onegoodmove

this is a nice little link. Ann Coulter has been getting a lot of play from her fact challenged "godless" hit piece. It’s nice to hear a rational voice speak out. I’ll cross post to my blog tonight.

Thanks!

I totally believe this is authentic, Norm, but I can't find the link or the cite for this, can you pretty please update the post with such information so that we can spread the word and keep Dr. Doran off the list?

Thank you.

Love,

Hanna

Sorry Hanna, I'm older than I've ever been, and younger than I'll ever be again. So said a recent birthday card I received from my father-in-law. I've updated the post with the link. Thanks for asking so nicely.

While we're on the topic of ridiculous conservative beliefs: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Creation-Museum.html?ex=1155009600&en=5d8d39ada993c376&ei=5070&emc=eta1

To use my Kerry-speak, "Would that it were" that simple.

Few people dispute that the Earth is gradually getting warmer. Many people dispute that it's primarily or even majorly due to human atmospheric pollution. Conflating the two puts the lie to liberal hysteria and Chicken Little politics.

Is it possible, or even probable, that we can affect the temperature of our planet by polluting the atmosphere? Certainly. Is it proven? No. Do we have any clue what to do about it other than yell and scream about corporations this and cars that? Apparently not. See, cos it's a complex issue. And complex issues don't fit very well on a t-shirt or bumper sticker.

As the source said, both sides are guilty of misrepresenting facts and politicizing this issue. It's important to also understand that both sides cause serious damage by doing so.

"Our study did find that 58 percent of Antarctica cooled from 1966 to 2000. But during that period, the rest of the continent was warming."

Just to note, that means 42% was warming. 58% being the majority, the continent was still cooling. It should mention cooling by how much and warming by how much. Is it warming more than cooling temperature-wise, because it isn't volume-wise.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2023835.stm Humans cause global warming, US admits

Fact: Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.

Fact: Cars and power plants currently pour about 6 billion tons of carbon dioxide yearly into the atmosphere.

What exactly is it that you don't get Average_Joe?

Perhaps it only seems complex to you Joe. You dig a bunch of carbon out of the earth and throw it into the atmosphere. That affects everything. What is so "complex" about that? I could get into the complexities for you if you'd like. There is a natural carbon cycle that has existed on the planet for thousands of years. Guess what? This is an extremely unusual period! Because one of the creatures on this planet figured out a way to dig all this stuff up and burn it! Want even more complexity? Get a degree in environmental science. So we are in agreement that the earth is warming, right? In other words: global warming is a reality. Assuming we agree on that, we can also agree that the effects are already proving to be harmful. We could discuss the dying coral reefs, dwindling polar bear populations. Dying forests, expanding deserts, stronger storms. Not "chicken little" bullshit. Reality. No complexity, real freaking crap hitting the fan. So if you have a point to make that isn't based on fantasy, or some "put your head in the sand", cause "It's too complex for you to possibly understand". Otherwise this kind of thinking is the sort of stupidity that hinders humanity from taking any possible action. Action toward avoiding this threat that we are CURRENTLY facing. Unless we can use the empty space in the craniums of Senators as carbon sinks for industrial pollution, we are in trouble. I don't think there is much question that humanity is affecting the climate significantly. You could debate that only if you wanted to look at the issue in an unscientific manner. Consider that those people that are telling you GW isn't happening, have either a personal, or economic incentive. You might be so entrenched in your Us vs. Liberal mindset, that you've neglected to appreciate the reality of the situation. Admission of the facts would be tantamount to conceding battleground to your liberal enemies. Consider that you might be your own worst enemy.

"You dig a bunch of carbon out of the earth and throw it into the atmosphere."

Shit, I did all that? Wow. Here I thought it was all of us driving our cars and flying planes and using Interstate trucking to deliver produce and goods and consuming energy which must be generated from fossil fuel at some location and wearing the results of textile manufacturing ... you know, the backbone of our economy and, consequently, the main support of the world economy.

But it was really just me the whole time? Boy is my face red! I'll stop right away. Goddamn carbon. It's so tasty. Once you mine a spoonful, you're hooked. They should put a warning on that stuff.

joe, defending "your side" by protesting that it's only as dirty as the "other side" isn't going to impress anyone.

you could actually link some form of documentary evidence, as norm has done here. but, if you should find such evidence, don't expect that i'll be chastened. i'm more interested in the truth than in scoring political points.

"So we are in agreement that the earth is warming, right?"

Damn, I was having so much fun pointing out the hypocrisy of your position that I didn't address your other idiotic point. A thousand pardons.

Of course the Earth is warming. You might want to look up a little (no pun intended) thing called 'The Little Ice Age'. From everybody's favorite source, Wikipedia:

Beginning around 1850, the world's climate began warming again and the Little Ice Age may be said to have come to an end at that time. Some global warming skeptics believe that the Earth's climate is still recovering from the Little Ice Age and that human activity has nothing to do with present temperature trends. There is a wide debate among climate scientists, however, that the present sharp upturn in temperatures is primarily caused by the increased proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere caused by human activity.

I'd point out the 'there is debate' section but I'm sure you saw it. I'm also sure you'll ignore it, along with the whole 'leaving an ice age' factoid. Doesn't fit into the whole scare-tactic, does it?

The point has never been whether or not the world is getting warmer. It has been about what role do our actions play, and - more importantly - what reasonable, rational actions (if any) can be taken to change that role. Thing is, too many hippies seem to think just saying 'global warming' identifies, illustrates, and solves the whole problem. Them's powerful words.

We can mock each other all day and all night, but the thing is, I'm not irrational. I just don't trust your extremist group any more than you trust any other extremist group. I want hard data, I want definite plans of action, and I want tangible results. Or stop yelling at me.

Some hard data for you, Average_Joe.

An article:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/310/5752/1313/

And a graph:

http://www.realclimate.org/epicaco2f4.jpeg

The upper part of the graph plots CO2 concentrations over a period of several ice ages, and the lower part plots the temperature (actually the temperature deviation). There is an unmistakable correlation between the two.

At no point during that entire period is the CO2 reading above 300 ppm. Right now it is 380 ppm and growing. It is not clear (to my eyes anyway) how much of a lag there is between CO2 concentration and temperature, so the speed and magnitude of the expected shift in present temperature readings should not be inferred from this one graph. Nevertheless, the implications are clear, and striking.

Average_Joe,

I want hard data, I want definite plans of action, and I want tangible results.

1. There have been peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals such as Nature for about 30 years. Try your nearest reference library.

2. The Kyoto Treaty was one plan of action, one of many possible, one of many proposals. It was watered down by the likes of the US, which didn't sign up for it. Recycling, reuse, and conservation are everyday strategies.

3. Historically, environmental legislation has successfully eliminated cholera (clean water) and reduced pneumonia (clean air) in urban populations. This shows that tangible results come from action based on scientific observation and inquiry: it's not faith that "things get better", action produces results.

4. Trying to create a frame for debate by bringing up the structure of a wikipedia article is sophistic misdirection. Please don't do it. It's irrelevant. As are your arguments by sarcasm: hippes, backbone of the economy, Goddamn carbon, them's powerful words, and so on.

5. If you clean up your room, but don't just move the trash somewhere else, eventually your room becomes uninhabitable. You have to clean up your life if you're going to get anywhere. Apart from the solar input and what's radiated at night, and a few bits of space junk, the planet is a closed system: I like it habitable, for me and the sake of my children, and, by extension, every mother's child, because this we all have in common.

So own up, and clean up, please. We all need to do this and do it together. Tangible results will come, but take time. The tangible results of inaction and denial are plainly visible.

Boy you certainly have spirit. I'll give you that. It's the only reason I'm bothering to write this. It sadly, actually matters what you think.

Really? Can you provide any other source, than Wikipedia? LOL Do you know what the "debate" is regarding? Do tell.

You want a plan? You want results? Want me to stop "yelling" at you? Stop posting about things you don't know enough about. If you'd care to agree with me that action is imperative, and currently insufficient, then you are free to blather about whatever you'd like. You keep putting up this "chicken little" crap, and I will attack it. You want to debate the facts, I am willing to do that. If you feel mocked by that, sorry. That might be a by product of holding false beliefs. You might be attempting to mock me, but I don't give a shit.

Learn just a little bit about the international panel on climate control, and their proposals. There is NO debate that carbon dioxide is produced in large quantities by a global population developing at UNPRECEDENTED rates. Are you telling me that you BELIEVE mankind is NOT affecting the global temperature? I seriously want you to answer that, because we can make a bit of progress in our discussion here. Perhaps you don't know? That would be a reasonable response n'est pas?

Well in either case, we agree that global warming is happening. We should move away from fossil fuels for a number of reasons that I could go on at length about. We also know there is some mysterious correllation between human activity CO2 production and global average temperatures. All recorded meterological data tells us this. However, if we don't act prudently on this reasonable theory, we will both be sorry if it turns out to be accurate. I have been debating the reality of global warming for a decade now. It turns out the problem was worse than most expected, and now of course, is accepted. Even by the president. Yeah there is that one asshat senator James... but he's just a pure idiot or perhaps on Exxon's payroll.

I can understand that a lot of conservatives hate being wrong about this. But wrong they are. Wrong they have been. Now, I don't want to have to debate all over again, what action is reasonable or rational.

I've bothered to look at the some those naysayers. They all seem either crazy, have conflicting interests, work doing research for an oil fund subsidized institute, and are all generally voiciferously discredited. Conversely, look at studies done by Jim Hansen from NASA that were repressed by the government. Can you say economic interests? Knew that you could.

Your cheeky sarcasm seems irelevant to my points. Is your point that carbon is related to the economy? I can reply to that on a number of levels. Still I recommend you watch the recent program with Tom Brokaw on global warming. It addresses the economic implications of fighting global warming. Solar/wind manufacturing generates jobs, energy efficiency creates more energy for the utilities to sell and the savings create wealth. Plans of action? How about raising the CAFE standards? How about a national rail program? How about you turn off your computer a bit and save us all alot of energy? How about keeping the nation in the only largest and most important international agreement regarding global warming? I'm referring to the Kyoto protocol that US ironically had a leadership position in. Yeah I know the bullshit about "what about China and India?" and "it would hurt the economy." Bullshit.

Anyways that's just the tip of iceberg. The coral reefs are dying at a growing rate, weather patterns are all screwed up, perhaps you noticed that last year A CITY was put under water. Time for debate has past. Time for inaction has past. Be constructive and informed, and I'll discuss it with you. Otherwise, get the hell out of the way.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/06/4stagesdenial.php

OK Average Joe, and anyone else who likes to pretend that global warming isnt happening:

I give you that Wikkipedia is not the best source on the topic of global warming, or any solid topic as it is a compilation of basically anyones opinions and thoughts. If you want the real data, meaning if you are even interested in bothering with the stuff, you are not going to find it on a random website but rather in peer-reviewed scientific articles. That is the real stuff. I myself just did a final project in an advanced meteorology class on thermohaline circulation and global warming.

Ever heard of thermohaline circulation? It is the temperature (thermo) and salinity (haline) hence density driven movement of water across the globe, aka the "Global Conveyor Belt". THIS is what controls our climate, as the rising and sinking of water warming acts both as a radiator and air conditioning as heat is released into the atmosphere. The buildup of CO2 is increasing the atmospheric temperature, yes, but more importantly melting ice caps and glaciers across the globe causing the dumping of fresh water into the oceans. In geologically recorded past, this has happened once before during a warming period, and the shutdown of thermohaline circulation occured with the freshwater input. This was the beginning of the Younger Dryas period (approx 12,000 years ago), for which the drastic change in temperature occured in less than 10 years! The Younger Dryas was not a hot period, but another ice age because without thermohaline circulation, the latent heat delivered by warm water sinking was not being released, hence not keeping the land masses as warm as they had been.

When you read that some parts of the Earth are cooling rather than warming, it is most definitely not evidence against global warming, or for it, either way. It is simply because the Earth circulates air, water, and thus temperature in many different ways. The ozone hole over Antarctica does one very important thing that many of you failed to see - it does not absorb and trap nearly as much infrared radiation as does the rest of the atmosphere - hence that particular area is colder, and considerably more bombarded by UV. The bottom line is that the GLOBAL temperature is changing over time. You have to look at the system as a whole, but also understand the many many parts.

Now back to CO2. Here is a website for you just for kicks: http://www.architecture2030.org/current_situation/current2.html

It depics the correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and temperature. Now if you honestly have the "hard facts" to prove that those two lines are in no way related, please enlighten me. Notice that right after a temp/CO2 peak, there is a sharp drop in temperatures, harken back to my previous explanation of thermohaline circulation. Now look at that blue line increasing on the far right hand side. In recordable geologic history, CO2 levels have never exceeded about 280ppm. TODAY THEY ARE AT ABOUT 370ppm. Oh, and heres the clincher. Graphs of more recent years (which you will find easily if you actually look in peer-reviewed articles, as well as this graph) show exactly when our CO2 levels took a drastic uprising - THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION! Not a mysterious connection, but rather a perfectly logical one.

Now I am sure that it is far more comforting and ego-stroking to think that humans are living exactly the way we should be, that it is our place on Earth to dominate it, strip it of resources, and let our miserly pocket books dictate what we can and can't do. And I am sure that the economy is important within our little tunnel-vision worlds. But you know what...IF THERE IS NO HABITABLE EARTH, THERE IS NO ECONOMY.

I know that you're thinking this is alarmist, but it is appropriate given an alarming situation. Lets wake up to the reality that ACTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES, even ours! The actual debate in the scientific arena is not whether or not global warming is happening. Its not whether or not human actions are affecting the climate. Botht of those things are UNANIMOUSLY AGREED UPON. The debate is the aftermath - what exactly is going to happen? We have seen ice ages very quickly follow warming trends in the past, but again, CO2 LEVELS HAVE NEVER BEEN THIS HIGH BEFORE so it is difficult to make an accurate prediction.

So once again, when you ask for "solid facts", you are not going to find them in economic journals, political journals, your favorite website that preaches what you like to hear about, Wikkipedia, or really anywhere else that is easily accessible. Trust me, as a scientist I know about research. The problem with getting people to accept global climate change is not because its debatable (only those who dont want to believe it like to pretend that a debate exists at all), but because its not easy to understand. In fact, its really complicated. So if you do in fact have the curiosity and desire to know something outside of what the passionate ignorant like to spew, then find some good SCIENCE journal articles, peer-reviewed of course. My favorite on this topic is that of the American Meteorological Society, but unfortunatly you may have to have access to a university or college database to get to it. But google it anyways, you never know. The only website I truly trust on the issue is that of NOAA - the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. Please check them out, if you care to understand the climate.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you for that post Mer. I'm sort of the opinion that global warming, albeit certainly extremely complex, needs to be simplified. It is too easy for people to say: "oh, it's complex and therefore they could be wrong." or "it's complex, and I can leave it to those that understand it. I don't have personal responsibility so I can ignore it." It's a myth that someone smart is coming to save us from ourselves. I think it can be reduced to a rather basic model, carbon in the atmosphere that wasn't there before. That wouldn't naturally be there. The carbon cycle on the planet has a very defined flow, one that hasn't changed much for thousands of years. Until man started pumping a bunch of dino juice into the air. (not really dinosaurs, more like sea organisms, but you get my point) That much everyone should understand, whether they are scientists or not. They should also intuitively understand that this is potentially a wrench in the system. This issue can not be left to science alone to solve. Religions, governments (ugh), communities, individuals, businesses, schools, all should be involved. Because there is a grain of truth in what Average Joe says. Because the science is complex, it can open the potential that there is a debate about man's role. A debate above the heads of the public. It is certain that we cannot possibly know what our exact relationship is with the global climate, at least presently. The relationship is necessarily infinitely complex in my opinion. However Mer, you make a great point. Only a fool would question the fact our actions have consequences.