion. It is best to concentrate upon the Earth because what is happening on the Earth is sufficient to destroy civilization while what may be happening on Mars will not impact anyone or anything.

Posted by: David Mathews on March 3, 2007 01:00 PM
60. DM,
Humans don't understand the Earth's climate in spite of centuries of intense observation and investigation.

Exactly what I said to you a dozen posts ago. Then you thought the data was pretty clear. We don't understand climate. And that is exactly the point... we don't understand.

Therefore it is simply NOT POSSIBLE to claim humans are a prime causal effect of the current warming period.

Mars is what in science is called a control. Mars is exactly what we need to look at as a comparison. Mars is not infested with those pesky parasites called humans. You don't want to look at Mars because it throws cold water all over the your contention that GW is man made. Instead of dealing with the issue, you say it "increases confusion."

Posted by: JCM on March 3, 2007 02:03 PM
61. Hello JCM,

> We don't understand climate.

Appeals to ignorance do not constitute valid refutations.

> Therefore it is simply NOT POSSIBLE to claim humans are a prime causal effect of the current warming period.

This is an irrational argument. Humans do not yet comprehend how the brain functions and yet we know that LSD will alter the brain in various negative ways.

LSD's impact upon the brain is knowable even when the brain's operations remain unknown & unexplained.

In the same sense: Although the climate is exceptionally complicated and humans don't yet understand it, there is substantial and incontrovertible evidence that humans can impact the climate by pollution & environmental degradation.

Climate Change is real. Humans are having a negative impact upon both the climate and the environment. Shall we continue these destructive behaviors in order to verify that our ignorance can destroy civilization?

> Mars is what in science is called a control. Mars is exactly what we need to look at as a comparison. Mars is not infested with those pesky parasites called humans. You don't want to look at Mars because it throws cold water all over the your contention that GW is man made. Instead of dealing with the issue, you say it "increases confusion."

Mars cannot function as a control. Humans do not possess historical records of Mars' climate. Humans do not possess adequate direct observations of Martian weather.

All that we know for certain is that Mars' ice caps are melting. The relevance of this information to humankind's behavior on the Earth is questionable.

Posted by: David Mathews on March 3, 2007 02:37 PM
62. Stefan, can you please do something about freak-trolls like DM? It reminds me of the geek on "Southpark" living in garbage, challenging children to WarCraft on-line 24/ 7. Anything outside of his Helen Caldicott, Jane Elliott, Noam Chomsky- centered universe simply does not compute. The Luddites are going to wreck the world and murder a few million people in the process because of their need to shut down industrial economies in the name of GW (but they'll feel smugly superior in their Hybrids).

Posted by: Attila on March 3, 2007 02:47 PM
63. Global warming and less Cascade snowpacks are not necessarily corollary. What creates snowpack in the mountains is precipitation, not whether or not there is global warming. Meaning that we can have a warmer rain down here in the lowlands, but it will still fall as snow in the mountains. What would create problems for the Cascade snowpack is if the global warming is associated with drier weather, which does not necessarily follow.

The driest years (but not the necessarily the warmest) for the Cascades were in the 1920's and 1930's (when we had the dust bowl in the plains). The 1970's were the snowiest, and the 1990's were also very snowy. It was the 1980's that were fairly dry as we had a lot of warm dry falls in the late 80's, but the 1980's were still snowier than the 1960's. Since 2000, the snow has been better than the 1980's, but not as good as the 1990's or the 1970's. This year has been a very good year, as was last year too. Anytime Mt. Baker pushes 200 inches of snow on the ground, you are talking about a ton of snow sitting on the ground. That has been the case the last two years. And so if we are in global warming right now as we are so often being told, then we already have proof that this does not mean that the Cascades will have less snowpack as the paper suggests.

Mark Musser
Building Industry Assocation of Washington

Posted by: Mark Musser on March 3, 2007 03:04 PM
64. Al Gore will soon be known as "God" for he will have invented the Earth.

Or at least how to make $185k per speech, while living in 4 homes and flying a private jet everywhere he goes.

Anyway, he will most likely be coming to a church near you soon!

All Hail to the savior of our times.

I will give him some credit, however, he does not seem to be chasing Eve around the nearest Olive tree.

Posted by: GS on March 3, 2007 03:48 PM
65. Hello Attila,

> The Luddites are going to wreck the world and murder a few million people in the process because of their need to shut down industrial economies in the name of GW (but they'll feel smugly superior in their Hybrids).

Industrial civilization has already murdered a few million people -- over 100 million in the World Wars alone -- and it does have the potential to murder millions more.

Do you care about the people who are already dying or are you actually defending your own entitlement to prosperity, luxury and the American Way of Life?

Attila, there are 2,000,000,000 humans who are impoverished, living on less than $2 of income a day, deprived of the basic necessities of life, living in slums, subject to oppression and all sorts of violence, and utterly hopeless.

Do you care about these two billion people, Attila?

Or do you care only about your own privilege?

And what of the future, Attila?

Do you care about the well-being and survival of Americans forty years in the future (that is, well within our own lifetimes)?

Polluting the Earth at an ever-accelerating rate appears very much like an act of suicide to me. Shall we perform this experiment and pray to God that climate change is harmless?

Technological civilization is dangerous to a primate species' health. Humans are placing a big bet upon the future survival of Homo sapiens and I suspect that humankind will lose this bet.

Shall we drive humankind to extinction for the sake of air conditioners, cars, shopping and obesity?

Posted by: David Mathews on March 3, 2007 05:05 PM
66. Hello Mark Musser,

The Building Industry Association of Washington appears to possess a rather substantial conflict of interest regarding Global Warming.

You claim:

> And so if we are in global warming right now as we are so often being told, then we already have proof that this does not mean that the Cascades will have less snowpack as the paper suggests.

But apparently the scientists disagree with you:


"The average snow water equivalent observed at six USDA Snotel stations in the North Cascades on April 1 has declined 26% over the last 60 years. During this same interval winter precipitation has not declined, see below. Thus, this change in snowpack is due to more winter melting and more frequent winter rain events."
SNOWPACK VARIATIONS IN THE NORTH CASCADES:
NORTH CASCADE GLACIER CLIMATE PROJECT

Well, who should I believe ... the scientists or the developers?

Posted by: David Mathews on March 3, 2007 05:13 PM
67. Hello Mark Musser,

I examined the website for your organization and scanned over one of its magazines:

Developers' Lobbyist Magazine

And I must say, you developers are vile people. You developers are criminals. Destroying Nature and creating horrendous suburbs for the sake of your own profits, have you no shame?

Does the Developers' Lobbyist organization bother to inform its customers that their houses are gone to become a lot less valuable when gasoline is $5 a gallon and gasoline is rationed?

These poor people are going to become stranded in the suburbs and then they will become impoverished and then live is going to get really difficult. You have created a horrendous mess for these people to inherit.

They may love you now but within a decade the public will fully realize the magnitude of the crime which the developers have committed against the American people.

Not that it will make much of a difference at that time ...

Posted by: David Mathews on March 3, 2007 05:48 PM
68. Where is the scientific proof that man causes global warming?
Science is conclusive and can be duplicated over and over like 2+2=4

Some "inconvenient truths" for Al Gore and his friends:
1) There is no scientific consensus on global warming
2) Climate is always changing- with or without man.
3) hurricanes are not getting worse-our tendency to build houses in their path is getting greater
4) Many big businesses lobby global warming policies that will increase their profits- and our cost.
5) The Medieval Warming Period was significantly warmer than temperatures today-and was a golden age for agriculture, innovation, and lifespan.

Christopher C. Horner is a senor fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and acknowledged expert on global warming legislation and regulation, and has spoken before Senate committees and the European Parliament.

Exposing the greens' absurdity

"Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early twenty first century's developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of influence, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.

Christopher Horner takes us through this story, including fascinating investigations into the role of major industries and the muzzling of science, with verve, humor and a genuine concern for accuracy. His descriptions will provoke laughter as well as recognition that tears are more in order'.
-Dr Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences MIT; member of the National Academy of Science and former lead author, UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

I just finished reading The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism by Christopher C. Horner
and am watching the C-Span coverage of this issue and have notice that Russia alone would receive 39 billion dollars of co2 credits yearly and will represent a 300 billion dollar hit to our economy.

Here are some facts for the people that are politicizing this old issue; Al Gore is trying to invent another new industry like he did the internet.

Pass this along so people can get the book and see the facts through all the smoke!!

Posted by: Bill on March 3, 2007 06:48 PM
69. The New Religion is Global Warming
by Tom DeWeese (February 16, 2005)
The UN finally got what it wanted. The Kyoto Climate Change treaty becomes 'international law' this month on Wednesday. The treaty went into full effect with the approval by the Russian Federation, even without the support of the United States. Time will tell if and when the treaty will begin to affect the U.S. economy. What is certain is that truth and reason had no part in the process.

Global warming has become a new religion. No one is supposed to question whether it is a fact. I did and for my trouble I was labeled a "moron," a "liar;" one who wants to "blow up the world," and just plain "evil" to name a few from a mass of mail I received.

In particular, my article stated that there is no scientific evidence to support claims of man-made global warming. I pointed out that there is division among scientists and that there is no "consensus" among them.
I also reported that there are scientists who promote political agendas over truth to keep the grants coming in. And I said that the UN's 1996 report issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was edited at the last minute to remove two very important paragraphs that specifically said science showed no clear evidence of man-made climate change. Those were all facts.

Apparently I'm a moron for reporting them because as one letter said, "Everyone knows global warming is real."

In response to these Luddites, I simply present this: A federal hurricane research scientist named Chris Landsea has resigned from the UN-sponsored climate assessment team because his group's leader had politicized the process. Landsea said there was little evidence to justify Kevin Trenberth's assertion in October that global warming was responsible for the strong hurricanes experienced this past year and that "the North Atlantic hurricane Season of 2004 may well be a harbinger of the future."

Said Landsea in his resignation letter, "It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity had been due to global warming. My view is that when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current scientific understandings that this will harm the credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy."

Landsea closed his resignation letter by saying, "I personally cannot in good faith contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound."

There you have it. Two kinds of scientists. One standing for true science based on the facts. The other pushing a political agenda that says science be damned, our global religion is at stake.

Global Warming has become a religion that the faithful have vowed to follow no matter what the true facts may show. Global Warming is a theory, nothing more, and large numbers of scientists around the world are beginning to question its validity. There is no consensus of support.

The fact is the Kyoto Protocol will have absolutely no effect on climate change, but the faithful demand that it be implemented anyway, because "we have to do something." In 1990, Timothy Wirth, who later became Bill Clinton's Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs said, "We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong we will be doing the right thing..."

Global Warming is nothing more than a euphemism for redistribution of wealth from the rich, development nations to jealous dictatorships who refuse to allow their citizens the right to gain their own wealth through free markets. It's about political redistribution from strong, independent sovereign nations into the hands of a power-hungry global elite cowering in the United Nations. These are the same cowardly scoundrels who used to try to rule the world through global communism. Today they pretend that the same lies have something to do with protecting the environment.

The truth is there is no man-made global warming. There's only the scam of an empty global religion designed to condemn human progress and sucker the feeble minded into worldwide human misery. I rest my case. Amen.
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4139
Take a look here, for starters, and educate yourself about how one progress from hypothesis to theory and on to fact. But be forewarned facts are only recognized as such until they run up against a single piece of evidence that disproves them...as Newtonian physics did. Global warming as preached by Gore has been blown out of the water years ago. It is not a fact, in fact it is not even a valid theory at this point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Posted by: Bill on March 3, 2007 07:05 PM
70. David Matthews would be posting on HA, except for the fact that being a F'n Self proclaimed Know it all democrap, he would have direct competition with the number one poster rabbit there.

But I will give RR credit, at least he occasionally has a sense of humor.

DM needs to really get a new life, Mars might not be far enough off, but it fits his extinct predictions to a tee.

Posted by: GS on March 3, 2007 07:28 PM
71. What ever happened to acid rain? Is that doomsday now solved? As I recall, polution would rain from the sky, melting trees and eventualy people.

Posted by: Elaine on March 3, 2007 09:58 PM
72. David Mathews wrote: "Attila, there are 2,000,000,000 humans who are impoverished, living on less than $2 of income a day, deprived of the basic necessities of life, living in slums, subject to oppression and all sorts of violence, and utterly hopeless."

The problem isn't "our pollution" or "America's Evil Consumption". The problem is the dicatorships and oppression in those other countries. I know, I've been to many of them...

There is enough food AND energy AND resources for EVERYONE on the Earth to live quite well! The distribution is extremely skewed, but that's not because "we" want to keep it. It's because when it's sent to impoverished nations, the thugs running those nations keep it all for their own purposes.

Rwanda was a politically-driven nightmare. Likewise with Darfur. And likewise with the Ethiopian famine. It wasn't for a lack of food that people died; it was from a lack of political will by the hand-wringing liberals at the UN, the EU, and here at home that action wasn't taken.

Why was Zimbabwe the bread-basket of Africa in the 80s, and now a basket-case itself?

You want to IMMEDIATELY end most of the suffering of those 2 billion people? Take action. Don't be afraid to engage in nation building. If the UN is to be relevant, then it needs to actually carry out some actions beyond watching genocide - take action and remove a few despots, and the others will fall in line.

Witness Qaddafi and others after we eliminated Saddam...

Posted by: Edmonds Dan on March 3, 2007 11:23 PM
73. Matthews, wake up. Quit looking into Al Gore's eyes, quit listening to his drone that lulls the brain to sleep.
You do nothing but recite things from leftist watermelon mother earth news types while saying people that get study money from the petro-chemical industry are bad. That's a big case of Gore Hypocracy in action.

Posted by: PC on March 3, 2007 11:31 PM
74. "Humans don't understand the Earth's climate in spite of centuries of intense observation and investigation. Mars is a great mystery and there is only six years of direct observation and these observations are at best incomplete."

And there it is - we don't understadd climate change YET David Mathews glams onto it BECAUSE it supports HIS agenda. That's how I read him, how about you? Ludites, yes that's a good place to start. There is history there. We can take a very close look at this movement as a good starting place. What has happened is more likely to happen again than something which has never happened. Prophesies of doom have not been fulfilled in the past - yet they continue on. So where do we take this? To Kyoto, I say not and David says yes. I am an engineer and am predisposed to say "let's look at the evidence before acting on it." In plain and simple words "I don't see a preponderance of evidence for Anthropogenic GW being contributary in a significant way." David admits that he doesn't either YET he almost demands that I accept his "cure." David what I say is "you have not shown me that you have scientific evidence for what your assertions." I'm sorry but billions of people depend consumption (in a small but important way mne too) to lift them from poverty. I provide a service many want and in doing so they give me the where with all to buy SOMETHING from others. Now get this straight what I am buying from them is what they have to offer and in trading what they have to offer they in turn trade for what others have to offer. Can I eat my engineering? no. But today we traded some of my engineering for grapes that someone from Chile produced. Can this person engineer a drinking water system on his own? No, but he and other grape growers can trade for engineering that will. I could grow my own grapes, but at what cost to global society? Guess what part of the incentive for me to engineer which allows me to tradefor grapes is that I can trade for energy. Markets are complex and this is a too simple explanation because energy is also an integral part of what fuels the American economy. Every body would have less to trade without it. Now IF it were PROVEN that America's energy consumption was destroying our future or even likely destroying humanity's future I would be inclined to consider your position and prescription as valid, but I don't believe it is. In fact I believe the oposite.

Posted by: JDH on March 3, 2007 11:41 PM
75. Hello Everyone,

For those who want to develop a real appreciation for the horrendous impact of humankind's pollution on the most remote corners of the Earth, I recommend this video:

Pollution Killing Midway Island Birds

Needless to say, for decades humans have dumped plastics in the ocean either not knowing or not caring about where the pollution would end up. There are millions of tons of plastic floating in the remote ocean and animals are suffering & dying.

Such irresponsible behavior does not inspire confidence in the future survival of Homo sapiens.

Posted by: David Mathews on March 4, 2007 03:18 AM
76. Hello Elaine,

> What ever happened to acid rain? Is that doomsday now solved? As I recall, polution would rain from the sky, melting trees and eventualy people.

The sheer magnitude of conservative ignorance is on display here at SoundPolitics.

Elaine, have you ever visited Great Smoky Mountains National Park? Well, I have visited the place ten times. If you visit Clingman's Dome you will find yourself surrounded by an entire forest which was killed by acid rain:

"Which forest regions are most affected by acid rain?
Acid rain has primarily impacted high-elevation spruce trees that grow on the ridges of the Appalachian Mountains from Maine to Georgia, including spruce trees in the Shenandoah National Park and the Great Smokey Mountains National Park."
Environmental Benefits of Reducing Acid Rain

When a conservative attempts to deny Global Warming by denying Acid Rain, I know that I am speaking to the scientifically illiterate.

Do you want to know how Americans solved the problem of acid rain? You should read. Get educated. Learn something new. Become a responsible citizen.

Posted by: David Mathews on March 4, 2007 03:28 AM
77. Hello Edmonds,

> There is enough food AND energy AND resources for EVERYONE on the Earth to live quite well! The distribution is extremely skewed, but that's not because "we" want to keep it. It's because when it's sent to impoverished nations, the thugs running those nations keep it all for their own purposes.

God, why are these conservatives so scientifically illiterate?

Hey Edmonds, you are expressing one of the most profound lies of capitalism in the above paragraph.

It is simply & scientifically impossible for 6.5 billion humans to live like obese Americans driving their SUVs to the mall and keeping their McMansions climate controlled at 78 degrees year-round.

The most dramatic proof of this principle: The Earth produces 85 million barrels of oil a day. The United States of America consumes 25% of the world's oil.

In other words: If the average Chinese citizen consumed oil at the same rate as the average obese American, China alone would consume 100% of the world's daily oil production.

The Earth does not possess enough resources to provide 6.5 billion people with a Middle Class lifestyle. This is the reason why 2,000,000,000 people are locked into perpetual poverty and have no hope whatsoever of escape.

By consuming so much Americans are depriving billions of people the basic necessities of life. But Americans really don't care about these people, do they?

Posted by: David Mathews on March 4, 2007 03:39 AM
78. Hello JDH,

> Now IF it were PROVEN that America's energy consumption was destroying our future or even likely destroying humanity's future I would be inclined to consider your position and prescription as valid, but I don't believe it is.

You are seriously mistaken, JDH. Even if it could be proven that America's lifestyle is threatening the future survival of Homo sapiens you still would not make any sacrifices. Our capitalistic economic system punishes sacrificers harshly regardless of their motives: Without a job you would lose you home and starve to death.

Capitalism rewards those who destroy & pollute the environment: See ExxonMobil. The more reckless & irresponsible a corporation is the greater its profits. If the corporations behaviors become so odious as to become regulated in a prosperous & politically powerful nation, these corporations can & will move their operations to Third World countries where no restrictions exist and therefore they can pollute at will regardless of the consequences.

Needless to say, all of the financial incentives are geared towards consuming, degrading, polluting and exhausting the Earth. A living forest is worthless, a clear-cut desolate wasteland generated millions of dollars of profits and plenty of jobs.

When I look at the Earth and humankind's behavior, I can reach one and only one conclusion: Homo sapiens are committing suicide by self-extinction. That's how reckless & irresponsible humans are behaving on the Earth.

Needless to say, humans have already profusely displayed a propensity for suicide. Look at all the nuclear bombs. Remember Mutually Assurred Destruction?

Humans are destroying the Earth and destroying humankind's future. This treadmill of destruction does not allow for any escape. Humans will stop destroying the Earth only when humans have succeeded at driving Homo sapiens extinct.

Too bad for humankind, but Nature will recover.

Posted by: David Mathews on March 4, 2007 03:50 AM
79. David said, "In other words: If the average Chinese citizen consumed oil at the same rate as the average obese American, China alone would consume 100% of the world's daily oil production."
It's a good thing we have Al Gore. Now I can rent a poor Chinese family to offset my petroleum use. It's all good.
Oh, and David, what do plastics in the ocean have to do with global warming?

Posted by: Elaine on March 4, 2007 07:14 AM
80. Hello Elaine,

> It's a good thing we have Al Gore. Now I can rent a poor Chinese family to offset my petroleum use. It's all good.

Oh my, Elaine, you conservatives are really making me depressed. The sheer magnitude of scientific, economic, religious, ethical and moral ignorance on display here is really depressing.

Elaine, you really don't know, do you? You are walking about on the Earth as an entitled American consumer and have failed to notice the ground crumbling beneath your own very feet. You must think that God guarantees this lifestyle to you, the Universes is obligated to supply the appetites of Americans, the collective mass of humankind must remain subjugated to America's will.

Elaine, you aren't going to rent the poor Chinese family. The poor Chinese are going to own you. The first shall be last and the last first, as Jesus said (Matthew 19:30).

Don't you know that without China's generosity, America's economy would have died already. China's not a weak country any longer. China has a trillion American dollars in the bank, should China ever decide to dispose of them Americans will become very poor very fast.

America's era of world dominance is quickly coming to an end. I pray to God that it may end quickly because these American's don't deserve anything. They are obese and uncompetitive and obscene and addicted to all sorts of dangerous substances.

God will punish America. Americans will feel God's wrath. Americans will also feel Nature's wrath, too. If America isn't careful, America might even feel China's wrath too.

> Oh, and David, what do plastics in the ocean have to do with global warming?

Do I have to explain everything to you, Elaine. I am not here on Soundpolitics to educate the ignorant. If you cannot comprehend why I would mention plastic pollution within the context of this conversation this will only serve to indicate your own massive ignorance regarding ecology, science, and the negative human impact upon the environment.

Nature is going to eradicate Homo sapiens from the Earth. Humankind's extinction is approaching fast. Humans have squandered their one & only opportunity in the Universe. Only sorrows and horrors remain for humankind. The primate species is committing suicide, the pitiable primate that entertains so many vain boasts of near-divinity and virtual-immortality.

Elaine, I have a little message from God to you and the rest of humankind:

There is no eternal Heaven waiting for humankind in the afterlife, nor is there any sort of eternal Hell waiting for humankind in the afterlife ... Humans are unworthy of either of these fates. When humankind is gone, humankind will become both nonexistent and forgotten from the Universe and God's mind, too. God has grown weary of humankind's violence, destructiveness, and exteme foolishness. God will not struggle with humankind for too much longer. God has authorized Nature to solve the human problem using Nature's harsh and extremely effective techniques.

The chance for redemption has passed. God's mercy is exhausted. God is prepared to wipe to slate clean and start working again on the Earth from scratch.

Too bad for humankind. Too, too bad.

Posted by: David Mathews on March 4, 2007 11:16 AM
81. David Mathews has conceded his arguments many times over by failing to respond factually, or by simply dismissing conservaties, agreeing that man has little effect on Global Warming, or simply through logical fallacy such as Ignoratio Elenchi. There's no reason for anyone here to respond to him. Simply let his spew his man hating, and that will speak volumes on its own.

Posted by: Foxer on March 4, 2007 12:50 PM
82. Hello Foxer,

Well, if my opinions are not sufficient to inform you ... educated people that you are ... I will appeal to another source:

"Matthew Simmons, a distinguished petroleum investor who is no liberal Democrat tree-hugger like me, he is one of the Bush family's close friends. He's a conservative Republican. He says we have 35 years of recoverable oil left. The Saudis and Exxon say no, no we've probably got 100 years. Now the oldest city in civilization according to carbon dating that we know about today is Jericho in the Middle East, 10,000 years old. That means that the real happy talk people are saying we have a hundred years out of 10,000, one percent of the whole history of civilization, left to burn oil."
Bill Clinton: Five Questions for the 21st Century

Here we have an odd amalgamation: Bill Clinton, democrat, and Matthew Simmons, Republican energy banker. They both are unified in the message that under both the pessimisitic and wildly optimisitic scenarios our manner of life is coming to an end within decades or at most a century.

If you people think that America's dominance and lifestyle are eternal, too bad for you. Seems like the Universe doesn't agree.

Americans are so astonishingly oblivious to reality and science that our society is governed by delusions and little else. The United States of America does not possess an eternal empire, nor can it avoid the negative consequences of its sins forever.

Americans should begin making substantial sacrifices now because this will serve to minimize future suffering. But Americans are addicts and for that reason they cannot contemplate any other lifestyle except for this obese American lifestyle which is unhealthy and polluting the entire planet.

I don't imagine that there is anyone here wise enough to actually respond to these dangers until they reach catastrophic proportions. Do as you wish. Your children will suffer, but that is their own problem and therefore of no concern to you.

Americans won't wake up from their drug-induced coma until Nature deprives Americans of their drug. When gasoline is scarce and expensive and impossible to find, Americans will finally realize that the end has come. Maybe then Americans will regret the profligate lifestyle of the SUV hyperconsumer.

Do what you wish. America's fate is already settled. Keep on shopping, as George W. Bush so often admonishes the American people. Keep on shopping and driving and watching television and engaging your gluttonous appetites.

Posted by: David Mathews on March 4, 2007 01:10 PM
83. Fact is most greenhouse gases are NOT Manmade

1)Nitrous Oxide- 95% natural-5% manmade

2)CFC's-34% Natural- 66% manmade

3)Methane-82% natural- 18% manmade

4)co2-97% natural- 3% manmade

If the communist Dave Mathews would shut his mouth we could reduce his vile exhaust.

I asked this question of Mathews weeks ago and if he could read he would have discovered the truth!

Posted by: Bill on March 4, 2007 02:09 PM
84. 'Global Warming Is Lies' Claims New Documentary...
'The Great Global Warming Swindle' Set to Rock Climate Debate...http://www.drudgereport.com/

Posted by: Bill on March 4, 2007 02:21 PM
85. This documentary will be shown in the UK next week. I can well imagine that the left wing socialist media complex is scrambling at this very minute trying to come up with schemes that will discredit and suppress it here. After Gore was exposed as a total phoney this past week it's time for left to start sweating. It could be that their chickens are coming home to roost.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on March 4, 2007 02:36 PM
86. David Mathews uttered:
God, why are these conservatives so scientifically illiterate?

Perhaps because they are skeptics and actually want FACTS, not just jury-rigged models that ignore data and change as desired for political purposes?

Hey Edmonds, you are expressing one of the most profound lies of capitalism in the above paragraph.

Really? And your reasoning is?

It is simply & scientifically impossible for 6.5 billion humans to live like obese Americans driving their SUVs to the mall and keeping their McMansions climate controlled at 78 degrees year-round.

The STRAW MAN! Please RE-READ what I wrote... There is "enough food AND energy AND resources for EVERYONE on the Earth to live quite well!"

Did I say "LIKE IN AN AMERICAN SUBURB?" Nope. You have the reading comprehension of a 3rd grader...

Having just gotten back from 2 weeks in China (Shanghai, Minghang district, towards Hongqiao airport), I can tell you DEFINITIVELY you can live QUITE well in Shanghai on a LOT less than what it takes in America. Why?

1. Excellent public transportation - Shanghai is well suited to it, like many European cities (and some American cities; the geography in Seattle makes subways and light rail particularly bad in terms of use).

2. Much lower cost of living. A nice 1000 square foot 2 bedroom/1 bath apartment (really quite spacious) - which I rent over there - runs $330 per month. Oh, that includes twice-weekly maid service to clean the floors, empty the trash, clean the bathroom. I do the dishes and laundry.

3. Lower cost of food. Nothing like a 300 gram (10 ounce) strip steak for 9 RMB ($1.20).

4. Lower cost of clothing, thanks to lower wages. I get tailored wool suits for 700 RMB ($90) and silk shirts for 170 RMB ($20). Being a big "obese" American (6 feet, 280 pounds, but with a 56" chest, 40" waist, and 19" biceps - built like a defensive end but healthy as a horse) getting tailored clothes is a true treasure.

Oh, and the water from the tap is safe to drink, too... (but get used to the lightswitches - you flip them DOWN to turn the lights on - how's that?).

No, in China - and Chile, Slovakia, Haiti, and India, the other 2nd/3rd world countries I've lived in - you can live VERY well, VERY comfortably, on a lot less than in the US. Like $1500/month in Shanghai, China and $1000/month in Vina del Mar, Chile. And use a LOT less energy to do so.

An office manager in Shanghai - a very middle class position - earns 10,000 RMB per month (about $1300 per month). Good pay in Shanghai, excellent pay in Huangzhou, Ningbo, Panyu, or several other modern places in China.

The most dramatic proof of this principle: The Earth produces 85 million barrels of oil a day. The United States of America consumes 25% of the world's oil.

In other words: If the average Chinese citizen consumed oil at the same rate as the average obese American, China alone would consume 100% of the world's daily oil production.

So we can up production, then... Open ANWR, the Gulf Coast, the California Coast. Get the tar sands in Wyoming going. We can up the oil production significantly, if we had the political will...

But guess what - you don't need to consume like the US in much of the world. In some places, though, you need to consume more (depending upon the climate; energy usage is a LOT higher in Fairbanks, AK than it is in Eureka, CA).

The US consumes a lot because - get this - we're a FREAKING BIG COUNTRY! Ever been to Europe? Drive from Paris to Cologne, Germany. Go half-way across France, through southern Belgium, and well into Germany. About 5 hours.

Or about how long it takes to drive from Bellingham to Spokane - still in one state!

No, most of the world is a LOT more compact than us, so of course it takes less energy to move people, food, and stuff around...

And perhaps rather than using oil for heating and rail transport, we should look to electricity and "GASP!" nuclear power? There's PLENTY of energy, if we're willing to actually USE it. Nuclear alone could power us along VERY nicely. You know, like the French and Germans. And Japanese. Countries where the vast majority of their power comes from nuclear.

Oh, don't want to go nuclear? Want to use "renewable power"? How about tidal? Just the tidal power of the Puget Sound alone (1000 square miles of surface area with 15 feet of tides twice a day) would power every household in Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Alaska. About 5 million households. With a SINGLE power generator - tidal! We could eliminate ALL natural gas, coal, and nuclear plants in the Northwest. Eliminate every dam on every river with just the power in the Puget Sound.

Or keep the power generation we have now, use Puget Sound, San Fransisco Bay, and Cook Inslet in Alaska, and we could eliminate all the coal fired power plants in the US. Completely.

The tidal power in the Bay of Fundy alone would replace 250 nuclear power plants...

Oh, and unlike solar or wind or wave, tidal ALWAYS happens. It doesn't suffer from clouds, or windless days. It doesn't change. See, here in the NW we actually HAVE tides, unlike you guys in Florida... We have sea levels that change dramatically twice a day. Maybe that's why you're so freaked out about 12" of sea level rise over the next century, and here couldn't care less - we see 15X that every single day, twice a day.

You want to be environmentally responsible? Want to help out Mother Earth? Push tidal power - the other "renewable power sources" don't offer the consistency of generation required, and thus are not realistic. Tidal does.

The Earth does not possess enough resources to provide 6.5 billion people with a Middle Class lifestyle. This is the reason why 2,000,000,000 people are locked into perpetual poverty and have no hope whatsoever of escape.

Yes, it does support the resources to do so. I've lived middle-class - quite comfortably - in many countries, for a lot less than the US price. That includes heating, AC, broadband Internet, TV, radio, cell phones, transportation, food, medical, nice clean housing, luxury time, travel.

It's a lot cheaper to live an equivalent lifestyle overseas in many places as compared to the US. Just like in some cities - London, Munich, Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Paris, New York, Miami, Los Angeles - it's a LOT more expensive to live middle-class than in Tacoma or Spokane or Bellingham or Walla Walla.

The reason 2 billion people are in poverty is because we allow their governments to keep them there. Dictators do it. Selfish greed by those who siezed power. Usually communist or socialist in nature.

Look no further than Chile to see what capitalism and democracy can do for a nation. Completely turned it around, it's now thriving, safe, comfortable, wealthy, fun. And capitalistic to no end - thanks to General Pinochet and Milton Friedman.

What keeps people in poverty is socialism or communism. Capitalism is THE answer. Wherever capitalism has been tried, standards of living improved. Wherever socialism or communism are the norm, standards of living fall. That's a fact.

By consuming so much Americans are depriving billions of people the basic necessities of life. But Americans really don't care about these people, do they?

We're depriving them, really? We don't care?

- We export over 20 million of tons of grain for humanitarian reasons every year, for free. This is enough to meet the FDA daily grain requirements of 120 MILLION people.

- We loan more money to the IMF than anyone else - with really no chance that most will get paid back. Right now, we're slated to donate $37 BILLION this year, over 17% of all IMF funds. And we're the country pushing the hardest to forgive back IMF loans.

- We give - as a society, not a government - over $260 BILLION a year in charitable giving, a lot of that going overseas.

- We (as a government) provide more aid to the rest of the world than most of the rest of the world combined. Our Office of Development Assistance giving alone - $27 BILLION in 2005. More than Germany, France, Sweden, Finland, Norway, New Zealand, and Luxembourg. COMBINED. More than double ANYONE else (Japan, being just over $13 billion).

- We export technologies that better the world, things like the Internet, phone systems, water treatment plants, nuclear plants, airplanes, computers, vaccines, medical procedures.

Perhaps it's not us, but the dictators and rulers abroad who keep their people down? Who do not let them experience the benefits that the US brings forth? Who take what we deliver and keep it for their own purposes, not for the general population.

And when we try to enforce distribution to the masses, people on the Left scream "NATION BUILDING! OPPRESSORS! YOU WANT TO TAKE POSSESSION OF THE COUNTRY! RESPECT THEIR CULTURE AS EQUAL TO OURS!".

See, I've actually LIVED overseas in many countries - Germany, Belgium, Spain, Chile, Saudi Arabia, China, South Korea, Haiti (in the mid 80s), Slovakia. I've seen what the differences are, and what works and what doesn't. In many cultures and continents.

Universally, those areas or countries that turn to capitalism succeed. Do they still have poor? Sure, but the poor in the capitalistic society are MUCH better off than those in the dictatorships. Would you rather be poor in the US or middle class in Haiti? That's a VERY easy choice...

Where the government rules with an iron fist - like in a lot of western China, in Haiti, in Saudi Arabia, and in the early 90s in Slovakia - the general populace suffers immensely.

This isn't from some political-point-driven paper with made up references - this is from first-hand experience. From living and WORKING with the local population. From talking with people at the market, while standing in line at the subway, while picking up dinner from a restaurant.

Get a life, get a clue...

Posted by: Edmonds Dan on March 4, 2007 05:13 PM
87. Hello Edmonds,

Are you denying the existence of two billion impoverished people or are you blaming these people for their circumstances?

Posted by: David Mathews on March 4, 2007 06:24 PM
88. hey stefan:

instead of serving this red meat raw with a dash of irony, why not link to some "scientific" articles to serve as fuel for discussion?

d

Posted by: dinesh on March 4, 2007 06:38 PM
89. edmonds dan (dan edmonds?):

nice post.

d

Posted by: dinesh on March 4, 2007 07:46 PM
90. David Mathews spewed forth:
Hello Edmonds,

Are you denying the existence of two billion impoverished people or are you blaming these people for their circumstances?

Can't you READ?

The reason 2 billion people are in poverty is because we allow their governments to keep them there. Dictators do it. Selfish greed by those who siezed power. Usually communist or socialist in nature.

That's what I posted. It's the people running those countries that are to blame.

Personally, I'd like to see the US - and the UN, and the EU - a bit more involved in "nation building". It worked out really well for Japan, South Korea, and all of the EU when we did it like it should be done. And seems to be going fairly well in Iraq, too...

Let it be known around the world that if you're a thug, a dictator who cares not one whit for his fellow countrymen, then you have forfeit your life, and we'll see to there WILL be regime change...

Bottom line: I've actually gone out and LIVED in many countries, seen what the middle class is like, and LIVED AS A MIDDLE CLASS PERSON in many of those places around the world.

You hide in your air conditioned place in Florida pleading with people to think about the "death of us all!" from global warming.

Get out of our chair and go try living in a foreign country for a month or two. You may learn something...

Posted by: Edmonds Dan on March 4, 2007 07:56 PM
91. I agree with Edmonds Dan. If you have even a hint of a brain, what you learn when living abroad is to be a patriot. A nostalgic one, I might add, whose chest gets tight when the American flag is raised, whose voice trembles a little when singing our national anthem, and who will fight to the death to preserve all that those symbols stand for.

Posted by: katomar on March 4, 2007 10:22 PM
92. Nice comment Edmonds Dan. The facts are out there, but Marxists want control, and so they continue to bleating of crisis. But, I also agree with Foxer. There's no need to respond to DM. He's already negated and conceded his arguments.

Posted by: Jeff B. on March 4, 2007 11:25 PM
93. Hello Edmonds,

> The reason 2 billion people are in poverty is because we allow their governments to keep them there. Dictators do it. Selfish greed by those who siezed power. Usually communist or socialist in nature.

Okay, Edmonds, you have quite an economic theory here but not much else.

Now, let's perform a little experiment: If these two billion people were to follow your advice and become prosperous, what sort of impact would that have upon America's prosperity?

I will tell you what will happen:

1. Mexico would consume all of its oil production, and it would need to import oil to satisfy demand.

2. Nigeria would consume all of its oil production and need to import oil.

3. Venezuela would consume all of its oil production and need to import oil.

4. The Middle East would consume all of its own oil.

5. China's demand for oil would surpass America's.

In other words, Edmonds, the demand for oil would skyrocket while the supply of oil available for export would diminish.

America's prosperity, powered in large measure by abundant cheap oil, would quickly evaporate away. As America's prosperity is already evaporating away.

So when the United States of America suffers an economic collapse and the American people become impoverished, what happens to your theory that democracy + free market capitalism = guaranteed prosperity?

Posted by: David Mathews on March 5, 2007 04:02 AM
94. Hello Edmonds,

> Let it be known around the world that if you're a thug, a dictator who cares not one whit for his fellow countrymen, then you have forfeit your life, and we'll see to there WILL be regime change...

What about all of the thugs & dictators who are America's allies?

Saddam Hussein was an ally of the United States of America until he invaded Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia.

And what of our ally Saudi Arabia? The Saudis have enjoyed American protectorate status since the 1940's but America has done nothing to being democracy to the Saudi citizens.

Remember, for all of our kindness to the House of Saud, the majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. Maybe we should have provided freedom & democracy to the Saudis before we attempted to give it as a gift to the Iraqis.

America is a nation which has abused human rights and overthrown democracies when it served America's economic interests. We aren't such a righteous nation after all, then, are we?

Posted by: David Mathews on March 5, 2007 04:11 AM
95. Hello Jeff B.,

> There's no need to respond to DM. He's already negated and conceded his arguments.

This coming from a group of people who are so ignorant and scientifically illiterate that they actually believe that Global Warming means that it won't be cold in winter!

You people don't even have an argument, Jeff! That's why Stefan has become a meteorologists. If a snowflake falls, according to Stefan, that is a refutation of global warming.

The level of pure scientific ignorance on SoundPolitics is typical of what a person would find in a group of Young Earth Creationists as they boast, "Don't know much about geology, paleontology or physics; but at least I can read the Bible!"

You people don't have an argument, but (even worse) you people fail to notice that you aren't even attempting to argue. Plenty of conservatives have already conceded that global warming is occurring.

The whole issue of global warming is settled. Only the uneducated & ignorant continue to deny the obvious.

Posted by: David Mathews on March 5, 2007 04:20 AM
96. Looks like on of the first adherents of global warming, or climate change or whatever they are calling it these days, now thinks differently. To wit:

"Claude Allegre, one of France's leading socialists and among her most celebrated scientists, was among the first to sound the alarm about the dangers of global warming.

To his surprise, the many climate models and studies failed dismally in establishing a man-made cause of catastrophic global warming. Meanwhile, increasing evidence indicates that most of the warming comes of natural phenomena. Dr. Allegre now sees global warming as over-hyped and an environmental concern of second rank."

Full artcile @: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388

I'm so lucky, I get to post this right after a David Matthews post!!

Posted by: G Jiggy on March 5, 2007 08:56 AM
97. Nice Jiggy, here's another good one:

From non-other than that right wingnut wacko publication, NT Times, Reports of Oil's demise, Greatly Exaggerated

The left / enviro-nuts have Marxist control goals. They will never admit that resources are a function of technology. They will never admit that oil production, the future hydrogen economy, the possibility of tidal energy harvesting, etc. are all a function of market demand, and current and future technology. As long as it's more efficient and quite abundant to pump oil, we will do so. If/ when all of the new technologies and newly discovered oil fields are tapped, then the price of oil will rise, and demand will create the necessity of new technologies and new energy sources.

This won't happen overnight as the doomsday sayers predict. It takes many years, probably decades or more for something as vast as the entire world's oil supply to be shut off. It's not a light switch. Even if we discovered every last oil field, and every last technology to extract every last drop, we would see a general decline from all fields, with no increase in development of new fields or technology, which would then drive the price up. We are NOWHERE near that point. Oil production has been increasing every year. Not even remotely close to a decline, and we have not even begun drilling in many places where we know there are vast reserves.. And that's just oil. There's coal, gas, nuclear, tidal all of the less consistent energy sources, and more that have yet to be discovered.

Assumption of impending doom rests on the premise that mankind will do nothing. History shows that to be false. If there is capital and greed, then there is incentive to the discovery of new technologies, and potentially vast new markets as lesser economies grow and discover that they can tap new technology as well. You don't hear about a lot of oil in Africa do you? But would anyone be naive enough to believe that a continent as vast as Africa was not a significant land under which there is oil? Africans don't tap oil, because in general, there economies have no demand for energy because their people are not free to flourish.

There's plenty of energy, millions of joules being absorbed by the planet every day from the Sun. All contributing to future supplies of fossil and other fuels. The one thing constant is change. As we find new ways to store and tap all sources of energy, there will be plenty to go around.

Posted by: Jeff B. on March 5, 2007 12:22 PM
98. David Mathews at #95, look you moron no one is claiming to refute "glogal warming" here, nor does anyone here not accept as fact that the earth's climate fluctuates. What you are attempting is to "manufacture" a causal link between man's activities and Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming where there is no evidence to support this link. There is, AT BEST, a THEORY that there may be a link based upon climate forecasting models and extrapolation of a recent warming trend.

I, for one, have considered the research done by scientists who claim to have hard evidence for such a link and I have looked at research which either casts doubt on or flatly rejects that there is a link between fosil fuel usage and, now pay very close attention to my exact words, Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.

The 'science' the Anthropogenic Global Warming side impresses me as particularly suspect. I have no intention of allowing something as nebulous as Anthropogenic Global Warming to affect my reason. Now go away.

Posted by: JDH on March 5, 2007 01:47 PM
99. Hello Jeff B.,

> You don't hear about a lot of oil in Africa do you? But would anyone be naive enough to believe that a continent as vast as Africa was not a significant land under which there is oil? Africans don't tap oil, because in general, there economies have no demand for energy because their people are not free to flourish.

Africa's oil resources are being developed & Exploited. Have you ever heard of Nigeria?

Here's a video regarding Nigeria's oil and the crimes which are committed on oil's behalf:

Oil Turmoil

> The left / enviro-nuts have Marxist control goals. They will never admit that resources are a function of technology.

Resources are a function of technology, but technology cannot transform a finite resource into an infinite resource.

> We are NOWHERE near that point. Oil production has been increasing every year. Not even remotely close to a decline, and we have not even begun drilling in many places where we know there are vast reserves..

America's oil production has been declining since 1971. America currently satisfies its oil demand by relying increasingly upon oil imports. Unfortunately those nations which export oil to the United States have peaked and are declining (Mexico in particular is crashing). Then there is a whole set of oil exporting countries which are not allies and therefore could cut us off at any time.

> There's coal, gas, nuclear, tidal all of the less consistent energy sources, and more that have yet to be discovered.

These resources are also finite and subject to exhaustion.

> If there is capital and greed, then there is incentive to the discovery of new technologies, and potentially vast new markets as lesser economies grow and discover that they can tap new technology as well.

You are a man of faith, Jeff. You believe in the techno-God. But the techno-God is going to fail. You do know that the techno-God can fail?


Posted by: David Mathews on March 5, 2007 02:31 PM
100. Hello JDH,

> What you are attempting is to "manufacture" a causal link between man's activities and Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming where there is no evidence to support this link.

Okay, JDH, let's make this absolutely clear:

1. You do believe that global warming is occurring. Yes or No?

Posted by: David Mathews on March 5, 2007 02:35 PM
101. To tell you the truth I do not have an opinion at this point. There has been so much corruption of the scientific comunity, which has been documented, regarding this issue that I am skeptical of the validity of any of the data. That being said it appears that the earth is currently experience a period of warming, if I accept the data.

Now do I believe that there is evidence to support Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming? I have seen nothing which would lead me to accept and act on the theory that mankind's use of fossil fuels is contributing to Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Posted by: JDH on March 5, 2007 02:51 PM
102. Hello JDH,

> To tell you the truth I do not have an opinion at this point. There has been so much corruption of the scientific comunity, which has been documented, regarding this issue that I am skeptical of the validity of any of the data. That being said it appears that the earth is currently experience a period of warming, if I accept the data.

Sorry, JDH, but the above is such a mishmash of contradictory sentiments that I must seek a little clarification.

2. The globe is warming. Yes?

Please keep in mind that I am not asking you to explain or attribute the warming to anyone or anything. I just want to confirm that the globe is warming.

Posted by: David Mathews on March 5, 2007 03:41 PM
103. I have no idea. If I were to make a judgement based upon the worldwide temperature readings, I would have made a judgement which disregards the fact that most of the weather reporting stations in the former Soviet Union, which happens to be cooler on average than the rest of the planet, are shut down and have not been reporting for the last decade and a half. The science/data collection is so corrupted it is not anything I want to base a judgement upon. However, if you read this story you will see that I am not alone in my skepticism. There are many atmospheric scientists and climatologists who either never climbed on the Anthropogenic GW bandwagon or are changing their minds.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388

Allegre's second thoughts The Deniers -- The National Post's series on scientists who buck the conventional wisdom on climate science

Posted by: JDH on March 5, 2007 03:54 PM
104. Hello JDH,

You say that you are skeptical but don't quite explain what you are skeptical about. Are you now saying:

3. The globe is not warming.

Otherwise, I cannot make any sense out of your viewpoint.

Please clarify.

Posted by: David Mathews on March 5, 2007 04:09 PM
105. Well its obvious that this, "David Matthews" is wetting himself over the possibility that the SUPREME GORON might have a clue about climatology which is sort of like accusing Ron Sims and those who voted for him having any working gray matter...

Sadly what's really obvious is that those making the absurd claim that, "man made" global warming is about to send mankind irretrievably into some sort of catastrophic pit of doom haven't bothered to read the real science...

Then again liberals and facts you know mix like oil and water... Just ask Howard Dean...:lol:

Posted by: juandos on March 5, 2007 04:34 PM
106. Hello juandos,

I read your post and must point out that it lacks any sort of clarity whatsoever. Are you denying Global Warming? Or are you denying anthropogenic global warming? Or are you denying that global warming is catastrophic?

I cannot tell. The views expressed by conservatives seem so self-contradictory that I cannot draw any sort of conclusion regarding their opinions regarding climate change.

Regarding catastrophes, do you have any opinion regarding the following potential future:

"This brings us to the third point: If we do try to keep going, with the entire world aiming for an economy structured like America's, it won't be just oil that we'll run short of. Here are the numbers we have to contend with: Given current rates of growth in the Chinese economy, the 1.3 billion residents of that nation alone will, by 2031, be about as rich as we are. If they then eat meat, milk, and eggs at the rate that we do, calculates ecostatistician Lester Brown, they will consume 1,352 million tons of grain each year--equal to two-thirds of the world's entire 2004 grain harvest. They will use 99 million barrels of oil a day, 15 million more than the entire world consumes at present. They will use more steel than all the West combined, double the world's production of paper, and drive 1.1 billion cars--1.5 times as many as the current world total. And that's just China; by then, India will have a bigger population, and its economy is growing almost as fast. And then there's the rest of the world."
Reversal of Fortune - Bill McKibben

Well, does the above sound at all possible to you? Do you suppose that the Earth's resources are sufficient -- eternally and perpetually -- to satisfy the insatiable appetites of the Chinese, the Indians, and the Americans?

Are you optimistic about humankind's future under these circumstances?


Posted by: David Mathews on March 5, 2007 04:59 PM
107. "David Matthews" says: "I read your post and must point out that it lacks any sort of clarity whatsoever"...

Hmmm, then I'm guessing English isn't your first language, right?

"David Matthews" asks: "Are you denying Global Warming? Or are you denying anthropogenic global warming? Or are you denying that global warming is catastrophic?"...

All of the above Matthews... Global warming is a myth... The climate of the earth works in cycles, very long cycles by our standards...

Using someone who lables himself an, "ecostatistician" is at best hilarious and coming from a barking moonbat outfit like MotherJones (a rag by libs for libs - facts not a consideration), well that makes it about as believable as a western sunrise...

I mean have you taken a look at the bio of this supposedly lauded Lester Brown? Its a joke... Obviously his grasp of the Chinese is at best minimal...

He's got about as much credibility as that old fraud Rachel Carson...

BTW I don't give a damn about the Chinese, Indians, or any of the other 3rd world turd trollers or Lester Brown's blind, floundering guesses about what might happen with their consumption rates in the future...


Posted by: juandos on March 5, 2007 06:04 PM
108. Hello juandos,

> Global warming is a myth... The climate of the earth works in cycles, very long cycles by our standards...

Here is a prime example of a self-contradicting viewpoint. Needless to say, conservatives have displayed a truly astonishing depth of ignorance regarding science.

Do I have to explain to you the many problems in the above sentence, juandos?

Please clarify.

> Using someone who lables himself an, "ecostatistician" is at best hilarious and coming from a barking moonbat outfit like MotherJones & etc.

I didn't ask for your opinion regarding any of these people, juandos. Nor do I care. It is simply irrelevant to the question.

> BTW I don't give a damn about the Chinese, Indians, or any of the other 3rd world turd trollers or Lester Brown's blind, floundering guesses about what might happen with their consumption rates in the future...

What do you mean, juandos, in the above sentence. Are you affirming your own extreme ignorance? Are you denying the existence of a problem? Are you expressing some sort of prejudice against several billion people that you don't know?

Please clarify.


Posted by: David Mathews on March 5, 2007 06:35 PM
109. David, no one in their right mind denies that the earth has gone through warming cycles and if we are to believe most of the people reporting today, the earth has been warming for a decade +. I will buy that premise. But it has also gone through cooling cycles which it looks like we MAY be now entering. Now to the qustion at hand which is the ONLY thing which is germain to this discussion. Is the earth warming CATASTROPHICALLY due to man's energy usage releasing "green house gasses?" Anthropogenic Global warming is as good a term for this as any, and NO I do not believe Catasthophic Anthropogenic Global warming is a proven theory or even a likely theory for that matter.

I base this on my research into both sides of the issue. My opinion has also been somewhat influenced by the tactics displayed by the Catastrophic Anthropogenic GW supporters and their not living as though they truly believed what they are saying.

Don't try to set up a straw man opinion and claim that it is mine. I won't allow it. I have too much experience with the left to fall into that trap. You may think yourself enlightened but are too clever by half to even defend your side of the argument. You have also failed in your "past Utopia" worship. Nothing you say is fresh, it is easily shown that what you prescribe has failed repeatedly. Your society is mean and dirty beyond comprehensive and would do far more harm to the natural environment than the American model. This is not only theory, the last century provided us with many examples of what to expect from your prescription for what you see as ailing mankind and the plant earth. The American model is much more tennable than is what you describe as being the way to organize society in ordet to live in a clean environment.

Posted by: JDH on March 5, 2007 08:01 PM
110. Hello JDH,

> David, no one in their right mind denies that the earth has gone through warming cycles and if we are to believe most of the people reporting today, the earth has been warming for a decade +. I will buy that premise. But it has also gone through cooling cycles which it looks like we MAY be now entering.

JDH, how is it possible that the Earth is warming and cooling?

That just doesn't seem possible, nor does it seem rational, to me. The globe cannot be warming and cooling at the same time.

> Now to the qustion at hand which is the ONLY thing which is germain to this discussion. Is the earth warming CATASTROPHICALLY due to man's energy usage releasing "green house gasses?" Anthropogenic Global warming is as good a term for this as any, and NO I do not believe Catasthophic Anthropogenic Global warming is a proven theory or even a likely theory for that matter.

JDH, does human generated pollution have any impact upon the Earth's climate?

If so, what impact does pollution have upon the climate?

Posted by: David Mathews on March 6, 2007 04:21 AM
111. David Mathews,
According to most all climate researchers the earth's global average temperature has been warming for a little more than a decade and now according to many of these same researchers it may be entering a period of cooling.

Look you moron, no one here at this forum, including myself, has claimed that the earth's global average tenmperature is now or has ever undergone a temperature scenario which is mutually exclusive.

I have already pointed out to you that if what you want to do is try to set up straw man arguments that you can then poke holes in, you have come to the wrong place. Ergo I have no interest in answering "JDH, does human generated pollution have any impact upon the Earth's climate?" and as far as the question: "If so, what impact does pollution have upon the climate?" You yourself have said NO ONE KNOWS.

Posted by: JDH on March 6, 2007 07:30 AM
112. Hello JDH,

> According to most all climate researchers the earth's global average temperature has been warming for a little more than a decade and now according to many of these same researchers it may be entering a period of cooling.

That's seriously confusing, JDH. The Earth has warmed but it may cool.

At least ... we do agree that the Earth has warmed. We do agree, yes?

> I have already pointed out to you that if what you want to do is try to set up straw man arguments that you can then poke holes in, you have come to the wrong place. Ergo I have no interest in answering "JDH, does human generated pollution have any impact upon the Earth's climate?" and as far as the question: "If so, what impact does pollution have upon the climate?" You yourself have said NO ONE KNOWS.

Can we both agree that pollution has some impact upon the Earth's climate, and that this impact is negative?

Posted by: David Mathews on March 6, 2007 07:46 AM
113. This much I will agree to. You have aligned yourself with a bunch of people who are as phoney as you are dumb.

"The objective of the Global Warming hoax is designed to create more world control through the confiscation of wealth and resources. The U.N. has been talking about a World Tax for some time now and Algore is aiding in the socialist effort like all good limousine liberals - he's trying to get rich and move further up and away from the masses."

and this

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/03/gores_crusade_ends_at_his_fron.html

"The message comes across loud and clear: The Gores are rich, and rich people are going to burn a lot of energy. They won't let their belief in global warming crimp their lifestyle.

That's why "Inconvenient Truth" producer Laurie David can boast on the movie Website that she is "committed to stopping global warming," denounce people who drive SUVs -- and still fly in private Gulfstream jets. (Having been blasted in the press for her high-flying ways, David told ABC last year that she was cutting back on her private-plane travel. Talk about commitment.)"

Posted by: JDH on March 6, 2007 08:15 AM
114. Hello JDH,

Your obsession with Al Gore is distracting you from the larger issue at hand. Environmentalists care about the environment, not Al Gore, Laurie David, or Hollywood.

Those who want to appreciate the negative human impact upon the environment, I encourage you to read today's New Orleans Times-Pacayune:

The Rise and Disappearance of Southeast Louisiana

"It took the Mississippi River 6,000 years to build the Louisiana coast.

"It took man (and natural disasters) 75 years to destroy it."
Last Chance

The conclusion of the article is that the combination of wetlands loss and sea level rise will destroy the remnants of the Mississippi delta and place the ocean at New Orleans' levees. Under such circumstances New Orleans could not survive: New Orleans would not merely flood but also the full ravages of a hurricane's storm surge.

Humans have a pretty negative impact upon the environment. That much is certain.

Posted by: David Mathews on March 6, 2007 08:36 AM
115. JDH, I hope you are making a record of your arguments. You almost have enough to write a book or expose on GW and Debunking the Myth.

Posted by: swatter on March 6, 2007 09:13 AM
116. Hey Matthews, here's another isolated incident that perhaps you can explain how is man-made.

http://www.comcast.net/news/national/index.jsp?cat=DOMESTIC&fn=/2007/03/06/603452.html

Posted by: PC on March 6, 2007 09:15 AM
117.
Check out this UK documentary...maybe we can get one of the local stations to air it:

http://www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?story=CZ434669U&news_headline=global_warming_is_lies_claims_documentary

"Accepted theories about man causing global warming are "lies" claims a controversial new TV documentary.

'The Great Global Warming Swindle' - backed by eminent scientists - is set to rock the accepted consensus that climate change is being driven by humans.

The programme, to be screened on Channel 4 on Thursday March 8, will see a series of respected scientists attack the "propaganda" that they claim is killing the world's poor."

Posted by: John Bailo on March 6, 2007 09:16 AM
118. So Dave,

You've said there is nothing we can do.

When can we expect the calamaties to begin?

Posted by: thecomputerguy on March 6, 2007 09:29 AM
119. And yet another one for DM.

http://www.thestar.com/article/188324

I wish it would warm up for Canada's sake. Perhaps they could have a bit more agri-business than rapeseed.

Posted by: PC on March 6, 2007 09:32 AM
120. Just this morning I read tha tone of Washington's legislators, after seeing a computer rendering of a drowning polar bear, is heading up the effort to place them on some special protection status lest tehy all drown. The only problem is that for the last few months I have been reading articles about the abundance of polar bears. Being the compasionate guy that I am I suggest that David Mathews get to work designing a polar bear life preserver. What the hell if he can make decisions on what I should be doing and how I should live my life, I guess turn about is fair play and I can start making decisions for him.

Posted by: JDH on March 6, 2007 09:54 AM
121. "JDH, does human generated pollution have any impact upon the Earth's climate?

If so, what impact does pollution have upon the climate?"

I don't have an opinion, but this guy does he is a world renound scientist who believes any Global warming could be BENEFICIAL - THE CV OF A DENIER: Richard Tol received his PhD in Economics from the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam. He is Michael Otto Professor of Sustainability and Global Change at Hamburg University, director of the Centre for Marine and Atmospheric Science, principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University. He is a board member of the Centre for Marine and Climate Research, the International Max Planck Research Schools of Earth Systems Modelling and Maritime Affairs, and the European Forum on Integrated Environmental Assessment. He is an editor of Energy Economics, an associate editor of Environmental and Resource Economics, and a member of the editorial board of Environmental Science and Policy and Integrated Assessment.

Excerpted from the link below

Yes, global warming is real, he believes, and yes, measures to mitigate it should be taken. But unlike the advocates who believe that the science is settled, and the global warning debate is over, Tol thinks that much research needs to be done before we know how best to respond.

"There is no risk of damage [from global warming] that would force us to act injudiciously," he explains. "We've got enough time to look for the economically most effective options, rather than dash into 'actionism,' which then becomes very expensive."

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=1d78fc67-3784-4542-a07c-e7eeec46d1fc&k=0

Posted by: JDH on March 6, 2007 10:21 AM
122. Mr Mathews.

Is this you?

Are you the David Mathews assoiciated with PETA?

Google search David Mathews PETA - some interesting quotes I'm sure that we'd all like to discuss.

Posted by: thecomputerguy on March 6, 2007 11:40 AM
123. Good hit, I checked it out and found this dandy little gem:

On the consequences of stopping animal research: "Don't get the diseases in the first place, schmo." --PETA's David Mathews (USA Today, July 27, 1994).

Posted by: JDH on March 6, 2007 12:11 PM
124. Hello thecomputerguy,

David Mathews is a common name. The David Mathews that you have found associated with PETA is not me.

Posted by: David Mathews on March 6, 2007 06:33 PM
125. oh lord
are you people STILL trying to debate the existence of global warming? two pieces of advice
1) get a new topic
2) get sme brains

Posted by: michaelUW on March 7, 2007 08:34 PM
126. Well David, it seems much more likely that you are responsible for every David Matthews than I (typical obese American) am responsible for every single human being on the planet. For all I know, it's the David Matthews of the world that are leading us to our demise. Ooowh, the misery! If only the David Matthews understood how sorry of a people they are, they could save themselves with only a few adjustments, preferably administered by the government.

Posted by: Elaine on March 7, 2007 11:05 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?