The Agenda
The more Republicus examines this Global Grilling business, the more sinister the scam begins to appear. For starters, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to get to the bottom line of this (which is that CO2 makes up a piddling .054 of the atmosphere, and a percentage of that are greenhouse gases, and 95% of those are water vapor with only .001% of that caused by humans, with the rest of the manmade CO2 comprising a fraction of the remaining 5% that isn't water vapor), and the pushers of The Agenda can't be so dense as to miss it.
They must know that they're pushing junk science. They must know that manmade greenhouse gases cannot possibly influence global temperature by the premise of CO2 emissions any more than bovine flatulence-- or burps--does (the troll Houstonmod's ignorant heckling notwithstanding, there is actually well-endowed research going on that is trying to figure out which end of the cow--moo or poo--causes our baby planet to get feverish--inconclusive to date, btw), and they admit as much when cornered.
The troll houstonmod unwittingly provides an excellent exemplar of that (and is a fine representative of the overall leftist mindset). He is not an independent thinker (no less a "scientist") and has proven that by mouthing the "Precautionary Principle," a fallback position that has obviously--by its repetition and ubiquitousness--been learned by rote and widely circulated by the missionary disciples of The Agenda (like houstonmod):
They must know that they're pushing junk science. They must know that manmade greenhouse gases cannot possibly influence global temperature by the premise of CO2 emissions any more than bovine flatulence-- or burps--does (the troll Houstonmod's ignorant heckling notwithstanding, there is actually well-endowed research going on that is trying to figure out which end of the cow--moo or poo--causes our baby planet to get feverish--inconclusive to date, btw), and they admit as much when cornered.
The troll houstonmod unwittingly provides an excellent exemplar of that (and is a fine representative of the overall leftist mindset). He is not an independent thinker (no less a "scientist") and has proven that by mouthing the "Precautionary Principle," a fallback position that has obviously--by its repetition and ubiquitousness--been learned by rote and widely circulated by the missionary disciples of The Agenda (like houstonmod):
What I find scary is the hide your head in the sand attitude of some people when looking at global warming. IF global warming can be prevented, it is in our best interest to stop it. IF global warming goes as some say it will, the repercussions would be truly devastating to the world and the US. Even if this is only a possibility, it would be insane to not fight it now while we may still have a chance to avert this catastrophe.
That is not his own argument. If you Google "Precautionary Principle" and "Global Warming," you will get 360,000 hits.
Note also the "hide your head in the sand" descriptive of those who rationally disagree with the "CO2 Dunnit" crowd. It is a stock witticism that's liberally passed around and always thrown down as if it were a playing-card in some child's game: "'Head in the sand!' Ha ha! Lose a turn!"
If you Google "head in the sand" and "global warming," you get 1,070,000 hits.
(and houstonmod called your one-of-a-kind host a "plagiarist")
The point is that they get their talking points from centralized gurus or the grapevine cultivated by them. They read from the same playbook that tells them how to ridicule skeptics.
It's like a church with priests, choir, and psalm books--if not a cult.
Note also the fear-mongering hyperbole and mischaracterization that leftists unfailingly resort to (before launching ad hominems) in lieu of a strong counter-argument:
"Scary," the "head-in-the-sand attitude" implying extreme denial over rational disagreement, not just "devastating," but "truly devastating" (echoes of Lee Harvey--they all think and argue the same), "Even if it is only a possibility, it would be insane to not fight it now...to avert this catastrophe."
So those who don't obey to "fight" on their terms based on the mere possibility that they're analysis is correct are "insane?"
Note also that the insistence upon action is based on "IF," "IF," and "IF."
That is not the language and practice of science!
Furthermore, he engages--right before your eyes--in exactly the kind of histrionic, fear-mongering pleading and preemptive reasoning that Bush & Co. were incessantly accused of engaging in to justify the preemptive invasion of Iraq (which to this day demonstrably has more destructive weapons in the wrong hands than there is CO2 in the atmosphere).
Hey waitasec. Is all this just some kind of vindictive tit-for-tat rhetoric from environmentalists who are also antiwar types (all of them, for sure) being petty because they felt Bush condescended to or tricked them in that same manner?
They're mouthing the same words and engaging in precisely the same kind of specious reasoning they accused the administration of utilizing to invade Iraq.
Irony, hypocrisy, projection, or simply revenge?
(the troll houstonmod tried this in the commentary of a post on Ann Coulter, trying to use her own words against her in the pursuit of his own cause, but it backfired)
If the Global Warming "Deniers" started being called "unpatrotic," perhaps there would be something to that...
Actually, they have been called "unpatriotic."
These are not scientists. They're political activists with axes to grind, and with an ulterior agenda.
Listen carefully to the proposed "solutions" and recognize that they oh-so-conveniently accomplish what far-left environmentalists, socialists, and communists (all three being birds of a feather) have been prescribing for over a century (but have been rejected under their respective banners): Regulation of the free market and Marxist control of the means of production.
The troll houstonmod gives away the game when he defensively heckles:
Houstonmod's a liar. Nowhere has Republicus written, with any clarity, no less, that Kyoto would "destroy" the economy (nor has he denied warmer temperatures, as accused). Houstonmod is projecting his own hysterical hyperbolics on your well-measured host for the sake of ridiculing the position that such one-sided-- and yes, draconian-- regulations that would be imposed on American industries (especially when other countries like China would be exempt) would be detrimental to our economic growth and well-being. How detrimental is uncertain, but your host did not blather anything like:
And what's this:
Note also the "hide your head in the sand" descriptive of those who rationally disagree with the "CO2 Dunnit" crowd. It is a stock witticism that's liberally passed around and always thrown down as if it were a playing-card in some child's game: "'Head in the sand!' Ha ha! Lose a turn!"
If you Google "head in the sand" and "global warming," you get 1,070,000 hits.
(and houstonmod called your one-of-a-kind host a "plagiarist")
The point is that they get their talking points from centralized gurus or the grapevine cultivated by them. They read from the same playbook that tells them how to ridicule skeptics.
It's like a church with priests, choir, and psalm books--if not a cult.
Note also the fear-mongering hyperbole and mischaracterization that leftists unfailingly resort to (before launching ad hominems) in lieu of a strong counter-argument:
"Scary," the "head-in-the-sand attitude" implying extreme denial over rational disagreement, not just "devastating," but "truly devastating" (echoes of Lee Harvey--they all think and argue the same), "Even if it is only a possibility, it would be insane to not fight it now...to avert this catastrophe."
So those who don't obey to "fight" on their terms based on the mere possibility that they're analysis is correct are "insane?"
Note also that the insistence upon action is based on "IF," "IF," and "IF."
That is not the language and practice of science!
Furthermore, he engages--right before your eyes--in exactly the kind of histrionic, fear-mongering pleading and preemptive reasoning that Bush & Co. were incessantly accused of engaging in to justify the preemptive invasion of Iraq (which to this day demonstrably has more destructive weapons in the wrong hands than there is CO2 in the atmosphere).
Hey waitasec. Is all this just some kind of vindictive tit-for-tat rhetoric from environmentalists who are also antiwar types (all of them, for sure) being petty because they felt Bush condescended to or tricked them in that same manner?
They're mouthing the same words and engaging in precisely the same kind of specious reasoning they accused the administration of utilizing to invade Iraq.
Irony, hypocrisy, projection, or simply revenge?
(the troll houstonmod tried this in the commentary of a post on Ann Coulter, trying to use her own words against her in the pursuit of his own cause, but it backfired)
If the Global Warming "Deniers" started being called "unpatrotic," perhaps there would be something to that...
Actually, they have been called "unpatriotic."
These are not scientists. They're political activists with axes to grind, and with an ulterior agenda.
Listen carefully to the proposed "solutions" and recognize that they oh-so-conveniently accomplish what far-left environmentalists, socialists, and communists (all three being birds of a feather) have been prescribing for over a century (but have been rejected under their respective banners): Regulation of the free market and Marxist control of the means of production.
The troll houstonmod gives away the game when he defensively heckles:
John's paranoia about "draconian" industrial limits which he clearly believes will destroy the economy are both baseless and short sighted. In fact, a new industry based on reducing emissions would be a huge boom to the US.(and get us out from under our dependency on foreigh oil).John's "paranoia...which he clearly believes will destroy the economy?"
Houstonmod's a liar. Nowhere has Republicus written, with any clarity, no less, that Kyoto would "destroy" the economy (nor has he denied warmer temperatures, as accused). Houstonmod is projecting his own hysterical hyperbolics on your well-measured host for the sake of ridiculing the position that such one-sided-- and yes, draconian-- regulations that would be imposed on American industries (especially when other countries like China would be exempt) would be detrimental to our economic growth and well-being. How detrimental is uncertain, but your host did not blather anything like:
What Republicus finds scary is the hide your head in the sand attitude of some people when looking at the economical consequences of Global Warming regulations. IF those consequences can be prevented, it is in our best interest to stop them. IF the consequences of imposed regulations go as some say they will, the repercussions would be truly devastating to the world and the US. Even if this is only a possibility, it would be insane to not fight the regulations now while we may still have a chance to avert this catastrophe.Republicus respects the intelligence of his readers too much to do so.
And what's this:
In fact, a new industry based on reducing emissions would be a huge boom to the US.(and get us out from under our dependency on foreigh oil)
The illiterate poseur meant to say "boon," not "boom" (another one of many reasons to strongly suspect that houstonmod--like others of his intellectual ilk who troll the blogosphere like orcs dispatched from Mordor to roam Middle Earth--are adolescents), but he was mindful of turning the volume up to 11 to emphasize not just a "boom," but a "HUGE boom".
Note also how he tossed out the red-meat of patriotism to those dumb conservatives by patronizing: "Yes kids! We don't have to worry about giving money to foreigners if we wean ourselves off of oil!"
He himself doesn't care about that. It was simply a condescending aside to simpletons (i.e. "Global Warming Deniers" who must be conservative and who therefore must be xenophobes and so must hate giving money to foreigners). Would he care that the oil industry in Texas would also suffer? Of course not. So why the discrimination?
And look at this: "...the repercussions would be truly devastating to the world and the US."
That slip betrays his leftist, Manichaean worldview: It's not "the U.S. and the rest of the world," but "the world and the U.S."
These aren't first-draft-but-posted typos or errors that are irrelevant to substance (i.e. the kinds of things he attacks your host about by pointing to them and whining "Are facts allowed on this blog?"), but are substantial revelations of his leftist ideology (which always--by its nature-- compromises Reason).
Finally, the new "industry" he refers to will be under the auspices of an envisioned "new and improved" EPA in Washington that would dwarf the DHS by sheer magnitude, by its army of reformers, lawyers, and enforcers.
We should look carefully at the players who decide energy policy in the United States (this carbon credit business came out of nowhere and may very well reach everyone's doorstep soon).
Republicus is not too worried about Bush's people (even though Bush has shown a disturbing tendency to cave since the mid-term elections, beginning with the sacking of Rummy and then paying lip-service to the Kyoto crowd in SOTU), but this new congress is going to make much mischief.
Note also how he tossed out the red-meat of patriotism to those dumb conservatives by patronizing: "Yes kids! We don't have to worry about giving money to foreigners if we wean ourselves off of oil!"
He himself doesn't care about that. It was simply a condescending aside to simpletons (i.e. "Global Warming Deniers" who must be conservative and who therefore must be xenophobes and so must hate giving money to foreigners). Would he care that the oil industry in Texas would also suffer? Of course not. So why the discrimination?
And look at this: "...the repercussions would be truly devastating to the world and the US."
That slip betrays his leftist, Manichaean worldview: It's not "the U.S. and the rest of the world," but "the world and the U.S."
These aren't first-draft-but-posted typos or errors that are irrelevant to substance (i.e. the kinds of things he attacks your host about by pointing to them and whining "Are facts allowed on this blog?"), but are substantial revelations of his leftist ideology (which always--by its nature-- compromises Reason).
Finally, the new "industry" he refers to will be under the auspices of an envisioned "new and improved" EPA in Washington that would dwarf the DHS by sheer magnitude, by its army of reformers, lawyers, and enforcers.
We should look carefully at the players who decide energy policy in the United States (this carbon credit business came out of nowhere and may very well reach everyone's doorstep soon).
Republicus is not too worried about Bush's people (even though Bush has shown a disturbing tendency to cave since the mid-term elections, beginning with the sacking of Rummy and then paying lip-service to the Kyoto crowd in SOTU), but this new congress is going to make much mischief.
posted by John | 11:26 AM
44 Comments:
I don't know if you have ever followed "Mike's America" but he has a little bio on another blog. He tells a few words of working at the EPA after serving as an intern in the Reagan Whitehouse...
"After leaving the White House I landed at the headquarters of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Washington. EPA was not my first choice, but it did serve to educate me in the way government REALLY works. That was something we never learned in college. It also gave me particular insight into the politicization of environmental issues, which is so clearly on parade today with the fraud of global warming alarmism."
I may have to pick his brains for more info on that.
Let's look at what it means to politicize scientific claims. The most popular example of this was the case of Galileo vs. Roman Church. He challenged the common understanding of the shape of the solar system, and the Church in Rome did perceive that as a challenge to their very authority. He was tried, found guilty, forced to confess, and he spent the rest of his life effectively neutralized.
Marxism, and later Communism, also tied their politics to a scientific view that political movement must adhere to a Darwinistic principle and evolve along their views, and when that did not work, they used force to make reality what they wanted.
The best of these techniques was provided by Nazi Germany, where they used the very questionable 'progressive' science of race and determined that there were, in fact, lesser races that impeded the progress of the better races. The results of this politicizing of eugenics were self evident.
Environmental alarmists are nothing new. Those of us that remember the 70's very clearly remember the big global freezing scare. By their understanding, New York and London should now be under a layer of ice. Does anyone remember the acid rain scare? What happened to that?
Now we have another group that wishes to use science to bring on the big scare. I am not sure, John, that they do not entirely believe what they are preaching. The disciples of this new religion believe fervently that humans are the great evil. After all, we have all been taught this since we were small children.
Here is what I think. If, in fact, anyone in the Bush administration has restricted scientific publications either for or against the global warming crowd, then they were wrong to do so. If Al Gore chooses to ignore sound science that chooses to refute Global Warming for his own political gain, then he is wrong to do so. Turning a scientific inquiry into a political game is never a good thing for science or for the people at large. I am tired of hearing that there is a 'consensus' among a majority of scientists for one thing or another. That is not how science is made. The consensus at the time of Galileo was that the Earth was at the center of the universe. The consensus did not make it so. The consensus among progressives around the globe was there were sound reasons that certain races were inferior. That consensus did not make it so. Science is not a democratic foundation where the majority rules. Politics needs to stay out of the way of scientific debate.
The counterargument from the Global Grillers is that it is they who were the mavericks against an old consensus and that the irrefutability of the science caused the new "consensus."
In other words, the skeptics who are holding out--or "hiding their head in the sand"--are the Medieavelists who are dragging their feet behind Galileo and the Rennaissance.
John,
Thank you for trolling at bushblogs and introducing me to this blog
Science is the philosophy of logic and fact. Politics is not. Funny how people still try to mix up the two
The science:
12% of the total atmospheric greenhouse effect comes for that little tiny .054% 0f CO2 atmospheric gase. Now in the last 160 years we've increased that tiny amount 40%
So quick do the math - take 12% increase it by 40% what do you get??? (hint its not the nothing answer you seem to be implying)
The extra energy is going somewhere (remember energy is neither created nor destroyed). Scientist tell us its going into increasing the global atmospheric temps and climate change. Where do you pretend it goes???
The illiterate poseur meant to say "boon," not "boom" (another one of many reasons to strongly suspect that houstonmod--like others of his intellectual ilk who troll the blogosphere like orcs dispatched from Mordor to roam Middle Earth--are adolescents), but he was mindful of turning the volume up to 11 to emphasize not just a "boom," but a "HUGE boom".
ummmm no....you would think a guy who spends this much time alone on his computer or playing dungeons and dragons would have a dictionary: boom
3. to progress, grow, or flourish vigorously, as a business or a city: Her business is booming since she enlarged the store.
wow, it's nice to see AJ back in form.
Since it is your blog and you have so much time, can you please show me where I called you a plagiarist?
Hey, some really cool things I found from your very rational and lucid post.
If you google "angry john" and "global warming" you get 1,230,000 hits. Wow!!
If you google "science moron" and "angry john", it brings up more than a half million hits.
You can't make these things up folks! Looks like we have a live one here people!
So let me get this right. AJ has uncovered that the whole global climate change is actually an attempt to crush capitalism. Damnit, I hate it when the other lefties do things without telling me.
I'll join you on that one comrade AJ. But there are some problems here. That would mean the following should be outed in true Ann Coulter fashion for hating this country as well:
Duke Energy (those rat bastard commie energy companies "“The science of global warming is clear. We know enough to act now. We must act now.”
Wal Mart (dirty hippies!! We endorse the group's call for strong national policies and market-based programs for greenhouse gas reductions," )
Alcoa
BP America (which is also Amoco in case AJ is actually reading)
Caterpillar
DuPont
General Electric
Lehman Brothers
FPL Group (Florida Power and Light)
PG&E (Pacific Gas and Electric, clearly they most crush free enterprise)
PNM Resources (Power New Mexico, the Fidel Castro of large power companies)
I believe it is time for all good zealots to rise and defeat these agents of communism!!! We most not allow crunchie companies like GE and Dupont to deny us of our manifest destiny!
Hey AJ, since you mentioned those poor Texas oil companies, you may want to look up in the Houston Chronicle a great article on the Texas laws that were one of the first in the books to combat global climate change (1991)
"Note also that the insistence upon action is based on "IF," "IF," and "IF."
That is not the language and practice of science!"
ok...it's easy enough to wander over here and mock poor AJ, but if anybody doesn't understand how laughable his understanding of science is (judging from his line above), well......then this is the perfect blog for you!!! Why don't you explain to us why gravity is only a theory.
I'll write slowly so you can understand it this time.
The point of the "If's" is that there is no great downside to the measures that need to be taken to combat global climate change. It's like saying eating carrots will help your eyes. There are plenty of studies that say vitamin A helps your vision, but even if it doesn't, it helps the rest of your body.
(why do I know that AJ will now take that last example and try to use it literally?)
For those 4 of you who read this blog regularly, the Ann Coulter stuff was funny. AJ and Kelly were good sports about it. (I seem to have missed how it backfired) Hey AJ, I went back to look for the Ann Coulter stuff and I think it might have been erased. What date was that?
Just to end this nonsense, most people that can read realize that the Bush Administration changed the scientific documents of myriad agencies to make climate change less drastic and less certain. These changes were made by lawyers and bureaucrats, not scientists like AJ.
Just to keep things straight, you never said that the Kyoto agreement would "wreck our economy"??
You're projecting, Neologizer. I'm an infrequent participant at Mr. Noonan's blog. YOU are the resident troll there, as every regular would attest.
And yet you accuse me of engaging in precisely the kind of behavior--i.e. "trolling Bush blogs"--that you yourself are infamous there for.
And by the way, there was only one "Bush blog" I saw you at or had checked out lately. To say "blogs" for that singular context is like someone saying "the internets," and you know how moronic that sounds--unless, of course, since you were, in fact, projecting, it is you who trolls around the conservative neighborhoods of the blogosphere and blog-hop Bush-blogs.
And your projection continues in the nest breath: "Science is the philosophy of logic and fact. Politics is not. Funny how people still try to mix up the two."
Actually, no, it's not funny, but if you want to talk about "Logic and fact," what's logical about calling me a "Bush-blogs troller" when, in fact, it is you who is the Bush blog(s) troller?
Kelly, do me a favor. Go to this blog here: http://www.blogsforbush.com/
and tell them that Neologizer came here and called me the "Bush blogs troll." Ask if that is true, and who the real troll is.
What you will discover is that the very first words that came out of Neologizer's mouth here was a projection about him, and a lie about me.
So as you can see, Neologizer, as soon as you opened your mouth, your credibility has already been critically compromised.
Welcome to Republicus.
I was actually baiting the troll houstonmod, Neologizer, but you're a fish of the same species (if not actually him--maybe you're all the same person with a thousand different aliases).
Like houstonmod (and Lee Harvey, too, of course), you even wave your little flag of "The Facts" and "Science" in a field that can't even predict "clear & sunny" or "overcast & rain" more than a few days in advance (not to mention freak blizzards on the day of the Global Grilling March),
So, yeah, you'll fry just as well.
You lectured:
"12% of the total atmospheric greenhouse effect comes for (sic) that little tiny .054% 0f CO2 atmospheric gase (sic). Now in the last 160 years we've increased that tiny amount 40%."
Whoa, what "tiny amount" are you referring to? The 12% or that "little tiny" .054%?
"So quick do the math - take 12% increase it by 40% what do you get??? (hint its not the nothing answer you seem to be implying)."
No, it's not "nothing."
Tell you what I'm going to do: Me dumb consurvativ who ain't no good at math or science, so I'll hyper-inflate the answer to a nice easy round number: a whopping 5% of greenhouse gases.
The other 95% is water vapor (99.999% of which is from natural origin).
The full 100% of greenhouse gases make up a small percentage of that .054% of total CO2 in the atmosphere.
YOU do the math, Neologizer!
"12% of the total atmospheric greenhouse effect comes for (sic) that little tiny .054% of CO2 in the atmosphere."
And the other 88%? What causes that?
You lefties take any percentage and call it "overwhelming evidence" and then act as if it was 100%.
If it's subjective and ambiguous polls indicating 60% in your favor, it is overwhelming evidence that "Everyone knows" and "The People have spoken."
But size doesn't matter. If it's a fluctuating and inconclusive and even miniscule percentage in scientific data--say, involving a percentage of .054%--again, it is "overwhelming evidence" and "Everyone knows" and "The People are speaking."
These are not scientists.
A leftist is a leftist, no matter field he or she managed to infiltrate.
They project and invert and they lie about numbers, especially their own: There is NOT a "consensus."
In FACT, more and more true scientists are coming out of the woodwork (from where they had been hiding in fear for their jobs and good name) as this is written.
Whoa! Am I seeing double? Both here in the same room? lol
Bring it on, boys (or girls--I'm really not sure what gender they have, even though I can usually tell by the voice).
Houston, houston, houston. Poor houston.
Don't worry, I have a post pending devoted especially to you.
And your ass-kicking.
But "just to keep things straight," houston's words--with his uncontrollable spasms of hyperbole, were this:
"John's "paranoia...which he clearly believes will destroy the economy."
Republicus responded:
"Houstonmod's a liar. Nowhere has Republicus written, with any clarity, no less, that Kyoto would 'destroy' the economy (nor has he denied warmer temperatures, as accused). Houstonmod is projecting his own hysterical hyperbolics on your well-measured host for the sake of ridiculing the position that such one-sided-- and yes, draconian-- regulations that would be imposed on American industries (especially when other countries like China would be exempt) would be detrimental to our economic growth and well-being. How detrimental is uncertain..."
Note that Republicus opined that in the context of Kyoto and the pre-recession economy, and not on the imposition of it today.
Republicus may very well have said that if the *Kyoto Treaty* was fully enacted when demanded (very early in Bush's first term)--what with a looming recession that was on the horizon as early as the 2000 campaign (when Bush was accused of "Talking down the Great Clinton Economy")--it could very well have been ruinous to the economy.
(Nevermind that the UN itself recently came out and admitted that the data in Kyoto was flawed, and the language exaggerated)
And Republicus stands by that assessment, for yesterday (which really angered them) AND today, that imposing a comprehensive, macroeconomic retooling of energy consumption in the US--as envisioned by the Global Grillers--can not be good for the economy, particularly since it would be a big jump into socialism with one fell swoop.
(it would be good, however, for the growing multitudes who study environmental science in the colleges and universities and need jobs).
Still, Republicus would never have said "It would destroy our economy."
9/11 didn't "destroy" our economy; but it didn't do it any favors, either.
All that being said, now look at what this shameless weasel did:
He received the proper scolding for putting words in the mouth of your host that were not uttered--or playing the clairvoyant-- but, angry, ran back and dug around for--"A-ha!"
And he slyly comes back here and, batting his eyelashes while hiding what he thinks is a dagger behind his back, smiles:
"Just to keep things straight, you never said that the Kyoto agreement would "wreck our economy"??
Nice try, houston. You accused me of being paranoid and saying that I "clearly believed that industrial limits will destroy the economy."
I never said "destroyed."
I probably said something like "Kyoto would have wrecked the economy" in the context of the recession.
I also never said "industrial limits."
I said draconian regulations.
But tell me more about those "industial limits," housty.
What do you have in mind?
Dear John
Definition of: trolling
(1) Surfing, or browsing, the Web.
(2) Posting derogatory messages about sensitive subjects on newsgroups and chat rooms to bait users into responding.
(3) Hanging around in a chat room without saying anything, like a "peeping tom."
Yes I think you fullfilled all three definitions. So John face it by definition - you were trolling. If you don't like the act of trolling don't do it then
P.S. I've played D& D once in college--as in for less than an hour.
I didn't like it and failed to see why anyone would.
Dear John,
Water (in the form of water vapor) and CO2 are the two major greenhouse gases. The amount of water vapor is proportional to the average temperature - so its a constant doesn't change.
The CO2 is changing - we are adding (CO2 has a atmospheric half-life of 100+ years). Very simple - add CO2 get GW which leads to climate change.
As far as no consensus - guess you haven't been paying attention.....
Joint statements by Nation academy of sciences of
USA
France
Brazil
Canada
Germany
Italy
Japan
Russia
UK
India
China
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
But wait not only that but the main society of climate researchers has something to say...
contention that only a minority of scientists believe that global warming is caused by human activities is incorrect. The American Geophysical Union, the largest scientific organization of earth scientists, issued a new position statement on Dec. 16, concluding that “Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century.” The URL for the complete text of this report is at: www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html.
The American Geophysical Union (or AGU) is a nonprofit organization of geophysicists, consisting (as of 2004) of over 41,000 members from 130 countries. AGU's activities are focused on the organization and dissemination of scientific information in the interdisciplinary and international field of geophysics. The geophysical sciences involve four fundamental areas: atmospheric and ocean sciences; solid-Earth sciences; hydrologic sciences; and space sciences.
John,
Since you don't "believe" scientist or the data they produce
I'll appeal to your ideological side since this is "republicus"
Here is what the bush administration says about man's effect on greenhouse gas emmisions and GW....
.........Carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations in the atmosphere increased from approximately 280 parts per million (ppm) in pre-industrial times to 379 ppm in 2005 according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) 2005 State of the Climate Report, a 35 percent increase. Almost all of the increase is due to human activities .............
NOAA’s Annual Greenhouse Gas Index (AGGI), which tracks changes in radiative forcing from greenhouse gases over time, shows that radiative forcing from greenhouse gases has increased 21.5% since 1990 as of 2006. Much of the increase (63%) has resulted from the contribution of CO2. The contribution to radiative forcing by CH4 and CFCs has been nearly constant or declining, respectively, in recent years.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentac.html
If you don't like don't talk to the current republican administration.
Opps I cut of the web page reference. John it sounds like you are the type the really does his homework so I want to make sure you know where to go to verify all this info
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentac.html
Also here's a few more homework assignments check these out.... you seem like the foxnews type.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200590,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,201208,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199210,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,198307,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,197044,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,195700,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,194008,00.html
Please get back to me on what you think of those foxnews reports -LOL
Dear Neo:
It is way past my bedtime right now (even for the night owl that I am) but before I turn in I will apologize to you for coming down too hard.
You may have noticed that the occassional resident troll here--i.e. houstonmod--and I butt heads and you reminded me of him a bit (I even thought you might have been him) over at "Blogs for Bush" and I carried over the annoyance I feel towards him to you.
You seem like a decent person and it was unwarranted (and I appreciate the honest debate and good faith that you're demonstrating, and will reciprocate). Perhaps in the future I will become annoyed with you for who you are and not because of someone else, but until then you--and the information you generously provided, and thank you-- are welcome here.
Looks like you kicked up some dust in here.
I think you jumped the gun on neologizer because he refered to you as a troll.
I will agree that he ISN'T houstontroll. Houston is a coward and Neo is not...though I don't agree with "him". He is contributing to the discussion, which is always a good thing.
Neo:
Of course, I would think a great many of us conform to the primary definition of "troll": 1) Surfing, or browsing, the Web.
Perhaps I should also plead guilty to: (2) Posting derogatory messages about sensitive subjects on newsgroups and chat rooms to bait users into responding.
But come on. The blogosphere ain't supposed to be a tea party, but a battle of ideas.
However, the popular understanding of what a "troll" is in the blogosphere regards a poster whose regular participation in a particular blog serves as being a gadfly of sorts, and judging from some of the reactions to you there, you played the role of that gadfly, not I.
Houstonmod asked:
"wow, it's nice to see AJ back in form.
Since it is your blog and you have so much time, can you please show me where I called you a plagiarist?"
In the commerntary section of the January 21, 2007 post called "It's SHOWTIME" (I know, there's been delays, but the hammer will fall), Housten snidely asked:
"In this spanking will you be lying, changing articles, plagarizing or simply refusing to understand reality?"
That's where you called me a plagiarist (and a liar, and a changer of articles, and someone who does not understand reality).
On the subject of trolls...
I asked them at BlogsforBush and this was the reply--
"Kelly, we have quite a few trolls on this blog. Just go to any other thread here, and you'll figure it out. Any of the ones I've given hell to is a troll."
So, unless they gave you "hell" you aren't a troll in their definition.
So, there you have it.
BTW (OFF Topic)...John, you said,
"P.S. I've played D& D once in college--as in for less than an hour.
I didn't like it and failed to see why anyone would."
It takes more than once to get into the game. We get together every weekend with friends to play it and similar games.
ANYWAY, back to the "Agenda"...
Phelonius, I agree with your assertion--"Here is what I think. If, in fact, anyone in the Bush administration has restricted scientific publications either for or against the global warming crowd, then they were wrong to do so. If Al Gore chooses to ignore sound science that chooses to refute Global Warming for his own political gain, then he is wrong to do so. Turning a scientific inquiry into a political game is never a good thing for science or for the people at large."
Herein lies the dilemma...no one has been forthright and honest on this issue. But, it is the left's tirades on the subject that have thrusts this into our faces. Al Gore has truly shown his moonbat face on this issue. He is downright mad that we do not accept this.
I am sorry, Mr. Gore. We will NOT be controlled by you or anyone else! Go take a look in the mirror.
Thanks Kelly. :)
However, I don't believe Neo was calling me a "troll" the way I would call houston one, but was simply--and innocuously--being literal about "trolling."
Neo:
I don't buy it. Too many other--and far greater--forces along with manmade CO2 emissions are at play that influence the dynamic of radiative forcing. If manmade CO2 emissions have reached some sort of thimble-sized critical mass that is disrupting temperature regularity (of the last few centuries, anyway) then such a simple prognosis--if not a simplistic one, considering the ever-fluctuating complexity of cloud formation and weather patterns, for starters-- could be counteracted with equal simplicity: plant more trees. They love that CO2 stuff. They suck it up and then spit it out as oxygen.
There's nothing we can do about the sun, though, or volcanoes, and unless McDonald's, Burger King, and milk-lovers get branded as "climate criminals," cows are here to stay.
But if this madness continues, don't be surprised if the cattle industry gets a knock on its door one night by some guy wearing a green trenchcoat.
I. houston said: "For those 4 of you who read this blog regularly, the Ann Coulter stuff was funny. AJ and Kelly were good sports about it. (I seem to have missed how it backfired)."
Here's how it backfired (why do I always have to draw this nitwit a picture? Because he's a nitwit):
You tried to use Ann's words against her by saying, "Although I'm against the death penalty, we need to execute people like Ann Coulter in order to physically intimidate right wingers by making them realize that they can be killed, too. How's that sound?"
It sounded perfectly consistent with your ideology and your question--to yourself-- should be why you were so readily believed. Anyway, it was deserving of the censure it received (you were called a "true blue fascist," for example).
Then you sprung your little "trap":
"So John...I guess this means that Ann is a "true blue fascist"?? I guess it's either that or you can go on with your hypocritical ways and ignore that the quote was really from Ann Coulter and not from me:
"When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors."
A.C.
I'm sure you were quite pleased with yourself, Houston, unfortunately, you trapped yourself, as I pointed out:
"Factmaster":
You're comparing an American writer--Anne Coulter-- to traitor John Walker, who picked up arms against his country and consorted with the enemy during wartime?
Yes you are. You're making them analogous or morally equivalent in your argument.
Oh, I know you hate that descriptive, Houston (i.e. moral equivalence), but what gives here?
At the same time, you blockhead, by making that analogy, you're positioning Walker to liberalism as Coulter is to conservatism.
You're an idiot."
Also, you modified the quotation by first qualifying "Although I'm against the death penalty..." before making a morally equivalent comparison between (a) a leftist like yourself being supposedly against Capital Punishment nevertheless wishing death upon a conservative All-American female political pundit and (b) a pro-Capital Punishment right-winger recommending the execution of a traitor who rejected and then bore arms against his country alongside the enemy in a time of war.
And you think you succeeded in proving hypocrisy?
You think you "outsmarted" us?
Finally, in calling me "Angry John," far from rebutting Ann, you ironically--if not moronically--only confirm her words:
"A central component of liberal hate speech is to make paranoid accusations based on their own neurotic impulses, such as calling Republicans angry, hate-filled, and mean."
II. Houstonmod snidely huffed:
"John's paranoia about 'draconian' industrial limits which he clearly believes will destroy the economy..."
That's a hyperbole of what I said, and taken out of context (see a few comments above).
"...are both baseless and short sighted."
They are neither. In FACT, they're--surprise!--the exact inversion of what he said, as they're based on common sense, a fundamental understanding of economics, and a long-term prognosis.
"In fact..."
Of course. What else.
"...a new industry based on reducing emissions would be a huge boom to the US."
Stop right there.
He made a grade school-level error there(Okay, Jr. High School): He confused "boom" with "boon."
I pointed out the error:
"The illiterate poseur meant to say "boon," not "boom."
However, he is too vain and insecure to stand corrected like a man, so he decided to argue (hurling abuse in the process and finishing off with a characteristically snide, sarcastic snipe):
"ummmm no....you would think a guy who spends this much time alone on his computer or playing dungeons and dragons would have a dictionary: boom
3. to progress, grow, or flourish vigorously, as a business or a city: Her business is booming since she enlarged the store.
wow, it's nice to see AJ back in form."
I'm glad you feel that way:
Boon
1. A benefit bestowed, especially one bestowed in response to a request.
2. A timely blessing or benefit: A brisk breeze is a boon to sailors.
(American Heritage Dictionary)
Now judge for yourselves, good readers: "boom" or "boon"?
"a new industry based on reducing emissions would be a huge boom to the US"
or
"a new industry based on reducing emissions would be huge boon to the US."
It might have helped you, Mr. Houston-"I-Went-To-A-Better-Law-School-Than-Ann-Coulter"-Mod if you used "for the U.S." instead of "to the U.S.," but you didn't.
So where did you fail? Vocabulary or grammar? (take your pick, but pick you must)
Now hear this:
Boom: 1. To make a deep, resonant sound. (American Heritage Dictionary)
Get used to that sound, Housty, because your promised ass-whuppin' is drawing nigh.
III. While proving that houstonmod was not an independent thinker but mouthing talking points like a ventriloquist's dummy (and not just on environmental issues), Republicus made a point with houstonmod's use of the widely-circulated Precautionary Principle:
"If you Google 'Precautionary Principle' and 'Global Warming,' you will get 360,000 hits."
I also added:
"Note also the 'hide your head in the sand' descriptive of those who rationally disagree with the 'CO2 Dunnit' crowd. It is a stock witticism that's liberally passed around and always thrown down as if it were a playing-card in some child's game: 'Head in the sand! Ha ha! Lose a turn!'
If you Google 'head in the sand' and 'global warming,' you get 1,070,000 hits."
Houstonmod, with his characteristically snide, sarcastic manner, rebutted:
"Hey, some really cool things I found from your very rational and lucid post.
If you google 'angry john' and 'global warming' you get 1,230,000 hits. Wow!!
If you google 'science moron'and "angry john", it brings up more than a half million hits."
That's a poor rebuttal. I would doubt that all of the hundreds of thousands of hits I received for Googling "Precautionary Principle and "Global Warming" and "Head in the sand" and "Global Warming" had the wording intact and in the same context of the argument all the way through, but I would bet that most of them were. In fact, the first several pages of results for each had the wording intact and were in that precise context, indubitably making my point that houstonmod's arguing of the Precautionary Principle vis-a-vis Global Warming Prevention was learned by rote, as was his use of the already cliched "head in the sand" hyperbolic mischaracterization.
His counterargument--Googling "angry John" and "Global warming" and "science moron" and "angry John" receiving thousands of hits-- in no way compromises my point, and does nothing for his, for the first several pages of results consist of documents with the word "angry" somewhere and then "John" somewhere else (often in the author's name, John being the second most popular name in the world after Muhammad), and it is the same with "science, moron, angry, and John."
Therefore, what was written in the post stands.
Although I don't think that a cult member repeating his guru's words by rote is considered a plagiarist, nevertheless his tendency to do so is clear (as will his knee-jerk tendency to project, for he accused your host of a being the plagiarist):
"You can't make these things up folks! Looks like we have a live one here people!"
Hm. In the commentary of the January 31 post "It's SHOWTIME," your host assessed the copycat's premises thusly:
"So amount of CO2 emissions are the standard measurememt of what makes a country "clean" or not?
Oboy, we got a live one here..."
Well, they do say imitation is the highest form of flattery.
IV. Housty also said:
"Just to end this nonsense, most people that can read realize that the Bush Administration changed the scientific documents of myriad agencies to make climate change less drastic and less certain. These changes were made by lawyers and bureaucrats, not scientists like AJ."
Don't forget the UN itself. They also changed scientific documents (like those that informed the original Kyoto Treaty) and made climate change less drastic and less certain.
The difference is that they were behind the curve by years.
"So let me get this right. AJ has uncovered that the whole global climate change is actually an attempt to crush capitalism. Damnit, I hate it when the other lefties do things without telling me."
Why should they? You're just a mindless drone. A messenger boy. A useful idiot.
John said, "However, I don't believe Neo was calling me a "troll" the way I would call houston one, but was simply--and innocuously--being literal about "trolling."
Did you notice what I said about Neo vs Houston? I was agreeing with you later opinion of Neo.
Neo isn't throwing a tantrum like Houston.
BTW, I did a google search using quotes around the two criteria.
1-"Head in the sand" and "global warming"--results: 166,000
2-"angry John" and "global warming"--results: 1,500
Top ten results for "angry John" and "global warming" with quotes:
1-John Baird--Canadian Minister of the environment
2-Senator John McCain
3-Lorna Doone with add for global warming survey
4-Mentions John Edwards in a list
5-same as above (different blog)
6-John, you may find this picture rather humorous.
7-Mentions Pope John Paul
8-This one mentions John Kerry.
9- John Lennon is mentioned a good way down in this article.
10-Yet another about John McCain
Top ten results for "head in the sand" and "global warming with quotes:
1-The Great Global Warming Swindle
2-Global warming will destroy us
3-The Democratic Party blog
4-Boston.com
5-Head in the Sand
6-Global warming is just hot air
7-Bush’s head-in-the-sand posture on global warming
8-Head Still Buried in the Sand
9-Global Warming: The Complete Briefing by John Hougton.
10-The Great Global Warming Swindle
I think we get the idea. I decided to search to see if ANY of the "angry John" results came back with our Republicus. After awhile I gave up and decided to type in "angry John" "global warming" AND "Republicus".
"No standard web pages containing all your search terms were found.
Your search - "angry John" "global warming" "republicus" - did not match any documents."
Good job. Thank you Kelly. BTW, I checked out Mike's Blog. I'll be trolling there often. ;)
John, I saw that you had popped in over at Mike's. Great blog.
Here is another blog you ought to check out...particularly the video on this link. The video is 45 minutes long, but it will explain the likes of Houstonmod, Lee Harvey, et al.
"The modern liberal mindset"
Kelly: I've already seen it. It confirms what I've already picked up and observed years ago about "liberalism" (or as Mr. Sayek distinguishes, Liberalism).
Like Mr. Sayek, I too never took too seriously--or understood-- the charge that Liberals hate America, but after 9/11 my eyes were opened to that.
You can see here how I dissect the Liberal intellect and show how the wiring of common sense and Reason has been screwed with. They see things upside down, and so they can't help inverting and projecting, all the time.
It's kind of sad. A lot of them are really nasty, evil people, but some of them have just swallowed too many pills of lefty political propagaganda (which inverts perception) and are arguing under the influence.
This blog has been blessed with trolls who are excellent exemplars of Liberalism. It's amazing how they fit the profile so precisely.
They're zombies.
Yes, I see how you disect the Liberal intellect. I was about to use the word "thinking" and realized how oxymoronish that would be.
It is really sad.
I have a close relative who is so convinced of the Liberal utopia that she will act like a bratty teenager to get her point across. She is in her late 40s. I am embarrassed for her.
More to say...but bedtime for kids.
John: "They must know that they're pushing junk science.
Sadly, they don't know that.
They've erected this massive fraud to first convince themselves that immediate action (according to their socialist principles of wealth and energy control) is necessary and then concocted this slick PR scheme to frighten the rest of us to death.
You try and talk to them about sunspots or the Little Ice Age and they put their fingers in their ears and start yelling "la,la,la,la,la."
Being a good liberal means being willfully ignorant and avoiding or ignoring anything that contradicts the current dogma passed down by the high priests.
You remember during the 1980's when ABC News ran stories about young children having nightmares about nuclear war and of course the suggestion was that we unilaterally disarm?
The Environmental Defense Fund is running ads in my state (SC) showing a speeding locomotive heading straight for a small girl.
And reports are that children once again are having nightmares about the safety of the planet.
This is the most massive scam of all time. And the stupid notion that we better do something about it "just in case" is even DUMBER.
With the trillions of dollars that would be required to meet the piddling goals environmentalists laid out for addressing this problem (which will have NO effect at all) we could end world hunger, poverty, illiteracy and immunize every child on the planet.
But instead they want this stupid scheme to control all our lives and the way we produce and use energy.
At the bottom of it all is this continuing craving for power, and I'm not talking about the kind that comes out of an electric socket.
As you point out, it's nothing but communists who traded red flags for green banners.
Old wine in new bottles.
P.S. Thanks for the kind words Kelly! I appreciate it.
Mike: Agreed, and well said...except that I find it incredible that the gurus at the very top of the food chain don't know its bogus. That they use it as a "justifiable" pretext in pursuit of the ulterior, primary agenda is self-evident, but if they went so far as to convince themselves it's true, that would mean that they are even more unhinged than I thought.
Their hordes of minions, however, do indeed clearly demonstrate that they're true believers (while sticking their fingers in their ears and singing "la-la-la-la" lol so true).
You are most welcome here anytime.
Like I mentioned earlier, I do believe that the adherents to this particular cult DO believe what they are saying. If you tell half-truths and outright lies long enough, you yourself begin to believe them. Al may very well believe whole-heartedly that when he buys carbon offsets from his own company that he really is living a 'carbon neutral' lifestyle.
Like Mike points out, it really is 'all for the children,' even if that line of reasoning is pure emotionalism.
This is how they really reach the adults. As Mike says, "The Environmental Defense Fund is running ads in my state (SC) showing a speeding locomotive heading straight for a small girl.
And reports are that children once again are having nightmares about the safety of the planet."
Well, no wonder they are having nightmares.
This is how they operate. If you want to influence people it works best to start when they are pliable, when their minds are not already set.
It is a scary thing.
My kids have a HUGE advantage right now. We have not allowed them to watch TV in our home since last summer. They watch DVDs. While they may catch a litte here and there at a friend's house they are not inundated by it.
But there are other influences, such as school and other forms of media. We just try to talk about what we feel about the issues when they are at home with us.
The same goes for anything we hold as valuable.
BTW, the initial reason for banning TV was because someone broke a light fixture and we said, "no TV until we figure out who did it." We still haven't figured it out and no one is speaking up. And amazingly, no one is begging for TV.
Ok
My use of the term of troll was intended as the definition I posted. I wonder why the sensitivity though.
It amazes me that people don't "believe" Global warming (GW) based on what Gore, Bush and some vast Left/Right wing conspiracy is saying.
Its a science issue the data, facts and observations are clear. you can go look them up and read the peer-reviewed papers. In my opinion and most scientists the facts are damning that we are contributing to global warming
Fact:
1)we have increase CO2 levels in atmosphere 40% (280ppm-383ppm). This increase of CO2 will persist with a half life of 100+ years
fact
2) this increase is due human activity, mostly buring of fossil fuels
fact
3) this additional CO2 causes approximately 1.5 W/m2 more energy from the Sun to be absorbed. This is causing an energy imbalance in the atmosphere.
fact
4)This energy has to go somewhere and this energy imbalance would correspond to a warmer atmosphere. Predicted to be 1F
fact
5)this is precisely how much the earth has warmed so far
As far as water vapor and greenhouse gases.......
Atmospheric content
nitrogen -78%
oxygen -20%
H20 -~3%
CO2 - 0.04%
other trace gases (ie methane 0.48 parts per BILLION)
NOT GREENHOUSE GASES
homonuclear diatomic molecules such as N2 and O2 (>95% of gases )neither absorb nor emit infrared radiation.
GREENHOUSE effects
H20 - 36-70%
C02 9-26% (human 40% increase)
methane 4-9%
It is not possible to state that a certain gas causes a certain percentage of the greenhouse effect, because the influences of the various gases are not additive. Low-highs numbers based on interactive or none interactive calculations.
Human effects on greenhouse gases
H20- none (water vapor levels are directly linked to temperature)
CO2- Humans have increased CO2 40%
Methane- increased 150%
Human caused increase in greenhouse effects
H20 - none
CO2 - 1.5 W/m2
methane - 0.5 W/m2
For some discussion with real scientist see
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/attribution-of-20th-century-climate-change-to-cosub2sub/#more-355
That was my post above
Funny I still see accusations of liberal "cults" perpertrating a global warming hoax
But that dosen't explain this ......
FROM THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION
NOAA’s Annual Greenhouse Gas Index (AGGI), which tracks changes in radiative forcing from greenhouse gases over time, shows that radiative forcing from greenhouse gases has increased 21.5% since 1990 as of 2006. Much of the increase (63%) has resulted from the contribution of CO2. The contribution to radiative forcing by CH4 and CFCs has been nearly constant or declining, respectively, in recent years.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentac.html
-Neo
Neo said:
"Ok
My use of the term of troll was intended as the definition I posted. I wonder why the sensitivity though."
I addressed and acknowledged your literal, innocuous usage of "trolling" vs. "troll." (see above)
As for being "sensitive," you're implying that "youthinks I protest too much"--i.e. that I'm being over-defensive for some reason--but the issue was (misperceived) hypocrisy on your end, not my guilt or innocence on mine.
"It amazes me that people don't "believe" Global warming (GW) based on what Gore, Bush and some vast Left/Right wing conspiracy is saying."
It's not that I "deny" warming, or even that CO2 plays a part (in one direction or another), only that the targeting of industrial emissions as being the *causus causata" of it has not been proven to my satisfaction.
"In my opinion and most scientists the facts are damning that we are contributing to global warming."
Ah, "*most* scientists," and "contributing," NOT "causing."
Now you're talking.
"Fact:
1)we have increase CO2 levels in atmosphere 40% (280ppm-383ppm). This increase of CO2 will persist with a half life of 100+ years
fact."
By what objective standard do you measure "increase?" Our generation's (or the last couple) regional comfort level? As for half-life, you're ignoring the conversion to oxygen as enabled by plant life.
"2) this increase is due human activity, mostly buring of fossil fuels."
You can't factually link that to temperature. CO2 levels skyrocketed in the postwar boom and temperatures decreased concurrently for decades.
Deforestation may very well be the "human activity" that has contributed to any present imbalance in CO2 ("present" because CO2 levels have fluctuated for millennia before the first Model T rolled off of the assembly line).
"fact
3) this additional CO2 causes approximately 1.5 W/m2 more energy from the Sun to be absorbed. This is causing an energy imbalance in the atmosphere."
"Imbalance" by what objective standard? And what of the record of increased CO2 emissions and temperature behaving inversely to what is being asserted as "fact?"
Just leave Walmart out of this.
"fact
4)This energy has to go somewhere and this energy imbalance would correspond to a warmer atmosphere. Predicted to be 1F
fact
5)this is precisely how much the earth has warmed so far."
There has not been a constant relationship between CO2 emissions and temperature over the twentieth century for you to make such an assertion.
And that's not the argument, anyway.
"GREENHOUSE effects
H20 - 36-70%
C02 9-26% (human 40% increase)
methane 4-9%"
Whoa. "9-26%?" That's quite a significant-- and unverifiable-- range when harping about "facts," don't you think?
"It is not possible to state that a certain gas causes a certain percentage of the greenhouse effect, because the influences of the various gases are not additive. Low-highs numbers based on interactive or none interactive calculations."
Right.
"Human effects on greenhouse gases
H20- none (water vapor levels are directly linked to temperature)
CO2- Humans have increased CO2 40%
Methane- increased 150%"
Human caused increase in greenhouse effects
H20 - none
CO2 - 1.5 W/m2
methane - 0.5 W/m2"
Let me remind you what you said: "It is not possible to state that a certain gas causes a certain percentage of the greenhouse effect."
And yet in the same breath you rattle off "facts" insinuating otherwise.
"Funny I still see accusations of liberal 'cults' perpertrating a global warming hoax."
No doubt about their fanaticism targeting AMERICAN industry.
"FROM THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION
NOAA’s Annual Greenhouse Gas Index (AGGI), which tracks changes in radiative forcing from greenhouse gases over time, shows that radiative forcing from greenhouse gases has increased 21.5% since 1990 as of 2006. Much of the increase (63%) has resulted from the contribution of CO2. The contribution to radiative forcing by CH4 and CFCs has been nearly constant or declining, respectively, in recent years."
How "much contribution"?
What else contributed to the increase?
John,
The questions you ask are the obvious questions and through thounsands of studies over decades they have been addressed. Saying that these points are open questions or unanswered is a ignorant or dishonest state of current knowledge (which is what most skeptics base their position on)
I'm not going to go over every study but for example
By what objective standard do you measure "increase?" Our generation's (or the last couple) regional comfort level? As for half-life, you're ignoring the conversion to oxygen as enabled by plant life.
The answer .......
The present atmospheric CO2 concentration has not been exceeded during the past 420,000 years, and likely not during the past 20 million years.
The present atmospheric CO2 increase is caused by anthropogenic emissions of CO2. About three-quarters of these emissions are due to fossil fuel burning. Fossil fuel burning (released on average 5.4 ± 0.3 PgC/yr during 1980 to 1989, and 6.3 ± 0.4 PgC/yr during 1990 to 1999.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/096.htm
here's the explanation in laymans terms
http://www.livescience.com/environment/ap_051125_greenhouse_gas.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/sci;310/5752/1285
Here's the actual peerreviewed journal article with the data
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/310/5752/1313
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/310/5752/1317
As far as O2 cycling of CO2....
CO2 is not the limiting factor of plant growth. Water, light and especially usable forms of nitrogen are more limiting then CO2 (ie fertilizer, irrigation promote plant growth). CO2 has increased 40% yet plants don't grow any faster.
I'll address the rest later
"Imbalance" by what objective standard? And what of the record of increased CO2 emissions and temperature behaving inversely to what is being asserted as "fact?"
John,
How can you be so ignorant yet make claims that emmisions are inverse to assert "facts"
The Earth receives energy from the Sun in the form of radiation. The Earth reflects about 30% of the incident solar flux; the remaining 70% is absorbed, warming the land, atmosphere and oceans.
To the extent that the Earth is in a steady state, the energy stored in the atmosphere and ocean does not change in time, so energy equal to the absorbed solar radiation must be radiated back to space. Earth radiates energy into space as black-body radiation, which maintains a thermal equilibrium.
The equilibrium is as such (btw -this has been measured observationally, experimentally many many times)
239.7 watts per square meter are absorbed by the atmosphere from solar irradiation
239.7 watts per square meter are emitted by earth in the form of infrared radiation
Hence stable temperatures.
But....
If you add 2 W/m2 (which is what is happening due to increased greenhouse gases)
WHAT HAPPENS JOHN??????????
Never mind I'll answer....
You have an imbalance, and what happens when you have an energy input imbalance?
When you have such an energy imbalance on your stove - the water heats up.
When you have such an imbalance in a greenhouse - it gets warmer inside
When you have such an energy imbalance by using a magnifying glass on an ant - the ant gets real warm
And when you have such an energy imbalance in the atmosphere ..... you get warming. No matter what you may believe.
You make a good case, Neo, very comprehensive yet in a nutshell, and I appreciate the information and participation.
However...
...the argument was not about whether warming is occurring or not. It is, and I never said otherwise.
I asked: "'Imbalance' by what objective standard? And what of the record of increased CO2 emissions and temperature behaving inversely to what is being asserted as 'fact?'"
You answered:
"John,
How can you be so ignorant yet make claims that emmisions are inverse to assert 'facts'"
I don't understand that, but apparently you didn't understand me either. Put another way, if manmade greenhouse gases are the primary movers of global temperature, then it stands to reason that we would have seen an uptick in temperatures coinciding with the postwar industrial boom (when CO2 emissions dramatically spiked upward). Instead, temperatures fell, for three decades as CO2 emissions dramatically increased.
That is the inverse of what is asserted. That is not to say that heavier concentrations of CO2 must therefore cause temperatures to drop, only that, obviously, there are other factors and forces involved which override manmade emissions altogether.
As far as cycling goes, you did not address the issue of whether an increase in the quantity of plant life would counteract the increase in CO2 accordingly. Instead, you argued that the size of the current crop can only cycle so much and so quickly.
Also, you said:
"The present atmospheric CO2 concentration has not been exceeded during the past 420,000 years..."
Perhaps. Past atmospheric CO2 concentration have fluctuated, however, with no help from humans.
Again, the "steady state equilibrium" you refer to as a standard and gauge is subjective.
Again, I'm not denying any chemical imbalance in the air that's causing unusual warmth.
My main gripe has always been that the real situation does not justify the level of hysteria and rhetoric that is generated for the purpose of industrial regulation--particularly American regulation.
"...and likely not during the past 20 million years."
Well, I"m glad to see the prudence of using the word "likely." Perhaps "possibly" would have been better, however, or even "maybe."
1) current deforestation is putting about 1/5 the amount of CO2 into the atmosphere compared to fossil fuels. Deforestation has acutually stablized in 1st world and is primarly occuring 3rd world countries.
2) Plant matter can't possibly compensate for current CO2 increase. First you would have to recover deforestation just to get back to baseline. Second the halflife of CO2 (counting cycling) is on the order of 100+ years
3) As far as not an exact correlation of CO2 and temp - Of course not there are other forcings but the fluctation was minor compared to what's happening now. Just look.... http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globtemp.html
Furthermore - most of the CO2 has been released in the last 30 years and there is clearly a lag time between CO2 release and atmospheric warming. Just look
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1110252v2
4) In the Past 600,000 years C02 has fluctuated between 180-270 ppm. In the last 150 years it went from 270-383ppm. Almost all of the increase due to human activity.
5)Yes there have been past fluctuations in temp and CO2 due to orbital variation, volcanism and feedback mechanisms. They actually reinforce the idea that greenhouse gas concentrations and orbital variation are the two main driving forces of climate change. Many paleoclimatologist have provided evidence that CO2 levels is a fundamental determinant of global climate
6) If your gripe is about the rhetoric and hype. Then I would have to ask the source of the rhetoric? Scientists or politicians?
The global warming was predicted accurately by scientist more then 20 years ago ( see 1986 nature journal article) http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v319/n6049/abs/319109a0.html
Scientist are noticing two things that is worrisome
1) climate change (due to the warming) is being observed. The ecological and economic impacts of these are also being observed (ie coral reef devastation, hurricane intensification, lost of fresh water sources etc)
2) Postive feedback mechanisms have been observed that will amplify current warming even more. Thawing of the frozen biomass in the tundra will release even more greenhouse gases. There is a real possiblity of a runaway greenhouse effect
3) After years of ignoring the steady buildup of scientific evidence(do you remember this debate in the 90s?) the data is almost indisputable that human activity is the main contributor to global warming
The strength of the science has brought this issue into the political mainstream. Global warming is no longer a issue of scientific dispute. The only questions remaining are how much and how soon.
Neo said:
"1) climate change (due to the warming) is being observed. The ecological and economic impacts of these are also being observed (ie coral reef devastation, hurricane intensification, lost of fresh water sources etc)"
You may have noticed that the hurricane predictions for 2006 fell very short.
Also, water tables seem to have their head in the sand (pun intended) about the forecasts as well.
"3) After years of ignoring the steady buildup of scientific evidence(do you remember this debate in the 90s?)"
I do. The main cause of concern was an expanding ozone hole (caused by aerosols).
Since then the ozone has contracted on its own, those opening and closing behaviors of which have been attributed to the sun.
And aerosols, it appears, help fight global warming.
"The data is almost indisputable that human activity is the main contributor to global warming."
There is still reasonable dispute which forces the Precautionary Principle to fill in the gaps.
As for it being the "main" contributor (which therefore admits others), I repeat:
Facts:
CO2 makes up .054 of the atmosphere, and a percentage of that are greenhouse gases.
That does not mean to belittle the cumulative increments of radiative forcing allowed by that half-percentile.
One drop of ink in a liter of water will discolor the entire volume, however discoloration becomes very slight in a bucketful:
95% of those greenhouse gases are water vapor (with only .001% of that caused by humans, with the rest of the manmade CO2 comprising a fraction of the remaining 5% that isn't water vapor).
You lament "the loss of fresh water sources" yet water vapor--by far--is the MAIN contributor to global warming.
It is understood that an uptick in temperature caused by the incremental manmade share of CO2 would of course cause an exponential uptick in water vapor (however incremental) by an accelerating, chain reaction of sorts that, extended, gives rise to the prospect of "runaway global warming" (which would presumably enter the realm of "Global Heating"), but that would really be getting ahead of ourselves (by, like, centuries if not a millennium).
Nevertheless, increased water vapor means an increase in cloud cover which means, what:
1) More trapped heat
or
2) More solar energy blocked from coming in and/or reflected outward?
You may have noticed that the hurricane predictions for 2006 fell very short.
Very good you noticed. What you didn't notice was what global warmings would do to hurricanes.
NO study said there would be more storms only that there would be an intesification of storms that did form
Here's the studies
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/309/5742/1807
http://www.sciencemag.org/sciext/katrina/#climate
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v436/n7051/edsumm/e050804-11.html
BTW - last year was an el nino - weather patterns of such are not conduccive to hurricane formation - weather service predicted a mild year
The ozone situation (which by the way is still a big problem) is caused by CFCs. I'm talking about the global warming debate in the scientific community that raged in the 90s. There was a very vigorous debate raged because the science was incomplete and there were good points pro and con. New data, studies and research have settled the main issues. Point is scientist went through the gut wrenching debate 10 years ago and settled it - public is just getting to it now.
"Facts:
CO2 makes up .054 of the atmosphere..."
I'm not sure why you continue to bring this up because the important thing is not amount but contribution. Total Greenhouse effect comes from 3% of atmospheric gases (H2o, CO2 and methane). please read previous post about this. But here's an article for you if you don't believe that...
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2005/2005_Hansen_etal_2.pdf
Water vapor content is directly proportional to temperature. This is a postive feedback mechanism - Gw will cause more GW. The science of this is not in dispute so why "would really be getting ahead of ourselves comment"?
As far as fresh water I don't know anyone that can drink water vapor but here's an example of the problem
The first comprehensive look at deserts around the world said these areas, their wildlife and, most of all, their scarce water supplies are facing dramatic changes.......
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13147504/
There are plenty plenty more where these came from
Basically the science is settled. GW has already started, climate change is occuring and its all accelerating
I wish it would hurry up because I had to wear my overcoat today.
weather has been weird this winter hasn't it.
Yeah. Especially with the mildest winter months (Dec.-Feb.) I can remember.
Thanks to El Nino.
...then old man winter kicked in and made up for lost time, that's for sure.
Post a Comment
<< Home