Effect Measure

The big climate change news isn’t that there is now a consensus that humans are mostly likely driving it. That’s not news at all, at least to anyone who isn’t paying attention or isn’t just mouthing Bush administration talking points. The big news is that the denier group just got significantly smaller because the Bush administration has now acknowledged the obvious:

Burning fossil fuels in power plants and automobiles is most likely responsible for global warming, according to a Bush administration report that confirms climate risks already accepted by most of the world’s scientists.

Carbon dioxide, the byproduct of burning coal and oil, has contributed most to warming in the last century, the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the White House National Science and Technology Council reported today. The assessment from President George W. Bush’s top science advisers is the strongest endorsement yet of a global scientific consensus on the causes of climate change, said Jay Gulledge, senior scientist at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, a nonprofit research group. (Bloomberg)

This admission didn’t speak up willingly. The Bush administration was sued by the Center for Biological Diversity to make a scientific assessment of the effects of climate change, required of them every four years by a 1990 law. Respect for law has never been very high on the Bush scale of priorities and this was no exception. Their attitude? Make us. So the court made them.

The most surprising thing about the report is that it didn’t just repeat all the old hoary arguments of the the tiresome climate change denialists. Instead it essentially ratified the conclusions of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC report assigned a better than 90% probability to the proposition that humans were a significant cause of global temperature increase. The Bush administration report also acknowledged that North America could suffer even more than the rest of the world.

Apparently the few remaining scientists in the Bush administration are asserting themselves now that their boss is reviled, politically weak and marginalized. Seven years wasted that the US could have been part of the solution rather than part of the problem. Like the President’s former press secretary, administration scientists are finally telling the truth. Of course the truth was known by everyone else in both cases all along. The only news is in who’s saying it. W ask the President’s science people what we would like to ask his former Press Secretary and the media he so easily duped. Why were you silent for long?


  1. #1 Edmund
    May 30, 2008

    Bush has a serious credibility problem. I’m not going to believe anything he says. I wonder what Steven Milloy has to say about this. I trust his judgment.

  2. #2 yogi-one
    May 30, 2008

    In other news, the White House issued a vaguely worded statement that although it would never be official policy, there is a remote possibility that the sky might be blue. Long a point of contention among conspiracy theorists, the idea has been circulating on the internet and at least one scientist has been publicly rebuked for commenting on the the color of the sky.

    “We are certainly not changing the course on this issue,” said a White House spokesman.

    Fox news commentators were quick to denounce the idea, proclaiming that the sky has always been in a red state. “The tinfoil hat crowd is at it again with their off-color remarks about the sky,” said Glenn Reck.

    Considerable money has been spent on K Street by lobbyists on both sides of the issue. “It’s important that real Americans – by which we mean white middle-aged, balding corporate executives – know that their investments in Red Sky funds will be safe, so we’re making sure ‘fringe elements’ don’t color the debate here,” said a spokesperson for a lobbying foundation who chose to remain anonymous.

    If the sky turns out not to be red, but blue, as some Democrats and Independents have been claiming, the effects could reverberate through the country. Not the least would be the impact on the markets due to the possible collapse of the rose-colored glasses industry.

    “We have had several banner years of selling rose-tinted glasses, and quite frankly, many people would lose their retirements if the market was adversely affected by this. Already we have seen slight nervousness in trading on Wall Street,” said one analyst.

    Also, insurance rates to protect against a sudden change in sky-color have been skyrocketing, forcing at least a few small entrepreneurs out of business in such sectors as rose-tinted motivation philosophy books . “I’m hoping these unfounded rumors will not affect book sales,” said a spokesman for Rosy Futures, Inc, a major publisher of positive-thinking philosophy books based on the idea that the sky is red.

    The military could also be adversely affected, as the selling of a “Rose-Colored Future” has been a major theme for Armed Forces recruiters during a time of continuous war. “Our soldiers have made their careers defending a Red Sky America from terrorists and asymmetrical, off-color threats,” said a recruiter who wished to remain anonymous. “This could drive down recruitment rates, and affect the whole military sector.”

    However, such high profile Independents as Ralph Nerder, as well as some NGOs and Greenpeas have been mounting a counter campaign. Says Nerder, “The science is in. The whole idea that there’s a controversy over whether the sky is blue is being perpetrated by small but powerful special-interest groups. We are fighting a huge, monopolized propaganda machine here. But if Americans are to have the truth, we must keep trying to inform people.”

    A major fundraiser concert, called the “Blue Rocker Show” is to be put on by dozens of major Hollywood stars and such rebel musicians as Willie Snelson later this summer. It is expected to be watched by a billion people worldwide, as well as simulcasted all over the internet. Says Blue Rocker icon Bonnie Rate,”We’ve been telling the truth through the Blues for decades and the the people’s voice needs to be heard.” She is expected to make an appearance with former Allmen Brothers keyboardist Gregg Allmen in which they will play the Allmen Brothers’ hit “Blue Sky” originally released in the 1970s, a time when there was wider acceptance of the idea.

  3. #3 Phila
    May 30, 2008

    Bush has a serious credibility problem. I’m not going to believe anything he says.

    What you seem to be missing is that Bush didn’t say this. The study was released only after “the Bush administration was sued by the Center for Biological Diversity to make a scientific assessment of the effects of climate change, required of them every four years by a 1990 law.”

    In other words, if Bush had had his way, the report never would’ve come out.

  4. #4 zy
    May 30, 2008

    The Bush administration has actually been saying this since the “Rose Garden speech” of 2001:
    “Concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased substantially since the industrial revolution… the increase in large part is due to human activity.”

    Unless they intend to follow their statement with action, it’s all just business as usual.

    (See, you Deniers out there – you have nothing to fear. You can admit the reality of anthropogenic global warming and still be a Do-Nothing.)

  5. #5 Lea
    May 30, 2008

    The rain forest provides the lungs of the Earth, absorbing huge quantities of carbon dioxide, but we’re still cutting down and burning massive quantities of trees on a daily basis.
    We are far past the trigger points for uncontrollable global warming, a misnomer if there ever was one.

  6. #6 fullerenedream
    May 30, 2008

    Lea, I’m pretty sure algae are the lungs of the earth. Rain forests help, but the ecosystem/habitat they create is where their real value lies. Oh, and yes, they’re a carbon sink too.

    “Rainforests have been called the “Lungs of the Earth”, but the term is misleading. Although rainforests do release vast amounts of oxygen into the atmosphere, they absorb just as much through the decay of organic matter. However, they do play an important role in regulating the Earth’s atmosphere by storing carbon in their biomass. When forests are destroyed, the carbon they contain is released into the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide.”


  7. #7 M. Randolph Kruger
    May 31, 2008

    Yogi-one, I pause to bow before you as you pass……..

    I guess these people who dont understand its not about global warming. Its about the control it will give the UN and the “one world government ” types.

    Eco-Police Force

    You there, let me see your carbon dioxide card, cough up the nitrogen card too. You little bastard! You were polluting at six times the average human… fine the shit out of you. You little bastard!

    Whats that? You have no job so you cant keep the house warm with anything other than firewood? You little bastard!

    Water pollution?. Screw you Mac, your name isnt Celine Dion. SHE gets to pollute the waterways with 6.5 million gallons every year because she will sing at green rallies and further the agenda. You little bastard!

    Whats that about her being Canadian? What? You said something about coal tar sands? You little bastard! They are Canadians, they never pollute anything.

    Huh? What about bio fuel and how many people are starving now because of it?
    You little bastard! Dont you know that this is a GOOD thing?

    Well we are just going to have to send you to the gulag with all the other denier dissidents……You little bastard!

    Wait…We have a more permanent solution to the problem. We are going to kill you to make sure your carbon footprint is longer here, much less too big.

    One thing about bird flu….If it comes and it takes a third of the planet and all of the carbon dioxide goes away suddenly, then I will no longer be a denier/skeptic. Want to bet whether we see a world war over not using fossil fuels?

  8. #8 paiwan
    May 31, 2008

    fullerenedream: “I’m pretty sure algae are the lungs of the earth. Rain forests help, but the ecosystem/habitat they create is where their real value lies.”

    You are pretty correct in saying marine algae are the major supply of oxygen; nevertheless the regulators are marine viruses.

    This mountain is higher than that mountain- Chinese proverb.


  9. #9 revere
    May 31, 2008

    Randy: LOL. Bush changes his talking points and suddenly “it’s not about global warming” anymore? I think if we go back over your many many comments denying the reality of anthropogenic climate change you will find they are all about denying the science of global warming. Now you have switched to a new argument, about “one worlders.” It would seem that the underlying logic would be equally applicable against federalism in the US, and then against states over local communities, and then community standards over the individual. I conclude you are an anarchist.

  10. #10 K
    May 31, 2008

    Randy, if bird flu shuts down industry the CO2 currently in the atmosphere will continue to rise and cause problems. However particulate will quickly drop out of the sky and the sun will have full force again. Global dimming is what is keeping the warming from being extreme. So a shut down of industry will NOT help but hurt. Dimming is an important part of the equation.

    Secondly OWG is NOT going to happen. You might want to read Joseph Tainter’s Collapse of Complex societies. It has begun. With Peak Oil upon us, it is all down hill. With the population so high and energy diminishing collapse is all the elite, Bilderbergers, CFR’s, Rockefellers, etc can look forward too.

    Besides GW is the wrong kind of issue around which to organize a world takeover. People have to be scared, and stay scared of actual and imminent events. With AGW people are always looking at 10 to 50 to 100 years before it gets bad and so they act concern and continue to drive their SUV’s. 9/11 got this country to give up all sorts of freedom. It would take an alien attack to get the world to organize under one government and stay that way. Perhaps someone is getting ready to stage such an attack. But if they think t they will get world gov’t by using Carbon Credits they are just plain stupid.

  11. #11 M. Randolph Kruger
    May 31, 2008

    WADR-Revere, its just another argument. Bush did it to be politically expedient and to head off other issues. He is as weak as Carter was but for different reasons. No one thinks that Carter would have dropped the bomb if Russia had pressed on for the Straits in 77. Anarchists destroy things by leaving the system, I am far from that. I do though conclude that there is a back channel that is systematically destroying our economy in lieu of whom? I think that when the next administration comes to bear regardless of Obama or McCain and all of the damage that has been done across the last 25 plus years to improve the lot of the other parts of the world, the US will be green and have no economy to speak of. Government take over of everything. Democrats, Republicans regardless of your bent we are going to be the one world government and the UN is going to be running the show. No one has done anything in our national interests in the last 25 years. The environment is what it is, not what we think we can make it. There are too many people on this planet and if we improve their lots rather than ours they are going to just make more babies.

    We are in deep, deep trouble here and its too expensive to operate in our country as it is becoming in the EU because of all of the regulations we have to comply with AND THE REST OF THE WORLD DOESNT! We are a world leader in taking the political high ground on agenda items, GW is no exception. No longer is money pumped into our economy by corporations, its pumped out. Lack of capital has created a dead zone here and it will continue to escalate. Al Gore and his minions are successfully saying that we are the problem and not the rest of the world. If we were getting it right our emissions would be going DOWN and not up…Why? Because we have continously regulated our emissions and especially in Calfornia until we got what? A dying economy. It will take about another 10 years but it will be gone, the housing market will dissolve and the welfare state will be in full socialist swing. We are seeing the beginning of the end.

    We cant even build cars in the US any longer…even if they are green.


    Now the Dems want to nationalize hurricane insurance too.


    And K this is the counter to your assertion. If government here controls everything via the tax codes, or carbon credits which is pure horseshit there is going to be a revolt and I aint talking about the system. I am talking about a revolt in the old form and fashion as in 1776. There are seccession movements already underway and its because the system is no longer responding to the people. Its responding to only special interest groups that do no work, produce nothing other than children into a dying welfare system. It is doomed to collapse and everyone had better get used to it. UHC is another form of control as is the GW movement. Its a bait and switch. If it cools off then we will be saddled with a system that will surely disintegrate as fast as a biodegradeable coke bottle. We will lose our edge in the world. The military will no longer be able to fight a war because it will be eviscerated as it was during Carter and Clintons Administrations. As for the global dimming K, I always say that all you have to have is incontrovertible proof and you will have a convert. Else, keep pumping the line and do keep producing agenda based “science”. I can safely say that whomever is President next will be a one termer……It will be about the economy stupid(s) and not about GW, Kyoto and Montreal. They wont give one big rats butt about what the greenies think.

    Oh yeah, its not about GW and I am a denier/skeptic. It is about control of our country by others. Its a microscopic picture in GW. But roll all of these things that are happening all together and its a pretty big picture…All to our detriment in the US.

  12. #12 K
    May 31, 2008

    MRK do you have incontrovertible proof that there is no warming or that if there is CO2 has nothing to do with it?

    Meanwhile collapse is on the way for world civilization and there is probably nothing that can be done to stop it now. If you haven’t read Tainter’s Collapse of Complex Societies, do. None of the reasons you cite are the core reasons. You are just so full of American and human hubris and so full of hate for everyone not like you that you cannot see that this is much bigger than all the issues you raise, and it is not about you having to take a cut in lifestyle, poor baby. Jesus lived the simple life. Since I believe you are Christian why don’t you take up the cross and follow him. WWJD – read the red letters in a red letter Bible and figure it out.

  13. #13 Lea
    June 1, 2008

    fullerenedream: Does this apply to algae?


    Seas off West Coast very acidic, study warns
    Expert: Warming threat to sea life wasn’t expected for at least 50 years.

    Cutting down rain forests and other tree areas around the world, that in past have absorbed by natural process the carbon dioxide and not replacing them fast enough, is resulting in the oceans and lakes taking more of the brunt of it. This is the part of the 5% impact humans have on earth, with the rest being natural cycles taking over of which we (commoners/scientists) are just noticing because of increased tech.

    Just 5% of long term human destructive action if done to the right elements/products of Earth can have a major impact to overall long term survival of humans and animals.

    Like that of the frog in the boiling pot or don’t pee in the well theory.

  14. #14 pft
    June 1, 2008

    As for the global warming coming from CO2 produced from burning oil, 31,000 scientists say its not true.


    CO2 is food for our crops that we eat, and it’s increase has improved crop yields allowing us to feed the world.

    Me thinks the IPCC forgets the basic laws of Thermodynamics and Physics in service to their Malthusian masters.

    First of all, hot air rises. Last time I was on a plane it was -60 deg C at 30,000 ft (outside of course). IR is absorbed by CO2 and H20 in the lower troposphere near the surface. This heats the air, which then rises, transferring heat upwards by convection.

    The Malthusian Global Warming Bunnies would like you to believe that the IR is then released in all directions, including down. Back transfer of IR on average is not possible, because heat transfer of the emmitter can only be in a direction where the absorber is colder. With increasing altitude, the temperature declines, 0.7-1 deg C every 100 meters. That means the direction is up. I don’t live at 30,000 ft. The way I see it, if it gets a bit warmer up there, who cares.

    CO2 is only 0.038% of the atmosphere. It accounts for only 4-8% of the entire green house effect (without any greenhouse gasses, the earth would be -18 deg C.). Water and clouds account for virtually all the rest.

    Second of all, the atmosphere holds 100 times less heat than the oceans, and 250,000 times held by C02 in the air. The oceans act as sink and absorbs heat. While the upper surface of the oceans may rise during atmospheric warming that manifests itself as higher surface temperatures, the deep cold sea will be able to absorb that via conduction and convection.

    I do not deny there is global warming. There has been global warming in my lifetime, I remember in the 70’s they were all in a dither about a new ice age due to global cooling. How long this will last, nobody can say for sure. Is it man made?. Perhaps, in part. I would argue that the culprit is water. Human activity certainly releases a lot of water into the air, and water accounts for most of the greenhouse effect.

    But here is the thing. The Malthusians know we need to use energy to grow more food for an increasing population, and that increasing CO2 helps crops grow and increases precipitation. By restricting energy consumption and limiting CO2 emissions, this will lead to lower living standards and less food, all of which are conducive to depopulation.

    Look at it this way, assuming Mother Earth is seeking to accomodate her childrens growth, perhaps she regulates the temperature to make it a little warmer, more humid and give us more water, and increases CO2 to give our plants and crops more food.

    The Malthusians say we are like a virus giving Mother Earth a fever, and we must reduce the viral load. Let her be the judge, not man.

    As for Bush turnaround. Look, they play good cop – bad cop. The Dems and Global Warming Bunnies are supposed to be good cops. The neocon global warming deniers the bad cops. Both of them get paid by the same globalist elite. It’s time for change. Now Bush is going along, just following orders. This means it is just a matter of time before we get a carbon tax.

    As far as our shortage of capital. The other great hoax of the 20th century being that governments must borrow money from a private banking monopoly by printing up bonds that are purchased by the banks with money that THEY create out of thin air, and then for every dollar the government spends, the system can then create 10 times more money by issuing loans. LOL.

    In the 21st century, it’s even funnier. Now we have China loaning us money with dollars that were created as above. The Fed prefers CDO’s (junk) now since we make them return the interest on our bonds, no fun for them. So where does the Chinese government get the money to loan us? Of course, we sent it to buy the exports of their manufacturers. But the manufacturers can not use these dollars to pay their taxes or workers salaries, so they need to exchange the USD for RMB with their governments bank. So China, prints up their RMB, money created out of thin air, to buy the USD from their factories. In other words, we let China print up RMB to buy USD and loan the USD to us, and we pay them interest, when our government could be printing up their own money, debt free, like Lincoln did, and building infrastructure, paying for health care, even paying for our military.

  15. #15 K
    June 1, 2008

    PFT, I checked out some of the names on that list of “scientists”. One in AL turns out to be the owner of a tire store. Another worked for Dow (no bias there) Another was an Optometrist, quite a few Vets listed. The list is a joke.

  16. #16 revere
    June 1, 2008

    pft: K is right. The other joke is your version of thermodynamics. Vibrating molecules generate electromagnetic radiation (they are moving charges) in every direction. They don’t know which direction is hotter or colder. The atmosphere decreases in temperature with altitude because it is heated from below by a Black Body (the Earth). It is like the air near the surface of a hotplate that gets cooler as you go away. If a warm packet of air actually moves vertically (which it may or may not do depending on the way surrounding temperature changes vertically) than it also loses energy (and hence temperature) because it expands with decreasing pressure, according to thermodynamic principles at a rate called the adiabatic lapse rate. Your back of the envelope calculations do not take into account the interacting and non-linear effects in the climate system. Lorenz showed that even very simple non-linearities can produce profound differences. Thus the necessity to use robust modeling to predict the net effects of these interacting components. Enormous efforts by very many very smart scientists have gone into this and been subjected to the back and forth of peer review, controversy, argument and conflict characteristic of the scientific process. What has emerged out of the other end is the current scientific consensus (your bogus list notwithstanding). These folks do know thermodynamics. You, apparently, do not. This consensus represents the best we have at the moment. You can reject it out of hand for reasons of some ideology or conspiracy theory, but that is your business.

  17. #17 M. Randolph Kruger
    June 1, 2008

    Or you can discount the Milankovitch cycle, how the earth warmed to much higher than it is now over the eons and how it got much colder. Seems that the IPCC forgot all of that and just listened to the libs and lefties. Specifically Al Gore. Their message? “It has to be man made”, or so they say. I am waiting for that to be proven but consensus is not proof.

    Consensus: 1. An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole ”

    He didnt get a Nobel for nothing… but just about. It was for bring “awareness” to the “problem.” But if there is really no problem, then he got a Nobel for nothing and I think that it will warm about another 2 or so degrees in my lifetime. Okay, so the earth is doing its thing. As for GW, I for one am just skeptical about this and the processes involved are more than just complex… its mind boggling. They cannot use models because they are horrendously inaccurate. You have to get down to the nitty gritty. Since another post was dumped I have to again state that the instrumentation measuring the changes are terribly inaccurate and misplaced. So you have to take the good with the bad but knowing that and then popping up and saying that this is fact is poor science. I dont deny global warming. It is happening on a limited scale. The causes are what I call into question.

    IF the GW’s are right then its already too late. We are going to add about a billion between now and 2030 and the earth wont be able to take it. You can cut, bend, mend it anyway you want. If tip over is a reality then it wont matter one bit. Simple numbers or carbon footprints will spin it out of control. Unless there is an intervention by nature that takes a bunch of them off the planet.

    And K, 9000 of them have Phd’s on that list. That to me says that there is a lot of dissent on “consensus.” The fact that the IPCC discounted and did not allow all of the available information in leads me to believe they have an agenda and that agenda is to bring the US down economically. None of these other gomer countries are complying but we keep on regulating ourselves out of jobs. The worst part? The environment with all of these regulations here hasnt improved much if any. We cut, regulate and do all of this stuff at the behest of the lefties/libs and nothing changes. Cant blame it on Bush because if you are right about ozone and all of the stuff and how long it takes to migrate to the high atmosphere it would have had to started during WJC.

  18. #18 revere
    June 1, 2008

    Randy: As usual, you have the causal sequence backward. I can’t stand Al Gore but I believe the IPCC. Al Gore says what he does because of the science. The idea that the scientific consensus toes the liberal or Al Gore line is just too ridiculous to even comment on although I find myself commenting on it. Go figure.

  19. #19 Lea
    June 1, 2008

    Did see the news story about the instrumentation measuring the changes being terribly inaccurate and misplaced MRK.
    No surprise actually.
    My confidence in mankind is what’s cooling/warming. Everyone knows how to create problems and no one seems to know how to fix them properly. (at least not to my liking)

  20. #20 M. Randolph Kruger
    June 1, 2008

    I guess Revere if aliens were here doing the measuring during the time of the dinosaurs that it would have had to have been humans too. I dont put much credence in what the IPCC has to say on it because its skewed data. Exclusions were made and by their own admission. Categorically denied and the processes to do it were political. Wouldnt it be interesting if suddenly say 25 states just up and said enough is enough and f the federal government. The only thing they could do is withold federal funding….that is unless they want to start a civil war.

    I would especially think that the people in Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania would get this as they have had such huge hits in jobs the last few years. They arent producing anything, but those emission levels keep increasing. There is no Iron Belt activity, its the Rust Belt. There is no car manufacturing going on… the market is flat to down and they have closed those older inefficient plants. So where in hell is all of this GHG coming from? Probably from those things that they excluded categorically such as gomers in SE Asia where all of the jobs went.

    I totally fail to see how a nearly stable population in the US can be snowed so badly. The GW people say its the US. I say bull. Our population is getting older so they arent driving as much, they are not snowmobiling, or driving boats. They sure arent working on the line where all of the GW’s said the pollution was coming from a few years ago. Hell they successfully ran that business off.

    Lea, yes I did see that article and I can tell you that the information especially at airports is skewed because most of them are from placement errors. Near highly reflective concrete, in limestone gravel beds (they dont have to mow), elevated on mounds due to drainage. Then and this will kill Revere, the NWS has contracted it out. The AWOS systems are notoriously unreliable and were only accurate 40% of the time during calibration checks. Enough that the Feds mandated quarterly rather than bi-annual checks. So there are many ways to spell crap data and that is governed is all in what color glasses you are wearing at the time. They can be rose colored or green or red/blue states, dependent on your politics. Mine is the politics of the US first and that includes the libs/lefties, everyone else second. Anyone who thinks that I am heartless in that well thats too bad. I have said it before I would stomp the living dog snot out of any other country that screwed with our people. This might include the vaunted UN, whose policies have given way to nothing but a US bashing free for all. Remember, this is the same group that was manipulated by the Russians for years when Waldheim was Secretary.

    All I see is the economic effects of GW and that is the US jobs keep leaving because we keep regulating and coming up with stuff that only affects the US and not them.

  21. #21 revere
    June 1, 2008

    Randy: So the whole population and all the scientists in the IPCC (the cream of climate scientists in the world) have all been snowed, but you and Fox News have it figured out? As you make crystal clear, it isn’t about the science for you. It’s about whose economic ox is being gored. That’s the difference between you and scientists. For scientists it’s the science.

  22. #22 K
    June 1, 2008

    MRK, the Milankovitch cycle is discounted because of global dimming. Global dimming is supported by pan evaporation studies. Whatever effect the Milankovitch cycle would be having is negated by the dimming of particulate pollution (which if it suddenly dropped out might send our warming up much higher). Studies done after 9/11 when planes (and their contrails) were out of the sky for 3 days, indicated an unusual increase in warming.

    Also per Nasa the unusual warming of 2007 is more notable because the Southern Oscillation and solar cycle put us in a period of low solar irradiation.

  23. #23 K
    June 1, 2008

    MRK, regarding the list, if we were to obtain a similar list of those who agree with AGW which was PHD’s from any field, medical doctors, vets, and tire store owners I expect we could do one 5 times as big as 31,000. Not fair to compare numbers of misc scientists, drs and vets etc with numbers of scientists from the various fields that relate to, and are studying GW. That is apples and oranges to apples.

  24. #24 Richard Simons
    June 1, 2008

    pft said

    CO2 is food for our crops that we eat, and it’s increase has improved crop yields allowing us to feed the world.

    If you look at experiments done with actual crops, rather than individual plants grown in pots under ideal conditions indoors, you will find that the evidence that increasing CO2 increases crop production is surprisingly small. When you add to this the fact that increasing temperatures reduce yields of most crops by interferring with pollination while also allowing more pests and diseases to thrive, plus shifting rainfall patterns, it is quite likely that there will be a reduction in crop yields.

    CO2 is only 0.038% of the atmosphere. It accounts for only 4-8% of the entire green house effect (without any greenhouse gasses, the earth would be -18 deg C.). Water and clouds account for virtually all the rest.

    The difference is that extra CO2 hangs around for thousands of years while water vapour responds to the prevailing conditions very rapidly. The extra CO2 raises the temperature, which increases the amount of water vapour, which increases the temperature, which increases . . . This is why CO2 is considered a driving variable while water vapour is a response variable. Just considering the direct contribution from each is misleading.

  25. #25 M. Randolph Kruger
    June 2, 2008

    K-The point is made and you made it. Milankovitch asserted the cycle long before we started loading up with cars, but we had coal and it was chugging right along during his time. And you agree, it was discounted and there were literally hundreds of other things that were discounted completely. Not partially, completely. The biggest? GW might be a cycle. I wont say you folks are wrong. You could be partially or totally right. But the science that was excluded and please K I dont include the tire store owners, but there are helluva lot of people that are with universities around the world and in public service that say that it is a cycle and that we might be contributing to it slightly. Slightly I agree could mean that a lot of people dont eat, or they get killed in a Katrina, or a Rita. But the bottom line is that you cant sit back and just say that this is it, its incontrovertible.

    Think not… take a look at those glaciers that are calving off in Greenland. There are soot lines in the ice and there are tens of feet of ice that come before you see the next one. That indicates mighty cold weather for the N. Hemisphere at least. That too was discounted completely. So Revere, for me it is the science and in some cases common sense.

    My read is that if we green out, we tap out. All of the jobs will be gone for less greener pastures. I also have said it before many times. If we have to comply immediately, they should too. To not do so is to doom our livelyhoods here. Then when we are driving cars that can barely make it up a hill, they will be the ones driving the Yank tanks.

    Rich…again here is something. “The Co2 hangs around for thousands of years.” Well not in the presence of acid, either nitric or carbonic and both are byproducts of being in contact with water. Add in a bit of Sulfur dioxide from volcanic venting and explosions and the theory goes into the toilet. Besides, no one has been able yet to account for where the Co2 goes now, much less then, or will.

    But it is good you bring it up. Its one of the bigger arguments out there and its valid on both sides of the fence. You could be right, they might be too. There were no contrails until the Germans developed their high altitude fighters. Then we got into the act with the B17’s and the rest as they say is history. But contrails have been proven to affect the weather to some extent and how badly it “dims” is in question. Just as the acid rain thing from a few years ago, we quit producing large amounts of acid and it started to get warmer. But it also was the same time that the population of the earth got bigger too. There are simply too many variables for anyone to stand back and say, “Thats it, thats the reason.” It may be a number of causes but man would only be one of them.

    Even if it is man, then we will go the way of the bees. A massive kill of some kind likely biological will cull us back or naturally select us for elimination. I am not advocating that we start this energy credit bullshit either though. It isnt about peak oil either. Its about peak energy. We cant build nukes in the US, they are dangerous. We cant dam up anymore rivers, its bad for all sorts of things. We cant burn more coal or oil because it pollutes the atmosphere. I really dont see how anyone thinks they are going to survive. I am sorry but there isnt enough lead or other materials on this planet to make batteries that would even come close to providing the power output. Solar isnt it either, especially if suddenly something happens to dim the sun worldwide. Cant grow crops without fertilizers, and they are nitrogen based. So I really just cant see what the end game is other than everyone has gone and jumped on the lemming bandwagon heading into the sea. Cut any one of the power sources above and we are in trouble. The nukes we are using are very old. We could get much better efficiency if the environmentalists would let the oil industry build new and better refineries. That certainly would clean up the air. And above all, if there is going to be compliance with a new standard somewhere, EVERYONE on this planet should have to immediately upon its invocation. None of this 40 year shit. Think I am wrong? Where have all the chemical and manufacturing jobs for the better part gone?

    Do try to square that one up. Unfortunately, it is a micro picture of what would happen if we continue to green and they dont. We will lose the farm while they become the new leaders. Anyone recall when I said that you had better start to learn Chinese?

  26. #26 Richard Simons
    June 2, 2008

    MRK says:

    Rich…again here is something. “The Co2 hangs around for thousands of years.” Well not in the presence of acid, either nitric or carbonic and both are byproducts of being in contact with water. Add in a bit of Sulfur dioxide from volcanic venting and explosions and the theory goes into the toilet. Besides, no one has been able yet to account for where the Co2 goes now, much less then, or will.

    Where on Earth did you get this from? Carbonic acid, nitric acid and sulphur dioxide do not remove CO2 from the atmosphere. What does happen is that CO2 dissolves in water to produce H2CO3 which is carbonic acid. That is why natural rainwater is slightly acidic and can dissolve limestone. It is also the reason why the oceans are becoming more acidic (about half the CO2 being produced is being taken up by the oceans). This is a major concern because it will soon, if it is not already, interfer with the growth of corals. Long-term removal of carbon from the atmosphere largely depends on geological processes such as the production of coal and limestone.

  27. #27 K
    June 2, 2008

    Richard, as I understand the acidic oceans kill off planktons as well. Not only does this affect the food chain but I have read that the planktons produce 1/2 the oxygen in the atmosphere. If that is so, then the acidification of the ocean is a severe enough consequence to cause us to cut back the CO2 going into the atmosphere even if it doesn’t cause warming.

  28. #28 M. Randolph Kruger
    June 2, 2008

    Acidic aerosol effects in the atmosphere. In particular sulfur Rich. But the Co2 isnt the real problem IMO, its the nitrogen levels from fertilizers. We can stop their use but we are going to see peak humanity if that happens…. not enough food to go around. Nitorgen is far more dangerous and would lead to the dimming as K said. Add a volcano or two into that and the lights go out. It would only take a year or two of failed crops and temps falling the one or two degrees on average and it would spell disaster for hundreds of millions. I dont discount anyones opinions, or what they put up. The GW’s could be right, but I dont see anything conclusive and I sure wouldnt keep industry from functioning. But to get a true consensus and a true baseline, everyone should have to comply and I mean right now with OUR regulations. If we got that and the temps still went up, I would be a GW person instantly. This is the reason the satellites were put up, we cant get a true baseline except via California initiatives that have failed miserably in limiting pollution. Their population went down in the 80’s and 90’s. Pollution went up… Howzat work? The only thing that they could come up with was that it came from somewhere else.

    SE Asia where there are no regulations. The below are just samples Rich, I have a lot more. Dont take it wrong but there are lots of skeptics like me. What we need IS a BF event but purely from a science standpoint. If we removed say a billion or two from the planet and GW ceased and cooling started, then you have a convert. Anyone want to volunteer to go?





  29. #29 K
    June 2, 2008

    I think MRK that we are not at peak humanity quite yet – that will come with a delay after all the other peaks we are at which will be particularly unfortunate for those born between now and then as they will be the most vulnerable and have had little of life before death. But considering that 1/2 the people in the world live on $2 a day or less, perhaps and early death will be a blessing. Not much of a life but we in the 1st world think it would be a horror if we all had to use mass transit.

    Nitrogen is bad but it tends to be more local than CO2 it seems – ie the dieoff of ocean life is concentrated where large rivers flow into the ocean. While CO2 acidity affects all the oceans.

    Increased dimming by a large volcano could greatly reduce temps, has so in the past. But particulate falls out much more quickly than CO2 disperses.

    The concern with CO2 as the cause for warming is not because of 100% certainty but because the affects could be catastrophic and long term. While you might as for 100% certainty when it comes to having your teeth cleaned, if a DR gives you 90% certainty that you will die without an operation, most people think 90% justifies an operation.

  30. #30 M. Randolph Kruger
    June 2, 2008

    Again K, you are proving what I have been saying. Everyone is seizing upon their particular bent and the macro picture is run by the IPCC. Its via their script though and there have been many rewrites. It will be rewritten again. I wouldnt call it sleight of hand, but I would call it deliberate omission of important information that might tone down their Academy Award performance.

  31. #31 K
    June 3, 2008

    MRK, are IPCC members also taking blow torches at night to melt the glaciers in order to back up their claims?

  32. #32 paiwan
    June 3, 2008

    K: Great posts! It seems that MRK a bit confined in a corner by your inputs. He mentioned many little bastards, but forgot not the least and not the last bastard- p—–t.

    Randy: Don’t worry about China. China will take 240 years to catch up with the United States. Simple reasons; they don’t have general elections to vote president, congress, no fourth estate. Banking system not creditable, judicial system not born. We wish that the prophesy of Norman Cheong’s “The coming collapse” would not happen. My tradition mediated rationality tells me nevertheless the chance of not happening is slim.

    One thing that GW Bush has not done right is under the name of anti-terrorism, he has inhibited democracy and appeased China and even has withdrawn from Clinton’s strategy of maintaining creative ambiguity about China and Taiwan so called one China policy. Koutou to China. Stupid.

    Anyway, don’t worry about China as per your posts. But pay the attention to rectifying W. Bush. Can your voice reach to Bush’s ears?

    By the way, I knew that Einstein is Revere’s cultural hero; is Strom Thurmond yours? Just curious.

  33. #33 M. Randolph Kruger
    June 3, 2008

    K-Probably not. They are on the phone with Big AL.

    Paiwan-I have repeatedly offered up to anyone who wants it a full blown MODIS/TERRA full year loop of the most harmful of GHG’s and that is Carbon Monoxide. The satellite was conceived under Reagan, prototyped under Bush1, launched in the second term of Clinton and then happily clicked away for a year before he left office. If you recall, he was going to sign Kyoto and many believe that this was a major contributing factor to his NOT signing it. The fact is that the colorizations depict where those gases were formed in the summer and winter in the world and the US and EU go up slightly, slash burning in Central Africa and a bit in S. America. But over India east to the area around Vladivostok Russia its black or in shades approaching it. The colorizations are the same as it is for weather radar. The more intense the emissions, the darker it is. So in SE Asia and in particular China they are not catching up they have surpassed ANYTHING by any scale we could do. It literally covers the entire area.

    Mary in Hawaii was stunned when I sent it to her because she was one of the ones that was all for Kyoto and Montreal and new more stringent emissions standards for us, the US that is. The EU too. The fact is that we are pretty stable and by signing Kyoto we would have lost our jobs to SE Asia and they would have produced even more as Kyoto would have allowed them not to comply for 40 years.

    I disagree with your assessment of Bush on terrorism. We havent been hit and the reason we havent is that the law has been complied with. Unlike Clinton who sat and did nothing about the embassy bombings except to launch cruise missile attacks against them in Afghanistan and Somalia he took them out in Afghanistan. Iraq was another but the wrong target. Militarily Iran is surrounded. Afghanistan on the right flank, a large army on the left and the US Navy on the South. If we leave, then Iran will destroy the government of Iraq and will be back into Afghanistan within weeks. We just missed the target by 800 miles is all. There havent been any attacks against major US assets under Bush. The Congress authorized the laws for interrogation and we are using them to their fullest. We are also proxying the interrogations when we cant get the information we need. Quite frankly Paiwan, if I had an inkling that there was going to be another 9/11 I would kill their children in front of them to get the information if there was no other method available. The needs of the many would outweigh the rights of the few. There wouldnt be a jury in the land that would convict me of it, unless it was in San Francisco. And maybe not even then. There can no longer be any of this “We are better than that” in the US. “Hit them before they hit us” is where we are now… I wish it werent so.

    And thats what its all about. We have an illusion of security here. There are daily reports of individuals who are very bad actors. I know of sixteen in Boston, forty eight in New York, fourteen in Miami and all of the major cities. No, they are currently inside the law so therefore cannot be touched. But do you intervene before an act or after? Just decide while thinking about the people who took a ride into Hell on 9/11. Well obviously before so you have to have surveillance or you have to have the right to arrest and hold without trial. They complain now about the surveillance…. We could just sit back and do nothing I guess as the Democrats are good for and then just wait for it to happen. I like being proactive rather than reactive myself.

    How history is going to judge GWB’s Administration is a question that wont be answered for many years. He wasnt and isnt a negotiator and has acted appropriately to the situation for security of the US and that includes Iraq. He has but one task left in this arena and that is Iran. We all know that this is going to be a necessary trip. We are in the negotiating phase now, war is next.

  34. #34 R. Milton Klinger
    June 5, 2008

    Well, I can see that my input is need once again! The liberals are all wetting their panties and throwing around nonsense like “science” and “negotiation” as if a giant sky-father wearing a white lab coat reading Al Gore novels will save them from reality. NEWS FLASH WORLD: the USA was founded on the principle of a safer world through superior firepower. Now, before someone says “that’s not true!” I’d like to remind naysayers that America has not only solved every major European, Asian, African, and Middle Eastern war since 1776 but we have also aided and started some of them; the USA knows how to deal with bullies, we have experience that China, Iran, and other members of the Axis of Evil can’t hold a candle to.

    Anyhow, I’m tired of liberals bashing GWB as if he will magically disappear if we hurl enough insults at him. Clearly the President is made of tough material to withstand 7 years of direct opposition to his policies; who else in our governmment had the balls to pin 9/11 on Saddam? I’d like to remind AMericans of the following statistics:

    # of times Saddam threatened the USA with war prior to 9/11: 28,000
    # of times Saddam previously tried to blow up American property: 0, but he was thinking about it!
    # of times Saddam threatened the USA with war after 9/11:
    56,000 +1
    # of times Iraq refused to surrender to the USA: 7 years and counting.
    # of times Iraq has refused to take responsibility for Osama bin Ladin’s actions: 7 years, and it’s like Iraqis don’t get it! THEY CAUSED 9/11 BY NOT STOPPING BIN LADIN WITH THEIR OIL RESERVES!

    I pray to Jesus every day that if only the sensible Iraqis had used their natural resources to give the USA the means to stop terrorism, all this war could have been avoided. I think we can all agree that the USA never would have declared war on Iraq if the country had stopped its jihad, captured Saddam bin Ladin for us, and then given us their oil so we could pay our debts to China and Middle Eastern banks. We, they fucked up big time, and that was when they were going to declare war on us; its a damn good thing that GWB talks to God directly–not that faker Allah bullshit but the white Jesus God– because we had the foresight to declare a pre-emptive war before the Iraqis could mount a resistance with their Soviet-era one-winged airplanes.

    Another thing while I’m at it! Bush’s dad declared the war on terror during his administration; GWB junior didn’t declare it he just reaffirmed what American was already committed to doing; so stop this bullshit about “wah, wah, Bush declared war on terror and now its costing us our lives!” Please, Bush didn’t declare it, BUSH did! Even you liberals can figure that one out, I hope.

    Oh yeah, we need to keep citizens under government scrutiny. Not just the Iraqis but also the French and Iranians. I dont trust them, not just because they are French, but because they told the USA to back off– its like your annoying anorexic neighbor telling you to stop hitting your wife because “violence hurts people” Not true–American tanks actually rebuild walls and homes when they fire at them; Blackwater made them especially for this war, or so my friends at the Pentagon say. In all my 50 years of service to the USA I have never doubted that the USA would be the best ball-breaker nation in the world! We truly are the arsenal of democracy and have a great legacy for our children.

    Last paragraph; I know that the liberals must be exploding inside for a chance to refute my outstanding arguments against their neo-liberal dogma. OKAY if America weren’t the best nation in the world then tell me who is? England? Italy? China? Iran? Mexico? Please, these nations owe their existances to America; we saved all of Europe–twice in fact– when they were off blowing each other to smithereens! Mexico’s economy is essentially a labor-union bank with its headquarters in Los Angelas and San Diego, CA. China can’t be the USA no matter how hard it tries because 1) they don’t speak American 2) they haven’t put a man on the moon 3) They are at least a few centuries behind the USA in terms of mathematics, engineering, and science; America still offers the best education in this God-fearing world! Iran is a rogue state that has repeatedly threatened us with nuclear warfare; don’t believe me? Just watch the way the haircut of their leader, Mohammad Aljindeen-what-the-fuck-ever, shifts from side to side because his mind is filled with evil thoughts–see, thats how God lets America know if a nation needs to fall by our righteous gun of freedom!

    We must stay the course and hold fast to our unwavering President in these times of emotional upheaval and national confusion–we must turn to our aging 60+ year old bankers, Congressmen, weapons dealers, oil CEO’s, car manufacturers, and insurance company presidents to place our faith in them that hold our nation. I’m so pumped full of American spirits right now I think I will call up McCain on speed-dial and shout patriotic slogans over the phone!

  35. #35 Payday Loan Advocate
    November 3, 2008

    Are media reporters supporting Obama whole-heartedly? As Jonah Goldberg of the National Review Online put it, “most of the reporters covering these campaigns want to be rewarded with White House correspondent jobs.” So, in broad statement, they want to secure an easier access to who they feel will be America’s next president. On the other hand, John Harris and Jim VandeHei of Politico have a slightly different view. They report that a study conducted by the Project for Excellence in Journalism found that 6 out of every 10 John McCain stories were negative in slant. For Obama, however, he has more than twice as many positive stories published. VandeHei directs the focus on members of the GOP playing the blame game in the desperate moments as McCain’s campaign begins to decline. “There’s always pile-on at the end of the campaign,” he says. In this case, however, it is the policies and campaign strategies that have caused McCain’s difficulties. To sum it up, journalists love the frontrunner and strive to keep a momentum. It’s the kind of momentum quick cash loans can give your budget when you need it. While it’s only temporary, it sure is a great feeling.
    Post Courtesy of Personal Money Store
    Professional Blogging Team
    Feed Back: 1-866-641-3406

New comments have been disabled.