Paul Krugman: Treason Against The Planet
The Republicans who are rejecting the climate change bill are doing so based more on ideology than science. Paul Krugman reminds us that ice caps are shrinking arid zoes are spreading, and scientists are predicting a 9 degree rise in temperature by the end of the century.
Global greenhouse gas emissions are rising faster than expected; some mitigating factors, like absorption of carbon dioxide by the oceans, are turning out to be weaker than hoped; and there’s growing evidence that climate change is self-reinforcing — that, for example, rising temperatures will cause some arctic tundra to defrost, releasing even more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
The deniers aren’t debating from a factual analysis. Congressman Paul Broun of Georgia went so far as to call climate change a “hoax” that’s been “perpetrated out of the scientific community.” These deniers should ignore scientific warnings at their own peril; the peril being loss of their political careers.
Cap & Trade, ” The Big Green Scam”…what an awful bill.
Does Barack-I-can-spend-it-faster-than-you-can-make-it Obama just want to jam through as much legislation as possible?
Does our government have any concern about the cost on business or citizens? The whole point is to hike electricity and gas so we will use less.
We the Taxpayers are the source of the dough!
According to Waxman-Markey it will cost about a postage “stamp a day”. HA-HA-HA.
40 years ago Medicare was to cost us “about a cup of coffee a day” at the time .25 cents.
By 1990 the estimate was 6 billion ( cost was over 100 billion). By 2000 the estimate was 9 billion ( cost was over 200 billion)
That silly Congressional Budget Office really knows how to estimate cost and save us money!
average james Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 11:36 am
Well then RDM,
Let’s discount the CBOs numbers on most everything.
Fair ?
RDM Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Fair?
I would say so.
Who can accurately project the likely size of deficits…not the CBO.
EricG Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
I’ll be sure to check out all your stupid Obama bashing and BS about the government as the sea levels rise, the air becomes toxic, and our food supply dries up.
Your ranting will save us all, your precious ideologies will fight back reality!
Uh huh…
RDM Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
The old anxieties-nuclear this, coal that, ‘drill, baby , drill’, shale, tar sands and natural gas.. all gone.
We are now in the age of alternative energy, solar, wind, geo, and bio are sweeping the country.
You must be relieved to know we have plentiful power and a green planet.
By the way, gasoline is up 25% since January.
Daddio Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
Hey Eric, the sky is falling, the sky is falling. You must be the original Chicken Little.
As a Christian do you really think God is going to let man destroy His creation?
Fact: the earth has been cooling the last 6-7 years. Why do you think they changed from global warming to climate change.
libpatriot Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 12:26 am
Daddio: “As a Christian do you really think God is going to let man destroy his creation?”
Myself, I think God IS going to let humans live with the consequences of their mistakes in this life, yes, including mistakes of inaction with regards to global warming.
Daddio, if you truly believe that God is going to make everything all right without people having to work at protecting our world, then why would you ever approve us having a military and an arsenal of bombs? Why would we need such things, if we believe God is our protector? Do you lack sufficient faith that God is going to protect us?
I really think God expects us to do our own heavy lifting when it comes to tackling the problems of the world, or, as Benjamin Franklin stated it, “God helps those who help themselves.”
Daddio Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 8:06 am
Libpatriot,
You sure read an awful lot into my statement. I only said that I don’t believe God will let man destroy His creation.
We are God’s creation. We are to tend to God’s other creations. We are to use the resources God has given us here on earth (which means the oil also). But we are to be good stewerds along the way.
God will make everything right…in the end. But until that time we are to have faith that God will protect those of us who trust in Him and have accepted His free gift of salvation. But He does instill in us the will and the ability and means to protect ourselves and our freedoms. That is our military to protect our homeland and to help spread freedom to lands of the oppressed.
That is our personal lives to protect our homes and families from those who would do us harm in our neighborhoods.
That is why we need such things Libpatriot. But God IS OUR PROTECTOR.
michael Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 9:59 am
Daddio,
You know what? You’re right. If only we took that approach during the Holocaust or after 9/11! We didn’t need to try to stamp out al Qaeda, God would have done it for us!
Daddio Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 10:12 am
Michael–HUH????
RDM Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
OK…I believe it’s Cows farting & dropping giant cow patties, and people are getting too fat. Unless these two things are fixed we are all doomed.
blissfulconservative Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
ERIC G
You might wanna check out the 98 page report that the current adminstration doesn’t want you to read. Ya know, the one that Alan Carlin helped write? The one from the EPA that says the info the EPA has been using is out of date? The same report that says the CO2 levels have increased while temps have decreased.
Check it out.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 1:41 am
care to tell us at least the name of the report…a link would be nice..
Kregg Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 10:41 am
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/29/gop-senator-calls-inquiry-supressed-climate-change-report/
OldLefty Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 11:05 am
These guys are economists, not scientists.
Alan Carlin may be a crackpot, whose recent publication supports “solar radiation management” with particles or aerosols.
His supervisor told him he should stick to his own field.
“Certain opinions were expressed by an individual [Carlin] who is not a scientist and was not part of the working group dealing with this issue,” said EPA spokesperson Adora Andy.
“Nevertheless, several of the opinions and ideas proposed by this individual were submitted to those responsible for developing the proposed endangerment finding.
Additionally, his manager allowed his general views on the subject of climate change to be heard and considered inside and outside the EPA and presented at conferences and at an agency seminar. The individual was also granted a request to join a committee that organizes an ongoing climate seminar series, open to both agency and outside experts, where he has been able to invite speakers with a full range of views on climate science.
June 29th, 2009 at 11:27 am
I think Krugman has it right.
Just more party of ‘NO’ antics going on, seemingly without any real consideration of facts.
Selfish in the extreme, in my opinion.
Exaggerated fiscal impact claims coming from the naysayers as well. Nothing new really.
June 29th, 2009 at 11:29 am
The deniers are the same people who believe in creationism. What was it that loon Michelle Bachman said? Jesus would protect us from global warming?
average james Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 11:40 am
Jesus will protect us from global warming——–
How does one even respond to someone like Bachman.
Where do they get this stuff ?
blissfulconservative Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
SGL
There are plenty of deniers in the scientific community. The media,politicians, those who want to make a profit and control people are making too big a deal out of climate change.
EricG Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
“those who want to make a profit and control people are making too big a deal out of climate change.”
You’re making too LITTLE a deal about climate change and I suspect it’s because the right wing decided to politicize the issue and make it left v. right when everyone not a total moron knows the facts about the science.
You and all your buddies who waste our time buy belittling this issue are directly responsible for the condition of the debate and the inability to make headway toward green solutions.
If these anti-facts people would stop being idiots and start loving their mother Earth they might be within the scope of being called ‘human beings’ once again.
Kregg Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
The Eric said:”…when everyone not a total moron knows the facts about the science.”
K: Eric, what ARE the ‘facts about the science’ in regards to global warming?
pizzaman Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 12:18 am
“The deniers [of global warming] are the same people who believe in creationism.” What?? How on earth do you know THIS? I haven’t formed an intelligent opinion on global warming because I’ll be the first to admit it’s over my head. But unfounded, unfoundable statements like yours make me tend toward the other side.
June 29th, 2009 at 11:33 am
“… scientists are predicting a 9 degree rise in temperature by the end of the century …”
I’m old enough to remember the same scientists were predicting “a coming new ice age” back in the 70s and nothing much came of that prediction either.
All Americans should read this …
http://www.scribd.com/doc/16763183/TaibbiGoldmanSachs
… and then write their elected representatives to complain. White collar theft on a truly grand scale is treason and Friedman is only part of the new, 21st century Hole-in-the-Wall gang by pushing for it.
Simple energy taxes would be a more straight forward way to reduce energy use and potential warming. You could even put tens of thousands of unemployed people to work planting trees we’d all benefit from for 100-200 years.
Cap ‘n Trade is only another Wall Street scheme to defraud us all. “O” has fallen under the spell of Goldman Sachs with this nonsense.
anonymouse Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Krugman, not Friedman. Although they usually sound alike and both are celebrity econ types.
June 29th, 2009 at 11:58 am
Krugman, not Friedman. It’s sometimes hard to tell them apart.
Both seem oddly convinced “the world is flat” and both are oddly celebrity “economists”.
June 29th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Alan said: Paul Krugman reminds us that ice caps are shrinking arid zoes are spreading, and scientists are predicting a 9 degree rise in temperature by the end of the century.
K: Aren’t these the same scientists who used to predict that we were by gosh by golly entering another ice age? Yep, same scientists…
Um Cara Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Probably not, most of the scientists who were concerned about an impending Ice Age are likely retired by now.
Kregg Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Same industry, however. Same alarmists, same financial schemes that produce no results… same lack of proof….
average james Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 4:27 am
Same industry, however.—Kregg
Same Quark discovering,
Same super-colliding,
Same mappers of the human genome,
Same disease cure designers,
etc.
Oh yah, those wacky useless scientists.
What the hell do they know ?
Um Cara Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
There is a considerable amount of proof of climate change. There is also a considerable amount of exaggeration by politicians, the media, etc…
Kregg Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Climate change from WHAT? The earth heats UP, the earth cools DOWN, the earth heats up again, and it cools down again. Over and over and over again. The hottest years of the 20th century were during the 1940s…
Um Cara Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Climate change from WHAT?
Various sources. Certainly the sun is the biggest contributor, we have been experiencing a solar cycle that has had a cooling effect recently, for example.
But the case for anthropomorphic climate change is very strong as well. Though certainly something as ridiculous as Kyoto or the most recent efforts by the house will do nothing to address it.
We’re most likely screwed, thank goodness I don’t have any kids!
EricG Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
This is not ‘alarmism,’ Kregg.
It’s solid scientific fact and if so-called conservatives like yourself want to reject science and wait for a bunch of paid-off scientists to come out and try to debunk it and then repeat their lies and so on … it’s just a problem for all humanity.
You and those like you will always play to the tune of the corporate masters and the power brokers and the real world will pass you and by and in the end you will help the world come to an end with your ignorance.
“The earth heats UP, the earth cools DOWN, the earth heats up again, and it cools down again”
Yes, this is right. Are you a climatologist?
Then maybe you should ask one about this thing called ‘climate change’ and see if you can’t expand your mind beyond Idiot Radio and FIXED News.
Kregg Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
The Eric said: This is not ‘alarmism,’ Kregg.
K: Yes, it is…
EricG Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Well, we disagree about that.
Again, I am offended that you won’t read the science for yourself and insist on this no-logic course of action where you insist all things are ‘left v. right’ and reject all data because some pundit told you to do so.
If you were open minded in the least you would not hold this position.
But I imagine it’s easier to think that and face the reality of our industrialization destroying the world and the fact that if we don’t take steps right now to change this course then we all get to suffer for our mistakes.
It’s saddening. The facts become non-issue in the face of politics and that’s exactly what you’re doing.
Calling it alarmism is ignorant. You obviously like pollution giants making millions off of poisoning the planet.
Go lobby for a Oil Company. You can bathe in the crude as well.
If we left the world to people like you my children would choke to death on the ‘harmless’ pollution produced by your lord and masters in corporate America.
Bow down. They are pleased with you today. You have helped them promote more lies and protected their precious profits without any ask for a reward from the little doggie below.
Beg for a treat. Good doggie! Good corporate shill!
Kregg Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 10:48 am
The Eric said: Again, I am offended that you won’t read the science for yourself and insist on this no-logic course of action where you insist all things are ‘left v. right’ and reject all data because some pundit told you to do so.
K: What makes you think I haven’t ‘read the science’ on this, Eric. I’m asking you to present the facts as you know them regarding global warming so we can have an intelligent discussion. So far, in return, you’ve decided I 1. haven’t read the science, 2. Know nothing about the topic, 3. am a corporate shill, 4. am a lapdog of conservative pundits, etc., etc., etc.,. However, you have NOT provided the ‘facts’ as you know them on the topic. Why not?
Lee Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 3:54 am
Kregg/Guido,
The facts behind GW as I’m sure you know are that man-made Carbon emissions since the Industrial Revolution and further accelerated in the last 30 years by the emergence of China, India and Globalization have caused the natural balance of the carbon cycle to become imbalanced and causing the Earth to heat up with drastic consequences for life on this planet. These studies have looked at Carbon levels over at least the past 650000 years.
These conclusions (possibly a better description than ‘facts’) are held by the majority of scientists in the field and affirmed by many scientific groups which claim the imbalance cannot be explained by natural means.
Obviously there is also a minority of scientists that believe there are alternative natural explanations for the ‘imbalance’ and its these scientists who are of course right if you happen to be someone who doesn’t like the implications of GW.
And so we get into these recurring debates where believers of GW are flatly told the’re wrong by those who believe GW is a ‘hoax’ and vice-versa.
Personally, I don’t see enough evidence to see its a slam-dunk either way but given that the GW model is actionable and the ‘natural GW’ model is not, I simply don’t understand how a rational person could accept that we can afford to be wrong on the topic. Surely we have to act as if the GW model is correct?
libpatriot Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 4:13 am
Lee, I appreciate your posts on this subject very much! We do indeed need to act as if the Global Warming model is correct, the model which the majoprity of scientists endorse as the likely scenario if we don’t control our CO2 output.
Another factor contributing to rapid acceleration of CO2 levels we haven’t mentioned here is the destruction of the rain forests over the recent decades. Those rain forests functioned as a natural “carbon sink”. (Just wanted to mention that.)
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 4:23 am
Like I’ve said. we should be good stewards over the earth, we should reduce carbon emissions…but doing it under the guise of climate change and ram rodding far reaching/expensive and dubious programs that are not even likely to work as they are intended is crazy…
better ways to go about it. Fund research on cleaner energy, fast track permits for new generation nuclear energy and/or hydropower, continue with wind and solar and wave power as it is feasible, and encourage coal plants to convert to greener practice in the meantime, until they can be completely phased out…also we need to stop approving more coal plants to be built.
Share technology with China/India/Brazil to help them create cleaner energy sources
Stop with all the silly restrictions on Diesel, build an infrastructure for natural gas vehicles (the biggest reason car companies don’t make natural gas vehicles??? no body will buy them because there is no natural gas delivery structure on the level we need it..T Boone Pickens would do more good with his money buy building natural gas pumps than putting up a bajillion wind mills…not saying it’s bad what he’s doing)
It’s alarmist to say temps are going to raise by 9 degrees in 100 years and unless humans drastically change their habits it is inevitable…it’s a computer model designed by flawed humans, the data simply doesn’t flesh out.
and the Kyoto protocols and Cap and Trade are completely ineffectual in solving the problem, and will simply be a capital soaking tax on corporations.
I’ve said it before. One green CEO is worth 100 times more than any legislation you could ever dream of.
Lee Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 5:35 am
Guido, its good that you agree with reducing Carbon emissions but in a capitalist nation, if you don’t provide a financial incentive to do so, it isn’t going to happen regardless of scientific based implications of not doing so.
I agree with encouraging wind/solar/nuclear etc but none of these are on their own a panacea for the problem and currently the alternative power technology still puts too much pressure on our natural resources to scale into the distant future (e.g iron, water, tellurium etc).
Indeed, to help you understand why Boone Pickens is building wind farms, it is because there is not enough natural gas to support both vehicles and electricity.
As for your comments on alarmism etc.. Let me pose the crux of my argument another way:
Suppose astronomers identified a huge asteroid that had a high chance of hitting and destroying the Earth in 20 years time. Suppose these same scientists identified that if we invested billions of dollars into rocket and weapons technology, we had a 95% chance of destroying the rocket and saving the Earth.
Now lets say a minority of scientists explained that their data showed the asteroids path coming nowhere near Earth and as such this huge investment was unnecessary.
Shouldn’t we give these ‘alarmists’ the benefit of the doubt? Particularly when they happen to be in the majority?
Lee Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 5:36 am
err I meant destroy the asteroid btw :-)
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 5:47 am
except Lee the numbers are going to come out closer to 1% probability that the worst case scenario will occur, 100 trillion dollars in wasted money and a .01% chance that it would make any difference anyway…or maybe I’m a pessimist.
Also I didn’t really mean to disparage T. Boone Pickens I think what he’s doing is great.
One cool thing that I was reading was an interview with Chu…I can’t remember his exact title. Talking about the new generation of nuclear energy and what to do now that Yucca Mountain has been scrapped…as much as I think it was a mistake to do so, it also opens up some possibilities that could be beneficial in the long run….anyway the cool thing he was talking about was creating big air bank type things in conjunction with wind power, basically when wind turbines are over producing it would divert air into an upsteam bank that could be released during slow wind cycles, that would help increase the efficiency of wind turbines and make them more feasible.
As for financial incentives in a capitalist society…I agree, but I prefer the carrot to the stick in these situations. of course that will get OldLefty in a tizzy about corporate welfare.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 5:51 am
and I’d be willing to bet the 9 degree change is not a majority held opinion…it’s the biggest number Krugman could corraborate with research to fuel his ideas. More conservative numbers are in the 1.5-4 degree range…all of which are highly evolved guesses.
My favorite global warming quote “we failed to take into account the activity of the sun in our temperature models”
Lee Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 7:28 am
“except Lee the numbers are going to come out closer to 1% probability that the worst case scenario will occur, 100 trillion dollars in wasted money and a .01% chance that it would make any difference anyway…or maybe I’m a pessimist. ”
The first problem here is that even the GW opponents are not generally denying the world is warming up or that this will change the planet. Their ‘best case’ that they like to tout is that in fact the warming will open up new fertile land etc and even though we lose Florida, hey it will all be good overall!
Anyway, my point is that to dismiss the worst case as ‘1%’ is disingenuous at best.
Secondly, if you believe that its only 0.01% chance (or whatever miniscule probability you want to assign) that its avoidable. Then here you are just making the case that a minority of scientists ‘must be right’ and in doing so making a bet where you ‘let it ride’ with far larger stakes than even the hyperinflated GW action cost of ‘100 trillion’ that you mentioned.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 1:51 am
eric…facts and projections are different.
the 9 degree warmer alarm is based on taking data from a very small subset of data and extrapolating it out 200 years.
it’s like using 1 month of gasoline prices to project the price of gasoline in 100 years. If you used last junes numbers gas would be projected to be like 1000 dollars a gallon in 100 years…if you used last decembers numbers gas would be projected to be 4 cents a gallon in 100 years.
yes ice caps are shrinking…but they’ve been shrinking since the last ice age…are we to be alarmed that michigan isn’t covered in ice?
Yes arid zones are increasing…but other lands are becoming all the more hospitable and arable.
The climate will change, but there is very little man can do about it, one way or the other.
Not saying we should just trash the earth, but making drasticm immediate, and uber-expensive decisions based on “climate change” is crazy.
When “we” cool the earth too much are we going to start firing up more coal plants to warm us back up???
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 7:57 am
uggghh….I think I accidently used the dreaded conv1nced word…we’ll see if it clears moderation…
my point—your numbers are equally disengenuous, most of florida is uninhabitable, global climate change scientists are working with flawed models, I will support you in supporting sane environmental policies but cap and trade is not sane or good for the environment.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 7:58 am
this posted in the wrong spot also….it’s getting late.
June 29th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
“The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.”
That was 1974.
I can remember the same thing appearing in Popular Science or Popular Mechanics with a nice “frozen” cover predicting we’d all soon be living under the new tundra but I can’t find it online.
Kregg Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Mouse, follow the money. AlGore has built a financial scheme to profit from carbon credits that, when you actually examine it, makes no sense whatsoever other than make money for him and his cronies…
anonymouse Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Al Gore’s investment vehicle …
http://www.generationim.com/
… he’s in bed with the Goldman boys.
EricG Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
So, Al Gore paid for Kyoto to take place and spent billions defaulting years of research … all to sell ‘carbon credits.’
You ever heard of a ‘conspiracy theory’?
Yea … your bought and sold like a product except it’s your opinion that’s been bought up by giants of pollution and green house gas emission.
If you’re investing in screwing up this environment, screwing up this society, screwing up this government and screwing up the future … maybe we should get you people called exactly what you are:
Unamerican Partisans
Kregg Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 10:52 am
The Eric said: So, Al Gore paid for Kyoto to take place and spent billions defaulting years of research … all to sell ‘carbon credits.’ You ever heard of a ‘conspiracy theory’?
K: Eric, probably without knowing it you’ve made a true statement. Kyoto IS a conspiracy. Its a conspiracy against the US in that it requires US to reduce emissions while other countries do nothing. Sounds like a typical Lib plan to me…
TDro319 Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 2:08 pm
K: “Sounds like a typical Lib plan to me…”
TD: Damn us libs for wanting to reduce emissions! If I were you, Kregg, I’d catch the first boat to China. Then you can be part of the Kyoto conspiracy.
BTW, how’s investigating Obama’s birth certificate coming along?
Kregg Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 2:14 pm
TD said: Damn us libs for wanting to reduce emissions! If I were you, Kregg, I’d catch the first boat to China. Then you can be part of the Kyoto conspiracy.
K: I”m all for reducing emissions. Kyoto will not reduce them. Do you understand that simple point? India just came out today refusing to cut their emissions at all under Kyoto. They join China and one other country as the world’s largest emitters who have absolutely refused to reduce emissions. So, if this hair-brained plan is implemented the ONLY major producer of banned emissions that will abide by the treaty will be the US. You libs will be the death of us yet…
TD: BTW, how’s investigating Obama’s birth certificate coming along?
K: I’m not investigating BO’s birth certificate, why do you ask?
average james Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Kregg,
Well then it seems as good a time as any to take the lead again, regardless of what China, India and others say or do. Doing the right thing is always good, even if not popular.
Daddio Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Sure James, doing the right thing is usually always good, but at what expense to the American people? Those countries will never follow our lead in this. Their economiew will continue to grow while ours suffers because of Kyoto.
Why put America at a disadvantage. Isn’t our economy bad enough already?
average james Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Willio,
I do not believe that it will put us at a disadvantage. We’re america. We do difficult things, we figure things out. I say we be leaders and show by our actions that ‘WE CAN’.
I cannot remember a time when I have heard so much negativity, so much ‘no we can’t’.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Do you have any idea how much polution the internet creates. When you post on global warming, you are creating more.
EricG Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Do you have any idea how much waste your vapid idiocy causes?
Do have any idea that buckets of petrol are being dumped in your backyard, by me, right now!
All because you love pollution and Republican greed.
Go count your money on the backs of dead Americans poisoned by your ‘myth.’
June 29th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html
Michael Crichton: “I am going to argue that extraterrestrials lie behind global warming.”
Makes sense to me!! It’s the Borg!! Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated!!
EricG Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
You know what else Crichton said?
He said politicizing science was the worst thing we could do for the future.
That means he would have EXTREMELY Anti-Limbaugh and his crusade against all knowledge on climate change.
He would have spit on the postings some of you guys have put up here.
You all make science your football and don’t care to do any research and reading on this and only wait for the local freakjob pundit to give you your opinion on this issue.
Crichton would be pissed at you idiots for not looking at the science and continuing that you ‘know all about it’ and explaining your ‘money trails’ and so on.
It disgusts real Americans and disgusts all intelligent people across the globe.
Cut the “S” out!
Because we all get to die in your polluted globe and we all get to survive in my pure globe of fresh air.
anonymouse Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Hiding behind science to further political or economic interests cuts both ways.
You don’t get it.
“Cap and trade” isn’t much about carbon or the environment. It’s another Wall Street scheme to lift a few bucks out of our pockets under the cover of doing something good for everyone. Who doesn’t want to clean up the environment?
There are other, better ways to reduce our collective carbon footprint but none of them leave Wall Street the opening that “cap and trade” does to enrich themselves.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 1:52 am
Liberals have politicized science as much as conservatives have…
average james Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 4:36 am
It’s the Borg, resistance is futile. Ha ha ha
Speaking of Star Trek,
Rush Limbaugh is Farengi, cosmetically altered of course. Profit, profit, profit, buisness, buisness, buisness, free market, free market, free market, more, more, more.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Ya, it’s now 35 years since 1974. Things have changed. Science has advanced. Maybe you’ve heard of computers? Scientists do this thing called computer modeling. You couldn’t do that in ‘74.
And if anyone doesn’t like climate change theory please do us a favor and move to Texas and secede from the union so you’ll be doing less to contribute to the extinction of the human race.
1) The ice caps melt.
2) Sea level rises.
3) Ice and snow reflect sunlight and heat, but open ocean and bare land absorb light and heat. So all the water and land exposed to sunlight accelerates the warming process.
4) Permafrost melts. Methane trapped in permafrost is released into the atmosphere. Methane is 20x more powerful than CO2 in advancing atmospheric warming.
This is no different from evolution, and it’s the same barrel of buffoons who refuse to wrap their empty little heads around the science because it just doesn’t fit into your little evangelical game plan for how the world is supposed to work.
Kregg Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
and then? and then? and then? Oh, our computer modeling forgot to take in certain parameters that render them elementary and unreliable but, hey, no one pays attention to us unless we’re screaming about something so, “the sky if falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling….!!!
Rock, unless you are scientist involved in global weather and heating/cooling you are doing the exact same thing you accuse others of doing – wrapping your empty little head around whichever guy is saying what you want him to be saying. Besides, why should you care – its just evolution?
blissfulconservative Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Rocky,
Lots of scientists have wrapped their heads around this theory and they say it isn’t going down the way gore and others want you to believe.
But go ahead and fall into lock step obedience and believe whatever you are spoon fed.
Rocky the Liberal Rottweiler Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 11:54 am
“Lots of scientists have wrapped their heads around this theory and they say it isn’t going down the way gore and others want you to believe.”
Go ahead. Be a stooge for Exxon. You’re so full of crap it’s “bloviating” out your ears. With citizens like you we don’t need al Quaeda.
Just please move to Texas and secede. And meanwhile the adults left here in the US will work on finding solutions to the world’s problems.
trees are people too Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Hey Rocky, they have internet connections in Texas…..
We could still all blog away, while eating enchiladas in Tayhas……
RDM Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
If it’s hot/cold, dry/wet, cloudy/clear… well once in a while stuff just happens.
EricG Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
RDM – “well once in a while stuff just happens.”
Very scientific.
Kregg – “Rock, unless you are scientist involved in global weather and heating/cooling you are doing the exact same thing you accuse others of doing – wrapping your empty little head around whichever guy is saying what you want him to be saying. Besides, why should you care – its just evolution?”
Pull the BS out of your mouth for a minute and read something for yourself rather than attacking the credibility of others.
You’ve done that to me too. I see a pattern.
You don’t need to listen to Rock or me or whoever about Global Warming. You can just read Kyoto for yourself and read the stuff since and on and on.
I know this is hard, but it’s not our job as internet posters to educate you. You have to actually care enough about the truth to read it yourself.
As to accepting the story of others … do you know another way to do things?
I don’t have billions of dollars to do my own studies on climate change. I think the studies done by world recognized scientists are more than enough for anyone not … looking for a reason to doubt it.
And that’s what this really is. People who are looking for a reason to whine like idiots and don’t ever read the science.
This is all about numbers in the end.
“X” many scientists think Global Warming is real and “X” many think it is hogwash.
I’m in the majority and so is Rocky.
You are in severe minority if you are buying into the theory that it is not true and all just a conspiracy theory cooked up to make someone money.
Kregg Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
The Eric said: Pull the BS out of your mouth for a minute and read something for yourself rather than attacking the credibility of others.
K: I have. thats why I question Rock’s – and your – credibility. Don’t presume, Eric.
E: You’ve done that to me too. I see a pattern.
K: Yes, you and Rock quite often follow the same pattern. I’d break out of it if I were you…
E: You don’t need to listen to Rock or me or whoever about Global Warming. You can just read Kyoto for yourself and read the stuff since and on and on.
K: Again, don’t presume.
E: I know this is hard, but it’s not our job as internet posters to educate you. You have to actually care enough about the truth to read it yourself.
K: What makes you think I”m relying on you to educate me?
E: As to accepting the story of others … do you know another way to do things? I don’t have billions of dollars to do my own studies on climate change. I think the studies done by world recognized scientists are more than enough for anyone not … looking for a reason to doubt it.
K: Yes, I do, as a matter of fact. Don’t choose your scientists by their political persuasion, don’t pick your politicians by their financial ties, and don’t make this issue political. There are as many ‘world-recognized’ scientists of the ‘anti’ global warming position as there are of the ‘pro’ global warming persuasion.
E: And that’s what this really is. People who are looking for a reason to whine like idiots and don’t ever read the science.
K: Do you ever read the anti-warming science or do you limit yourself to reading only that science which supports your political views?
E: This is all about numbers in the end. “X” many scientists think Global Warming is real and “X” many think it is hogwash. I’m in the majority and so is Rocky.
K: Thinking global warming ‘real’ and thinking it man-made are two completely different issues, Eric.
E: You are in severe minority if you are buying into the theory that it is not true and all just a conspiracy theory cooked up to make someone money.
K: Nobody said it was a conspiracy to make money. There HAS been global warming. There HAS been global cooling. There IS a cycle of warming and cooling. The money-makers on this scam are betting shills like you and Rocky buy into their ’science’ so that they can make some money.
Um Cara Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
There are as many ‘world-recognized’ scientists of the ‘anti’ global warming position as there are of the ‘pro’ global warming persuasion.
Where did you get that idea? It isn’t true.
Daddio Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Would one of you liberal climate experts on this site please tell me what caused climate change thousands and hundreds of thousands and millions of years ago. I don’t think there were SUV’s then. I don’t think the oil was being drilled for then.
I don’t know. Any of you experts have the answer?
Eric? Rocky?
trees are people too Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 2:36 pm
What is true is that the majority of scientists get their funding for research from the government in the form of grants and so they are not likely to upset those who hold political office and control the purse strings.
If evidence is inconclusive they will tend to lean towards assuaging the political whims and politically expedient conclusions for “possible explanations” while saying that they need more money to conduct more research……..
Anyone who opposes the politico’s is very likely to find themselves “cut off” from any further funding.
“If you don’t have a real answer that’s “OK”, just tell us what we already know is true”…
And so the scientists end up like Pavlov’s dog salivating over the opportunity to get a biscuit………
Um Cara Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Anyone who opposes the politico’s is very likely to find themselves “cut off” from any further funding.
Not true. With Bush, he just had non scientist staffers rewrite any science that he didn’t agree with.
And so the scientists end up like Pavlov’s dog salivating over the opportunity to get a biscuit
Nope. Nothing a scientist likes better than making another scientist look foolish. If one of their colleagues publishes something that can be discredited, there is nothing they like better.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
You are hilarious, Alan!!!! You say Republicans voted out of ideology, yet, what about Democrats, who did not even READ the bill, including the 300+ pages added in the dead of night? Any response to that, Alan?
EricG Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
You are a moron. How many bills did Republicans read in the past eight years? All of them.
Go eat a pile of dirt because that’s exactly what just came out of your mouth.
Daddio Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Hey William,
Haven’t seen your posts here before. If this is your first time then I would advise you not to get offended by Eric’s nasty posts. He does that whenever you don’t see things his way.
June 29th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
shut the heel up with the global warming crap its just nature taking its course bunch of dum enviormentalists
EricG Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Wow, you’re a smart one.
Did you learn to spell at the same place that taught you all about the environment and climatology?
Krugman could snap your intellect like a twing.
You’re a disgrace to America and YOU should be the one to choke on pollution instead of all of us.
Ah, a better world….
June 29th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
The irony to the debate is that some if not most of the people arguing against any attempt to limit greenhouse gas emissions are evangelical Christian fundamentalists while the book of Genesis commands humans to be good stewards of the planet. Global warming may not happen as much as some are predicting, but we should be good stewards of the planet and its resources. In the end we’ll be better off not using so much oil from the middle east.
EricG Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Ah, sanity. Thank you, CRH3E.
It’s so true. The people who think for themselves and don’t wait for someone else to say it before they will speak up are not being true to their roots if they be Christians and also not being true to themselves if they are scientific leaning types.
“In the end we’ll be better off not using so much oil from the middle east.”
Absolutely, this would be the best way to sell environmentalism to the right wing. It’s not about us comparing endless studies and arguing if a “one” is a “nine” and so on … but rather about the raw practical nature of continuing to buy oil from the Mideast.
–
But no. They all vote for their ‘ideology’ and all the local net-crew decide to make it about conspiracies and at the end of the day nothing happens and some Saudi millionaire gets a another pile of cash.
Helipilot Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
Eric;
I am a conservative and I agree with you. The science suggests that the earth is going through a warming cycle. However none of them can prove that it’s caused by greenhouse gasses. Certainly, it’s a possibility, it’s just not a certainty.
My concern is that the US seems to be the only country willing to bite the bullet on this issue when it’s very clear that nations like Russia, China, India, and others care so little for the environment.
Indeed, it is in our best interests and the worlds environment if we develop our own oil and gas interests. We drill safer, use oil products better, and our governmental agencies can watch over oil companies to make sure the environment is protected.
If we don’t do that, then the world will get oil from nations who don’t give a twit about the environment. Therefore, the drive should be to use the great resources in an environmentally responsible way.
No?
RDM Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Good comment.
Why do we keep buying oil from people who hate us and want to kill us? Are we insane?
What is our new Team in DC doing to solve this issue?
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 1:55 am
amen CRH3E…errr… I concur.
June 29th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
I like the secede from the union idea. All flat earthers and climate change deniers – move to Texas or to Michelle Batsheetcrazyman’s district.
June 29th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
Doesn’t this Paul Krugman write for the Obama, er, I mean the New York Times?
OldLefty Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
Daddio said,
“Doesn’t this Paul Krugman write for the Obama, er, I mean the New York Times?”
………………..
I always thought that the way they always printed everthing that Cheney’s office fed Judith Miller, like she had done independent research, then, Cheney would go on TV and quote the NYT as though they corroborated his story, that they were the Bush/Cheney Times.
Daddio Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
“Oh the Times, they are a changin’” :)
Daddio Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
Goodnight everyone and God bless.
June 29th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Alan, why don’t you inform your bloggers about the memos today that were found in the EPA that refute the “scientific proof” that CO2 causes global warming.
We are just going to waste money on something that cannot be stopped. It’s all about power and control; modern day slavery.
I believe congress and Obama are bordering on treason.
June 29th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
Hmm great topic..
Firstly to the naysayers/skeptics on Global Warming (lets face it, usually Conservatives..), I’d like to pose this..
Let’s say you’re right that the Global Warming ‘Science’ is questionable and possibly wrong and we’re just in a natural cycle etc.
How sure can you be of this position, particularly given the number of scientists (and evidence) supporting this versus those that don’t?
The stakes here are so huge that if Global Warming theories are correct, in the worst case scenario we face potential human deaths on a catastrophic scale not to mention drastic changes in quality of life and our geography..
Considering this, how can you possibly rationalize that paying lower taxes is worth a 5% chance of needlessly devastating the world for your children and grandchildren?
Even if you are skeptical here, surely weighing up the consequences logically and morally, requires action on Global Warming?
michael Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 9:10 am
Sadly science and evidence don’t matter to many of these people. As Daddio’s posts have illustrated, the only thing that is “true” in their lives is fundamentalist Christianity. Most reasonable moderate and even many young evangelical Christians would agree that God wouldn’t be the slightest bit happy if we destroyed His creation, but there is always going to be that group that doesn’t care what those “heathen scientists” have to say.
Really though, the biggest and most harmful group of dissenters are the oil company lobby and the politicians that support them. As long as they keep making their record profits, the don’t care what they’re doing to the planet.
Lee Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 11:23 am
True Michael,
The irony with the evangelical’s is they often use the same kind of ‘what if you’re wrong’ argument to atheists to dismiss them as fools for denying ‘God’. Yet when the same logic is applied to them in a different situation (as above) it’s of course a different matter.
I think Oil lobbyists are one problem but the bigger problem is the Hardin ‘Tragedy of the Commons’ model that these people exemplify.. i.e the US shouldn’t cut emissions if China won’t or I don’t see why I should recycle/use more fuel efficiency etc if other people/nations won’t.
libpatriot Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 12:39 am
Good posts, Lee and Michael. Thank you!
average james Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 4:39 am
Yep, yep, yep.
June 29th, 2009 at 9:47 pm
Krugman may be right when he talks about shrinking ice-caps. So might I when I say the reverse. The point is, Krugman is an econimist, not a scientist. I’m a lawyer, not a scientist. I’m not in Krugman’s pay grade, but then,m he ’s not a scientist. If you want credibility about ice-cap shrinkage, Alan, don’t cite an econimist; cite a scientist, one who has special knowledge about ice-caps. See the problem? Geez, you liberals. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Lee Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
Pizzaman,
Economics and Climate Change are co-related topics. So if you want to understand climate change models and how they would affect us, yes, economists know about these things.
Geez, you Conservatives..
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 1:57 am
all that burning money is related to climate change….
Lee…you make no sense.
Lee Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 5:33 am
On the contrary, you don’t seem to have much of an understanding on how climate change is studied..
A scientist can assess whether the climate is changing or how it is changing. However, when it comes to interpreting the practical effects of such changes on the worlds population, this is the area of economics not science. So they are absolutely entwined topics.
It’s no accident that many of the books/papers describing what climate change means for humanity are authored by economists, not scientists (although often its both).
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 8:36 am
well, then any discipline could say they are experts in global warming as long as they can find a way in which global warming impacts their speciality.
however the science of the actual warming/cooling of the earth is not a speciality of Mr. Krugman, as brilliant as he is at his day job.
The original point is that Krugman as an economist has no special insight into the melting of polar icecaps..and you seemed to be asserting that he does.
Krugman may have special insight in how economies can be effected by global warming, but he has no extra knowledge about the actual science of climate change.
Lee Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 11:07 am
Guido,
With respect, what you don’t seem to grasp here is that economics is not a vague peripheral discipline related to climate change. In reality, to understand climate change there are two parts.. one is the scientific basis and the second is the socioeconomic impact.
Secondly, you appear to have either not read what Krugman wrote or otherwise misunderstood it. What he is doing is explaining the impact of the scientific results concluded by scientists. This kind of statistical modelling and interpretation is exactly what top economists are trained to do.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 2:41 am
but his understanding of the socioeconomic aspects of theoretical global warming gives him no additional insight to claim that temperatures will rise by 9 degrees…that is my point. The physics of actual global climate change is foreign to his branch or study and mastery.
It’s like saying every Ph.D dr. is qualified to perform brain surgery….and that is what you don’t understand about what I’m saying.
Lee Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 3:26 am
Guido,
“and scientists are predicting a 9 degree rise in temperature by the end of the century”
Words mean something..
Paul Krugman is not a scientist
Scientists predicted the 9 degree rise, not Paul Krugman.
What he actually did was to talk about the implications for us of what the _scientists_ predicted in their study e.g
“Temperature increases on the scale predicted by the M.I.T. researchers and others would create huge disruptions in our lives and our economy. ”
This kind of analysis of data provided by _scientists_ is exactly one of the things _economists_ are taught to do..
Am I reading a different article to you?
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 4:44 am
I’m done with this conversation…we’re simply parsing words…and accomplishing nothing.
average james Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 4:47 am
Good night Guido.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 4:55 am
Good night…one day at a time.
Lee Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 5:20 am
We weren’t ‘parsing words’. You were attributing words to Krugman that he never stated and then mocked him for making such statements without any relevant qualification to do so.
I simply pointed out that when you look at the actual statements he made, he was in fact eminently qualified to make them..
June 29th, 2009 at 10:16 pm
the sooner u people understand that America is a THEOCRACY and that God controls the temperature the sooner I and my fellow theocrats can figure out which God and religion and denomination is running the world.
thank u.
Um Cara Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
LOL!
I miss you Cheryl – go buy a computer, damit
CherylCarroll Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
I’m doing my best man, I’m doing my best.
average james Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 4:42 am
HA HA HA HA HA
It’s the Hare Krishna’s…………….duh.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 4:54 am
dang those Hares
June 29th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Blindly feeling my way!
June 30th, 2009 at 1:42 am
I do so enjoy the “global cooling” redux.
The notion that the 1970s scientific consensus was for impending “global cooling” is INCORRECT.
Most predictions of an impending “ice age” came from the corporate media (eg – Newsweek, NY Times, National Geographic, Time Magazine). As far as peer reviewed scientific papers in the 1970s, VERY FEW (7 in total) predicted any global cooling. Those papers didn’t actually predict an ice age. Instead, projected “possible scenarios” IF aerosol levels increased 6 to 8 times then sustained those levels for several years, it MAY trigger an ice age. Actually it shows science WORKS, since we significantly fixed the aerosol problem.
More papers, during that same time,(42 in total) predicted global warming due to CO2.
Daddio Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 9:28 am
I believe that man has a very minimal effect on the earths climate, whether cooling or warming.
I have yet to hear anyone explain global warming or cooling hundreds of thousands of years ago. Or millions of years ago. I don’t think the dinosaurs drove SUV’s or burned oil.
NotRight Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 10:23 am
Sure, it’s a well established fact that climate changes naturally and sometimes dramatically.
The pertinent question isn’t “has climate changed in the past?” (of course it has) but “what is causing accelerated global warming now?” The usual drivers of natural climate change have shown little to no warming trend since the 70’s.
The usual suspects in natural climate change (solar variations, volcanoes, Milankovitch cycles) are all missing over the past 3 decades of warming. This doesn’t mean by itself that CO2 is the sole cause of warming. BUT, as for CO2, empirical observations show that CO2 has a warming effect as a greenhouse gas, CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere and the expected warming you would get from greenhouse gases is occurring.
Kregg Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 11:04 am
Not said: “what is causing accelerated global warming now?”
K: Accelerated compared to what?
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 4:52 am
the problem not right is that we have a limited scope of knowledge and have narrow and isolated windows of data to look at data from the last 100,000 years.
We can’t say with absolute certainty say what is causing our changes today…and we lose even more certainty the further back we go with less and less data, until the point we are depending on data that is extrapolated from data and then self referenced to that data for support (it’s the ponzi scheme of data collection)
We’ve found some data that has a general correlation with what we thought the climate was at certain times in the geological record.
But even with our uber amount of data today, we can’t predict what may happen tomorrow. Mt. Ranier could blow tomorrow and spew ash cover all over the world, that would create a massive shift in data projections…if they reran their models after an event like that, they’d have to adjust their guess by 5 degrees.
June 30th, 2009 at 9:17 am
“The money-makers on this scam are betting shills like you and Rocky buy into their ’science’ so that they can make some money.”
Go visit StoogesForExxon.com. Oh sorry, you’re the webmaster there.
June 30th, 2009 at 11:56 am
Krepp,
You are playing word games. You said,
“Accelerated compared to what?”
Had you actually read my remarks it would be obvious. The last 30 years shows a measured accelerated rate over any time on record, without the aid of the usual suspects in natural climate change.
June 30th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
From USAToday:
“Scientists have determined there’s more than twice as much carbon stored in the Arctic regions as previously estimated and more than double the amount in the Earth’s atmosphere.”
Keep up the radical rightwing BS. The human race could be extinct in twenty years.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 4:37 am
well Rocky…it’s true.
The largest sources of methane are from natural occuring sources like decomposing wastes in the rainforest, trapped in frozen lakes, and emissions from mud volcanoes and fault lines.
man made landfills are also a big source. I’m kind of surprised that landfill reform hasn’t been a bigger topic. Landfills should be agitated more often to avoid excess methane being created from anerobic decomposition.
Though I don’t agree with the mandatory nature and fines associated with San Franciscos compost plan. I think every city should have a comparable program. along with garbage and recycling boxes they have compost boxes and all organic material is supposed to be deposited there, they create great compost which helps renutrient the surrounding farm lands, Gavin Newsom claims they can’t keep up with demand.
RDM Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Ha…Al Gore’s Garden of Eden. Don’t believe the hype.
Daddio Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Isn’t Algore the worlds foremost expert on global warming? He did say the debate over global warming is over. The all knowing, all mighty Algore said so. It has got to be true. The oceans are going to raise 20 feet.
WE ALL ARE DOOMED. OH NO, WHAT IS WE GONNA DO?
Um Cara Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Isn’t Algore the worlds foremost expert on global warming?
Don’t know, never heard of him. Who is Algore? What is his first name, I’ll google him.
Daddio Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Just a play on Gore’s name. That is all.
average james Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Willio,
Actually that one always got me grinning, Algore.
Daddio Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Well, I actually got that one while listening years ago to the Rush Limbaugh show. He used Algore in a humorous way.
Um Cara Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Well, I actually got that one while listening years ago to the Rush Limbaugh show.
Ah, gotcha. So when someone says ‘Algore’ it is code for ‘don’t pay attention to the nonsense I am saying’.
average james Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 2:44 pm
I think it was more along the lines of the way he speaks, kinda slow like Igor, Dr. Frankenstien’s sidekick. Hence Algore.
Daddio Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Bingo James, you got it.
Put away your very broad brush Cara. Maybe you would have a better view of anothers opinion.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:30 am
Polish Academy of Sciences has challenged man-make global worming.
The Czech Republic’s President is skeptical and only 11% of the Czech people believe himans play a role.
France’s Claude Allegre of the Ministry of Industry and Innovation is skeptical of global warming.
New Zealand’s newly elected government suspended the country’s new cap and trade program.
Sen. Jim Inhofe, OK, has identified 700 scientists who disagree with the UN’s 2007 climate summary. 13 times the number who authored the summary.
Joanne Simpson, the first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology is a non-believer in man make global warming.
Kiminori Itoh, Japanese environmenal physical chemist called man-make global warming “the worst scientific scandal in history”
Norway’s Nobel Price winner in physics, Ivar Giaever, calls global warming a “new religion”.
54 noted physicist, headed by Princeton’s Will Happer, demanded the American Physical Society to update or revise it’s position that the science is settled on global warming.
So I guess the skeptics on man-make global warming is a rather large group.
Um Cara Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 3:05 pm
So I guess the skeptics on man-make global warming is a rather large group.
Not in comparison to the scientists who believe in it, but certainly enough to disprove Trees and others allegations that scientists are just looking to please government officials in pursuit of filthy lucre.
Thanks for helping to prove that the consensus view of anthropomorphic climate change has indeed been challenged, lending credibility to the consensus view.
Daddio Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Had to look that word up Cara. :)
anthropomorphic–of, characterized by, or resulting from anthropomorphism.
Ok.
anthropomorphism–the attributing of human shape or characteristics to a god, animal, or inanimate thing.
Ok.
I don’t understand how that word is used in your last sentence.
Call me stupid if you want, but will you put that in laymans terms please.
average james Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 3:24 pm
That one got me too Willio,
you just had the balls to ask.
I thought it was akin to saying ‘my dog smiles’.
Um, do mean anthropology related, like, related to man ?
Um Cara Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 3:25 pm
anthropomorphic climate change: climate change related to human activity, as opposed to natural forces.
Daddio Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Thanks Cara for the simple explanation.
But the man-made climate change claim is STILL being challenged.
Australia is challenging it. Russia said
Um Cara Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 3:35 pm
But the man-made climate change claim is STILL being challenged.
As well it should be, that’s how science works! Your proof that the consensus view is being challenged, shows the lie that there is some kind of science conspiracy to prove what the politicians want them to prove.
Daddio Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 3:38 pm
James,
“…akin to saying ‘my dog smiles’”.
Now that’s funny, I don’t care who you are. Hee, hee. Good one.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Whoops, hit the wrong key.
Russia said no to climate control. China, India, all the developing nations are saying no. Scientist all over the world are doubting man-made climate change. The problem here in America is the main stream media will put only a token few of them on to give the other side of the scientific community’s version of climate change. Therefore their voices are not being heard.
Um Cara Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Russia said no to climate control. China, India, all the developing nations are saying no
Of course they are. They want to use cheap and dirty energy to build up their economies.
I don’t listen so much to Countries statements (including the US) or laypeople for it (Al Gore) or against it (Rush) – but rather scientists.
And the current global consensus scientific view is that anthropomorphic climate change is occurring. (The global scientific view is not as drastic as Al Gore’s view, nor is it as dismissive as Rush’s view)
Daddio Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 3:49 pm
I won’t quibble over whether the climate is changing. It does all the time. What I don’t agree with is the claim that man is the cause of all the climate change. And there are hundreds of scientists out there who agree that man isn’t causing climate change.
So therefore why rush through something like cap and trade when there is no more a consensus that it is man made than there is a consensus that it is not man made.
Let’s get rock solid evidence and a consensus from a super majority of scientists before ramming through Congress a bill that will probably hurt the American economy a lot more than it will help.
average james Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 3:51 pm
I tend to think, How couldn’t we be affecting the balance of things ?
We can pollute watersheds rather effectively.
We can pollute air. I grew up in LA, I know. China is bad.
We redirect water, damns that affect massive areas and ecosystems.
We have 40% less trees than 100 years ago.
We have 6 billion people, we had 1.5 billion 140 years ago.
We can nuke the sh#t out of all living things in the form of bombs.
Common sense tells me that it isn’t all that far fetched.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:36 pm
I tend to believe that man is a contributing factor to global warming. But I think that it is unfortunate that this issue has become the poster child for environmentalism. While there is some debate as to the validity of man’s impact on this phenomenon, there are many other, less debatable, environmental and health impacts that these activities contribute to in a negative way. I think you would be hard pressed to find an educated person who would argue that reducing emissions is a bad thing regardless of if it impacts climate or not.
Um Cara Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Well said, Placefield. I agree with everything you said!
Daddio Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Who is going to pay for all the legislation that will drive up the cost of anything that uses energy. Electricity, gas, manufacturing, farming, schools, food. What about coal states that use coal to create electricity. They will be hit very hard with the ill advised cap and trade. Rates will go up tremendously.
There is a huge cost to this bill. Many Americans cannot afford to pay their energy costs now. And with a bad economy. WHAT ARE THEY THINKING?!!
placefield Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 4:04 pm
I think cap and trade is a poor bill although the figures I have seen on what it will actually cost us vary wildly. I guess at this point we will see. Nobody is claiming that the fix is easy, or cheap. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t need to happen though. There are some tough issues to deal with. It would be nice to see these being dealt with intelligently for a change. There is also a lot of hypocritical finger pointing to deal with. We can’t fix this if everybody thinks it is someone else’s problem. Tragedy of the Commons anyone? There is some insight into human behavior there I believe. (The hypocritical comment goes for me also. I do drive a Chevy Avalanche after all.)
average james Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 4:08 pm
You drive an Avalanche ? You f#cking pig !!!!
Kidding bro, couldn’t resist.
placefield Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Shameless, isn’t it.
craig7120 Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 4:11 pm
LOL Place… Avalanche uh, I traded in my f150 for a honda fit(lol) I can pull it off though I dont have any tats. Im thinking of putting a soccer mom sign in the back window.
average james Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Yah,
Let’s be good stewards of what we have.
Good point Place, less pollution is better, period.
craig7120 Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Place, unforturnately when Gore put his name on this issue it became a polarizing political debate. Hindsight suggests that it would of been better served had he stayed behind the scenes. Just my opinion.
average james Reply:
July 1st, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Maybe, hard to say.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 2:47 am
it certainly didn’t help….and I agree whole heartedly with Placefield…great post.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:45 pm
[...] Paul Krugman: Treason Against The Planet (alan.com) [...]
July 3rd, 2009 at 9:26 am