* Record high temperatures at SeaTac.
* Meanwhile, unseasonably cold weather in Maryland, Texas, New York, Iowa, Kentucky, Tennessee and Missouri.
* Global warming has spread to Mars. Must be Bush's fault.
* A photo of stranded polar bears has been debunked as a hoax.
* Prominent metereologist calls Al Gore a "gross alarmist" who is "doing a great disservice" and "doesn't know what he's talking about"
For a bit of fun....
Al Gore's Travelin' Global Warming Show
Posted by: Obi-Wan on April 6, 2007 08:15 PMIt is a childish game that you play to denounce global warming just because a day was cold. Scientists are not looking at one day here and there as you do, they are looking at a trend over hundreds of thousands of years. CO2 levels in the past 200 years are off the charts compared to the cyclical levels that correspond to Ice Age periods in the past.
I have nothing to gain from recognizing the science and the data, so my question to you is what the heck do you and your minions have that eats at you so to poo poo it as bunk? Why have you "small 'l' libertarians" made this a partisan issue? is it that you fear that politicians are going to take steps to counter climate change at too great a cost to your precious economy despite the danger to the globe (the only one we have to live on) if we do nothing? Explain your fear, explain your derision.
Posted by: Daniel K on April 6, 2007 09:50 PMI've studied this photo in some detail. There are many peculiarities which suggest to me that it is photoshopped. Scale, access, visual focus direction of bears and much more.
The real photographer would have obtained dozens of photos of this spectacular scene. Where are they? Until I see more photos published, especially those showing the other side of the berg, I will insist that the australian photographer has delivered a false confession which serves to validate the preposterous content of the photo.
Posted by: Bart Cannon on April 6, 2007 09:55 PMNow it would seem like Gregoire, Nickels and Sims would be fanatic proponents of nuclear power. It emits no CO2, it doesn't impede the salmon swimming upstream and it is extremely safe.
But like all the acolytes of the Church of the Global Warming they have a superstitious dread of nuclear power. It is their Prince of Darkness (or should it be the Prince of Light?). In any case this Church is into mortification of the flesh. Any thing that would make our lives more onerous has their blessing. Bicycle to work? Just ask the mayor. Do without toilet paper? It'll save the trees. Swelter in the summer and freeze in the winter? Privation is good for you. Can't get plastic bags any more? Why even ask, you sinner.
One thing these unholy apostles are not about to give up is the power to micromanage every aspect of our lives if we are stupid enough to allow them to.
Posted by: Bill K. on April 6, 2007 10:35 PMI do, however, understand the concerns regarding their safety, and regarding our ability to safely dispose of nuclear waste. That is a very real issue we cannot so easily brush under a carpet, or hide under a mountain.
Posted by: Daniel K on April 6, 2007 10:47 PMDaniel K., what were you saying about Stefan being childish?
Michele - Gore has been talking about environmental issues like this since the 70's. Making the movie wasn't his idea, if that's what you are referring to regarding "making a buck", and just how has he made a "billion of them"?
Show me a time when CO2 levels were historically at the level they are now? If CO2 does not affect temperatures, what does affect temperature, and explain how rising temperatures cause the CO2 levels to go up. And then explain why higher temperatures, regardless of their cause is not a concern.
Or do you know quite understand the talking points memo you're working from to explain yourself?
Posted by: Daniel K on April 7, 2007 01:16 AMDaniel is travelling tonight on a plane
I can see the red tail lights heading for spain
Oh and I can see daniel waving goodbye
God it looks like daniel, must be the clouds in my eyes
They say spain is pretty though Ive never been
Well daniel says its the best place that hes ever seen
Oh and he should know, hes been there enough
Lord I miss daniel, oh I miss him so much
Daniel my brother you are older than me
Do you still feel the pain of the scars that wont heal
Your eyes have died but you see more than i
Daniel youre a star in the face of the sky
Daniel is travelling tonight on a plane
I can see the red tail lights heading for spain
Oh and I can see daniel waving goodbye
God it looks like daniel, must be the clouds in my eyes
Oh God it looks like daniel, must be the clouds in my eyes
Stefan the meteorologist, Stefan the climatologist, Stefan the brain surgeon, Stefan the rocket scientist ...
Is it at all possible that such a distinguished gentleman could be wrong about this global warming thing?
Posted by: David Mathews on April 7, 2007 04:32 AMIn the greatest demonstration yet of how much conservatives really love for our soldiers to die, consider the public lament by many prominent conservatives because a war with Iran failed to materialize.
These bloodthirsty genocidal neocons wanted those British soldiers to die so that they would have their Gulf of Tonkin incident.
How else to explain the hatred of the sailors expressed in so many different ways. Dean Barnett expresses the deathwish most explicitly:
"Just as there are things worth living for, there are things worth dying for. One's own honor and especially the honor of one's country must be among those things if you don the uniform of your country's military."
What ever happened to "Let's Roll"
Conservatives don't seem to mind soldiers and sailors dying so long as their deaths allow them to engage in unnecessary aggressive warfare. These conservatives are upset because the sailors got back home alive & well.
Of course, the conservative warmongers of the present age were the draft dodgers of the Vietnam war. George W. Bush would probably have an entirely different opinion of warfare if he had actually fought a war.
Americans should thank those British sailors for not fighting because if a war had begun a lot of American soldiers would be dying unnecessarily right now.
The Gulf of Tonkin joke was done by the DEM's and a VERY Liberal Prez of Johnson.
Gezz pick up a book you twit!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on April 7, 2007 06:04 AM> The Gulf of Tonkin joke was done by the DEM's and a VERY Liberal Prez of Johnson.
So you agree that the Vietnam war was a horrible mistake ... matched only in recent years by George W. Bush's decision to invade & occupy Iraq?
Liberal Democrats and Neocons have this much in common: Both have lost horrendous, unnecessary wars.
Posted by: David Mathews on April 7, 2007 06:14 AM> After watching the British video The Great Global Warming Swindle, I find it very credible. Can someone please tell me what "exactly" in the documentary is innacurate? Can someone please tell me why no scientist has publicly come out with an article disbuting its claims line by line?
I find it very credible, Susie, that you haven't looked.
Conservatives are the world's greatest defenders of pollution. God bless obese America, may you always grow fatter!
Posted by: David Mathews on April 7, 2007 07:23 AMConservatives spend a lot of time talking about Climate Change but not so much time actually becoming informed about the subject. Here's a chance to mitigate that trend:
Climate Change 2007:
Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability
Read it. Gain a little knowledge. Become informed, responsible citizens.
Posted by: David Mathews on April 7, 2007 07:34 AMWhat group started the EPA?
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on April 7, 2007 07:35 AMWhat happened? I thought that you and I were involved in a conversation about Vietnam Iraq.
Posted by: David Mathews on April 7, 2007 07:36 AMYou just run your mouth david and nothing more.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on April 7, 2007 07:47 AMDo you have something in particular in mind?
You say, "If you have seen the documentary, you would know what I'm talking about."
I don not presume to know how you think, Susie, so please do tell me what you have in mind.
If the substance of your accusation against the IPCC is: "Many scientists' were asked to participate in the IPCC report but told us in the documentary their views were ignored and they had to threaten legal action to get their names removed from the document."
All I can say, Susie, is that conservatives are extremely gullible and easily manipulated. The above accusation is pure bunk and also irrelevant.
Finally, Susie, " Oh, and by the way, I'm not fat. You'd be surprised."
I do not accuse you of being fat: The United States of America is a morbidly obese country.
The United States of America is a dying empire, too.
Matt Simmons, a conservative Republic involved in the oil industry with close ties to the White House, Dick Cheney and (now) Mitt Romney, spends forty minutes talking about the Peak Oil catastrophe facing the U.S. of A.
I encourage everyone to listen to the message and begin preparing for difficult times ahead.
You can find it here:
Matthew Simmons: April 7, 2007
Topic: The GAO Report on Peak Oil
America has sacrifices its future by its addiction to oil and the automobile. Too bad for America.
Polar bears routinely swim 100 of miles. They are wide ranging creatures. A polar bear on a floating berg is not unusual. The bear was not stranded. Headlines blaring otherwise once again proves how easily opinions are shaped and how little people actually know about the environment they care so much about.
Regarding CO2. Increases in CO2 are caused by the oceans which produce most of the CO2. As the oceans warm the various plants and living things increase resulting in greater amounts of CO2. Not the other way around as Gore would have you believe.
Daniel K there were years with greater CO2. Actually CO2 is decreasing. By the way sun activity and solar winds affect the temperature.
Also you mentioned that Gore, the developed of the Internet, was somehow involved in Global Warming during the 70's. That simply is not correct as the "consensus" of opinion during that time was the is Earth Cooling. Interesting that much of the same bs was reported by alarmist. Food shortages, disease, species vanishing, etc.
And of course this was caused by humans. 25 years later we find that the globe is actually warming and the same dire consequences are being reported. I guess we may never get it right about the climate, however we understand the consequences. Or do we?
Actually there was a time in our modern history (post BC) that the Earth was warmer then it is now. We handled it well. The warmer climate increased food production which in turn reduced famine. Which in turn gave people free time to tinker and we had the Renaissance. The warmer temps also permitted vineyards to be established in London. Understand that the English wine was sought after and the French generated CO2 causing the little ice age which of course destroyed the English wine production.
There is no harm caused by Chicken Littles squawking about the sky falling or the Earth warming. The harm is caused by leaders fear mongering to gain power, influence and wealth. Hysteria creates crisis. Developing countries are not able to tap into their natural resources for food, heat and shelter. Clinics are provided with "green" alternatives for electrical production capable of powering a light bulb or a small lab machine. Not both. Imagine David K if you went to a hospital for tests and none may be done during a cloudy days.
So while medical care is being stifled in developing African countries the Puget Sound chicken littles concern themselves with the plight of a Polar Bear on thin ice while sipping a lattee in their favorite Starbucks.
Therein lays the harm.
Posted by: Snuffy on April 7, 2007 09:14 AMOnce again the policy report is released prior to the science. What is this? Is the science not finished yet? Are the IPCC bureaucrats trying to established the "Truth" and then ensure the science backs them?
The only documentation on the science is the May 2006 draft science report that both the February and this new report are supposed to be based on.
That report has some important holes, the biggest of which is that opposing views are either ignored (cosmic radiation and sun spots) or dismissed without analysis (plaeoclimatic data refuting rates of change and climate variability in the past).
The IPCC process is very strange. The established method of science is to state a reasonable hypothesis then devise experiments to test the hypothesis. Finally, once the test have been satisfied, conclusions are drawn and implications derived.
With IPCC the hypothesis was proposed and then implications derived without first testing the hypothesis. We are still awaiting evidence that CO2 drives temperature.
The IPCC went straight to modeling the impacts (implications) in the 1990's. They have done a lot of work since then in tweaking the models to better fit their hypothesis, but still have not proven their hypothesis.
This is not science - it is an exercise in modeling. Science often is based on the application of mathmatics (which is what a model is), but math by itself cannot establish the truth of an idea - it must also fit the observed factual record.
It is more appropriate to religion than science to accept an idea based only on faith that the underlying basis is true. In science you first establish the basis, then extrapolate.
GIGO = How models fail!
If it comes from the UN.. question everything.
Not like they have 'their' house in order.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on April 7, 2007 09:45 AMNor did he learn much at Vanderbilt's Law School, which he attended briefly, never completing the course of study.
The Goracle, a record of accomplishment only a quitter could love.
Posted by: Obi-Wan on April 7, 2007 10:17 AMWe a great scam....to blame Earth Temperature changes caused in large part by Solar & Climate cycles on HUMAN BEINGS for the sole purpose of making them ashamed & more submissive.
As the Global Climate Changes are further srutinized, lift up the Sewer Manhole cover where Gore & his Marxist cult-following reside and shine a light down there with truth & facts....
You will see one big fat Rat and thousands of cockroaches scurrying for cover!
"Show me a time when CO2 levels were historically at the level they are now? If CO2 does not affect temperatures, what does affect temperature, and explain how rising temperatures cause the CO2 levels to go up. And then explain why higher temperatures, regardless of their cause is not a concern."
The middle ages global warming period. The SUN affects temperatures. Rising temperatures cause CO2 levels to go up the exact same way that your soda pop releases its CO2 more on a warm day athan on a cold day. Obviously you never studied physics in high school or college as this is a basic fact of the gas laws that have been known to mankind for over 200 years.
Basically colder water can hold more Co2 in solution. As the oceans heat up they release their CO2 into the atmosphere.
If you are indeed interested in learning and not merely spouting off your liberal talking points, why don't you review the following link and look under "Solubility of Gases vs. Temperature:".
http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/174temppres.html
Posted by: pbj on April 7, 2007 10:57 AMDaniel K, showing his debate acumen with Ad Hominen.
A complete refusal and inability to argue on merit, thus a regression to name calling.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 7, 2007 12:25 PMCome on!
Posted by: Daniel K on April 7, 2007 01:30 PMThe answer, as far as I know, is that CO2 is higher today than it was when we first starting to routinely measure for it about 50 years ago. Beyond that all we have are ice cores, where the numbers show variability with concentrations below what we measure today.
However ice core CO2 cannot be properly compared with modern measurements since we little about what has transpired with the gas since being trapped and thus have little certainty about these values. or what they mean when compared to modern measurments.
But even if we assume that the ice trapped CO2 has remained unchanged, there is still a problem. If modern atmospheric CO2 concentration is the "smoking gun" that ties human activity to recent warming, where are bullets? Where is the evidence of a direct link from CO2 to increased temperatures?
All we have been offered is a correlation. We don't know whether temperature is driving CO2 any more than we know that CO2 is driving temperature, or even whether something, or combination of things, is driving both.
The facts are that none of these relationships have been fully investigated. All we have been presented with is a theory.
Unless the rules of statistics as used in science have changed, a correlation is not proof of a causal relationship.
The lack of evidence of a causal relationship does mean there is not one - it only means we do not know with any certainty without further investigation.
Yes, thats right, you look for other evidence. And if you're theory is right the other evidence buttresses the correlation.
But the only evidence that we have seen is generated by models. Models where what is loaded in and what formuals are used are all based on the assumption that CO2 is the only significant factor in driving temperature.
Like most people in science, I do not dismiss the idea that man-made CO2 might have an effect on climate, but I also know that what Gore, BK Jr., , and others in the UN and the environmental movement are doing is not based on science - it is a propaganda crusade based on half-truths, fear and self loathing that has the real potential to overturn all the hard won benefits (longevity, liesure, wealth, etc.) that science has given us over the past 200 years.
I hope I am wrong, but true science appears to have lost this fight. By selling their argument through the works and support of the dishonest bureaucrats of the IPCC and of politically motivated scientists aligned with environmental movement, they have tainted all of science. I fear for the backlash that will inevitably result when people finally realize what a ride they've been taken on.
All of these other highlights is just cosmetic - as Stefan admits in his most recent post.
Posted by: KS on April 7, 2007 07:59 PM> I hope I am wrong, but true science appears to have lost this fight.
No need for hope in this case, Deadwood, you are wrong. Your side lost this fight. Science is winning. science has won.
Science has settled the issue on global warming and the negative impacts of humankind's pollution & environmental destruction.
Public awareness of this issue is increasing dramatically. I think it likely that within a decade the Global Warming Deniers will share the same irrelevant minority status as Scientific Creationism.
Those conservatives who adamantly defend pollution will be relegated to the dust bin of history. I suppose that most people would prefer that their grandchildren not inherit a hellish Earth.
Posted by: David Mathews on April 7, 2007 08:03 PMDave Matthews - when are YOU going to stop polluting the planet by using a keyboard made of a BIG OIL product (plastic)??? YOu sir are a hypocrite if the highest order deserving only of ridicule and humiliation.
You know NOTHING of science. Even a high schoold Chemistry student understands HENRY's LAW that states the solutbility of a gas in a liquid (such as CO2 in WATER HINT: The earth's ocean's) DECREASES as temperature increases. This means that CO2 levels LAG temperature increases. If you hadn't ben out doing drugs and skipping school when you were a kid, you'd know this already.
Every post from you is pure unadulterated hypocrisy. Why are you a BIG OIL supporter DAVE? Please stop polluting the planet!
Posted by: pbj on April 7, 2007 09:46 PM"Actually, I am a progressive who is not completely against nuclear power. I used to work at a company that ran six nuclear power stations. I used to live in a country that gets 80% of it's electricity from nuclear power."
Then you must know that nuclear power is the safest of all major power sources. Certainly safer than coal, oil and probably even hydro. Nuclear waste is an engineering problem to be dealt with rationally.
Posted by: Bill K. on April 7, 2007 10:43 PMUmm...
CO2 and methane are both produced in high quantities by organic processes, as well as industrial ones... in fact, I'd venture to say that methane is primarily an organically produced by-product of enteric processes.