How about running the LA subway through your Beverly Hills neighborhoods?

Not gonna do it?

Figured.

Randy Cunningham   Cleveland OH

The Federal Government subsidizes most if not all mass transit.

Waxman blocked the Red Line into Beverly Hills several times during his career by denying funding.

http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/18/us-climate-report-assailed/

Sigh. And that goes with CO2 reduction how?

The new federal report on climate change gets a withering critique from Roger Pielke Jr., who says that it misrepresents his own research and that it wrongly concludes that climate change is already responsible for an increase in damages from natural disasters. Dr. Pielke, a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, asks:

[Why] is a report characterized by [White House] Science Advisor John Holdren as being the “most up-to-date, authoritative, and comprehensive” analysis relying on a secondary, non-peer source citing another non-peer reviewed source from 2000 to support a claim that a large amount of uncited and more recent peer-reviewed literature says the opposite about?

Wow.  Is that your way of escaping an argument you can't win?   The point I made is about the map in question.   It clearly shows that climate legislation is about the liberal coasts taxing the rest of America.  I made my point that Waxman has a "do as I say; not as I do".

The argument is valid and stands.  If you have anything to add other than whining, we're all waiting to hear it.

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/06/obamas-phil-cooney-and-new-ccsp-report.html

Imagine if an industry-funded government contractor had a hand in writing a major federal report on climate change. And imagine if that person used his position to misrepresent the science, to cite his own non-peer reviewed work, and to ignore relevant work in the peer-reviewed literature. There would be an outrage, surely . . .

See here:

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090126_climate.html

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/01/28/0812721106.abstract

I would like to assume that only those parts of the report that may lack proper foundations, or be stating convient conclusions rather than actual conclusions from underlying research, are those parts that are in Prof. Pielke's area of expertise.

Are any other sections of the report as questionable?  I do find things like the photos of land loss due to a hurricane in 2005 not applicable at all. Especially if the evidence does not conclude that hurricanes are stronger due to global warming. That photo strikes me as a strange bit of content.

Though I believe human CO2 emissions are causing global warming, if the real science (not the manipulated science ) shows otherwise, I would change my viewpoint on  that.

We are staking our global economy on the Global Warming premise, it makes sense to assure the premise is backed by the best science, rather than "drinking the Kool Aid". Apparently, there are other forces at work. Forces that appear to environmentally green but may actually have other motivations.

Thank you for the links, I have seen the first one and I didn't realize it was peer-reviewed. The report's conclusion begs for consideration:

If it isn't reversable if CO2 emissions are completely stopped, should we be investing resources elsewhere? Or is the 450PPM the threshold you think? Therefore-- if we cap world emmissions NOW at the current 385 PPM , we can avoid the irreversability? 

Sorry to diverge on the bill, but if we cannot assure world CO2 levels below the 450ppm or so, the politics of the bill is moot.

My understanding is that, while the "bathtub effect will mean it can take a millennium for REDUCTIONS to happen in the atmosphere and oceans, a relative PLATEAU can be achieved and the rising can stop.  So the symptoms would be relatively (barring other forcers) frozen in place, but not worsen.

It would be like the difference between an "L.A. Riots" version of the problem, and a "Rwanda" version of the problem.

But I would expect an anti-regulation-at-all-costs biased person to use the info that way.

Re: your last sentence: I am not sure painting people you do not even know with a broad brush adds much to your objective scientific reasoning cred.

I am not a scientist. I am not an expert. Im just another common informed citizen, amongst millions, who will help see major regulation of CO2 emissions, to the very end. And with no use of exaggerations in science.

If you know of a violation, great. Lets put it in the ignore box and stick to the known evidence. Pielke had a very narrow complaint and that should be looked into.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

Randy Cunningham    

Thanks and good luck to Grist. Nice site. I have had some interesting discussions here in the past.

Best,

2009 is the point where it all crests.

I sure hope so, becase it's (P)iled (h)igher and (d)eeper than ever before!

These ain’t no hippies: 

NASA

http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/causes 

“Most scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human 

expansion of the "greenhouse effect" -- warming that results when the atmosphere traps 

heat radiating from Earth toward space.” 

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) 

http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/ocp2009/ocp2009-ccsp.htm 

“Climate research conducted over the past several years indicates that most of the 

global warming experienced in the past few decades is very likely due to the observed 

increase in greenhouse gas concentrations from human activities.” 

 AGU (American Geophysical Union) 

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/positions/climate_change2008.shtml 

“The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of 

the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the 

extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, 

and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not 

natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of 

greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century.”

http://tinyurl.com/n5zypz

A joint statement issued by the Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for 

Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of 

Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists 

Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, 

Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society 

of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK). 

The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the 

international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most 

reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this 

consensus. Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change, 

doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global climate change. 

We do not consider such doubts justified. 

There will always be some uncertainty surrounding the prediction of changes in such a complex system as 

the world’s climate. Nevertheless, we support the IPCC’s conclusion that it is at least 90% certain that 

temperatures will continue to rise, with average global surface temperature projected to increase by 

between 1.4 and 5.8oC above 1990 levels by 21001. This increase will be accompanied by rising sea levels, 

more intense precipitation events in some countries, increased risk of drought in others, and adverse effects 

on agriculture, health and water resources. 

In May 2000, at the InterAcademy Panel (IAP) meeting in Tokyo, 63 academies of science from all parts of 

the world issued a statement on sustainability in which they noted that “global trends in climate change … 

are growing concerns” and pledged themselves to work for sustainability – meeting current human needs 

while preserving the environment and natural resources needed by future generations2. It is now evident 

that human activities are already contributing adversely to global climate change. Business as usual is no 

longer a viable option. 

If you were really concerned about the importance of peer-reviewed articles, would you believe that one blog post could "put[] an ice axe into the 'science' of global warming", as you said earlier?

It would mean that Pielke knows something that nearly every peer-reviewed article author reviewed by Naomi Oreskes in her meta-analysis, "Beyond the Ivory Tower", published in Science, doesn't.  It's important to realize the overwhelming body of scientific evidence finding a very strong likelihood of the connection between human-caused GHG emissions and the harmful climatic effects on our livelihoods.

As far as the link between climate change and natural disasters, it's true that we don't have rock solid evidence of a strong connection, but there is physical and statistical evidence that points to a possible connection.  No one disputes that hurricanes tend to originate in warmer water; that's high school science.  What makes bodies of water, like the Gulf of Mexico, warmer?  Global warming.

Secondly, even if a connection between tropical storm frequency has not yet been unequivocally proven, that's not the only way climate change can influence tropical storms, cyclones, and hurricanes.  There's stronger evidence that climate change is making them more intense.  See, for example:

K. Emanuel. (2005). Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years.

"I find that the record of net hurricane power dissipation is highly correlated with tropical sea surface temperature, reflecting well-documented climate signals, including multi-decadal oscillations in the North Atlantic and North Pacific, and global warming. My results suggest that future warming may lead to an upward trend in tropical cyclone destructive potential, and—taking into account an increasing coastal population—a substantial increase in hurricane-related losses in the twenty-first century."

and...

J. Elsner, et. al. (2008). The increasing intensity of the strongest tropical cyclones.

"We find significant upward trends for wind speed quantiles above the 70th percentile...Our results are qualitatively consistent with the hypothesis that as the seas warm, the ocean has more energy to convert to tropical cyclone wind."

So, there is evidence that climate change and natural disasters -- at least cyclones and likely hurricanes -- are linked.

There could be significant scope for emissions redutions and biosequestration via activities such as soil carbon, and grazeland management. It would be very difficult for many of these activities to meet the criteria required for offsets to be credible. For this reason, these emissions reductions should instead be financed by an alternative mechanism to offsets. The use of some revenue from auctioning or allocating permits could be used for these activities. They may perhaps be able to be administered by the Dept of Agriculture.

Some of these sources will go to new demand, some may displace fossil fuels, but in either case the emissions will be greater than fossil fuel use for the forseeable future and will do the exact opposite of what we are calling for - we'll get immediate CO2 increases from that sector instead of immediate reductions.

Crunching the numbers for biomass in the northeast, it looks like biomass emits about 1.5 times more CO2 per megawatt hour than coal. The "net carbon neutral' argument requires decades to re-sequester the carbon - time that we don't have, right? Why are carbon-rich combustibles subsidized right alongside wind and solar? Why are combustibles already getting the lion's share of clean energy funds in places like Massachusetts and Pennsylvania?

There was a congressional briefing about this on Friday. Kate, were you there?

www.massenvironmentalenergy.org

www.maforests.org

Finally, there is ideology. Climate change denial is on the short list of things you must believe in to be a politically correct conservative. Ideologies become fused with identities.  You will never budge this bunch. 

My suggestion. Disengage and get out of that hall of mirrors, grass hopper.  Argue with fools, become a fool.

Randy Cunningham

One, two, (one, two, three, four!)

Let me tell you how it will be;
There's one credit for you, nineteen for me.
'Cause I'm Rep. Waxman,
Yeah, I'm Rep. Waxman.

Should five per cent cap and trade appear too small,
Be thankful I don't take it all.
'Cause I'm Rep Waxman,
Yeah, I'm Rep Waxman.

(if you pollute the air;) - I'll tax your stack;
(if you dig for oil;) - I'll tax your pick;
(if you get too cold;) - I'll tax natural gas;
(if you take a break;) - I'll tax your a---------

Waxman!

(apologies to G. Harrison)

The alternative to creating a financial incentive to change behavior, is with the muzzle of a gun pointed at you.  The Japanese used armed Samurai to protect the forest from being cut down by greedy people who could not grasp their environmental impact.  Call them "forest impact deniers".

Now, which way would you prefer?

The methodology of taxing polluters is about nonviolence and NOT cracking heads.  Nothing else.  And so your complaint is what?

Funding the future instead of taxing the past.

Through hydrogen, we could eliminate all the CO2.

You may now attack hydrogen technology -- as you would be expected to...since, from the looks of it, you've drunk 5 to 6 times the normal amount of Kool-Aid.

Also, I'll refer you to my earlier comment about the link between natural disasters and climate change.