The Washington D.C. is still digging out from weekend snow as more snow is on its way. The snow is piling up so much that the House of Representatives have postponed all activities for the rest of the week. You ask why I bring this up. Well one Senator is having fun with the recent and pending snow storms. That Senator is Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and he mentioned that, "It's going to keep snowing in DC until Al Gore cries 'uncle'". While the comment is made tongue-in-cheek it does beg the question on if manmade Global Warming is real or is it simply the Earth rolls in cycles. For if the world is experiencing Global Warming due to man's intervention to the point of tipping out of control, why then are we seeing cold and snow? Shouldn't we be experiencing unseasonably warm weather?
Last week President Obama unveiled his budget and part of the change taking place is the role of NASA. If President Obama gets his way, NASA scrap space exploration for whether diagnostics. Why on Earth are we not looking for ways to expand space exploration? If the data is correct and man has created an environment where Mother Earth is pushed to the brink of disaster then would it not make sense to find habitable planets or moons? Again I wonder why we do not have a definitive debate man's intervention on Global Warming versus the Mother Earths natural cycle. Can we finally agree to sit down and discuss Global Warming without a political, social, or ideological agenda and debate the topic on the data that has not been tainted?
Your post shows a lack of understanding of the issue. It's not global warming, it's climate change. Experience abnormal weather conditions across the globe. That could mean many things including unusual snow fall, rain, longer winters, shorter winters, colder, hotter, etc.
ReplyDeleteAnd I can only hope you are joking about finding other planets or moons. Let's just turn our backs on the problem and run away. We'll leave those too poor to hop on the line 12:45 B-Line space ship to deal with the problem.
While I acknowledge that my entry is not steeped in data and disputable facts, I have in past entries already done that. And you touch on the right accord; climate change. The trouble is that the mass media, Copenhagen, and other progressives are pushing the Global Warming mantra instead of recognizing that Mother Earth works in a cycle. Our path around the Sun and our angle of refraction our Poles has more impact on climate change than man made intervention.
ReplyDeleteGranted we can look for other sources of energy and conserve a bit more but let's not lose sight of the biggest player in climate change; Mother Earth. Reports by meterologists are noting that winter storms being seen now compare to those in 60's and 70's.
I am somewhat joking on space travel but isn't that what NASA is for? We do not need to turn them into another Green Peace organization. If they are become focused on Mother Earth, who will track space debri?
What evidence are you citing that Mother Earth works in a cycle? What cycle are you referring to?
ReplyDeleteWhen you make statement like "progressives are pushing the Global Warming mantra instead of recognizing that Mother Earth works in a cycle" you really knock the intellectual grasp of this blog down a peg.
I have read this blog several times and each time global warming is brought up you seem to take the conservative media side of the equation by bringing up current weather, discredited non-climate related lecturers, and the many things that are pretty much meaningless according to real climate scientists who study the phenomenon. Why is this?
There is much debate about what to do about global warming. However, that is not the interest of what I read from this blog nor the conservative media. It is better to discredit those who study it, or those who promote the study of it than it is to find real solutions to it.
It seems your mind is already made up. I understand that you enjoy to debate, that is why you created this blog. However, debating a scientific phenomenon which has been proven time and again is quite difficult for most of us to do.
The Discovery Channel had a show on last November/December that discussed that the Earth runs in a cycle and we are approaching the end of that 50,000 year cycle. During the finally years of the cycle the poles change their reflection angle, sun spots lessen, and storms become more violent. None of this is due to man made or intervention by the consumptin of fossil fuels that progressive want all of us to believe.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that Mother Earth runs in a cycle and that cycle is called climate change. It was the progressives that coined the phras Global Warming. Now the data that has been relied on has been proved to been adjusted to promote Global Warming mantra.
This is why I asked orginally: Can we finally agree to sit down and discuss Global Warming without a political, social, or ideological agenda and debate the topic on the data that has not been tainted?
Instead of moving the conversation forward, we mire ourselves in the semantics. In the past I have pointed to scientific studies that attempted to shed light on climate change and the lack of influence but they get disregarded. Yet have I seen any new data from progressive or man made Global Warming supporters that has not been proved fudged.
I have not seen definitive proof that has been peer-reviewed that explicitly states that man is the primary reason for climate change. I will do my best to locate the program aired on the Discovery channel as well. In the meantime, I'd love to see peer-reviewed data that states man's "addiction" to fossil fuels is t
Why is the Discovery Channel show relevant to the discussion of global warming? I have not seen the show, however, was the main intent of the show to debunk global warming or did you do that just by watching this show?
ReplyDeleteWhy is the phrase global warming relevant as well? Do you prefer "Man made climate change"?
As far as your second and third paragraphs, what is it that you want to hear? What would you like to debate? I don't study climate nor climate change patterns. Do you? How often do you sit down to debate a subject that you know very little about. Just saying "I heard it from the Discovery Channel" to me is laughable. Like I have stated in the past, debating on what to do about it is certainly feasible. But to debate whether it's happening is offensive.
The scientific studies that you have pointed out on this blog have been mostly debunked, that is why people who read this blog disregards your attempt to "shed light" on the issue. The truth is, is that you really do not have any definitive idea how to research the phenomenon, nor do you know how to get the answers for yourself.
The scientific journal Nature is a good source. I believe they have an entire section on it. Not every climate scientist agrees 100% but they all are pretty much in the same boat Remember, this is not a periodical publication. I must warn you, however, it's not exactly stimulating reading.
Now, move the conversation forward like you want. What would you REALLY like to hear? Be very careful about what you use to prove your points because when we have little to no knowledge of a subject, all of us tend to use the more entertaining source.
The Discovery Channel program was not attempting to debunk "man made global warming" rather the show I saw talked about sun spots and the refraction angles of the Poles affects climate change every 50,000 years. I did find the series of shows: http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/globalwarming/globalwarming.html but have not found the exact show I was watching.
ReplyDeleteAre you saying that there is no difference between climate change and "man made" global warming? Thus far, in all the non-tainted data I have seen does not show definitively that man is affecting the climate to the degree that progressives want us to believe. If you have untainted data, please enlighten me.
While I agree that I am no expert in this field, I have done a lot of reading. I have not read your scientific journal Nature though. Is this journal published with an unbias slant? Who funds the journal?
I am never afraid to hear points on this topic of any other topic. Please let me know what science debunked the Ash Tree study done by Wisconsin scientist? I'd like to see the data, uncorrupt data, shown and discuss how the data would be different if man was not here. Science has proven, to which I posted on a previous entry, that humans emit through exhauling breath more CO2 than all CO2 emitted by industry. That article was peer-reviewed as well.
Would you expect anything different from the Ardent Viper considering his likely sources? Once the "global warming is a hoax" search on Google has run it's course, he'll turn to any number of authorities. The extremely liberal and biased website Media Matters for America has put them all in one nice spot: http://mediamatters.org/research/201002090032
ReplyDeleteCheck it out. It will all sound strangely familiar.
Let me get this right, quoting a Discovery Program is not a viable source to use? That is ironic since my children have seen programs from the Discovery channel to suppliment the book learning they get from our public school system. Are you saying that our public school system is using sources that are not creditable?
ReplyDeleteI find it entertaining that you bring, and admit it, a biased media outlet that misleads the public when they call themselves Media Matters.
You can go back to all my posts and see that I do not quote obscure websites and try to stay away from the biased media outlets as well. I am not saying, nor have I said, that global warming is a hoax. I do doubt the dire impact that man has on climate change as many progressives and green peacers want us to believe.
I did check out the website you listed. I had to chuckle since the majority of its attack is on pundits and not once did I see any study or site I referrenced on the site. I will go back again though and see if they debunk the Discovery Channel or the Wisconsin Study on Ash Trees or the Government study on CO2 emission from man..but I am sure I won't see it.
Different annon, do you believe the facts media matters reports and challenges are not in fact the truth?
ReplyDeleteMedia matters, I thought at first was an unbiased but I have learned since it is not. I still get updates sent to my email. Sometimes they are spot on and sometimes they are not. I equate this group to another pundit like rush or Matthews.
ReplyDeleteSecond Anon here. No, quoting a Discovery Channel show is not a viable use of your research on the subject of climate-change. It's educational from the standpoint of getting you interested in the subject matter and for that reason it is great to show kids to get them interested in science. However it is also used to sell advertising, so it is made to be more entertaining. I'm glad you and your kids watch it and are interested in its content, and I would never say that it is inaccurate to a point. But I would warn against watching it to create a point of view. At least not the program you were viewing.
ReplyDeletewww.nature.com/nature/index.html is the website. This is the grand daddy of scientific journals. To get published in this means you've accomplished something. I hope that you do not have to pay for it. Some journals do that. And this really is just a broad based scientific journal. There are many other more specific ones that deal with climate, atmospheric sciences, etc...
To advance your discussion, I will give you this: If anything, the presentation of the data that the scientific community studying this has been sloppy. I would argue that the political and social ramifications of what the data suggests could infer that the presentation of the work was rushed but that really is no excuse. Nothing in the data has shown that anything was fudged, or made up, or tainted as you suggest. However, the presentation by scientists hasn't been great and the scientists themselves have been stand-offish about proving their data to non-scientists. In other words, we lay people are required to believe them, regardless. Instead the information gets passed on to people like Al Gore, who is a lightning rod for partisan politics gets to present the data.
I am not telling you what to do on your own blog, but try and understand the issue from a climate scientists point of view. The Ash tree controversy, the human CO2 emissions, really you are trying to connect dots that aren't there. Read up on the scientific data, and then lets debate on how we can get industry around the world to emit less CO2.
I disagree with your assessment on the Discovery Channel in the respect that not a quotable source because they do have experts in the field on the topic they are airing. I will agree that it is tough to incorporate a full picture and understanding of the topic in a hour long show.
ReplyDeleteI have checked out the website listed above. I will keep it in my favorites to check on a weekly basis. In my cursory look it appears the site is unbias and pushes the science which is refreshing. You are correct that the data has been sloppy. In addition it has been tainted and fudged as the email scandal has proven true. I do find it comical that mass media no longer covers the email scandal because it no longer pushes a progressive look on climate change and actually casts doubts over the data used to push Al Gore's agenda.
The reason I am blogging is to understand the issue. I am the first to admit that I am not an expert in this field but I am capable to understand the data. I also am capable of looking at research and understanding it. In past entries I have quoted scientific data but when they do not agree with the progressive movement it is discounted. If you are serious about reducing CO2 then lets look at the biggest emitter; the human being.
Find a way to increase the absorption rate of CO2 by Mother Nature that is emitting everytime you and I exhale.
"Now, the process by which the IPCC assesses climate science has again been called into question. Over the past two weeks, the panel has admitted that a key statistic quoted in its 2007 report — that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035 — was in error, and its source of dubious origin. Hard on the heels of 'Glaciergate' are fresh claims that the same report oversold the link between increasing natural disasters and human-induced warming.
ReplyDeleteNone of these unfortunate events calls into question the evidence that warming is unequivocal and that human activity is the primary cause. But they undoubtedly create confusion among the public and, in this regard, their timing could not be worse. The UN negotiations in December failed to deliver an agreement that would prevent dangerous climate change, and the world now lacks a unified vision of the way forward for climate policy (See page 15). The passage of US domestic legislation also hangs in the balance."
This is taken from the Nature.com site that Anon made me aware of. If these two events create doubt in the validity of the data and it is being acknowledged here, what other data is in correct?
http://www.nature.com/climate/2010/1002/full/climate.2010.11.html
Your thought on Media Matters was your own doing. All you have to do is hit the "about" button and they disclaim who they are and what they do. They check on conservative media outlets and public officials. There is no misrepresentation or misleading. There could be many reasons to why they limit what they check, you just seem to find a liberal bias the most comfortable. And even if that is the reason, so what, they discliam their purpose and you are free to accept what they report for what you want.
ReplyDeleteHow is the name misleading at all?
Ardent Viper, would you please stop talking about the fact that humans emit more CO2 by exhaling than all CO2 emitted by industry? I have absolutely no idea why you continue to bring this up. What is the point? Is this supposed to make me feel guilty for breathing? Should I be holding my breath at random points throughout the day? Is it some sort of hint that you are advocating a program of forced sterilizations? Limits on children per couple like communist China? Maybe euthanasia? Mass execution of entire populations?
ReplyDeleteWe live, we breathe, we emit CO2. Great. Stop trying to "further the debate" or "move it forward" by throwing in this random fact that, while surprising to some, does nothing whatsoever to produce real dialogue.
Here is where I found it originally misleading was my initial contact was several open forums they had that were aired on C-SPAN. I agree that after digging a little deeper into their message, I did find out their mission. The part I find it misleading is their name: Media Matters...to the average Joe I bet if you put Media Matters along side CNN, MSNBC, and FOXNews then asked them which one do you think is unbias they'd pick Media Matters. That is where I was going with it.
ReplyDeleteAnon...if we are to have a serious discussion on reversing a the trend of increasing CO2 we need to look at the major contributor. It is not meant to make you feel guilty for living or lead to forced sterilization or limitations imposed by countries like China.
ReplyDeleteI bring up CO2 exhaled because the amount dwarfs the amount of CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuels, driving SUV's, leaving the lights on, and any other CO2 emmissions contibuted to man. So, if we are to really reverse the trend of CO2, why do we not look at the biggest contributor of it?
Many point to the Industrial Revolution as the start of man made global warming. What we fail to recognize is that the population boom happened at the same time too. So, leave my SUV alone, allow me to buy what ever light bulb I want, and leave me alone. I do not want to see Cap and Trade - all that will do is create another derivitave market. Scandals have been abound in Europe too.
If we are serious about climate change then lets look at who/what puts the most CO2 into the air; exhaling human beings.
And do what about it? How do you address that contribution? How do you control it? What alternative is there besides reducing the population?
ReplyDeleteOh, and according to the EPA burning fossil fuels is the largest contributor: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/co2_human.html
ReplyDeleteAnd according to this site there is no net addition in the atmospher from humans: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/faq.html With the same conclussion here: http://www.gcrio.org/doctorgc/index.php/drweblog/C53/
Anon...I have read that report and I retorted back in December with http://escholarship.org/uc/item/96z2x9gw
ReplyDeleteTo which the other Anon that brought up the EPA report never retorted back. The original blog entry that I commented this report to was the December 15th entry.
As for what to do, Anon. While I do not want to be told how many kids I can have nor told that I cannot drive my SUV, a possible solution to curb the population is to take away the incentives to grow the population.
ReplyDelete1. Eliminate all tax credits for having kids
2. Eliminate additional welfare payments for additional children
3. Eliminate the bonus that our military personnel get for each additional child
Those are just some things. I do not believe this along will drastically reduce the population but we will have natural attrition very soon that will help.
Read it. Your conclusion is wrong.
ReplyDelete“ . . . an average person in the US achieves reasonable balance between annual carbon intake and annual carbon output.”
“this cyclical process is considered to result in no net emission of CO2 to the atmosphere” referencing intake by agricultural commodities and human output
“While uptake and release of carbon may be approximately balanced for the full Earth and at the temporal scale of a year, the uptake and release of carbon can be very much separated in place and over the course of the year.”
“For an individual, the intake and output of carbon should approximately balance over the course of a year.”
“Our best estimate of the carbon budget for an average person in the US achieves reasonable balance between annual carbon intake and annual carbon output.”
Come on, people don't have kids for tax reasons. It costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to raise a child. That's a joke.
ReplyDeleteWe still exhale more CO2 than fossil fuel burning. Plus, when one goes to the doctors to get oxygen we do not intake CO2.
ReplyDeleteAs for the another Anon..there are plenty of welfare moms that do and when I went to school in North Dakota I knew several Air Force men that had kids for just that very reason; to collect more from uncle sam
But we intake the same amount for no gain. So the human contribution isn't a contribution, as you claimed. Why look at something that results in no gain?
ReplyDeleteGreat ideas Ardent Viper! Let's save the planet on the backs of children! Forget about the responsibility that industry has towards this issue. Changing the tax code and/or welfare policies so that families are punished for having children is a great idea! We'll have more poor families where the one parent has to work two jobs or the two parents have to both work full time to put food on the table. The kids will grow up poor, in run down neighborhoods and be malnourished in some cases. All because you apparently believe that is the easier solution when compared to regulating industries that spew CO2 into the air at astounding rates burning fuels that will run out.
ReplyDeleteAnon...I do not buy the sky is falling mantra have how the change in tax code will put poor families further in the poor house. Right now, too many people in the welfare system see having another child as a means to raise their income.
ReplyDeleteOther Anon...we do not inhale CO2 for if we did wouldn't we suffocate ourselves, albeit at a slower rate, as one would if they inhaled Carbon Monoxide? I did mention in a previous blog a study that came out as Copenhagen was taking place that discussed places with the proper biomass the rise in CO2 levels is insignificant while places without proper biomass the oceans and nature is not capable of absorbing all the CO2. So, instead of focusing on the burning of fossil fuels, driving of SUV's and light bulbs - why are we not concentrating on biomass and deforestation that is stripping the Earth of CO2 aborbing elements. I will have to go back to my science book from High School to see where in the process it states that we use CO2 survive!!!!
Ardent Viper, I actually feel bad for you. It's sad really, that you fail to see the error of your ways. Now, before you get all huffy and puffy, let me explain how you have absolutely made a fool of yourself and lost all credibility in my eyes and perhaps in the eyes of anyone that reads the comments above and that which follows.
ReplyDeleteYour December 15th, 2009 blog entry was entitled "Al Gore mistaken on polar ice cap science". In that post you say many of the same things you've said above, that there were errors in data, that climate change isn't as manmade as some would like us to believe and finally, in a comment, you site some "science" by including a link to a paper. You responded to the request to provide a source for the claim that humans are the biggest contributor of CO2 to the atmosphere by stating the following:
"Here is the science: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/96z2x9gw"
Now, let's leap forward to the post above and the comments that followed. An anonymous commenter, not me, made the claim that there is no net addition of CO2 to the atmosphere by humans. Your response? "I have read that report", referring to the EPA report cited, "and I retorted with http://escholarship.org/uc/item/96z2x9gw". Then an anonymous poster, I'm assuming the same one that made the claim about no net addition, apparently thought it would be a good idea to read the article which was used as your retort. They then took a series of quotes from the article and reproduced them for your reference with the suggestion "Read it. Your conclusion is wrong."
Now here is where it gets good. You, Ardent Viper, then begin down this road of lambasting the idea that humans consume C02.
"when one goes to the doctors to get oxygen we do not intake CO2".
"we do not inhale C02 for if we did wouldn't we suffocate ourselves"?
"I will have to go back to my science book from High School to see where in the process it states that we use CO2 survive!!!!"
How does it feel to hang yourself with your own words?
In the paper that you cited at least twice and used as a "retort" and as a tool in your attempt to argue that humans breathing is the real problem, you proved that you are just not that intelligent. You pick and choose, copy and paste, looking for that soundbite or that phrase or word that will support you position and fail to heed the advice of a commenter.
I'll cite it again: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/96z2x9gw.
READ IT. MORE SPECIFICALLY, READ THE FIRST SENTENCE IN THE SECTION ENTITLED "INTRODUCTION" AT THE BOTTOM OF PAGE ONE.
Okay, I'll give in. You'll never do it:
"Humans are heterotrophic organisms that ingest carbon in the form of complex carbohydrates and release carbon in the form of carbon dioxide, methane, and a mixture of solid, dissolved, and volatile waste products."
No one said anything about inhaling or breathing in CO2. The paper, which you probably won't read now because you just can't admit that you're wrong or that you are a fraud, goes on to discuss "Consumption of Carbon by Humans".
Like I said at the start, I have a bit of sympathy for you. A person so blind to their own ignorance. A person walking through this world thinking that they know everything or even something about everything. You have zero credibility when you cite a paper that you haven't read and then criticize and insult a person that attempts to show you that your conclusions may be flawed. Say what you want about the tone of my comment, it doesn't change the fact that you're a fraud.
Anon..I appreciate you pointing out the items you have. I have never said I am an expert or have all the answers. I started this blog to have conversations on various topics to get a greater understanding of the topic for myself and others. I have read the report I cited a few times but it has been a but since I last read it.
ReplyDeleteThe net effect that is asserted is something I over looked but will go back to re-read that section. It still does not change the fact that humans themselves emit more CO2 than other aspects touted by manmade global warming.
As I said I am no expert nor pretend to be. To say I am a fraud is a bit to far since I have not made the claim as being an authoritative expert. Now had I attempted pass myself off as an expert then you can make the claim that I am a fraud. I am just a layman attempting to sift through the data to make sense of it because I am skeptical of those that push an agenda that they stand to profit from and an issue that we have seen the data fudged or tainted.
I welcome your comments and you will find that I do a good job at not allowing emotion to over take my comments .
"It still does not change the fact that humans themselves emit more CO2 than other aspects touted by manmade global warming. " You still don't seem to get it. According to the very same study you offered as support,. humans are not increasing the amount of CO2 in the air. Yes, we emit it but we emit what we've already taken out. THERE IS NOT NET GAIN FROM HUMANS!!! Why are you still holding on to this argument that your own support shows is WRONG? Stop blaming humans, that is so clearly not the problem.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the last Anon. Although they didn't quite go far enough to prepare for the inevitable retort from the Ardent Viper: increase biomass and stop deforestation so that there are more organisms, plants, trees, etc. to absorb all the CO2 spewed into the atmosphere by humans. I actually have no issue with that idea.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it is short sighted. In the long run, you'll never be able to plant enough trees or create enough biomass to keep pace with the rapid expansion of industry and their CO2 emissions. It just isn't enough. And that's why you inevitably have to look at limiting carbon emissions from business and industry and turning to alternative forms of energy. What is so evil about solar energy? What is so evil about wind energy?
It's odd to see the Ardent Viper say that he's skeptical of those that push an agenda that they stand to profit from because I to am skeptical of the oil industry and the gas industry and all those that stand to profit from continued extraction of fossil fuels. In many ways, you have to pick your poison. Given the choice, I'd rather be on the side of those that stand to profit from clean, green energy. That, to me, seems like the best thing for everyone, Mother Earth included.
Anon...I am not against solar or wind energy even though they are a net loss in job creation from what we have now. There is a spanish study that shows this. I can dig it back up if need be but I think it is referenced in the Al Gore entry last December.
ReplyDeleteI favor more the use and expansion of nuclear power. It is clean, the technology exists now to re-use spent rods and is cheaper and produces more than solar and wind combined. Someone did argue that we do not see the true nature of the cost of nuclear power but I have not seen that person provide data to support the stance.
Plus, nuclear power will create thousands of sustainable and high paying jobs. Both things that our economy requires. I did get a kick out of a report I heard that the windmill farm established in Texas saw about $200M go to China for the production of the parts. Why are we spending our stimulus money overseas?
Take a look at Europe now with their cap and trade. It is frought is scandal and does nothing to curb emissions. If we want to really curb emissions then curb it but not through cap and trade. If you want to cap it, then cap it. Then if a company exceeds the cap they have X days to get below or risk being shut down permenantly.
Do not create another derivitive market, did we not learn anything from the failed policy of cheap housing?
"3. Eliminate the bonus that our military personnel get for each additional child"
ReplyDeleteThis statement is 100% completely false. Take a second to look at the pay differences, and how it's described, and see that it has nothing to do with "each additional child."
Anon...unless things changed since 1995. The guys I hung around with from the air force all had several kids and they mentioned it in several occassions that they for extra dollars from uncle Sam for each kid. Like said though that was back in 1995 so things may have changed.
ReplyDeleteJust saw a headline on climate gate and it appears per the chief scientist that data and man made warming may be misrepresented. More to come.
ReplyDeleteNo, things haven't changed since 1995. But, even if they had, you're taking UNVERIFIED information from conversations FIFTEEN YEARS AGO and using that to support your argument. Do you really not see an issue with that??
ReplyDeleteHow about doing your own research and not using things that you hear in conversation as a basis to support your argument. A lot of what you have here, as people have pointed out, seem to be you picking and choosing small facts out of an issue and attacking that instead of the issue as a whole.
Let me get this right. The lead scientist that nearly everyone who believes man has caused global warming is admitting that the temp has not risen since 1995 and temps during midevil times were warmer than now. one cannot use this data?
ReplyDelete