First, the basic data for the last ten years, which I have taken from this open letter.
(Those who have followed the climate debate will be able to interpret that chart without my help. For those who have not, this explanation: The green line shows the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, in parts per million, as measured at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. As you can see, carbon dioxide has been rising steadily over the last ten years.
The other two lines show two of the standard sets of temperature readings for the entire earth, for the same ten years. Hadley-Crut has readings for ground stations, MSU for satellites. The readings are given, as I understand it, in deviations from a long term average. So, 1998 was about .6 or .7 of a degree warmer than average, and since that year, the earth has been about .3 of a degree warmer than average, with no obvious trend. (Degrees centigrade, I assume, since this is a letter from scientists.) Or, as the scientists who signed that letter say:
These latest temperature readings represent averages of records obtained from standardized meteorological stations from around the planet, located in both urban as well as rural settings. They are augmented by satellite data, now generally accepted as ultimately authoritative, since they have a global footprint and are not easily vulnerable to manipulation nor observer error. What is also clear from the graphs is that average global temperatures have been in stasis for almost a decade, and may now even be falling.
As I understand it, most climate scientists — whatever their opinions on global warming — accept the facts in that chart. Carbon dioxide is rising, but the earth has not warmed in the last ten years. Now, let me say immediately that this does not prove that the computer models that predict global warming are necessarily wrong. Everyone who has studied the matter agrees that you should expect ups and downs in temperatures from year to year, and even decade to decade, whether or not the models are broadly correct. And the earth's temperature was rising before 1998. (Of course, at some point, if the earth does not get warmer than it was in 1998, then the climate models will have to be reexamined.)
Now, for the scientist and the NPR host. On Friday mornings, as I have said before, I sometimes listen to the Weekday program at ten on our local NPR station, KUOW. And I sometimes tune in a little before ten to listen to the discussion of the current weather between University of Washington professor of atmospheric sciences Cliff Mass and KUOW host Steve Scher.
In recent weeks, Professor Mass has had many interesting things to say about climate change in that segment. For example, on April 4th, he said that the last few months had been the coldest for the entire world in the last ten years. Global warming, he said, had been set back ten years. (Which will not surprise those who have studied that chart at the beginning of this post.) On April 18th, he noted that some snow stations in the Cascades have 200 percent of the average snowfall, which is not what the global climate models predict. (You can see some recent pictures of that Cascade snow pack here. Pretty pictures, if I do say so myself.)
At least I think they are interesting. And I think a reasonably bright 8th grader would find them interesting, too. And both of us would see some obvious questions to ask Professor Mass. For instance: If the global warming models are correct, shouldn't the earth be warming? And I don't doubt that Professor Mass has some answers for those questions, probably having to do with the weather pattern known as La Niña.
But here's the strange thing: I have never heard Scher ask those questions, never heard him ask why the earth has stopped warming. Which I think is a question anyone with a normal amount of curiosity would ask. But I have learned over the years that most "mainstream" journalists are notably incurious about some matters — and so I suppose that I shouldn't be surprised when one of them fails to ask some obvious questions. I would think that being incurious would be a serious flaw in a journalist, but most people who hire journalists disagree with me on that point.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(Note to Cliff Mass: Steve Scher may not be interested in your answers to these questions, but I am, and I am certain that many of my readers would be, too.)
Posted by Jim Miller at April 21, 2008 02:19 PM | Email ThisSecond, considering that the right y-axis of the graph (to which the green line is tied to) and the left x-axis of the graph (to which the other two lines are tied to) have no relationship to each other in scale, the green line could have been drawn essentially horizontal with different deviations between the markings, and still be showing the exact same thing.
The reason that this graph was drawn the way it was is because the people who made it understand that people like you aren't very sharp when it comes to understanding science.
Posted by: thehim on April 21, 2008 03:03 PMExcuse me, that should say 'y-axis'.
Posted by: thehim on April 21, 2008 03:05 PMA better argument for global warming acolytes is that the falling sunspot activity is masking the general trend of rising temperatures. (I do not buy this argument but at least it sounds plausible.)
My feeling is that we need to wait about 50 years and see how things are going before we do anything drastic like cap and trade that will cripple our competitiveness against the Indians, Chinese and others that will not burn their economies on unproven speculation. If global warming is real, and significant, and deleterious, and manmade, we can act once we are sure that that is the case. In 50 years our technology will be better anyway.
Posted by: KW64 on April 21, 2008 03:22 PMI see global temperatures (with the disclaimer that it is the average of all temperatures measured at the gaging stations chosen by the scientists and doesn't all represent the true average- only an approximation based upon the finite number of gauges) going up and down and varying to some degree or another.
These variations tell me that mass models, like the models I used for my Master's thesis, are general predictors and are not to be used to predict minute changes in temperature (or the variable I was testing) and definitely not to make absurd end of the world predictions that Al Gore and his Democrat minions are doing.
Posted by: swatter on April 21, 2008 03:23 PMAnyway...it snowed this morning...on the coast. Yes, half a block from the beach.
It's April 21st.
Global warming, my arse.
Posted by: Cydney on April 21, 2008 03:25 PMAnd I would suggest that he re-read the post -- carefully -- paying close attention to the paragraph I quoted from the open letter.
And if he disagrees with Professor Mass, I would suggest that he tell Mass directly why he is wrong to say that the earth's temperature is no higher now than it was ten years ago. I'm sure the professor will be delighted to be corrected on this point.
Posted by: Jim Miller on April 21, 2008 03:37 PMYes, it was condescending.
@3
There is no illusion created by a rising reference point as suggested by thehim.Usually, these deviation from average references are for a fixed period of time which does not include the period graphed.
Is it in this case? Maybe it is, maybe it's not. But it's funny that Jim Miller is chastising others for not asking the right questions when he himself doesn't appear to have asked a question that seems extremely relevant to whether or not this chart shows the trend that he seems to believe it does.
Those who believe that CO2 levels can have an effect on temperature also acknowledge that there are other factors that have effects on temperature. The reason why things like this annoy me is because they are meant to be misleading rather than informative. The relationship between CO2 and temperature is complex, but the overwhelming majority of scientists out there have concluded that rising CO2 levels are contributing to a warming trend on this planet. This chart (with intentionally confusing dual y-axes, a very brief timespan, and an unclear methodology for calculating the deviations) exists in order to cast doubt upon that reality.
Posted by: thehim on April 21, 2008 03:45 PMWhat is the total number of scientists with the relevant expertise? What is the percentage of those with that expertise that agree? And, I don't know that the majority have "concluded" this, but rather they think it likely.
As for me, I'm not a scientist, but I have a ruler, and I measured six inches of snow at my house on Saturday.
Posted by: Gary on April 21, 2008 03:51 PMThe problem with the rest of these readings is that one normally does a LEAST SQUARE analysis of the data to really get a feeling for it and if one does, one finds the CO2 levels have dropped a little in the last 3 years. BUT THAT ASIDE and we are in an area where minds may differ: THIS EXCELLENT PIECE IS A GOOD ILLUSTRATION in fact of how absurd the idea is that CO2 has anything to do with global warming in the face of the fact that THE ONLY GREEN HOUSE GAS THAT DOES MUCH IN THIS ATMOSPHERE IS WATER VAPOR AND THERE IS NOTHING ANYONE CAN DO ABOUT IT!
Then there is the finding and I will put it in here for you to read, temperatures on this planet have not changed one bit since 1998! Anyone who says any different had better put up or shut up:
Global temperatures for 2008 will be slightly cooler than last year as a result of the cold La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said.
The World Meteorological Organization's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, told the BBC it was likely that La Nina would continue into the summer.
This would mean that temperatures have not risen globally since 1998 when El Nino warmed the world.
So when these political crackpots start screaming 'save mother earth' you may look at them and wonder what they have been smoking or better still: WHAT ARE THEY REALLY UP TO?
MANY THANKS TO JIM MILLER!
Jim's interpretation of the above graph is right on the mark; i.e.:
Since 1998 the deviation from long-term average temps has only been about 0.3 of a degree C warmer, down from 0.8 C warmer, with no obvious short-term trend; while CO2 levels have continued to climb at a very steady rate.
The above is of course over a very short time-span, WRT being able to demonstrate a clear change in the trend toward warmer world-wide temps. But if the record for the NEXT 10 years shows average world-wide temps dropping back to or even below the long-term average, then it should become considerably more difficult for the PC lefties to ignore it (note I said SHOULD, not WILL: I expect some of them will try and ignore all science that does not agree with their pre-conceived opinions).
SIDEBAR: For readers who might be interested in a thoughtful and well-referenced series of technical articles on global warming, I would highly recommend an opinion series in the Methow Valley News titled ''The Contrarian''. All 7 articles that have been published so far have been written by my friend Dick Ewing, who is an analytical chemist who lives in the upper Methow.
Direct link to those opinion pages is:
http://www.methowvalleynews.com/opinion.htm
The ''Contrarian'' series is (usually) towards the bottom of the above (all MVN opinion pieces are under same long link).
Posted by: Methow Ken on April 21, 2008 03:53 PMThat's pretty much the gist of this.
Posted by: FreedomLover on April 21, 2008 04:04 PMI don't see anything misleading about that graph. But I guess you assume we're all too stupid to interpret it.
The idea that the AGW debate is 'settled' is just nonsense. It's easy to win a debate with the global warmers. So it's not surprising that most Americans are more concerned about gas prices.
(http://www.pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm)
Not really. Absent the added CO2 from human industry, CO2 has had a small effect on temperature, but throughout history has been driven more by temperature than it drives temperature. Only today, with minuscule increases in atmospheric CO2 - less than 200 parts per MILLIION - political opportunists have seized upon it to perpetuate the largest hoax in the history of man.
Hey thehim, most of know how to read a dual-purpose graph that shares x-axis values, and to put it into language that even pompous eggheads can understand, the basic point is that while atmospheric CO2 has increased 6% over the last 10 years, temperatures have not risen, but decreased significantly. Not all that complicated, huh?
And while KW64 makes the only logical argument that defenders of this lie can make, most of us would tend to conclude, given the abundance of evidence on the subject showing that CO2 has lagged behind temperature for tens of thousands of years, that the large glowing orb in the sky is the principle force in the solar system driving temperature on this planet, and those defending this lie have something either truly ignorant, or genuinely evil driving their attacks on fossil fuel driven civilization. With likely a near infinite source of free energy at mankind's disposal just sitting their to be used, the efforts by the alarmists is tantamount to aspiring for the devolving of man. Or at least the holding back of industrialization throughout the underdeveloped countries on this planet for varied purposes, but equally wrong.
Posted by: Reality on April 21, 2008 04:17 PMWhat is really interesting about the CO2 graph is that it has the same shape from the 1880's right through to today, not just since 1998.
How could that be? Where were the massive numbers of coal-fired power plants and SUV's back in the 1880's?
A far better explanation is a slow release mechanism - say from CO2 dissolved in the oceans as they have gradually warmed since the end of the Little Ice Age (which amazingly enough ended about 1880).
But that explanation is too complicated for the agenda driven AGW modelers, who are more concerned with political power in their quest to impose their doomsday cult-like views on the world.
Posted by: deadwood on April 21, 2008 04:29 PMNo, that's not at all what the graph shows. Temperatures have not decreased significantly. The lefthand y-axis is not an absolute value, it's a deviation. And depending on how they calculated the data, it could actually be misleading in how it shows the trend.
Absent the added CO2 from human industry, CO2 has had a small effect on temperature, but throughout history has been driven more by temperature than it drives temperature.
That does not mean that an unexpected increase in CO2 in the atmosphere could not drive temperature changes.
Posted by: thehim on April 21, 2008 04:34 PMThe Al Gore crowd are pikers compared with the British Royal Society, which has in the dim past actually promoted science and whose members made important scientific discoveries. But now?
Britain's leading scientists of the Royal Society have written to the oil giant ExxonMobil, demanding that its board stops funding researchers who attempt to undermine the Establishment's consensus on climate change.
So the R.S. has promoted itself from science to religion, and is vigorously attempting to defund any human attempts to gain knowledge of climate trends which violate its Bible. Makers of such attempts are now heretics, and must be scourged from the Garden of the Politically Correct Eden.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on April 21, 2008 05:20 PMBottom Line: All pedantry aside, we will not let the communist/progressives ride this environmental Trojan horse to power. Any sane environmental solutions will exclude the communist/progressives because they're proven mattoids who habitually commit horrendous crimes against civilization under various "politically (exploitationally) correct" ruses.
Posted by: The Pirate on April 21, 2008 05:27 PMBut does it show that CO2 drives Temp? No, it doesn't. What little is known is not clear, but supports Temp driving CO2 better than the other way.
Check out William Brigg's blog on the relative merits of which drives which (http://wmbriggs.com/blog/). As far I know he's in nobody's pocket on the issue - he's just a well respected statistician.
I both believe and disbelieve many things in the realm of climate science. What I do not do is "Believe In" science from any field.
A "belief in" something requires a leap of faith. There is no room in science for this kind of quasi-religious thinking. We should all take care in how we speak about science, so that we can tell the cultists from the scientists.
And by the way, what is unexpected about a warming ocean degassing? This is what the ocean has done in each inter-glacial period for the last 3 billion some odd years since the planet started having glaciations. Why should it change just because man is around this time?
Posted by: deadwood on April 21, 2008 05:34 PMI am so confident that the climate hysteria is false that I would be more than willing to bet my house that we do not have disastrous warming in the next 40 or so years (the hopeful remainder of my life,) and that the large majority driver of earth's climate is not mankind.
More later.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 21, 2008 05:39 PMFirst, to be scientific, a hypothesis must be testable by experiment. Since one cannot alter the Earth's climate by experiment, one is only left to make computer models which b design mimic the past. Then assume they are valid for future predictions.
Second, one of the biggest errors in science is confusing correlation and causation. The fact CO2 has gone up while the earth has warmed over the last 150 years is not proof of anything. Over that same time population has increased, roads have increased, species extinction have increased, 100's of things could be correlated to global warming, but that does not prove they cause global warming.
Third, computer models are only as good as the data they start with, just last week "new data" in Science revealed that fine soot particles in the atmosphere are responsible for 1/2 of all surface heating, hence all the computer models have overestimated the effects of CO2 by a factor of 2.
Fourth, over the past decade global warming of 3-5C has been observed on Mars, Pluto, Titon, and Jupiter: If global warming is occurring simultaneously on multiple bodies in the solar system, then it is highly likely a common factor (THE SUN) is driving global warming, not CO2 on the earth.
Fifth, the earth has never had a stable climate, it is always undergoing climate change. It was warm during the Roman Empire, cooled during the dark ages, warmed during the Enlightenment (when Greenland was settled), cooled during the "Little Ice ages" (when Long Island Sound regularly froze), and since about 1850 has been warming again.
Posted by: Zorkbirder on April 21, 2008 05:49 PM
Got no more to say but Damn Al, you really have to practice what you preach!
Take first class, you don't need a a private gas guzzling jet!
Stay at the Bellagio Villa for 6k a night like Hillary, and sell two of your three massive homes.
One should be enough.
(thank you, Rush Limbaugh doomsday clock)
Posted by: Michele on April 21, 2008 08:52 PMZorkbirder @ 23:
Ding ding ding! Right on the money. Why can't MORE people understand that?
All in all, Gary @ 12 had it exactly right: they want to scare you into voting for the government to rob you blind. It really is rather brilliant. The whole cap and trade stuff is bogus, and putting a carbon toll on roads is ridiculous, as well. I say that until someone offers me a viable transportation alternative, I will drive my car and emit more and more CO2 for the trees and the algae to breathe.
And like Zorkbirder mentioned, it's like nobody bothers blaming the most obvious culprit: THAT BIG, BRIGHT GLOWING THING THAT LIGHTS UP THE PLANET EVERY DAY.
Dur.
Posted by: Cydney on April 21, 2008 09:09 PMhttp://climateprogress.org/2008/03/18/hadley-center-to-delayers-deniers-pielke-global-warming-not-cooling/
I'm sure there are other good analyses, but the one Jim posted is a joke.
Posted by: Bruce on April 21, 2008 09:09 PMposting it. I personally would like to get
ALGORE on that show with the lie detector.
I have a few questions I would like to ask him.
Now that would be entertaining. Posted by: mark on April 21, 2008 10:01 PM
Gary @9. It should be meaningless how many scientists agree on something. That is not science. What matters is what incontrovertible evidence is there of Global Warming. You only need one scientist with INDISPUTABLE FACTS to prove it.
Hell, at one time the "best scientists" thought the Sun revolved around the Earth. They all agreed. And at one time there was the general "agreed upon" belief that the earth was flat. Until more research was done and thus proven wrong. So, just because "scientists agree" doesn't make it so.
Posted by: Dave on April 21, 2008 10:04 PM24% of the voting US population are "dedicated informed" Liberials.
52% of the voting US population are "uninformed Idiots"
The "uninformed Idiots" are allowed to determine Leaders and the fate of this Great Country.
God Help Us All!!!!!
Posted by: bucko36 on April 21, 2008 10:20 PM24% of the voting US population are "dedicated informed" Liberials.
52% of the voting US population are "uninformed Idiots"
The "uninformed Idiots" are allowed to determine Leaders and the fate of this Great Country.
God Help Us All!!!!!
Posted by: bucko36 on April 21, 2008 10:20 PM24% of the voting US population are "dedicated informed" Liberials.
52% of the voting US population are "uninformed Idiots"
The "uninformed Idiots" are allowed to determine Leaders and the fate of this Great Country.
God Help Us All!!!!!
Posted by: bucko36 on April 21, 2008 10:21 PMI have an honors BS degree in Physical Chemistry and was a few hours short of a BS in Math. Thermodynamics is a fact of life in our universe and NO ONE including Al Gore can change it. I will agree if 27% of Americans believe in alien abduction, then who knows what they believe about global warming, given the bombardment of the new $300 million ad campaign on the cable promoting the idea of 'man caused' climate change combined with this media blitz from the far left.
I believe it therefore important to get the word out to your family, friends and neighbors to beware all of these claims, because most of the one's I have seen are indeed 'bogus' and I am being kind here.
Posted by: Bob Clark on April 22, 2008 06:24 AM
Yeah the GW is doing a great job alright!
By the way. I live near the beach and it's 34 this morning. 0-:
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on April 22, 2008 06:39 AMWhile I ridicule Al Gore, I have to admire his Get Rich Quick Global Warming Scheme. Billionaire Al isn't the one I have disgust for- it is the minions who take what he says as gospel and buy/spend money to Al's companies.
Posted by: swatter on April 22, 2008 07:05 AMI could be a billionare too!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on April 22, 2008 07:12 AM(There are other faults in the graph. For example, I would prefer centering the Y axis at 0, to make it clearer that the last ten years have been warmer than average. I could have made a somewhat better graph, but it would have taken me a day or so to do so, since I rarely make graphs.)
But Bruce doesn't get credit for reading comprehension. If he will look carefully, he will see that the post is under the "local media" category. I am not making an argument about global warming, I am criticizing a local NPR host for not asking the questions Bruce himself would probably ask if he were talking to Cliff Mass, and heard what Mass has been saying about climate change and our recent weather.
And I probably should add something about my own views on the subject here, just so there is no misunderstanding. Their opponents sometimes call people like Al Gore and NASA' James Hansen "warmists". (The opponents, I suppose, would be "coldists".) I am not a warmist, but I am not a coldist, either. I suppose that I am "lukewarmist", to use a term I found on one of the global warming sites, most likely, Climate Audit or WattsUp.
In other words, I am skeptical about the more extreme claims made by Gore and Hansen, but I do not reject the general argument that we may warm the earth by burning too much fossil fuel.
(Whether a couple of degrees warming would be a bad or good thing, net, is a separate question. I see no reason to believe that the current temperature is an optimum. We might be better off, net, if the climate were warmer -- or if it were colder.)
I am skeptical, but not unwilling to take precautions, to do things that we might do anyway, to prevent global warming from becoming a problem. For example, I have argued for years that we should replace coal plants with nuclear plants for our base power load. (As far as I know, Al Gore is still unwilling to back nuclear power as a way to avoid the catastrophe he claims is coming. FWIW, President Bush has explicitly backed nuclear power as a way to avoid some of the problems of global warming.)
Finally, I want to thank Bruce for trying to respond to an argument -- even if it wasn't the argument I made -- and will give him this hint in case he wants to learn more: Try Google with this search string: "1934 + 1998 + warmest".
(The best site I have seen for discussions of global warming is Climate Audit, though I probably should warn you that the posters assume a fairly high level of statistical and scientific understanding. The main poster at the site,Steve McIntyre, has not taken a position on global warming, though he keeps finding mistakes in the data, and the analyses, of the "warmists". And he often urges those on both sides to treat this as a scientific question, not a political fight. With that, I entirely agree.)
David Bueche
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/earth_first_people_later.html
Posted by: JDH on April 22, 2008 07:27 AMThe factors that affect the climate are numerous. Too many factors are ignored. Take the models used for CO2 and claim causing Global warming. Which model will work perfectly from 1900. THey dont. That is why the take a starting point in the 70's when we were in a naturally cooling cycle and everyone was claiming we were going into an ICe Age. Now we are going into a cooling phase. I saw one paper said it could last for a decade or two.
Please hot air blowers we need more warmth to make up for the sun cyclic change to a cooling phase.
Posted by: David Anfinrud on April 22, 2008 07:47 AM
Take a look at www.surfacestations.org where people are photographing hundreds of weather stations next to air conditioners, and now on asphalt pavement instead of being in a nice grass field. (This is because many airports have paved everything to accomodate pilots who hate grass and gravel.) Make a difference being on black pavement? Try touching a black car in the sun, then go find white or light green cars.
Anybody seriously looking at GW data should spend a half hour looking at that site.
Posted by: keb on April 22, 2008 08:06 AMThanks for the information. I would agree that I am probably a lukewarmist also. I would rather do what I can to not impact the earth, but I also think that too much of the hype is taken to the extreme.
I see efforts to raise fuel economy and get off of gas altogether for cars as good. It saves people money, while they still can drive cars, instead of having to soley rely on mass transit. It reduces our dependence on middle eastern oil. Finally, it spurs the auto industry to innovate. Part of the decade plus of innovation that came with the original NASA program was coming up with solutions that would work when size and weight were a concern. It is the same with the auto industry. Honda through both its racing program and general research has done light years of advancement on propulsion technology. It may see to be against prevailing wisdom, but designing for racing does provide benefits. If they can design a higher efficient engine and reduce the weight of the race car, but still keep the driver safe, then it can go farther on the tank of fuel in the race car. Going farther may mean one less pit stop in the race, and thus, the difference between winning and losing.
I also agree with you in regards to Nuclear Energy. I think the main issue, however, that does need to be addressed is disposal of nuclear waste. The Navy has developed a very good recycling program for their Nuclear submarines, with disposal of the reactors at Hanford, but the bigger issue is where to dispose of the nuclear fuel rods, including the transportation of the rods to the disposal site. I know this is one area the Navy has fought with environmentalists for decades.
Posted by: tc on April 22, 2008 09:00 AMThey get 14 MPG, run around with nothing in the back. They use a disproportionate amount of our Nation's fuel supply. Cars could be fitted with standard brackets for one-wheel trailers for folks needing to haul stuff to the dump. In the WWII days we had fuel rationing... wonder if it might return?
Market forces will get people off the truck thing, but there could be legislative means to push it.
Posted by: keb on April 22, 2008 09:20 AMThrough the constant onslaught of media coverage, global warming has become accepted as fact. This is so even though no conclusive science exists to prove global warming. In other words, it has been a highly effective PR campaign.
Science works by creating theory and then requiring positive proof of a theory. Typically, this proof must come through several positive laboratory results. Since the positive lab results for global warming do not exist, the true believers became very savvy with their PR campaign. Al Gore in particular, with profit in mind.
Now that a large percentage of the population believes in global warming, anyone with an opposing view must prove a negative. Proving a negative is nearly impossible. This is one of the reasons that our courts were set up so that prosecutors must prove guilt (e.g., prove a positive) as opposed to the accused being required to prove that he or she is not guilty (e.g., proving a negative).
To highlight the point, imagine a discussion with a UFO believer. He says they exist. You say he has no proof. He says, "You have no proof they don't exist." Well, what's your response?
Once you force your debater to prove a negative, you have won the debate, at least in the eyes of the public. Hence, no amount of logic on the part of smart people like Jim will change the playing field. We all simply have to wait for the global warming "bubble" to pass, just like the dot com bubble and the real estate bubbles eventually burst. (Which brings to mind the fact that eventually, some fortunes will be made by shorting oil futures).
You can find this same phenomenon in many other areas of politics, where the debate has been won, but the facts do not support the resulting paradigm. I'll spare you the long list.
Having said all of that, I agree with Keb that there are at least some desirable side-effects. Most importantly, reducing or eliminating our dependence on oil from extremists, and reducing the money we give them for that oil, is a good thing in my opinion. I have no particular attachment to the internal combustion engine, but I sure don't want to become part of Nickels' herd and forced into cattle cars. So I'm happy to see more fuel efficient cars, hybrids, electrics, and whatever else true innovators can come up with.
Posted by: BananaLand on April 22, 2008 09:53 AMI get it, after you city dwellers outlaw pickup trucks, maybe you could work on outlawing idleing at stop lights while in cars, after all that is far worse on gas mileage then driving pickup trucks. Maybe they could tax city drivers, or rather, every time someone is stopped at a stoplight in the city the police can fine them five bucks or something.
Get people to stop driving pickup trucks!?! you elitist piece of Obama scum.
Posted by: Doug on April 22, 2008 10:18 AMAnd people should not make a big deal about this one cold year here...which is connected with la nina and an unusual atmospheric circulation pattern. There has been some exaggeration of the global warming signal here in the NW.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
How odd, we have one one or two days of hot temps and you enviro's go nuts about warming.
How many times have we had (La Nina)
Some people seem to forget this.
Thanks.
Posted by: Gary on April 22, 2008 10:22 AMThere is a problem with your main premise. Global Warming does exist and has in the past. This is the reason so many people believe in the AGW type today. The argument is "Man Made" Global Warming and that has been entirely impossible to prove.
I am all for cleaner fuels. Cleaner air. Conserving our resources. I am not all about using AGW to falsely promote the means to that end. We should be responsible stewards of our resources.
Posted by: Mr. Rcguy on April 22, 2008 10:55 AMNow, supposedly, it's all caused by man.
Ok, when, in any social activity is anything that linear? Our economy? Housing prices? Unemployment? Consumer sentiment.
Everything that people do can vary wildly.
Yet, somehow, CO2 production in the last 100 years has maintained a guaranteed rate of return more solid than gold, oil, the DOW and Treasury bonds!
I guess those "carbon credits" are a good idea...better than real estate!!
Posted by: John Bailo on April 22, 2008 11:08 AMYou might want to read this too.
Posted by: Palouse on April 22, 2008 02:04 PMHeck, we can't even casually discuss the weather anymore without it being turned into a political discussion by the Left. The weather used to be something two strangers could talk about pleasantly, but the Left has even ruined that.
And, yes, I can conceive of "profound warming" not occurring if the CO2 levels go up. The Sun has way more to say that a few PPM of CO2.
Where I live used to be under a glacier. It melted before Man even lit a match. I'm glad my house is no longer under a 1,000' block of ice.
Posted by: Gary on April 22, 2008 02:21 PMThanks buddy. I think you made the right point.
Were tired of the Al Bores and his So -CALLED truth.
We want real numbers, not someone feelings.
Get back on your meds.
I am an extremely conservative ex Wall Street guy and rancher in my retirement. I have a Pickup Truck.
Posted by: keb on April 22, 2008 05:12 PMPlants eat it. What's wrong with it?
And keb, you can't be very conservative if you want the
government nannys to do your dirty work instead of letting people/markets figure out what's best for them.
(I left the first comment, by "thehim", up, despite the insult directed at me, because I thought it was quite funny -- though unintentionally.
And partly because I mind insult directed at me a little less than insults directed at others, regardless of which side they are on.)
Posted by: Jim Miller on April 22, 2008 07:04 PMThis year may also be an anomaly with LaNina predominant and the next 3-5 years will foretell the future, with the solar activity which is the main influencer. This Earth Day has fallen into the wrong hands and is a farce IMHO, with the carbon neutral Mariner game - more GIGO. Carbon credits my arse !
Posted by: KS on April 22, 2008 10:06 PMBased on the comments that followed, I'd think he might not post here again.
Posted by: BA on April 23, 2008 10:43 AMAnd has any of these Liberal dipsticks realized that if it got warmer we would actually save energy around here? If it was sunny and nice like good old California, the land of fruits and nuts (jobs), I would ride my bike all the time, not have to heat my house so much, burn wood, blah, blah, blah. Any 18 year old could see that it would take less energy to do a lot of stuff if it was warmer!?!?! DUH!
Posted by: Theonlyangrynorthwesternnative on April 23, 2008 01:22 PM