Still, waters run deep
Mainstream media misses connection between global warming and Midwest floods 120
-
Posted 3:37 PM on 12 Jun 2008
by Joseph Romm -
Posted in
-
Read More About
Joseph Romm is the editor of Climate Progress and a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.
Related Stories
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
Cast your vote for the best climate journalism
Global boiling declares war on Thanksgiving
Add a Comment
You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
Comments
View as Threaded
Delay And Deny Posted 9:13 am
12 Jun 2008
The flooding is historic -- if your a 4th grader.
You have to read the fine print -- one article called the floods "historic" but then added it was the worst "in 15 years"!
For many kids, "wierd weather" would be more like the cold snap that Seattle is experiencing...did you know that we're "colder than Siberia"??
Seattle weather: Colder than Siberia!
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/200447066 ...
So much for the warming...
Permalink
hapa Posted 9:36 am
12 Jun 2008
it's like, "drought? what drought! there's water coming from this tap!"
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 5:46 pm
12 Jun 2008
...On March 19, 1956, Governor Ribicoff made the following statement before the United States Senate Appropriations Committee listing "what the 1955 floods cost Connecticut:"
*"91 persons dead and 12 others missing and presumed dead.
*86,000 persons unemployed.
*More than 1,100 families left homeless.
*Another 2,300 families were at least temporarily without shelter.
*Nearly 20,000 families suffered flood damage.
*Sixty-seven of our 169 towns were affected by the floods.
*The damage to individual property, to business, to industry, and to State and municipal facilities has been estimated at almost half a billion dollars."3 ... (1955 values)
Check-out: : http://www.cslib.org/flood1955.htm
What were the CO2 levels in 1955 again?
Permalink
Patrick Henry Posted 11:42 pm
12 Jun 2008
Cold waters in the Pacific are causing the severe weather, as cold fronts from the west interact with warm Gulf Of Mexico air.
Until climatologists understand what is causing the unusually cold water in the Pacific, they should keep their mouths' closed. They are embarrassing the entire scientific community with their absurd hysterical arm-waving.
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 2:13 am
13 Jun 2008
From about 900 AD to 1,400 AD the climate got considerably cooler, eventually likely causing the destruction of the Viking Colonies on Greenland. Were that trend happening today, it would be put down to "Climate change".
Now, I am not saying that climate change isn't happening, or that we should not be concerned about it. What I am saying is it is simply not true when we report every extreme weather event to it. No honest meteorologist would ever do this.
One of the big problems for environmentalists is credbility. That's because:
a. They lie and invent scary scenarios to garner support.
b. They often have hidden agendas tied to things like a dislike of certain lifestyles - not for environmental reasons, but simply because they think people should have different values and they want to change them.
Critical in framing environmental debate is to be honest and to be realistic.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
hapa Posted 3:37 am
13 Jun 2008
la nina
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 4:53 am
13 Jun 2008
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
hapa Posted 7:10 am
13 Jun 2008
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 9:19 am
13 Jun 2008
At least 1,836 people lost their lives in Hurricane Katrina and in the subsequent floods, making it the deadliest U.S. hurricane since the 1928 Okeechobee Hurricane. The storm is estimated to have been responsible for $81.2 billion (2005 U.S. dollars) in damage, making it the costliest natural disaster in U.S. history. The catastrophic failure of the flood protection in New Orleans prompted immediate review of the Army Corps of Engineers, which has, by congressional mandate, sole responsibility for design and construction of the flood protection and levee systems.
As I understand it, it was not a particularly bad hurricane; its just that there were some bad circumstances. But what about that hurricane, 80 years ago, per Wikipedia:
In south Florida at least 2,500 were killed when storm surge from Lake Okeechobee breached the dike surrounding the lake, flooding an area covering hundreds of square miles. In total, the hurricane killed at least 4,078 people and caused around $100 million ($1 billion 2006 US dollars) in damages over the course of its path.
What were the man-made to CO2 levels in 1928?
Permalink
christophersj Posted 10:26 am
13 Jun 2008
Virtually all climatologist who have peer reviewed published findings about Anthropogenic Global Warming have said this:
"While Global Warming cannot be linked directly to an individual weather event because of other factors, the science says that extremes in severity and number of both drought and wet storms are more likely with more CO2 in the atmosphere, than with less."
The science only talks about rates and severity over time -- NOT specific weather events.
So both sides are completely wrong in this thread unless they are using the meaning of this whole phrase.
This is the same misunderstanding that caused FOX News to misquote Al Gore's NPR interview a few weeks ago. Gore was careful to acknowledge both sides of this understanding I have written above.
But I think Black Wallaby knows that the real science tells a more realistic truth and is pointing out more foolish statements to forward his agenda.
-Christopher S. Johnson
Permalink
Patrick Henry Posted 10:34 am
13 Jun 2008
It has nothing to do with LA Nina. The theory is that "CO2 forcing" is steadily increasing the heat content of the oceans, yet that does not appear to be the case. Obviously there are other factors at work which the climate modelers do not understand.
If they did understand, they would have predicted it - which they didn't.
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 10:53 am
13 Jun 2008
If you would stay with the energy theme and how to reduce CO2 that would be nice, as you've proven a complete misunderstanding about how weather relates to climatology.
That said, the NCDC data was pretty neat, even if it proves nothing.
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 10:53 am
13 Jun 2008
Onward through the fog
Permalink
christophersj Posted 10:56 am
13 Jun 2008
I think the theory is only about ocean SURFACE temps. ALL responsible climatologist agree that there are other major factors that influence specific events.
-Christopher S. Johnson
Permalink
christophersj Posted 11:05 am
13 Jun 2008
You guys have to take the whole pill.
no specifics events
long term trends look bad with more CO2
-Christopher S. Johnson
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 2:20 pm
13 Jun 2008
It's too bad that nobody has done a study evaluating the frequency of severe weather events and their divergence from normal weather. Then they could check them against current weather and see if Climate Change had an influence.
Until then, as far as Joe Sixpack is concerned the wave of freakish tornadoes and flooding that have hit the midwest were totally because of this Global Warming stuff. That or God is totally PO'd at him and his neighbors for hitting the nudie bar last Friday night and then tossing a five instead of a twenty in the church plate.
Blame the coal companies or blame Joe's entertainment choices? You do the math. It's a little beyond rocket science but I think that the Midwest might just be taking the hint.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 2:42 pm
13 Jun 2008
Then there's the bigger issues like rising seas, or runaway global warming.
These are valid issues, even if the latter isn't quite proveable.
Therefore it behoves us to move on this threat. But this has to be undertaken in a measured manner, less we do more damage than good in totally disrupting the global economy.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
hapa Posted 2:54 pm
13 Jun 2008
Permalink
christophersj Posted 4:57 pm
13 Jun 2008
Show me one study that claims that the areas that would benefit from a 4 degree increase in global average temperature would be anything close to equal the areas that would be negatively affected. Human-wise, that is.
We are talking about leaving the range of climate that allowed for the Agricultural Revolution to happen 12,000 years ago. Not a new vacation spot for you in Greenland.
-Christopher S. Johnson
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 6:53 pm
13 Jun 2008
"...It's a little beyond rocket science but I think that the Midwest might just be taking the hint..."
And so they should, the sinners, with the worst floods for 15 years!
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 9:04 pm
13 Jun 2008
On top of this, the warmer the planet gets, the more rainfall. Where it falls........ another question. But there will be more.
Lastly, did I say it would be anything close to what would negatively be affected? No, I didn't. That isn't the point. Pay attention.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
Patrick Henry Posted 11:31 pm
13 Jun 2008
The 4 degree number from some computer models sounds very dramatic, but can't be justified based on the actual data. Rather than panicking and throwing the world's economy into crisis, the (ir)responsible parties should just fix the models.
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 1:59 am
14 Jun 2008
This has generated a huge discussion because it involves satellites, altimetry, and heat sensors that could easily be biased ... but the general consensus is that OHC has been declining over the last several years. This is rather baffling and contradicts the ambient air data. Scientists conjecture that perhaps (a) more subtropical water is headed poleward and (b) some very cold arctic meltwater is flowing south (speaking of the N. hemisphere).
That doesn't invalidate the global warming issue, since many expected the poleward sea ice and glaciers to melt, and be swept southward on the ocean currents. What is curious is that the Gulf Current (and others) appear to be changing over time ... a fascinating research topic. -sam
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Brute Posted 2:24 am
14 Jun 2008
Colder air doesn't have the ability to retain as much moisture as warmer air, (learned that in Junior High School). The temperature difference causes the denser, cooler air to fall, causing the warmer moist air to lift and condense. The recent severe thunderstorms in the Midwest were caused by lifting along frontal boundaries. COLD air advancing from the west lifting retreating warm moist air in the east. Being that BELOW AVERAGE temperatures prevail in the western states currently and are moving east into the (typically) warmer air with the Prevailing Westerlies, the clash of air masses occurred over the central United States causing the severe weather recently observed. It is the COLD air in the west that is unusual for this time of year, not the warm air in the east. Severe thunderstorms in the central United States during the summer months are common.....ever see The Wizard of Oz?
Somehow, I believe that you are aware of this condition, but choose to exploit natural weather events to prop up your untenable position(s). Unfortunately and shamelessly, the global warming hucksters are claiming these natural, severe weather events are somehow connected to whether or not I leave my porch light on overnight or whether or not I decide to take a vacation this summer. The Eco-zealots are taking advantage of these natural, tragic events to boost the exposure of their cause.
Lifting Along Frontal Boundaries
When Air Masses Interact
Lifting also occurs along frontal boundaries, which separate air masses of different density.
In the case of a cold front, a colder, denser air mass lifts the warm, moist air ahead of it. As the air rises, it cools and its moisture condenses to produce clouds and precipitation. Due to the steep slope of a cold front, vigorous rising motion is often produced, leading to the development of showers and severe thunderstorms.
In the case of a warm front, the warm, less dense air rises up and over the colder air ahead of the front. Again, the air cools as it rises and its moisture condenses to produce clouds and precipitation. Warm fronts have a gentler slope and generally move more slowly than cold fronts, so the rising motion along warm fronts is much more gradual. Precipitation that develops in advance of a surface warm front is typically steady and more widespread than precipitation associated with a cold front.
Permalink
Brute Posted 5:02 am
14 Jun 2008
That isn't happening.
Shall we look at GLOBAL high temperature records?
State high temperature records
State Temp Date
Ala. 112 Sept. 5, 1925
Alaska 100 June 27, 1915
Ariz. 128 June 29, 1994
Ark. 120 Aug. 10, 1936
Calif. 134 July 10, 1913
Colo. 118 July 11, 1888
Conn. 106 July 15, 1995
Del. 110 July 21, 1930
Fla. 109 June 29, 1931
Ga. 112 July 24, 1952
Hawaii 100 April 27,1931
Idaho 118 July 28, 1934
Ill. 117 July 14, 1954
Ind. 116 July 14, 1936
Iowa 118 July 20, 1934
Kansas 121 July 24, 1936
Ky. 114 July 28, 1930
La. 114 Aug. 10, 1936
Maine 105 July 10, 1911
Md. 109 July 10, 1936
Mass. 107 Aug. 2, 1975
Mich. 112 July 13, 1936
Minn. 114 July 6, 1936
Miss. 115 July 29, 1930
Mo 118 July 14, 1954
Mont. 117 July 5, 1937
Neb. 118 July 24, 1936
Nev. 125 June 29, 1994
N.H. 106 July 4, 1911
N.J. 110 July 10, 1936
N.M. 122 June 27, 1994
N.Y. 108 July 22, 1926
N.C. 110 Aug. 21, 1983
N.D. 121 July 6, 1936
Ohio 113 July 21, 1934
Okla. 120 June 27, 1994
Ore. 119 Aug. 10, 1898
Pa. 111 July 10, 1936
R.I. 104 Aug. 2, 1975
S.C. 111 June 28, 1954
S.D. 120 July 15, 2006
Tenn. 113 Aug. 9, 1930
Texas 120 Aug. 12, 1936
Utah 117 July 5, 1985
Vt. 105 July 4, 1911
Va. 110 July 15, 1954
Wash. 118 Aug. 5, 1961
W. Va. 112 July 10, 1936
Wis. 114 July 13, 1936
Wyo. 116 Aug. 8, 1983
Total Before 1950, 33
Permalink
hapa Posted 5:34 am
14 Jun 2008
Permalink
Brute Posted 6:18 am
14 Jun 2008
Here's a graph of solar cycles vs. temperature......
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/essifi ...
Here's a graph of CO2 vs. temperature......
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Since_2002.jpg
Which lines up better against temperature, solar or CO2?
Permalink
hapa Posted 7:18 am
14 Jun 2008
as to the hot weather records, since more than half fell in the 1930s, this kind of thing may be relevant.
i guess that's the convenience of the solar radiance argument, too, right, you can discount the danger of messing with the thermal balance of the oceans.
Permalink
hapa Posted 7:19 am
14 Jun 2008
Permalink
Brute Posted 8:45 am
14 Jun 2008
The 1965 Flood of the South Platte River
http://www.littletongov.org/history/othertopics/flood.asp ...
The Mississippi Flood of 65
http://www.big-river.com/br.story.c.html
Stories Of The Deer Trail Flood June 17, 1965
http://hometown.aol.com/deertrail131/FloodStories.htm
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 9:43 am
14 Jun 2008
I'd like to also mention that a one-year "global mean average" or AGW of temperatures does not indicate a signal for climate change. That is completely wrong. The correct was to do the analysis is to use statistics on departure from mean statistics using a 30-year rolling window. This will show where and how much temperatures or rainfall is trending over a longer period of time.
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Brute Posted 9:55 am
14 Jun 2008
By Richard Harris, NPR
Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. That could mean global warming has taken a breather. Or it could mean scientists aren't quite understanding what their robots are telling them.
This is puzzling in part because here on the surface of the Earth, the years since 2003 have been some of the hottest on record. But Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory says the oceans are what really matter when it comes to global warming. In fact, 80 percent to 90 percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters. They hold much more heat than the atmosphere can. So Willis has been studying the ocean with a fleet of robotic instruments called the Argo system. The buoys can dive 3,000 feet down and measure ocean temperature. Since the system was fully deployed in 2003, it has recorded no warming of the global oceans.
Read the full story here
Icecap Note: If anyone would bother to look at the actual data instead of just pronouncements in the media from NOAA or GISS, they would not be surprised at all by these findings. Here is a plot of actual monthly temperatures and the trends from the Hadley global data set (HADCRUT3v) and University of Alabama satellite derived lower tropospheric temperatures covering the same period as the robots measured ocean heat content. Like the robots they show a downtrend (cooling).
See full size graph here
Permalink
Brute Posted 1:05 pm
14 Jun 2008
Beginning on Easter Sunday, March 23, 1913, torrential rains across the Midwest dropped a record three months of rainfall in four days. Floodwaters funneled down Ohio's Miami Valley into the heart of the vibrant industrial city of Dayton. Levees burst, houses were swept away, and downtown was gutted by fires blazing from broken gas mains. At the end of Easter week, nearly 100 Daytonians had perished, and tens of thousands more were left homeless and destitute--a tragedy that made banner headlines in newspapers nationwide. Out of Dayton's ashes and mud rose fierce public resolve never again to suffer such destruction. The Great Dayton Flood of 1913 reproduces some 200 astounding photographs from the collections of the Dayton Metro Library and the Miami Conservancy District and the archives of the National Cash Register Company at Dayton History. They portray the terrifying flood, monumental destruction, heroic rescues, and compassionate leadership that occurred during the disaster and its immediate aftermath, as well as the pioneering flood-control engineering that has kept Dayton safe ever since.
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 2:56 pm
14 Jun 2008
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 4:35 pm
14 Jun 2008
"...Virtually ALL climatologist who have peer reviewed published findings about Anthropogenic Global Warming have said this:
"While Global Warming cannot be linked directly to an individual weather event because of other factors, the science says that extremes in severity and number of both drought and wet storms are more likely with more CO2 in the atmosphere, than with less."
The science only talks about rates and severity over time -- NOT specific weather events..."
Oh really? Can you point me to any peer reviewed papers that say this? I'm aware of various pronouncements of an opinionated nature, and media, but have not stumbled upon anything scientific. I know for instance, that Chris Landsea, an eminent hurricane expert resigned from the IPCC when "that big mouth" Kevin Trenberth publicly contradicted his expertise, with crap, and the IPCC club would not support Landsea probably because of Trenberth's entrenchment in the club. I've seen a lot of rubbish, but NO SCIENCE. Please enlighten me.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 4:49 pm
14 Jun 2008
I know how you feel! Our Australian Aborigines, have been here heap big long time, like maybe 50,000 years. Nice rock paintings of regionally extinct species, funny white skinned people in big boots, sailing ships, and possibly people (aliens ?) in space-suits. But climate science data stuff? Nah! Nary a hint!
Yet they were/are clever! Take the engineering of the boomerang and a few other things!
Permalink
Brute Posted 11:09 pm
14 Jun 2008
Filed under: Precipitation --
Global warming shows no significant influence on precipitation over land, a new study finds.
Despite human-caused alterations to the natural chemical composition of the earth's atmosphere, researchers are unable to identify an anthropogenic impact on global precipitation rates--one of the fundamental measures of climate.
While it would certainly be convenient for carbon dioxide emissions-control lobbyists if an unusual occurrence of floods and droughts were plaguing the globe, unfortunately (for them), this is simply not the case. While it is true that at any given time in multiple places on earth some level of drought (or precipitation surplus) is occurring, but these reflect normal patterns inherent in the earth's climate variability. That these are highlighted in the press simply plays into the media's fascination with catastrophe.
Their fascination with one particular "catastrophe," climate change, leads them to make connections where connections don't really exist. Such is the case with greenhouse warming and global precipitation, as demonstrated in a June 2004 paper appearing in Geophysical Research Letters by Nathan Gillet and three colleagues.
Global climate models have always had a difficult time simulating precipitation amounts. And for good reason: Scientists don't fully understand the process, and linking up what's happening within a cloud to the very coarse scale of a climate model is beyond our computational and, more important, scientific capabilities. Nevertheless, climate models do make projections of future precipitation patterns under input scenarios depicting various levels of human activity.
Gillett `s research team attempted to find out if the observed patterns of global precipitation over the last 50 or so years matched climate model expectations.
To examine this question, they used the National Center for Atmospheric Research Parallel Climate Model that was run with three different climate forcings: volcanic aerosols, solar radiation, and the combined effects of greenhouse gases, sulfate aerosols, and ozone depletion. They also ran the model for a case in which all three factors were entered simultaneously. All those forcings were allowed to change monthly based on historical observations, and the resulting modeled precipitation was compared with observed precipitation over land areas across the globe (precipitation observations of the world's oceans are quite sparse).
Figure 1 compares the observed precipitation changes with the model results. Before being plotted, the data were first smoothed to remove shorter-term variation, in this case to remove impacts of El Nino and other non-external components of natural precipitation variability. (In many cases, data are smoothed when scientists are trying to hide bad results, but in some cases, the procedure can be justified.)
Figure 1. Modeled (broken lines) and observed (solid line) global land average daily precipitation.
The quality of this simulation is in the eyes of the beholder. It's obviously not a perfect match--the model misses the precipitation peaks in the mid 1950s and the early 1970s, but some of the low precipitation periods are picked up pretty well. The model also misses the average rainfall rates because it tends to vary less than reality. Overall, the correlation between the models and observations is a statistically significant 0.45, which means that only 20%, or one-fifth, of the variation in global land precipitation can be accounted for by greenhouse gases, volcanic aerosols, and solar variations.
Nevertheless, it is reasonable to ask to what extent greenhouse gases are responsible for the changes observed over the period of record. So the authors compared the observed patterns with each of the forcing responses separately. They found that only the volcanic signal was detectable. In other words, monthly changes in greenhouse gas levels from the late 1940s to 1998 had no demonstrable impact on global precipitation rates over land. According to the authors, "Overall, we thus find evidence of volcanic influence on terrestrial precipitation over the past 50 years, but no evidence of anthropogenic or solar influence using our methodology." Other modeling work has suggested that the rainfall minimum in the early 1990s was linked to the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991. And the previous minimum in the mid-1980s followed on the heels of the eruption of El Chichon in 1982.
The theory here is that changes in shorter wavelengths of radiation (the heat coming from the sun) are more important than variations in long-wave radiation (the radiation emitted by the earth that is absorbed by greenhouse gases). There is also evidence that planet cools following volcanic eruptions, so a cool planet is apparently less rainy than a warm planet.
So the rainfall problem continues. It's hard to blame human activities on precipitation changes unless by burning fossil fuels we are provoking the wrath of the volcano gods.
Reference:
Gillett, N.P, A. et al., 2004. Detection of volcanic influence on global precipitation. Geophysical Research Letters, 31, L12217, doi: 10.1029/2004GL020044, 2004.
Permalink
Brute Posted 11:33 pm
14 Jun 2008
Environmentalists Try to Take Advantage of Natural Disaster - Blame Midwest Floods on Global Warming
By Joseph D'Aleo
In the latest in a series of predictable releases, an environmental group Clean Wisconsin today claimed that the disastrous floods that ravaged southern Wisconsin this week are consistent with global warming predictions in the January 2007 Clean Wisconsin report. The report, "Global Warming Arrives in Wisconsin," forecast that global warming would lead to increased instances of severe droughts, more intense floods and increased snowfall.
You see alarmist have adopted the can't lose position that all extremes of weather - cold, warm, wet or dry is due to global warming. They had the snowiest winter on record in Madison, topping 100 inches for the first time ever.
Wisconsin had its 33 coldest winter on record, nearby Iowa its 19th coldest in 114 years. The cool weather continued into the spring with the 22nd coldest spring on record in Wisconsin and 24th in Iowa.
The severe weather and heavy rainfall has been the result of rapid COOLING in the northern tier of the United States and Canada not global warming. The flooding exceeded the floods of 1993 when rapid cooling following the eruption of Pinatubo produced a similar kind of cooling with a strong suppressed jet stream that brought a steady stream of storms and flooding.
Rapid warming as took place in the 1930s and again around 1980 leads to drought and record heat. The alarmist movement is reeling after the warming stopped in 1998 and cooling began in 2002, accelerating in the last year. Their claims have now morphed from warming to focusing on the extremes typical of La Nina and the colder decades.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 11:56 pm
14 Jun 2008
"...This is the same misunderstanding that caused FOX News to misquote Al Gore's NPR interview a few weeks ago. Gore was careful to acknowledge both sides of this understanding I have written above..."
Are you aware that most of the world does not watch/listen/read FOX news? What is it? Should I in the antipodes understand what you are saying?
Christopphersj also wrote in part:
"...But I think Black Wallaby knows that the real science tells a more realistic truth and is pointing out more foolish statements to forward his agenda..."
(My emphasis added)
There are actually several aspects in the AGW (Armageddon Grievous Weather) debate, of which ONE of the commonest is media reporting of the most recent worst-ever disastrous bit of weather which is obviously caused by AGW. Thus, in this aspect alone, I cannot see why you think it is foolish to point out that the recent worst-ever weather has been exceeded by even much worse ever events in the past.
Please explain the logic of your criticism.
Please also explain: what is my agenda in your eyes
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 1:13 am
15 Jun 2008
Scientists noted several volcanoes and the advent of the Industrial Age (with black carbon coal aerosol). The question since the Industrial Age is whether mankind's air pollution levels are a signal of causation in the grand scheme of things. I think so, at least as a catalyzing mechanism.
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Brute Posted 2:06 am
15 Jun 2008
Respectfully, the debate surrounds Carbon Dioxide which is what the United Nations and Al Gore are attempting to regulate. Carbon Dioxide is plant food. You,(and I), are producing Carbon Dioxide every second of everyday. CO2 is NOT pollution.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/06/08/surprise- ...
Now, if you'd like to discuss reducing POLLUTION, I'm all for it.
Connecting CO2 emissions with "catastrophic environmental events" is the Mother of all taxation excuses. Imagine government control of every enterprise that is connected to energy consumption......a tax and spend politician's dream come true.
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 2:21 am
15 Jun 2008
So the question becomes whether mankind, with is huge air and water emissions, has tilted things enough to be considered as pollution even if it is CO2, oxygen, nitrogen compounds, sulfur, or whatever. Remember, even clean water can kill you - it's called drowning! Darn pollution ...
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Brute Posted 2:39 am
15 Jun 2008
If you'd like to control the weather.....excuse me....... "climate", you should try to figure out a way to regulate the MASSIVE NUCLEAR FURNACE AT THE MIDDLE OF OUR SOLAR SYSTEM.
Shouldn't take too long............
Commercial Greenhouse Tomato Production: Tomato Plant Propagation
http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/ ...
"Once the plants are placed on the final growing media, the air temperatures are maintained at 20°C day and night, with a relative humidity of 75% (VPD of 3.5 to 5 g/m3) and liquid CO2 supplementation to 800 to 1000 ppm."
Also, this.....................
Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:46 am
15 Jun 2008
Fortunately this attitude will go the way of the dinosaurs soon, along with you and your whole sickly political species, hehey.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Brute Posted 3:41 am
15 Jun 2008
If you are really that concerned about it, you should pack up all of your dope smoking, Birkenstock wearing friends, along with their peace signs and love beads and set up shop in India and China. Try convincing them that they need to ride bicycles and live in the dark. Test your form of "activism" over there......see how things work out.........The eco-chondriacs have been beating this drum for close to 40 years and despite the hand wringing and doomsday predictions, industry has boomed during this period......your alarmism isn't working....... oil, gas and coal consumption is skyrocketing.
Maybe you should write a petition to the head of the Chinese and Indian equivalent of the Environmental Protection Agency and ask them to stop building a coal fired plant every week......whoops, no such agency exists........China and India must have many "dinosaurs" within their populations and governments.
Ford Motor on China, India Car Sales Growth (F)
http://seekingalpha.com/article/6046-ford-motor-on-china- ...
Plan Would Lift Saudi Oil Output
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/14/business/14oil.html?par ...
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 5:06 am
15 Jun 2008
It's hooey like you spew everyday that is ruining the dimbulb limboob right. Hehey. Keep it up, good work.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Brute Posted 11:17 am
15 Jun 2008
Environmentalists' Wacky Predictions
Written by Walter Williams
Wednesday, 07 May 2008
Now that another Earth Day has come and gone, let's look at some environmentalist predictions that they would prefer we forget.
At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind." C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, "The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed." In 1968, professor Paul Ehrlich, Vice President Gore's hero and mentor, predicted there would be a major food shortage in the U.S. and "in the 1970s ... hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." Ehrlich forecasted that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989, and by 1999 the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. Ehrlich's predictions about England were gloomier: "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."
In 1972, a report was written for the Club of Rome warning the world would run out of gold by 1981, mercury and silver by 1985, tin by 1987 and petroleum, copper, lead and natural gas by 1992. Gordon Taylor, in his 1970 book "The Doomsday Book," said Americans were using 50 percent of the world's resources and "by 2000 they [Americans] will, if permitted, be using all of them." In 1975, the Environmental Fund took out full-page ads warning, "The world as we know it will likely be ruined by the year 2000."
Harvard University biologist George Wald in 1970 warned, "... civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." That was the same year Sen. Gaylord Nelson warned, in Look magazine, that by 1995 "... somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct."
It's not just latter-day doomsayers who have been wrong; doomsayers have always been wrong. In 1885, the U.S. Geological Survey announced there was "little or no chance" of oil being discovered in California, and a few years later they said the same about Kansas and Texas. In 1939, the U.S. Department of the Interior said American oil supplies would last only another 13 years. In 1949, the secretary of the interior said the end of U.S. oil supplies was in sight. Having learned nothing from its earlier erroneous claims, in 1974 the U.S. Geological Survey advised us that the U.S. had only a 10-year supply of natural gas. The fact of the matter, according to the American Gas Association, is there's a 1,000 to 2,500 year supply.
Here are my questions: In 1970, when environmentalists were making predictions of manmade global cooling and the threat of an ice age and millions of Americans starving to death, what kind of government policy should we have undertaken to prevent such a calamity? When Ehrlich predicted that England would not exist in the year 2000, what steps should the British Parliament have taken in 1970 to prevent such a dire outcome? In 1939, when the U.S. Department of the Interior warned that we only had oil supplies for another 13 years, what actions should President Roosevelt have taken? Finally, what makes us think that environmental alarmism is any more correct now that they have switched their tune to manmade global warming?
Here are a few facts: Over 95 percent of the greenhouse effect is the result of water vapor in Earth's atmosphere. Without the greenhouse effect, Earth's average temperature would be zero degrees Fahrenheit. Most climate change is a result of the orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the sun's output. On top of that, natural wetlands produce more greenhouse gas contributions annually than all human sources combined.
Permalink
Brute Posted 11:23 am
15 Jun 2008
As you can see, your kooky environmentalists don't have a very good record predicting anything.
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 12:25 pm
15 Jun 2008
Ethically, if we knew we (as mankind) were really introducing massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, then we should take measure to limit and reduce those emissions should there be prevailing science that indicates things could get worse, and rapidly - regardless if mankind's contribution is marginal. To do otherwise is not ethical and verges on hypocracy.
This is a strange manifestation by more of a small but vocal libertarian camp I suspect, as even mainstream Republican "technology delayers" like Bush and McCain agree that climate change and global warming are clear and present dangers. So my recommendation is to pay no mind, and work on those "technology delayers" for faster action. -sammie
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 1:08 pm
15 Jun 2008
BTW, most of us rationalists have no objection to more efficient or different (eg renewable) energy use, but we do object to unnecessary expenditures and scaring the pants off little kids with all the Gorey garbage.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 3:36 pm
15 Jun 2008
The sad thing is this "scientific" presentation of AGW has been done entirely through bullying with words.
Those who simply ask questions are labeled "deniers".
Someone who presents an alternative viewpoint a "troll".
Those who weight economic consequences are pegged as "delayers".
The people who present really strong scientific data, or question conclusions are said to be "working for tobacco companies".
For something that supposedly involves intelligent "scientists", the whole thing seems really 4th grade to me.
I think that when the full extent of the charade is exposed, those involved in bilking the public, such as Gore, are going to be tarred and feathered and run out of the "globe" on a rail...
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 5:28 pm
15 Jun 2008
The dreaded ID conspiracy!
Like perhaps Brute, Jabailo and me are all one and the same person but under a range of ID's.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 6:09 pm
15 Jun 2008
Permalink
Brute Posted 8:40 pm
15 Jun 2008
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:02 am
16 Jun 2008
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
enki Posted 12:53 am
16 Jun 2008
It reminds me of the last part of the movie Animal House where D-Day, Bluto, etc are in the Lincoln from hell about to ram the grandstand and the one ROTC dude is screaming "All is well. All is well". It didn't much matter whether anyone believed him or not, the end result was pretty much inevitable at that point.
Oh, and to all those people who point out that the climate of the Earth was much more rich in CO2 millions of years ago: there weren't any people on the planet then were there? I suppose that perhaps that is an inevitable cycle too, as the CO2 levels rise the humans disappear.
Another analogy would be to a group of people in a stalled vehicle on a set of railroad tracks. Half of the people in the vehicle think they ought to just let the engine cool a bit and the car will start ok. The other half think that they should push the car off the tracks to avoid being hit by a train.
The first group counters that the tracks may be abandoned and no train may even come. Also they point out, trains have used that set of tracks many times in the past and there has never been a car/train collision before.
Soon the whole group is so embroiled in their argument that they don't see the lights of the speeding train as it comes around the bend toward them going much too fast to even slow down...
Mike Johnston
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 1:22 am
16 Jun 2008
To me, I think the naysayers are truly worried, as climate change bills are considered with more seriousness in the Capitol. It is, pun intended, their "Siberian Moment." That's when a fisherman falls through the ice in a Siberian lake: you can get out of the water and freeze instantly, or paddle in the water and slowly drown.
No wonder they are shouting so loud, and may I add backed by some serious money and redneck NAASCAR appeal.
Just put on your headphones and carry on. -sammie
Onward through the fog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:07 am
16 Jun 2008
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 3:40 am
16 Jun 2008
That said...
A meteorologist -- as in a professional researcher -- interviewed on Wisconsin Public Radio described the current flooding as a result of La Nina, not necessarily global climate change. See the following website, which shows current La Nina data:
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso ...
Basically, according to the meteorologist, the La Nina phenomenon in the Pacific has led to the stalling of the Jet Stream over the midwest, as opposed to it migrating further north as summer arrives. Cold upper air that should have moved north by now is colliding with warm moist air out of the Gulf of Mexico, giving us unusual amounts of precipitation. Furthermore, there are currently stationary waves in the Jet Stream that result in storms moving along the same tracks over and over and over. I'm pretty sure this is how the guy explained it. Our enormous amount of snow day after day after day last winter was also the result of La Nina.
If you go to the NOAA website, you'll notice that this will likely happen again next year.
I think it is important to recognize what is the result of global climate change and what is not if a person wants to convince others that it is really happening. Every extreme weather phenomenon is not the result of global climate change.
The REAL missing connection...
Should those folks rescuing victims of the flooding have to use decommissioned WWII DUKWs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DUKW) that otherwise serve to cart tourists around???!!!
Where's the National Guard? Where are their helicopters? Where are their boats? Where are the troops? Where is all their heavy equipment that might be used for reducing the harm due to flooding and/or deploying temporary bridges?
It is in IRAQ... thanks to George W. Bush, his Republican lap dogs, and everyone who voted them into office.
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 4:02 am
16 Jun 2008
According to Jeff Masters, the ENSO is going rather neutral only recently but the subtropical jet did pump up a bunch of moisture from Tropical Storm Alma/Arthur, so there is much truth to what you say. Persistent high pressure over the GOMEX also figures in keeping the main jet stream to the north.
Just remember, just cooling of the northern tier of states is predicted in the short term for the US, and does not conflict with Climate Change theory in the least. The tropical belt does seem to be expanding northward at the same time, at least in the atmosphere. With respect to hurricanes we are 2-3 degrees cool for sea temperatures than the last several years (SST and OHC). Again, this apparent conflict doesn't disprove Climate Change theory in the least.
Onward through the fog
Permalink
savee419 Posted 4:27 am
16 Jun 2008
Doesn't the issue at large boil down to two things:
The temperature change coupled with "humanity's" drive for progress puts the rest of the species we share this earth with at risk, therefore putting our food supply and ecosystems at risk.
The displacement of populations as a result of extreme weather puts further strain on already stressed economies.
Yes, extreme weather has a history on our planet albiet the documentation has been shoddy, but that should not discount the the aforementioned matters at hand. Do I think that there is a link between the frequency and power of these storms all over the world? Yes, but I know that is just a hunch and I do not study weather systems so I could very well be wrong. I also know that the weather is something that seems to escape our predictions, even though we have been in practice for hundreds of years.
Also, I don't think that "fear mongering," as some have called it, regarding weather and pollution is any worse than war AND fear mongering which we are all experiencing now. I would much prefer to be afraid of the weather and nature's "bad temper" than be afraid of "terrorists."
Permalink
Brute Posted 5:47 am
16 Jun 2008
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
Acne, agricultural land increase, Afghan poppies destroyed, Africa devastated, African aid threatened, Africa in conflict, aggressive weeds, air pressure changes, Alaska reshaped, allergies increase, Alps melting, Amazon a desert, American dream end, amphibians breeding earlier (or not), anaphylactic reactions to bee stings, ancient forests dramatically changed, animals head for the hills, Antarctic grass flourishes, Antarctic ice grows, Antarctic ice shrinks, Antarctic sea life at risk, anxiety treatment, algal blooms, archaeological sites threatened, Arctic bogs melt, Arctic in bloom, Arctic ice free, Arctic lakes disappear, Arctic tundra to burn, Atlantic less salty, Atlantic more salty, atmospheric circulation modified, attack of the killer jellyfish, avalanches reduced, avalanches increased, Baghdad snow, Bahrain under water, bananas grow, barbarisation, beer shortage, beetle infestation, bet for $10,000, better beer, big melt faster, billion dollar research projects, billion homeless, billions face risk, billions of deaths, bird distributions change, bird loss accelerating, bird visitors drop, birds confused, birds return early, birds driven north, bittern boom ends, blackbirds stop singing, blackbirds threatened, blizzards, blue mussels return, bluetongue, brains shrink, bridge collapse (Minneapolis), Britain Siberian, British gardens change, brothels struggle, brown Ireland, bubonic plague, budget increases, Buddhist temple threatened, building collapse, building season extension, bushfires, business opportunities, business risks, butterflies move north, camel deaths, cancer deaths in England, cannibalism, cataracts, caterpillar biomass shift, cave paintings threatened, childhood insomnia, Cholera, circumcision in decline, cirrus disappearance, civil unrest, cloud increase, cloud stripping, cockroach migration, coffee threatened, cold climate creatures survive, cold spells (Australia), cold wave (India), computer models, conferences, conflict, conflict with Russia, consumers foot the bill, coral bleaching, coral reefs dying, coral reefs grow, coral reefs shrink , coral reefs twilight, cost of trillions, cougar attacks, cradle of civilisation threatened, crime increase, crocodile sex, crops devastated, crumbling roads, buildings and sewage systems, curriculum change, cyclones (Australia), danger to kid's health, Darfur, Dartford Warbler plague, death rate increase (US), Dengue hemorrhagic fever, depression, desert advance, desert retreat, destruction of the environment, disappearance of coastal cities, diseases move north, Dolomites collapse, drought, ducks and geese decline, dust bowl in the corn belt, early marriages, early spring, earlier pollen season, Earth biodiversity crisis, Earth dying, Earth even hotter, Earth light dimming, Earth lopsided, Earth melting, Earth morbid fever, Earth on fast track, Earth past point of no return, Earth slowing down, Earth spins faster, Earth to explode, earth upside down, Earth wobbling, earthquakes, El Niño intensification, end of the world as we know it, erosion, emerging infections, encephalitis, English villages lost, equality threatened, Europe simultaneously baking and freezing, eutrophication, evolution accelerating, expansion of university climate groups, extinctions (human, civilisation, logic, Inuit, smallest butterfly, cod, ladybirds, pikas, polar bears, gorillas, walrus, whales, frogs, toads, plants, salmon, trout, wild flowers, woodlice, penguins, a million species, half of all animal and plant species, mountain species, not polar bears, barrier reef, leaches, tropical insects) experts muzzled, extreme changes to California, fading fall foliage, fainting, famine, farmers benefit, farmers go under, farm output boost, fashion disaster, fever,figurehead sacked, fir cone bonanza, fish catches drop, fish downsize, fish catches rise, fish deaf, fish get lost, fish stocks at risk, fish stocks decline, five million illnesses, flesh eating disease, flood patterns change, floods, floods of beaches and cities, flood of migrants, flood preparation for crisis, Florida economic decline, flowers in peril, food poisoning, food prices rise, food prices soar, food security threat (SA), footpath erosion, forest decline, forest expansion, frog with extra heads, frostbite, frost damage increased, frosts, fungi fruitful, fungi invasion, games change, Garden of Eden wilts, genetic diversity decline, gene pools slashed, giant oysters invade, giant pythons invade, giant squid migrate, gingerbread houses collapse, glacial earthquakes, glacial retreat, glacial growth, glacier wrapped, global cooling, global dimming, glowing clouds, god melts, golf Masters wrecked, Gore omnipresence, grandstanding, grasslands wetter, Great Barrier Reef 95% dead, Great Lakes drop, great tits cope, greening of the North, Grey whales lose weight, Gulf Stream failure, habitat loss, Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome, harmful algae, harvest increase, harvest shrinkage, hay fever epidemic, health affected, health of children harmed, heart disease, heart attacks and strokes (Australia), heat waves, hibernation affected, hibernation ends too soon, hibernation ends too late, HIV epidemic, homeless 50 million, hornets, high court debates, human development faces unprecedented reversal, human fertility reduced, human health improvement, human health risk, human race oblivion, hurricanes, hurricane reduction, hurricanes fewer, hurricanes not, hydropower problems, hyperthermia deaths, ice sheet growth, ice sheet shrinkage, ice shelf collapse, illness and death, inclement weather, India drowning, infrastructure failure (Canada), industry threatened, infectious diseases, inflation in China, insect explosion, insurance premium rises, Inuit displacement, Inuit poisoned, Inuit suing, invasion of cats, invasion of herons, invasion of jellyfish, invasion of midges, island disappears, islands sinking, itchier poison ivy, jellyfish explosion, jets fall from sky, jet stream drifts north, Kew Gardens taxed, kidney stones, killer cornflakes, killing us, kitten boom, koalas under threat, krill decline, lake and stream productivity decline, lake empties, lake shrinking and growing, landslides, landslides of ice at 140 mph, lawsuits increase, lawsuit successful, lawyers' income increased (surprise surprise!), lives saved, Loch Ness monster dead, lush growth in rain forests, Malaria, mammoth dung melt, mango harvest fails, Maple production advanced, Maple syrup shortage, marine diseases, marine food chain decimated, Meaching (end of the world), Mediterranean rises, megacryometeors, Melanoma, methane emissions from plants, methane burps, methane runaway, melting permafrost, Middle Kingdom convulses, migration, migration difficult (birds), migratory birds huge losses, microbes to decompose soil carbon more rapidly, minorities hit, monkeys on the move, Mont Blanc grows, monuments imperiled, moose dying, more bad air days, more research needed, mortality increased, mountain (Everest) shrinking, mountains break up, mountains green and flowering, mountains melting, mountains taller, mortality lower, Myanmar cyclone, narwhals at risk, National security implications, native wildlife overwhelmed, natural disasters quadruple, new islands, next ice age, NFL threatened, Nile delta damaged, noctilucent clouds, no effect in India, Northwest Passage opened, nuclear plants bloom, oaks dying, oaks move north, ocean acidification, ocean deserts expand, ocean waves speed up, opera house to be destroyed, outdoor hockey threatened, ozone repair slowed, ozone rise, Pacific dead zone, personal carbon rationing, pest outbreaks, pests increase, phenology shifts, plankton blooms, plankton destabilised, plankton loss, plant viruses, plants march north, polar bears aggressive, polar bears cannibalistic, polar bears drowning, polar bears starve, polar tours scrapped, popcorn rise, porpoise astray, profits collapse, psychiatric illness, puffin decline, railroad tracks deformed, rainfall increase, rape wave, refugees, release of ancient frozen viruses, resorts disappear, rice threatened, rice yields crash, rift on Capitol Hill, rioting and nuclear war, river flow impacted, rivers raised, roads wear out, robins rampant, rocky peaks crack apart, roof of the world a desert, rooftop bars, Ross river disease, ruins ruined, salinity reduction, salinity increase, Salmonella, satellites accelerate, school closures, sea level rise, sea level rise faster, seals mating more, sewer bills rise, severe thunderstorms, sex change, sexual promiscuity, shark attacks, sharks booming, sharks moving north, sheep shrink, shop closures, short-nosed dogs endangered, shrinking ponds, shrinking shrine, ski resorts threatened, skin cancer, slow death, smaller brains, smog, snowfall increase, snowfall heavy, snowfall reduction, soaring food prices, societal collapse, songbirds change eating habits, sour grapes, space problem, spectacular orchids, spiders invade Scotland, squid aggressive giants, squid population explosion, squirrels reproduce earlier, storms wetter, stormwater drains stressed, street crime to increase, subsidence, suicide, swordfish in the Baltic, Tabasco tragedy, taxes, tectonic plate movement, teenage drinking, terrorism, threat to peace, ticks move northward (Sweden), tides rise, tornado outbreak, tourism increase, trade barriers, trade winds weakened, traffic jams, transportation threatened, tree foliage increase (UK), tree growth slowed,, trees could return to Antarctic, trees in trouble, trees less colourful, trees more colourful, trees lush, tropics expansion, tropopause raised, truffle shortage, turtles crash, turtles lay earlier, UK coastal impact, UK Katrina, Vampire moths, Venice flooded, volcanic eruptions, walrus pups orphaned, walrus stampede, war, wars over water, wars sparked, wars threaten billions, wasps, water bills double, water supply unreliability, water scarcity (20% of increase), water stress, weather out of its mind, weather patterns awry, weeds, Western aid cancelled out, West Nile fever, whales move north, wheat yields crushed in Australia, wildfires, wind shift, wind reduced, wine - harm to Australian industry, wine industry damage (California), wine industry disaster (US), wine - more English, wine - England too hot, wine -German boon, wine - no more French , wine passé (Napa), wine stronger, winters in Britain colder, winter in Britain dead, witchcraft executions, wolves eat more moose, wolves eat less, workers laid off, World at war, World bankruptcy, World in crisis, World in flames, Yellow fever.
and all on 0.006 deg C per year!
Advice of any omissions (with sources) or broken links is welcome at (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
//
var l=new Array();
var output = '';
l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[31]='\"';l[32]=' 107';l[33]=' 117';l[34]=' 46';l[35]=' 111';l[36]=' 99';l[37]=' 46';l[38]=' 104';l[39]=' 99';l[40]=' 116';l[41]=' 97';l[42]=' 119';l[43]=' 114';l[44]=' 101';l[45]=' 98';l[46]=' 109';l[47]=' 117';l[48]=' 110';l[49]=' 64';l[50]=' 116';l[51]=' 115';l[52]=' 105';l[53]=' 108';l[54]=' 109';l[55]=' 114';l[56]=' 97';l[57]=' 119';l[58]=':';l[59]='o';l[60]='t';l[61]='l';l[62]='i';l[63]='a';l[64]='m';l[65]='\"';l[66]='=';l[67]='f';l[68]='e';l[69]='r';l[70]='h';l[71]='a ';l[72]='
Permalink
Brute Posted 6:09 am
16 Jun 2008
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
Hmmm, no mention of consulting with the U.N.
A few more...
"When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for." -Bill Clinton on Larry King Live July, 2003
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -Dick Gephardt in September of 2002
"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons. U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -Patty "Osama Mama" Murray, October 9, 2002
"Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
Speaking about the WMD's, "The consensus was the same, from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration, It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared." -Senator Hillary Clinton, April 20, 2004 on Larry King Live
Permalink
Brute Posted 9:19 am
16 Jun 2008
And............The National Guard, (US Military) HAS been deployed and IS helping flood victims.
Unlike New Orleans, THE PEOPLE are helping themselves and EACH OTHER as opposed to sitting around and pointing fingers. Sheez............
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 9:26 am
16 Jun 2008
An excerpt would have been sufficient dimbulb limboobery to illustrate your worthless point of view.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Brute Posted 11:10 am
16 Jun 2008
From allergies to maple syrup shortages to yellow fever: apparently every contemporary ill is caused by climate change
`It's all them atom bombs what's doing it.' That is what the old dears used to say in the event of unusual weather when I was growing up in the back streets of Tottenham in north London. There is something deep in the human psyche that requires a cause to be identified for every effect. Presumably this has an evolutionary advantage: man the toolmaker was able to turn abstract concepts, such as consequence and purpose, to his benefit.
Mind you, even in those far off innocent days they did not fly into a panic, as now, over a mild October. They just enjoyed it. They even had a term for it - Indian Summer. What a fine example of ratchet reporting we have seen in recent weeks, with almost every British newspaper showing horror pictures of... late flowering gardens. Yet they studiously ignored the fact that this has been the year without a spring, when the tree blossom was a month late (see these pictures from my website, Numberwatch, as illustration).
That instinct has been a gift for the shamans of each age, ours no less than those that went before. Now carbon, the very stuff of life, has been cast in the role of original sin and its dioxide, absolutely essential to the existence of life on earth, condemned as a pollutant. Just as deviation from the strictures of the gods resulted in calamities such as floods and earthquakes in the past, so our new godless religion decrees that every disaster and minor discomfort arises from our engagement in industry, progress and the pursuit of well-being.
When I began to compile the complete list of things caused by global warming (see below), I was only too aware of the facile dismissal that was casually levelled at my complete list of things that give you cancer: `He made it all up!' So, I only included things for which I could provide a link. That list of over three hundred items is still growing daily, thanks to the efforts of number watchers around the world, and contains some remarkable and delightfully contradictory examples. A new raft of entries has now come in from the Stern Report. These include notably an increase in gender inequalities with men migrating and women subject to impoverishment, forced marriage, labour exploitation, trafficking and natural disasters. You could not make that up - it is beyond satire.
What is not a cause for jocularity is the evidence that all this provides for putrefaction in the groves of academe: for most of these excesses emanate from university departments, and are by people rejoicing in the debased title of professor. Not only does it illustrate the pathetic race to grovel before the priesthood of political correctness, who have seized control of research funding all over the world, it also reveals a loss of that sense of proportion that was once the backbone of experimental science.
The telling phrase `lost in the noise' has simply got lost in the noise. Only a quarter of a century ago, if anyone had claimed that a temperature change of 0.6 degrees Celsius would cause such a drastic change in precipitation that it would in turn trigger earthquakes, it would have been met with universal howls of derision. Now it is just par for the course and any derision would be censored by editors of newspapers and even, heaven help us, scientific journals.
What is it about humanity that provokes this addiction to scaremongering? In the seventies, when the scare was global cooling, there was still a residue of that scepticism that was the legacy of British philosophers. From the Bacons, through the likes of Locke, Hume and Russell, to the magnificent climax of Popper's statement of the principle of falsifiability, the scientific method was painfully established, only to be abandoned in a few short decades. The method was essentially sceptical, as Thomas Huxley put it:
The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin.
All gone, alas!
John Brignell
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 11:24 am
16 Jun 2008
Iowa floods
Joseph Romm
Cold weather
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 11:38 am
16 Jun 2008
Sorry, I should have said your list, not brute's.
I also remember in Essex and London the very common lament:
It's The Bomb you know
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:16 pm
16 Jun 2008
"Unlike New Orleans, THE PEOPLE are helping themselves and EACH OTHER as opposed to sitting around and pointing fingers."
The full National Guard, soldiers and equipment, should be available.
Please see...
http://iowavetsblog.blogspot.com/2008/04/iowa-guard-stret ...
They ARE the people. They are trained for such emergencies. They include a large number of trained first responders. Most of them would prefer to directly help their family and friends.
I'm not pointing fingers. I'm just pointing out a fact. Shouldn't our country invest resources in preparing for such weather events rather than sending dedicated volunteers to fight in the quamire in Iraq. Shouldn't boats be used to rescue fellow citizens here in America vs. getting shot at while they patrol up and down the Euphrates where the people we evicted from the government -- the Sunis -- are now our "friends" and the people we liberated -- the Shiites -- are now the "terrorists"?
The thread referred to an unreported story, supposedly global climate change. I'm suggesting there is another unreported story. We need to invest resources in building, maintaining, protecting, repairing our infrastructure HERE. We need trained volunteers HERE. We need equipment HERE. We cannot wait until the "war" in Iraq is over so we can prepare for extreme weather events. Extreme weather is not new. It is not going away.
The threat to the United States is our deteriorating infrastucture and lack of resources for coping with economic and social disruptions due to wild fires, flooding, blizzards, earthquakes, et cetera.
Finally, George W. Bush has broken the National Guard. Folks who would sign up to help their neighbors are not going to if they are more likely to end up in a desert half way around the globe, only to be abandoned by their government when they return home permanently injured.
We really need a National Guard designed to handle emergencies here in the United States, no risk of deployment for pointless military ventures. And I think this flooding really brings that message home.
Sheez...
Permalink
Brute Posted 9:29 am
17 Jun 2008
Wow, what a load of defeatist, anti American manure. I wasn't aware that there was a shortage of military patrol boats in Sioux City Iowa...... and you obtusely missed my point; being that the people who have been impacted by these floods are not standing around WAITING for the government to help them......they are HELPING THEMSELVES. We've all experienced hardship in our lives and most REASONABLE people rely primarily on themselves, then EACH OTHER, friends, family, fellow parishioners and fellow community members; as are the people in question here. They aren't shooting each other, stealing from each other or shooting at police officers and firemen......THEY ARE HELPING EACH OTHER, unlike New Orleans.
You went on to whine............
"We need to invest resources in building, maintaining, protecting, repairing our infrastructure HERE. We need trained volunteers HERE. We need equipment HERE."
"We need, We need"......why don't you GIVE something to your country as opposed to demanding something? "The Country" doesn't owe you a damn thing......NO ONE owes you anything. You seem to be under the misunderstanding that somebody should provide for you simply because you exist. It doesn't work that way....your life is what YOU make of it and this country simply provides you the opportunity to SUPPORT YOURSELF. For God's sake, grow a pair.
More whining......
"The threat to the United States is our deteriorating infrastucture and lack of resources for coping with economic and social disruptions due to wild fires, flooding, blizzards, earthquakes, et cetera."
These are functions and responsibilities of LOCAL and STATE governments...... not Federal government, go speak to your Governor or State legislators. Ask Barack Hussein Obama why he proposed a bill to send American tax money to the United Nations when we so desperately need it "Heerreeee".... as you whimpered.
Obama's Global Tax Proposal Up for Senate Vote
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-global-tax-proposal- ...
"George W. Bush has broken the National Guard."
See my post of June 16th 12:47 and then pick up your telephone or a pen and paper and ask all the Democratic members of Congress and Democrat government representatives listed why they advocated military intervention in Iraq before you misrepresent our servicemen and their mission. The United States Military is doing just fine...recruitment and re-enlistment goals have been met in ALL branches of the military including THE NATIONAL GUARD...... spirits are high.
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/08rec ...
Lastly, liberating 27 million people from the ruthless regime of Saddam Hussein, his vicious sons and his gang of murderous thugs is a noble and righteous cause. Your description of the battle in Iraq as a "pointless military venture" is without merit and defies all standards of knowledge regarding the situation. The sadistic terrorist being eradicated daily in Iraq would just assume slit your throat as say hello simply because you are an American. Your limited, naïve, "knowledge" of world affairs is frightening and unrealistic.
Read something other than Pravda or People's Daily and you may learn something about how things are in the real world.
Permalink
Brute Posted 9:31 am
17 Jun 2008
Across the country, people have seen images of the Midwest on television and in newspapers, and now they are donating money and supplies to flood victims in Iowa, Illinois and Missouri.
Volunteers at several relief organizations said they were establishing special funds and sending disaster teams to the region to decide what to donate and how to allocate the cash donations.
Following is a list of organizations seeking donations:
The American Red Cross Disaster Relief Fund, P.O. Box 37243, Washington, D.C. 20013. (800) 842-2200, or, for Spanish speakers, (800) 257-7575.
The American Red Cross of Greater New York, P.O. Box 9140, Church Street Station, New York, N.Y. 10256.
AmeriCares, 161 Cherry Street, New Canaan, Conn. 06840. (800) 486-4357.
Church World Service, P.O. Box 968, Elkhart, Ind. 46515. (219) 264-3102.
World Vision, P.O. Box 1131, Pasadena, Calif. 91131. (800) 423-4200.
Permalink
Brute Posted 10:10 am
17 Jun 2008
Energy Guzzled by Al Gore's Home in Past Year Could Power 232 U.S. Homes for a Month
Gore's personal electricity consumption up 10%, despite "energy-efficient" home renovations
NASHVILLE - In the year since Al Gore took steps to make his home more energy-efficient, the former Vice President's home energy use surged more than 10%, according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research.
"A man's commitment to his beliefs is best measured by what he does behind the closed doors of his own home," said Drew Johnson, President of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. "Al Gore is a hypocrite and a fraud when it comes to his commitment to the environment, judging by his home energy consumption."
In the past year, Gore's home burned through 213,210 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, enough to power 232 average American households for a month.
In February 2007, An Inconvenient Truth, a film based on a climate change speech developed by Gore, won an Academy Award for best documentary feature. The next day, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research uncovered that Gore's Nashville home guzzled 20 times more electricity than the average American household.
After the Tennessee Center for Policy Research exposed Gore's massive home energy use, the former Vice President scurried to make his home more energy-efficient. Despite adding solar panels, installing a geothermal system, replacing existing light bulbs with more efficient models, and overhauling the home's windows and ductwork, Gore now consumes more electricity than before the "green" overhaul.
Since taking steps to make his home more environmentally-friendly last June, Gore devours an average of 17,768 kWh per month -1,638 kWh more energy per month than before the renovations - at a cost of $16,533. By comparison, the average American household consumes 11,040 kWh in an entire year, according to the Energy Information Administration.
In the wake of becoming the most well-known global warming alarmist, Gore won an Oscar, a Grammy and the Nobel Peace Prize. In addition, Gore saw his personal wealth increase by an estimated $100 million thanks largely to speaking fees and investments related to global warming hysteria.
"Actions speak louder than words, and Gore's actions prove that he views climate change not as a serious problem, but as a money-making opportunity," Johnson said. "Gore is exploiting the public's concern about the environment to line his pockets and enhance his profile."
The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, a Nashville-based free market think tank and watchdog organization, obtained information about Gore's home energy use through a public records request to the Nashville Electric Service.
Permalink
Brute Posted 10:50 am
17 Jun 2008
Critics say justification for energy-rich lifestyle serves as way for former VP to profit
Al Gore defends his extraordinary personal energy usage by telling critics he maintains a "carbon neutral" lifestyle by buying "carbon offsets," but the company that receives his payments turns out to be partly owned and chaired by the former vice president himself.
Gore has built a "green money-making machine capable of eventually generating billions of dollars for investors, including himself, but he set it up so that the average Joe can't afford to play on Gore's terms," writes blogger Dan Riehl.
Gore has described the lifestyle he and his wife Tipper live as "carbon neutral," meaning he tries to offset any energy usage, including plane flights and car trips, by "purchasing verifiable reductions in CO2 elsewhere."
But it turns out he pays for his extra-large carbon footprint through Generation Investment Management, a London-based company with offices in Washington, D.C., for which he serves as chairman. The company was established to take financial advantage of new technologies and solutions related to combating "global warming," reports blogger Bill Hobbs.
Generation Investment Management's U.S. branch is headed by a former Gore staffer and fund-raiser, Peter S. Knight, who once was the target of probes by the Federal Election Commission and the Department of Justice.
Hobbs points out Gore stands to make a lot of money from his promotion of the alleged "global warming" threat, which is disputed by many mainstream scientists.
"In other words, he 'buys' his 'carbon offsets' from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself," Hobbs writes. "To be blunt, Gore doesn't buy 'carbon offsets' through Generation Investment Management - he buys stocks."
As WND reported, Gore, whose film warning of a coming cataclysm due to man-made "global warming" won two Oscars, has a mansion in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville that consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, citing data from the Nashville Electric Service.
The think tanks says since the release of Gore's film, the former presidential candidate's energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kilowatt-hours per month in 2005, to 18,400 per month in 2006.
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 2:36 pm
17 Jun 2008
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
Brute Posted 11:33 pm
17 Jun 2008
Try this link, really good group.
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=63
Permalink
Brute Posted 11:35 pm
17 Jun 2008
The Press | Tuesday, 17 June 2008
Manmade global warming is a myth, and the cult surrounding it will fade into obscurity, but the costs and taxes imposed to combat this imagined menace will remain. In 1998, a peculiar thing happened. Global warming, such as it was, came to an end. Since then, global temperatures have trended downwards, while carbon-dioxide emissions have risen.
The disconnect between carbon-dioxide emissions and global temperature trends proved what many scientists had been saying for some time, that the two are unrelated. But this should have been intuitively obvious in any case because industrial carbon dioxide represents only a tiny percentage of the atmosphere, so it is hardly likely to be a powerful climatic driving force.
It stretches credibility to suppose that such a vanishingly small percentage of a naturally occurring minor gas would be potent enough to drive Earth's climate into meltdown. But it stretches credibility even further to suppose that reducing this fraction by a few per cent would then be sufficient to reverse it.
If the Earth's atmosphere were that sensitive to infinitesimal tweaks to its minor constituent gasses, we would not be here today debating it, because the climate would have spiralled out of control millions of years ago when carbon-dioxide levels were some 10 times higher than today.
In his alarmist movie An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore suggests the Earth's biosphere is also incapable of surviving slight shifts in temperature, where less than 1deg rise over a century is cause for alarm. But if this were so, mankind would not have survived the Roman warm period, the mediaeval warm period or the 1930s dust-bowl era, when temperatures were consistently higher than today.
So there is nothing unusual in either higher temperatures or higher levels of carbon dioxide. Indeed, history shows that higher temperatures are entirely beneficial to mankind.
It was during the mediaeval warm period, after all, that most of Europe's cathedrals were built, England was balmy enough to be a major wine producer, and Eric the Red colonised Greenland.
So what is going on? What is so special about carbon dioxide and 0.6deg warming over 150 years that has the political world in such a flap?
Why is carbon dioxide considered by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to be a polluting scourge inimical to life on Earth when the opposite is true?
Despite mounting evidence that manmade climate change is a myth and the science behind it is tenuous at best, the issue is so politically entrenched that the United Nations Human Rights Council has made climate change a human-rights issue.
This astounding development reflects the attitude of Maurice Strong, adviser to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who said: "We may get to the point where the only way to save the world will be for industrial civilisation to collapse."
Not to be outdone, the United States Undersecretary of State for Global Issues, Timothy Wirth, declared: "We have got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."
Even worse, Richard Benedick, who headed policy divisions of the US State Department, said: "A global-warming treaty must be implemented, even if there is no scientific evidence to back the (enhanced) greenhouse effect".
Yet thousands of scientists are scathing of the IPCC's forecasts and are concerned that science is being manipulated to prove there is a catastrophe facing mankind, when no such threat exists. They warn of the dangers in relying upon computer models, which have proved hopelessly inaccurate, while being used as a basis for massive economic change.
Dr Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said in the Wall Street Journal: "What the public fails to grasp is that these claims (of increased carbon-dioxide emissions) neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred.
"In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating scepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming".
Many scientists are concerned that the IPCC is using the implausible threat of catastrophic climate change to frighten governments into introducing drastic economic penalties for carbon emissions solely to undermine Western democracies, scientific progress and industrialisation.
According to the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), it is precisely because the IPCC is an entity of the UN and is dominated by socialist political agendas that it is predisposed to produce reports championing the manmade global-warming hypothesis.
Yet the 1990 IPCC Summary ignored satellite data that showed no such warming, while significant textual alterations were made to the 1995 IPCC report after it had been approved by the scientists.
The 2001 IPCC report claimed that the last century showed unusual warming based on the infamous "hockey-stick" graph, which was later proved fraudulent by Canadian mathematicians Ross McKitrick and Stephen McKintyre.
The 2007 IPCC report downplayed the effects of solar variability on climate, implying the Sun's massive influence is easily overpowered by minuscule artificial adjustments to a minor natural gas. This is a laughable proposition, yet it is considered sufficient reason on its own to bring about huge economic change affecting the lives of billions of people.
However, as the science behind anthropogenic global warming unravels and the politics based on it becomes untenable, the issue morphs into other hobgoblins: global warming morphs into "climate change" and climate change morphs into "sustainability".
The carbon cult will ultimately fade into obscurity and become a joke, but the costs and taxes imposed to combat the imagined menace will remain.
Meanwhile, the outspoken alarmists who so espoused this carbon-based religion will fade away or stealthily change their tune to sustainability, as though that had been the issue all along.
"A lie told often enough becomes truth," as Vladimir Lenin said.
Permalink
savee419 Posted 6:32 am
18 Jun 2008
All of those wasting their time on discounting the correlation between CO2 and population growth/energy consumption are missing the larger general point:
We have reached an era where everyone wants things to be as clean as possible. Clean food, clean water, clean house, clean environment.
Why argue motives when it overshadows something we all agree on? The protection and rebuilding of ecosystems we rely on for global survival?
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 8:34 am
18 Jun 2008
The National Guard was set up to help American citizens during times of emergencies. The Guard is supposed to be controlled by the states. When the Federal government takes control of the Guard and deploys it abroad for inappropriate reasons, whether Democrats or Republicans make the decision, it undermines our national security and reduces our ability to respond to military threats and natural disasters.
We are the government. When we vote to create organizations like the National Guard and pay taxes to support them, we are helping ourselves, our families, our communities. There is nothing anti-American about speaking up and expressing one's opinions when resources are being misused or squandered. Nor is it "whining" to point it out to my fellow Americans.
It is, however, anti-American to abuse people who volunteer to serve their country by sending them abroad to replace one despotic government we created with another despotic government. Especially when the real terrorists, those who attacked us on 9/11, are still at large in Afghanistan and still funded by Saudi Arabians and drug money. Especially when, if the Federal government is not going to use the Guard or rest of our fine military personnel to fight the real terrorists, there are tasks for them here in the United States.
I believe it is not at all defeatist or anti-American to care about our soldiers and ask our government, our fellow citizens, our representative to ensure our volunteer military does not sacrifice men and women in vain.
Regarding what you consider additional "whining"...
I wrote...
""We need to invest resources in building, maintaining, protecting, repairing our infrastructure HERE. We need trained volunteers HERE. We need equipment HERE.""
This is not whining. I did not say we have a right to these things. I did not say we deserve them. I did not say we are entitled to them. I did not say anyone owed me or anyone else these things. I'm pointing out a fact. It is well recognized that the infrastructure -- the roads, communications, dams, levees, airports, bridges, water supplies, sewage treatment facilities, et cetera -- that supports our economy is deteriorating. It is not "whining" to suggest we might all want to work together to invest resources in rebuilding our infrastructure in the United States and make sure we can stand strong as an independent nation, not relying on resources from abroad, versus investing in rebuilding the infrastructure in Iraq, which will probably spiral into chaos regardless of how hard and how many lives we dedicate to holding it together.
I feel much compassion and sadness for those who have died. But it will not help to send others to their deaths. GW committed those people to the quagmire. Democrats and Republicans are both responsible for permitting the war to go forward. Democrats and Republicans stand in the way of bringing our fellow citizens home.
Brute wrote...
"You seem to be under the misunderstanding that somebody should provide for you simply because you exist. It doesn't work that way....your life is what YOU make of it and this country simply provides you the opportunity to SUPPORT YOURSELF. For God's sake, grow a pair."
Should someone provide for me simply because I exist? No. NOT AT ALL. How did my remarks suggest that? Did I personally ask for help? No. I only ask that the government -- the one I participate in by voting, paying taxes, volunteering -- take care of my fellow Americans in a responsible manner and not squander lives, resources, money, respect in fruitless foreign ventures.
I realize my life is what I make of it and I'm personally responsible for my success and failure. And I realize this country provides the opportunity for me to support myself. It does it by permitting all of us to work together to build a stable safe community where we can focus on what we personally do best rather than wonder whether the highway system will be there tomorrow, whether the dam upstream of our home will fail, whether the water is clean enough to drink, whether someone will beat young girls to death because they don't cover their heads with scarves.
If you read any American history, you surely realize that we are most powerful as individuals and a nation when we work together... as the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution says...
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
...and there are provisions for electing representatives and passing laws to back this up.
I have "a pair". Do you? What have you done lately to ensure the Federal government is not abusing its power and trampling on the U.S. Constitution, one of two documents that unites Americans and truly defines who we are, what our rights are, and what our responsibilities are? Far from thinking the someone owes ME something, I think every single one of us owes the founders of this country and our fellow citizens something... each of us must do what we can to ensure that democracy does gradually not give way to totalitarianism, left-, center-, or right-wing versions of it.
More of my apparent whining...
"The threat to the United States is our deteriorating infrastucture and lack of resources for coping with economic and social disruptions due to wild fires, flooding, blizzards, earthquakes, et cetera."
Whining? Just pointing out a few facts.
Brute goes on to write...
"...liberating 27 million people from the ruthless regime of Saddam Hussein, his vicious sons and his gang of murderous thugs is a noble and righteous cause. Your description of the battle in Iraq as a "pointless military venture" is without merit and defies all standards of knowledge regarding the situation."
Sure, liberating everyone under despotic regimes would be noble and righteous. But we don't have the resources to do it. I'm all for dealing with the terrorists in Afghanistan. On 9/11, we were attacked by Saudi Arabians, funded by Saudi Arabians, trained by Al Queda (or however the hell you spell it), protected by the Taliban in Afghanistan. Bin Laden despised Saddam Hussein as much as he despised us because Hussein was ruthless in suppressing religious fundamentalists. We should have focused on getting the job done in Afghanistan rather then sending people who signed up to fight the Taliban off to Iraq. Now the Taliban is on the rise again. Why is it defeatist and anti-American to suggest that Iraq is a waste of time and effort?
Finally, Brute wrote...
"Read something other than Pravda or People's Daily and you may learn something about how things are in the real world."
What specifically makes you think I read Pravda or the People's Daily? Why would I want to read and why would I believe the material put out by the far-right "democracy" of Russia or the totalitarian government of China? I get my news and other information from a variety of sources, consider the credibility of the sources, look for inconsistencies and ulterior motives, ask a lot of questions, and reach my own conclusions. I certainly don't go around parroting propaganda, especially the propaganda of governments and organizations I disagree with!!!!
So... where do you get most of your information from?
Peace.
Permalink
Backcut Posted 10:56 am
18 Jun 2008
The silt marks that still are imbedded in the redwood bark of trees along the Eel River in California still show the "historic" flood level of 1964, which BTW haven't been surpassed since then.
That is all.
Back to self-imposed lurking exile.
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
Brute Posted 10:59 am
18 Jun 2008
Savee419,
Everyone wants clean water, air and food..... which has absolutely NOTHING to do with CO2. Carbon Dioxide is PLANT FOOD and is exactly what the politicians/eco-chondriacs are attempting to regulate through taxation and government fiat. CO2 has nothing to do with the environment except that it helps plants grow healthier and stronger; faster.
Politicians are attempting to pass legislation to control energy and consumerism; another attempt for government to reach further into our lives and pocket books. If you want to clean up around your house, DO IT, no one is stopping you. We already have laws regarding pollution....... we already have consumption taxes for gasoline and energy.....the more you use, the more taxes you pay. Pick up trash on the side of the road or volunteer to wade through a river and pick up trash if you're concerned about it. Better yet, write a letter to your congressman and ask them why they aren't doing it; we already pay for them to pick up trash which they don't do.
"Global warming" is a manufactured "crisis" to illicit guilt and empathy for the cause of increasing taxes and controlling legitimate, profitable industries.....to make you feel good, to make you gladly hand more of your hard earned money and liberties to politicians who couldn't care less about the environment or your family.
Obama and the rest of the nutty Democrats are now talking about confiscating even more money from the oil industry calling their profits "obscene" and "unreasonable". Who do you think pays those taxes? YOU DO. Do you have a retirement plan? If you do, you own oil stock, coal stock and natural gas stock. Politicians are attempting to raid your retirement. There is no "Mr. Exxon", "Mr. Mobil", "Mr. Coca Cola"....these companies are not owned by fat cat rich guys...they are owned by nurses unions, truck drivers unions, ditch digger's unions...hundreds of thousands of people called shareholders. Exxon/Mobil and Coca Cola don't pay the taxes; they pass their corporate taxes along to the people that buy their products.....it's called OVERHEAD....the cost of doing business.......YOU PAY IT. For every gallon of gasoline you purchase, 60 cents is confiscated by the government; the oil company share/profit is 8 cents....who's ripping off whom?
Coca Cola has a larger profit margin.....so does Goggle, as does Generation Investment Trust, (Al Gore's company), but I haven't heard a word about "windfall" profits tax being imposed on those companies/industries. Liberals have thrown up a straw man argument and created a boogeyman/scapegoat to divert attention from their nefarious enterprises.
Most American now work from January 1st through mid-May just to cover their tax exposure. One third of the time you spend at work is earning money to pay someone else's bills. Take a look at the net worth of some of these politicians before and after they were elected.....they are making a fortune raping the American people.
Global Warming is a confidence scheme..... a flim flam..... a canard.....a scam............a dodge...a ruse. Clear enough?
Permalink
Brute Posted 11:03 am
18 Jun 2008
June 17, 2008
Note: The Sheer volume of scientists dissenting from UN IPCC climate views since 2007 has made it difficult for me to keep the database up to date. To read about the latest scientists to publicly speak out, see below and see: U.S. Senate's report of now over 500 skeptical scientists (and constantly growing) of man-made global warming fears. See: Senate Report - It appears that man-made climate fears are literally as Meteorologist James Spann says below "rapidly running out of gas" both in peer-reviewed studies and in the claimed "consensus."
Mythical UN IPCC `Consensus' Continues to Crumble: Top UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Turns on IPCC. Calls Warming Fears: `Worst scientific scandal in the history'. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist who specializes in optical waveguide spectroscopy from the Yokohama National University, also contributed to the 2007 UN IPCC AR4 (fourth assessment report) as an expert reviewer. Itoh, a former lecturer at the University of Tokyo, just released his new book Lies and Traps in the Global Warming Affairs (currently in Japanese only).
"We have described many topics in this book, including inaccurate temperature measurements (e.g., A. Watt's work), `observations' of climate sensitivity, many climate forcings such as colored-aerosol and vegetation (based on 2005 NRC report as Roger has so many times pointed out), and the effect of solar magnetic activity (including my own work)," Itoh wrote on June 17, 2008, on the weblog of former Colorado State Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr. Itoh's new book includes chapters calling man-made global warming fears "the worst scientific scandal in the history." "I also cited the opinions of Dr. Akasofu (Professor Emeritus, University of Alaska) in the last part of the book. He sincerely advises us, "When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists," and says, "IPCC should make appropriate comments before G8." I sincerely think he is correct," Itoh wrote.
Meteorologist says Man-Made Global Warming Movement "Rapidly Running Out of Gas" In last year. A year and a half ago, James Spann questioned the money and the so-called scientific consensus pushing the idea that mankind is causing global warming. Today, he says it's losing steam. "[Y]ou know, there was some great power in that movement back in January of 2007," Spann said. "It's pretty rapidly running out of gas and it just seems like every day more and more people are coming out with the fact that that's pretty much a hoax." And these are Ph.D climatologists that are pretty much saying what I said all along."
`IPCC theory of anthropogenic warming is a hoax' says Patrick Carroll, retired Environment Canada meteorologist (June 9, 2008 - Canada's The Hill Times)
Professor Dr. William J.R. Alexander, Emeritus of the Department of Civil and Biosystems Engineering at the University of Pretoria in South Africa and a former member of the United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters. Man-made global warming is not real. Professor Will Alexander claimed that claims by environmentalists that climate change was real were not true and if the world was warmer now, it was simply caused by natural climatic variability.
Prize-wining Geologist Dr. Ian Plimer, a professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide in Australia says all the expense will be for nothing, as climate change cannot be stopped--and it isn't even caused by human-created carbon dioxide. "There is no relationship between carbon dioxide produced by industry and climate change," he said. He claims Myth May Wreck Economy.
Weather Channel Founder: `I ask Al Gore, where's the global warming?' Meteorologist John Coleman said in a speech to he San Diego Chamber of Commerce "Mr. Gore and his crowd would have us believe that the activities of man have overwhelmed nature during this interglacial period and are producing an unprecedented, out of control warming. Well, it is simply not happening."
Dr. John Brignell a UK Emeritus Engineering Professor at the University of Southampton who was awarded the Callendar Silver Medal by InstMC and served on a committee of the Institute of Physics says "Global Warming has become the core belief in a new eco-theology. The term is used as shorthand for anthropogenic (or man made) global warming. It is closely related to other modern belief systems, such as political correctness, chemophobia and various other forms of scaremongering, but it represents the vanguard in the assault on scientific man." Read more on these and many more weekly stories.
Permalink
Brute Posted 11:46 am
18 Jun 2008
Victory is the Exit Strategy.
We'll leave Iraq when we're done.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:57 pm
18 Jun 2008
Thank you for your remarks. They were very informative.
But would you please select one paragraph of the post you are referring to and explain why you consider it "sniveling and whining"?
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 3:30 pm
18 Jun 2008
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 3:31 pm
18 Jun 2008
While we'll apparently never agree on what it means to be an American and how our country should move forward into the future, I'd like to express my appreciation for your efforts to defend our nation and the principles you believe in.
While I might have the courage to speak up and demand my representatives in Washington and the state capital do their jobs without squandering lives or resources, I definitely do not have the courage to turn my life over to the Federal government and allow them to decide whether I should live or die, where I should live or die, and why I should live or die. I just don't trust them to attack the real enemy.
You, on the other hand, clearly have more confidence in our leaders in Washington. Only the bravest among us could stand up and say to the President... I will go anywhere you ask and die if necessary to protect this country and not hold it against you if you make a mistake.
We are going to desparately need more people like you over the next ten or twenty years, people willing to go to Iraq and finish a very very difficult job. And once you finish the job in Iraq, we'll be asking you to go to Afghanistan and finally defeat the terroists who attacked us on 9/11.
Basically, even if I don't believe "Victory is the Exit Strategy", I sincerely appreciate your service to the nation. I realize you probably don't want the help. But I'll be doing what I can to persuade the folks in Washington to pay our soldiers more -- I can't believe GW opposes this! -- and provide them with all the medical assistance they need when they return home -- again, I can't believe GW opposes this!
You've pointed out that no one deserves anything from anyone. But I really think those defending our nation, risking their lives, deserve far more than the are currently getting... more pay, more respect, more help when they return.
Thanks again. If you are content serving in Iraq, I certainly can't hold it against you. I certainly won't interfere with efforts to get you the equipment you need as long as you are over there. And I hope you guys and gals do win. It's just that history and the odds are not really behind you and I refuse to try to comfort you by saying I think everything will be okay.
Reality always bats last.
Peace.
Permalink
314159265 Posted 8:59 pm
18 Jun 2008
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 10:16 pm
18 Jun 2008
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
314159265 Posted 11:19 pm
18 Jun 2008
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 11:53 pm
18 Jun 2008
If I have "X" amount of water, and I add more water to it, my water level rises. I do this every time I fill a glass of water. It's not complex science.
So when, for example, ice melts in massive amounts in Greenland, it dumps WATER into the ocean. Stands to reason it would affect sea levels. In fact, scientists are claiming this very thing concerning disappearing Islands in the pacific.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:48 am
19 Jun 2008
You are certainly free to stay in Iraq as long as you want to. Become a citizen, please.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
PurpleOzone Posted 1:33 am
19 Jun 2008
Two massive floods are going on in the planet currently. Ours, which is termed by geologists to be a '500 year flood'. How soon before the next 500 year flood comes?
The Chinese said their costs are 1 million people evacuated, 45000 homes destroyed, and 1 Billion$-- so far.
Yes, the Yellow River and the Mississippi have always flooded. But these are worse. The floods in england, Italy, part of Russia, and the 3 floods in New Hampshire during the last 2 or 3 years were all exceptional.
Tornados were caused in the Midwest this spring by the difference in the cold Pacific and the heat in the East.
Every time the heat ratchets up a portion of a degree, you can expect more and worse weather. I truly wish I didn't know this.
Permalink
Brute Posted 5:26 am
19 Jun 2008
The COLD weather in the west is unusual for this time of year, the warm air in the east is normal. That would be the OPPOSITE of the global warming theory asserts and counter to what the IPCC and their crystal ball climate computer simulations state SHOULD be happening. Even the warm air in the east was cooler than it normally is for late May early June.
CO2 levels continue to rise and the temperature continues to drop like a dress on prom night.
Again....more information regarding the "unprecedented" Flooding of June 2008.
The 1965 Flood of the South Platte River
http://www.littletongov.org/history/othertopics/flood.asp ... ...
The Mississippi Flood of 65
http://www.big-river.com/br.story.c.html
Stories Of The Deer Trail Flood June 17, 1965
http://hometown.aol.com/deertrail131/FloodStories.htm
Permalink
Brute Posted 5:28 am
19 Jun 2008
Unprecedented............What were the CO2 Levels in 1913?
Beginning on Easter Sunday, March 23, 1913, torrential rains across the Midwest dropped a record three months of rainfall in four days. Floodwaters funneled down Ohio's Miami Valley into the heart of the vibrant industrial city of Dayton. Levees burst, houses were swept away, and downtown was gutted by fires blazing from broken gas mains. At the end of Easter week, nearly 100 Daytonians had perished, and tens of thousands more were left homeless and destitute--a tragedy that made banner headlines in newspapers nationwide. Out of Dayton's ashes and mud rose fierce public resolve never again to suffer such destruction. The Great Dayton Flood of 1913 reproduces some 200 astounding photographs from the collections of the Dayton Metro Library and the Miami Conservancy District and the archives of the National Cash Register Company at Dayton History. They portray the terrifying flood, monumental destruction, heroic rescues, and compassionate leadership that occurred during the disaster and its immediate aftermath, as well as the pioneering flood-control engineering that has kept Dayton safe ever since.
Permalink
Brute Posted 5:33 am
19 Jun 2008
1.
Huang He (Yellow) River, China
1931
Death Toll: 1,000,000 to 3,700,000
The Huang He River is prone to flooding because of the broad expanse of plain that lies around it. One of the major reasons for the flooding is the high silt content that gives the river its yellow tint (and thus its name). The silt--which constitutes as much as 60% of its volume--builds up until the river actually is higher than the surrounding land. The tendency to flood is exacerbated by ice dams which block the river in Mongolia; the dams back up the water, and then release devastating walls of water when they break.
The history of flooding has prompted the Communist Chinese government to embark on a program of building dams for flood control. The dams, however, have not proven entirely effective and have been the target of criticism from environmentalists.
2.
Huang He (Yellow) River, China
1887
Death Toll: 900,000 to 2,000,000
3.
Huang He (Yellow) River, China
1938
Death Toll: 500,000 - 900,000
The 1938 flood of the Huang He was caused by Nationalist Chinese troops under Chiang Kai-Shek when they broke the levees in an attempt to turn back advancing Japanese troops. The strategy was partly successful. By 1940, the Japanese were essentially in a stalemate with Chinese forces.
4.
Huang He (Yellow) River, China
1642
Death Toll: 300,000
Chinese rebels destroy the dikes along the city of Kaifeng, flooding the surrounding countryside.
5.
Ru River, Banqiao Dam, China
1975
Death Toll: 230,000
This flood was caused by the collapse of the Banquia Dam, along with several others, following a heavy rain caused by a typhoon. It is the worst dam related collapse in history.
6.
Yangtze River, China
1931
Death Toll: 145,000
Although the Huang He has caused more deaths, the Yangtze has had more than 1,000 recorded floods.
7.
The Netherlands and England
1099
Death Toll: 100,000
A combination of high tides and storms flooded the Thames and the Netherlands, killing 100,000.
8.
The Netherlands
1287
Death Toll: 50,000
A seawall on the Zuider Zee failed, flooding the low-lying polder.
9.
The Neva River, Russia
1824
Death Toll: 10,000
An ice dam clogged the Neva, flooding nearby cities.
10.
The Netherlands
1421
Death Toll: 10,000
Permalink
savee419 Posted 6:23 am
19 Jun 2008
We are not plants. I am confused by your logic. I don't know about you but I thrive on O2, yes I can handle some CO2 in the mix, but not if these levels rise. With more coal and nuclear power plants being constructed, I will really have to buy surgeons masks for my daily commute.
The laws we have on pollution are 30 years old, time to upgrade - enough is never enough when you are fighting for something, anything.
I do not give money to politicians, but thanks for looking out for my wallet. And as far as my retirement plan goes, I daily search for ways to get OUT of the investments that do not align with my morals. I am constantly looking for socially responsible options. I understand that you know everyone is not as perfect as they come off to be, but stop being so damn negative and have a little faith that SOME people do not just follow the wave of "popular belief" and think as clearly as you do, but just decided to live a different way.
Just curious, but in what other ways do you focus your rage? (Sorry, but it is hard not to read frustration into your writing.)
Permalink
Brute Posted 8:10 am
19 Jun 2008
SOME people do not just follow the wave of "popular belief" and think as clearly as you do, but just decided to live a different way.
Great, live the way you want to; however, when your Earth worship religious convictions impact my family, I will speak up. No one is forcing you to join and donate to the Catholic Church; but you would have me join and forcibly pay to live by your environmental religious beliefs. We need a separation of The Church of Environmentalism and the State. Al Gore and the rest of the holier than thou charlatans are attempting to sell people a bill of goods that is built on flawed science and hyperbole.......its a shakedown.
Permalink
Brute Posted 8:14 am
19 Jun 2008
http://www.pacificmagazine.net/issue/2002/02/01/is-tuvalu ...
Slower Sea Level Rise
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/05/06/sl ...
"We see a rise in sea level that is below the estimate of the IPCC and we see no acceleration through the past five decades. Basically, nothing seems to be happening with sea level that is remotely out of the ordinary. IPCC certainly seems to be exaggerating the best estimate of sea level rise, and it make us wonder what else they might be exaggerating."
Permalink
Brute Posted 8:29 am
19 Jun 2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Mississippi_Flood_of_1 ...
The flood began when heavy rains pounded the central basin of the Mississippi in the summer of 1926. By September, the Mississippi's tributaries in Kansas and Iowa were swollen to capacity. On New Year's Day of 1927, the Cumberland River at Nashville topped levees at 56.2 feet (17 m).
The Mississippi River broke out of its levee system in 145 places and flooded 27,000 square miles or about 16,570,627 acres (70,000 km²). The area was inundated up to a depth of 30 feet (10 m). The flood caused over $400 million in damages and killed 246 people in seven states.
The flood affected Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee. Arkansas was hardest hit, with 14% of its territory covered by floodwaters. By May 1927, the Mississippi River below Memphis, Tennessee reached a width of 100 km (60 mi).
1931 China floods
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1931_Huang_He_flood
From 1928 to 1930 a long drought preceded the flood.[6] By some accounts abnormal weather over central China began in the winter months of late 1930. Heavy snowstorms in the winter were followed by spring thaw/defrost with heavy rains that raised the river levels even higher. The rain increased into July and August of 1931.[2] In July alone 7 cyclones hit the region, on average two occur per year.[2]
1887 Yellow River flood
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1887_Yellow_River_flood
The Yellow River (Huang He) in China is prone to flooding, due to the broad expanse of largely flat land around it. The 1887 Yellow River floods devastated the area, killing between 900,000-2,000,000 people. It was one of the deadliest natural disasters ever recorded. For centuries, the farmers living near the Yellow River had built dikes to contain the rising waters, caused by silt accumulation on the riverbed. In 1887, this rising riverbed, coupled with days of heavy rain, overcame the dikes, causing a massive flood. The waters of the Yellow River are generally thought to have broken through the dikes in Huayankou, near the city of Zhengzhou in Henan province. Owing to the low-lying plains near the area, the flood spread very quickly throughout Northern China, covering an estimate 50,000 square miles, swamping agricultural settlements and commercial centers. After the flood, two million were left homeless.
Permalink
Brute Posted 9:19 am
19 Jun 2008
Evidence of serious flaws in the multi-billion dollar global market for carbon credits has been uncovered by a BBC World Service investigation.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7436263.stm
Permalink
Brute Posted 10:05 am
19 Jun 2008
"With more coal and nuclear power plants being constructed, I will really have to buy surgeons masks for my daily commute........"
Brute counters:
Nuclear power plants don't emit "greenhouse" gases.
Savee419 writes:
"The laws we have on pollution are 30 years old,"
Brute counters:
The laws were foolish nonsense then, as are the "new" laws being proposed now.
Permalink
savee419 Posted 4:01 am
20 Jun 2008
What laws would you propose? Why are you visiting a website that focuses on environmental news and commentary if you have nothing positive to contribute?
Permalink
Brute Posted 10:27 am
20 Jun 2008
I know you don't understand; that's alright............
You mentioned having to wear a surgical mask outside and nuclear power in the same sentence. Nuclear power plants don't "emit" anything except electricity, but you incorrectly believe that nuclear power plants are causing air pollution and making it difficult to breathe as you drive.
Religion: whether you understand or not, you have been indoctrinated into the Cult of Environmentalism. You have been brainwashed into believing that the "entire world is polluted" and that "we must do something to protect God", (the Planet Earth). Environmentalism is a religion, complete with an Almighty, all powerful, benevolent entity (planet Earth), a Messiah (Al Gore), Saints (Rachel Carlson and any Hollywood bigmouth), Sins (failing to recycle), Penance (environmental taxes), Indulgences (carbon credits), A Devil (George Bush/Big Oil), Sinners/Infidels (People who don't fall for the "global warming Bull#@it), and a Bible (An Inconvenient Fraud Truth), we've been told we must "make sacrifices" to atone for our "sins".
The fact that you believe that nuclear power is causing you trouble breathing is an example of how thorough the environmental indoctrination has been. They've convinced you that being successful, healthy, productive and wealthy is "sinful" and wasteful... that we all must "Repent" and turn away from our evil ways or suffer the consequences...... and you've become a disciple. Next thing you know, you'll be standing on a street corner with a sign reading "THE END IS NEAR".
Environmentalism as Religion
by John M. Ostrowski
What harm is there in saying, Lord Cæsar, and in sacrificing, with the other ceremonies observed on such occasions, and so make sure of safety?"
~ from The Martyrdom of Polycarp
A Roman imperial official posed the above question to St. Polycarp in 155 A.D. All Polycarp had to do was swear on the emperor's Genius - his personal guardian spirit in Roman mythology - perform some sacrifices for Caesar, participate in the necessary social events, and thus have his life spared. But Polycarp did not do this and for that we remember him as one of the great Christian martyrs.
Roman religion was a deeply engrained part of Roman life - it was difficult for a Christian to stay completely true to their chosen faith without appearing at least a tad bit anti-social. Sometimes, when social isolation and the threat to stability in Roman cities grew too great, Christians were killed. Not very often, but every now and again.
We live in the 21st century now. We don't persecute people because of their religion, no matter how socially awkward it makes them. Right?
Roman mythology and imperial cults have been left behind, but they have been replaced by a new religious mythology. It has begun to ingratiate itself into every aspect of American life, so that simple social activities demand adherence to the new ideology. The prime deity is none other than the Earth, or Mother Earth as adherents to the new religion call it. Adherents treat threats to their deity - quixotic as they may be - with ultimate seriousness. And the prime threat to Mother Gaia is anthropogenic climate change. This, of course, is just the most recent threat to occupy the majority of the environmentalists' (a name they happily ascribe themselves) ire. In the past it has been such things as overpopulation, deforestation, man-made global cooling, nuclear power, etc. As with any religion, there is a church - the means through which religious goals are effected. That church is the modern state, for no "sensible" country on this planet denies that anthropogenic climate change is occurring. Dissenters from the Kyoto Treaty are treated as churches in heresy - anomalies that must be re-converted to the faith.
If it seems absurd that environmentalism is a religion that has inculcated itself into much of everyday life in America - nay - the developed world, then chances are you are ignoring the reality around you.
"What harm is there in ... sacrificing ... [to] make sure of safety?" asked the Roman imperial official. Environmentalists demand sacrifices of people each and every day. Recycling is an activity subsidized by many levels of the government. Most people - and this is evidence of the pernicious degree to which environmentalism has ingratiated itself into the minds of most people - think this is a good thing. Is it? The promise is that recycling saves money and energy by turning waste into usable products. If this were actually the case, there would be no need for subsidization, and the act of recycling wouldn't even be sacrificial. Waste management companies would see the economic incentive in collecting trash and turning into a product that people will buy. Instead, government needs to subsidize recycling programs in order to keep them running, meaning recycling is not an efficient use of energy and resources. As a simple example, it is often better for the environment and for our pocketbooks to simply produce new paper than recycle waste paper. American citizens have to pay for this government indulgence via higher taxes and wasted time spent sorting and recycling their own waste.
This sacrifice has been beaten into the heads of American citizens by environmentalists and their state supporters so much that it has become a daily routine for most. Now, environmentalists are demanding more sacrifice. Carbon dioxide is the cause of the recent global warming, they claim, and thus we humans must cut back on our contribution of carbon dioxide. This means that environmentalists are demanding that we drive less, use less oil, and find ways to go about our daily business that use less energy than normal. For many people, this is a hassle. Environmentalists will counter that one need not make drastic changes in lifestyle to make a difference. The Internet is littered with lists of simple ways to help reduce global warming. To anyone willing to crunch the numbers, it is evident that small changes will not result in a significant decrease in carbon dioxide emissions. Only huge changes in lifestyle will result in a huge decrease in human carbon dioxide emissions.
It should not surprise us that environmentalists demand sacrifices, for any religion demands sacrifices. And like other religions, environmentalism is a human-centered one. Yes, in its purest form, it is Earth worship; its reverence is directed at something decidedly non-human. However, the beliefs and tenets of the faith concern humans and their role in natural history. Inevitably, in the modern world, this role is an antagonistic one for the environmentalists. Humans are the problem, and the solution will demand some bane to human beings. It is this simple fact that has led Peter Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace and a man who has become disaffected with the environmental zealots, to call environmentalists "anti-human."
Whereas most religions seek the betterment of humanity, environmentalism is unique in that it seeks the opposite. The sacrifices that it demands be made will result in severe harm for those who need help the most. In the developing world, environmentalists see an excellent area for proselytization and a place to implement their policies - for existing infrastructure is hard to change, but poor countries provide environmentalists with a tabula rasa. They preach the need for solar and wind power in the developing world. These two forms of energy, however, are not reliable or powerful enough for a world that is looking to industrialize. Imagine, for example, a modern factory of any type running completely on solar or wind power. Difficult to imagine? Of course. If the environmentalist vision of the developing world is allowed to take root, billions of people who can benefit greatly from industrialization will be condemned to poverty for the rest of their life. It's sad that rich, Western environmentalists are so quick to demand this sacrifice of others. That the people they demand it of are the ones who will be harmed the most by it is downright reprehensible.
Finally, like many religions, there is a strong emphasis in environmentalism on the end of the world. Fear mongering and predictions of the apocalypse are the primary evangelizing tools of environmentalists. In the past we've endured warnings about overpopulation, nuclear holocausts, and now a global climate disaster. And like the apocalyptic predictions of other religions, those of environmentalism have never come to pass. But luckily for them, people have a short memory, and fear is a powerful persuasive tool. By the time it is clear that anthropogenic climate chance not only won't cause the end of the world but also isn't even happening, no one will remember the hyperbolic claims made by environmental zealots. Instead, we will be entertaining their latest apocalyptic fantasy.
It should be clear, now, that environmentalism constitutes a religion in every sense of the word. The fact that environmentalism is a religion does not bother me. If progressives (who constitute most of the movement) find their lives empty of meaning absent a real religion and thus decide to channel energy into Earth-worship and all that it entails, that is their business. When they try to use the violently coercive powers of the state in their favor, it is fitting that reasonable people challenge the basis for their beliefs.
In the case of environmentalists, it is fairly easy to show that their beliefs are informed by faulty logic and are perpetuated by out-and-out zealots. The claim of environmentalists is that carbon dioxide is causing us to experience unprecedented warming. Unfortunately, every element of this assertion is patently false. First, the warming humans are experiencing right now is not unprecedented. During the Medieval Warming Period, which occurred between 800 and 1300 A.D., temperatures were higher than they are today. More importantly, the fundamental assumption of environmentalists concerning global warming - that carbon dioxide causes warming - is false. If one examines the timeline that Al Gore used in his movie, An Inconvenient Truth, which showed the impressive correlation between carbon dioxide levels and global temperature, one encounters a telling fact. Changes in global temperature precede changes in carbon dioxide levels by about 800 years. Carbon dioxide cannot be the cause if it follows what it is presumed to affect. Why does this phenomenon happen? When global temperatures rise, the seas get hotter, and carbon dioxide dissolved in the water starts to escape (gasses are dissolved more easily in liquids at lower temperatures). Because of the vastness of the oceans, it takes hundreds of years for ocean temperatures to rise. And finally, even if one does accept the environmentalist belief in carbon dioxide as the causal variable, one still has to deal with the fact that humans are responsible for a very small percentage of total carbon dioxide emissions. Volcanoes, animal flatulence, and rotting vegetation all contribute heavily to the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Humans currently account for about four percent of total carbon dioxide emissions, and carbon dioxide makes up about 0.038% of the atmosphere. http://www.lancashire.gov.uk/office_of_the_chief_executiv ...
Our effect on Earth's climate is extremely minimal at best. All this evidence against global warming, plus more, is documented very well in the recent British documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle."
Thus far, despite the apparent falseness of their beliefs, environmentalists have been extremely successful in achieving their goals. They have convinced the American people to sacrifice at the altar of Mother Gaia, and they have turned the already ignoble state into an even uglier beast - their church, the effecter of their religious goals. If allowed to continue, they will destroy the American economy and doom billions of people in developing countries to perpetual poverty. Secularists are quick to call for a wall of separation between church and state. It is time that environmentalism be held to the same standard.
Permalink
Brute Posted 10:46 am
20 Jun 2008
Rotten Tomatoes Caused by Climate Change?
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/betterplanet/2008/06/17 ...
Permalink
Brute Posted 12:10 pm
20 Jun 2008
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/06/20/warming-o ...
Permalink
manacker Posted 5:55 am
21 Jun 2008
Your recent post on Dr. Itoh's new book provides yet another sneak preview of what is happening to the AGW movement as more scientists speak out and people become aware that they have been bamboozled by politicians, "climatologists" turned activists and a sensationalist press. At the same time, alarming IPCC predictions of record-breaking warming in the early part of the current century have quietly been replaced with actual observations that show no such warming.
Are these leading indicators of what is happening to the AGW bandwagon?
Here's something for us all to think about, as we ponder about the future of mankind and our planet.
As little as six months to a year ago, the multi-billion dollar global warming bandwagon seemed to be rolling on with strong momentum as politically motivated Oscars and Nobel Prizes were handed out, Bali boondoggles were celebrated, 1,000-page pseudo-scientific IPCC reports (groan!) were published and the media, politicians plus activists were warning us of impending disaster unless we dig deep into our pockets and "ante up" to atone for our carbon footprint.
But is a wheel slowly coming off and is the bandwagon headed for the ditch?
At the same time that alarmists are shouting "tipping point" and "imminent inundation from 6 meter waves", the thermometers out there (even the ones next to asphalt parking lots and AC exhausts) are telling us something else: global warming has stopped! Ouch!
This is true if one looks at the past 10 years (1998-2008). It is also true if one looks at the past seven years only, starting in 2001, rather than starting the trend with the arguably all-time warmest year ENSO of 1998.
This year (2008) has started off cooler than normal and the WMO predicts it will probably continue to remain cool.
Of course there are howls of denial and proclamations such as "we are now at a global temperature not experienced in human civilization" and "ten (or seven) `cherry-picked' years do not make a new trend", but the fact remains: global warming has stopped (for now).
Everyone realizes that 10 years is too short a period to establish a long-term climate trend, but IPCC Chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, is apparently concerned. In a recent interview, he is quoted as saying he would "look into the apparent temperature plateau so far this century."
"One would really have to see on the basis of some analysis what this really represents," he told Reuters, adding "are there natural factors compensating?" (Or is the link between "global temperature" and increased CO2 concentration as the models predicted just not working out in actual fact?) Pachauri also added that he hoped the current plateau would not lead people into believing that AGW was "hogwash".
Hogwash or not, it is too early to tell what will really happen.
Will the warming temperature trend continue to level off and "plateau" or even reverse itself to a longer-term cooling trend?
But whatever happens, it does not bode well for the global warming doomsayers when people see TV reports from all over the northern hemisphere showing colder than normal weather at the same time we see an apparent increase in tornadoes and floods. These become increasingly difficult to "pitch" as effects of AGW when thermometers tell us it is no longer warming.
How many more years of flat (or cooling) temperature trends will it take for the bandwagon to end up in the ditch?
Will this derail the whole multibillion dollar IPCC gravy train?
We shall see.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 6:02 am
21 Jun 2008
"If tomorrow the theory of manmade global warming were proved to be a false alarm, one might reasonably expect a collective sigh of relief from everyone. But instead there would be cries of anguish from vested interests. About the only thing that might cause global warming hysteria to end will be a prolonged period of cooling... or at least, very little warming. We have now had at least six years without warming, and no one really knows what the future will bring. And if warming does indeed end, I predict that there will be no announcement from the scientific community that they were wrong. There will simply be silence." --University of Alabama climate scientist Roy Spencer
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 9:17 am
21 Jun 2008
Tuning in kind of late here but a remark by Christopher S. Johnson caught my eye: "Virtually all climatologist who have peer reviewed published findings about Anthropogenic Global Warming have said this: `While Global Warming cannot be linked directly to an individual weather event because of other factors, the science says that extremes in severity and number of both drought and wet storms are more likely with more CO2 in the atmosphere, than with less'."
I have not seen such a statement from "virtually all climatologists" but, in any case, it is a statement of "faith", rather than "science", because it is not backed up by physical observations. Projections for the future based on model studies do not represent any sort of evidence that something is "more" or "less likely", unless they are backed up by physical observations.
Let's do a quick analysis of the IPCC SPM 2007 take on this (i.e. "the science"):
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf
IPCC makes claims linking AGW with increased droughts, floods, heat waves and other extreme weather events in the late 20th century, claiming a ">66% likelihood" that this occurred "in some regions", that there is a >50% likelihood that the was a "human contribution" to this (of unassessed magnitude) and then adding the caveat that this is "based on expert opinion rather than attribution studies" (Table SPM.2., p.8).
A recent report on extreme weather events by Indur M. Goklany shows that these have not increased in actual fact in the late 20th century as claimed by IPCC.
http://www.globalwarming.org/files/report_20.pdf
In fact, the report (pp. 48,49) shows that annual death rates from extreme weather events (in both absolute terms and per million) have declined drastically in the latter part of the 20th century rather than increasing. This includes floods, droughts, extreme temperatures (cold as well as heat) and windstorms (including cyclones, tornadoes, etc.)
For comparison, the actual record shows there has been no recent increase in US tornado activity due to global warming, but a significant decrease instead, with the worst year for tornado deaths in 1905 when 254 people died and yet there were far fewer people living in the tornado prone areas.
http://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/killers.html
In its 2007 SPM report, IPCC has also made claims of increased and more intense tropical cyclone activity in the latter part of the 20th century, linking this to AGW (p.8).
The actual record shows no such increase, but a slight decrease, both in the USA and elsewhere, with most Atlantic hurricanes occurring in the 1940's, not "in the latter part of the 20th century" and no increase in the Pacific.
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/deadly/index.html
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2 ... 109_15.pdf
This covers the past and most recent record, which shows that there has been no physically observed increase in extreme weather events in the late 20th century, contrary to the claims by IPCC that these have "likely" occurred (>66%) and that a "human contribution" was "more likely than not" (>50%).
Now we come to projections for the future, where Christopher states that "virtually all climatologists" say that "extremes in severity and number of both drought and wet storms are more likely with more CO2 in the atmosphere, than with less".
Let's check again what IPCC ("the science") says:
Based on an assumed - but not physically substantiated - increase in "heavy precipitation events" of >66% likelihood with a "human contribution" of >50% likelihood, IPCC states that the "likelihood" of future increases "based on projections for the 21st century using SRES scenarios" is "very likely", i.e. >90%.
How is it possible to have higher confidence in predictions for the future than in recent events? This is only possible with a "belief" in the virtual reality of climate models.
The same "leap of faith" is apparent in the IPCC claim for heat waves, droughts, etc.
In addition there is the footnote (f) "Magnitude of anthropogenic contributions not assessed. Attribution for these phenomena based on expert judgement rather than formal attribution studies."
So it appears that IPCC is telling us, "We have only >66% confidence that there is a recent trend, just >50% confidence in an anthropogenic component of some undetermined magnitude (based on "expert opinion" rather than formal attribution studies), but >90% confidence that things will get worse in the future. We have no idea how human activity figures in any of this and anyway it's based on guesswork rather the peer reviewed physical evidence."
This whole argumentation is so weak that it can be dismissed (as can the lead article on this site by Joseph Romm).
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 9:21 am
21 Jun 2008
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20070109/20 ...
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 7:10 pm
21 Jun 2008
".....Why are you visiting a website that focuses on environmental news and commentary if you have nothing positive to contribute? "
HOWEVER; brute is contributing very positively by trying to communicate to you alarmists, things like; there is nothing unusual about the recent weather. So too is Max, and that there is no reason to blame recent events on AGW.
You should not ignore this GOOD NEWS....oh thou prophet of doom
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 3:11 am
22 Jun 2008
You're notion of "something positive to contribute" would be an attack on business. The notion that someone might be commenting that the planet is not as bad off as some have painted it is to you negative commentary.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 7:13 pm
22 Jun 2008
I often scratch my head, so badly that I end-up with splinters under my fingernails.
Why is it that environmentalists cannot abide GOOD NEWS?
It is so incomprehensible!
Self flaggellation?
Bi-polar disorder?
I don't get it!
Permalink
savee419 Posted 3:07 am
23 Jun 2008
Where do you folks get the idea that I am a crazy-hippie-no-thinker?
I was just trying to have a friendly discussion. I never brought politics, or anything personal into this. I even stated that I didn't agree that there was a correlation with the weather and global warming. I don't think I even said that I believe in in! The personal conclusions being made in this commentary is astounding.
Also: I should have clarified what I meant by positivity. I meant, Brute only fueled the fire by pointing out how wrong the original post was, repeatedly. So, by tearing something down he was being negative. Fine, but I am always interested in the positive and productive ideas that people have. I'm not out to get anyone, I'm just curious.
Permalink
savee419 Posted 3:20 am
23 Jun 2008
I am not going to check the comments any longer, I find there is no room for discussions here, only attacks and I am not interested in that! Thanks for the thought-provoking posts!
Permalink
Brute Posted 6:16 am
23 Jun 2008
My commute is 36 miles, which kind of makes the walking/biking thing undesirable.
Permalink
manacker Posted 3:20 pm
23 Jun 2008
From your comments, savee419, that tell it all...
Permalink
christophersj Posted 5:07 pm
24 Jun 2008
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/research/climate/highlights/PDF/ ...
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 8:09 pm
24 Jun 2008
I will attempt to digest it and report back to you with the utmost priority!
Permalink
314159265 Posted 10:26 pm
24 Jun 2008
Quoth John Coleman:
"You may want to give credit where credit is due to Al Gore and his global warming campaign the next time you fill your car with gasoline, because there is a direct connection between Global Warming and four dollar a gallon gas.
(...)
So the Global warming frenzy is, indeed, threatening our civilization. Not because global warming is real; it is not. But because of the all the horrible side effects of the global warming scam.
I love this civilization. I want to do my part to protect it."
Hehe...
Permalink
manacker Posted 3:30 pm
26 Jun 2008
Christophersj posts another absurd "prediction" by noaa nerds concerning horrible droughts and floods we are already "beginning to see" (?) and will surely see increasingly in the future, because of human CO2 emissions, all based on IPCC reports.
GIGO projections intended to arouse alarm and support for carbon taxes or cap and trade scams.
That's what it is, Christophersj.
Bring facts, not garbage.
Max
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 10:32 pm
03 Jul 2008
Permalink