See, he picked up a Buzz-Byte from one article, that he can't even explain, and makes it the keystone to the secret of saving the planet.... that only he understands.

tw, should have a Cabinet Post with this administration, or at least a seat on the board of FOX news, for having mastered the method. Claiming superiority in thought and deed, by virtue of having secret information like Bush, Cheney, Nixon and Limbaugh.

Virtually every other poster comes to the board and gives what they know, read, heard, feel, suspect or question. They're usually clear on why they post, what they post, and whether they're prepared to defend their position.

Then we have the Great Speckled Bird, circling aloft, dropping turds of information on the threads like it was a benevolent gesture. Accusing anyone that disagrees or questions one of his precious turds, to be stupid, emotional, lazy and/or dumb.

Certainly an emotional and childish reaction, but true to form, from someone that claims to be knowledgeable but only gives us; I know something you don't know, neener, neener, neener. :rolleyes:

Me thinks TW is confusing GW and AGW...

There is a clear causal correlation between the temperature of the Atlantic Ocean's surface and the hurricane activity for that season. There are also clear causal correlations between the Pacific Ocean's surface temperatures and storms in California and elsewhere. (El Nino and La Nina.) As the Earth gets warmer, the oceans will get warmer. We already know that warmer oceans mean more hurricanes. Is it such a stretch to say that warmer oceans will have a major impact on the weather?

Sure, we don't know the extent of man's responsibility for global warming. We don't know if we can reverse the trend. But I think we can say that global warming (1) exists and (2) is bad. Those are two points that I think can be put into the category of "settled." There's still plenty to argue about.

Increase in violent storms and flooding along the coasts....at least for the southern half of the country. Yeah, that sounds like a minus, but think of all the bugs that will get blown away, plus the windsurfing will be awesome. Of course you won't be able to get homeowners insurance so that precludes a mortgage. I guess that's a minus.;)

Sure, but do you really want the palmetto bugs blown up here to the Mid-Atlantic region?

Ibis came to Fl in the eye of a storm.

Glatt, global warming and cooling has been happening since the beginning of the "globe." It is most likely a cyclical situation and we are in the warm side of the cycle. In the 70's it was global cooling we were worried about.
Should we do our part as individuals, communities and nations to reduce our repair whatever damage we are or have done to the environment -absolutely. I don't think any disagrees with that.

If by "we" you don't mean the scientific community.

Armadillos just walked their happy asses up to Fl from Mexico.
Fucking tourists.

I most certainly do mean the scientific community - its a fact.

It's a fact that "global cooling" never had much support in the scientific community, as the article shows.

So what's new..... they didn't all agree then, they don't all agree now.:rolleyes:

Another one of what kind? Someone that disagrees with you...or someone that knows out of experience what he is talking about? How many casualities from three mile island again?

That.

Jan. 22, 2007, 8:19PM
Climate scientists feeling the heat
As public debate deals in absolutes, some experts fear predictions 'have created a monster'

By ERIC BERGER
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle




Scientists long have issued the warnings: The modern world's appetite for cars, air conditioning and cheap, fossil-fuel energy spews billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, unnaturally warming the world.

Yet, it took the dramatic images of a hurricane overtaking New Orleans and searing heat last summer to finally trigger widespread public concern on the issue of global warming.

Climate scientists might be expected to bask in the spotlight after their decades of toil. The general public now cares about greenhouse gases, and with a new Democratic-led Congress, federal action on climate change may be at hand.

Problem is, global warming may not have caused Hurricane Katrina, and last summer's heat waves were equaled and, in many cases, surpassed by heat in the 1930s.

In their efforts to capture the public's attention, then, have climate scientists oversold global warming? It's probably not a majority view, but a few climate scientists are beginning to question whether some dire predictions push the science too far.

"Some of us are wondering if we have created a monster," says Kevin Vranes, a climate scientist at the University of Colorado.

Vranes, who is not considered a global warming skeptic by his peers, came to this conclusion after attending an American Geophysical Union meeting last month. Vranes says he detected "tension" among scientists, notably because projections of the future climate carry uncertainties — a point that hasn't been fully communicated to the public.

The science of climate change often is expressed publicly in unambiguous terms.

For example, last summer, Ralph Cicerone, president of the National Academy of Sciences, told the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce: "I think we understand the mechanisms of CO2 and climate better than we do of what causes lung cancer. ... In fact, it is fair to say that global warming may be the most carefully and fully studied scientific topic in human history."

Vranes says, "When I hear things like that, I go crazy."

Nearly all climate scientists believe the Earth is warming and that human activity, by increasing the level of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, has contributed significantly to the warming.

But within the broad consensus are myriad questions about the details. How much of the recent warming has been caused by humans? Is the upswing in Atlantic hurricane activity due to global warming or natural variability? Are Antarctica's ice sheets at risk for melting in the near future?

To the public and policymakers, these details matter. It's one thing to worry about summer temperatures becoming a few degrees warmer.

It's quite another if ice melting from Greenland and Antarctica raises the sea level by 3 feet in the next century, enough to cover much of Galveston Island at high tide.

Models aren't infallible
Scientists have substantial evidence to support the view that humans are warming the planet — as carbon dioxide levels rise, glaciers melt and global temperatures rise. Yet, for predicting the future climate, scientists must rely upon sophisticated — but not perfect — computer models.

"The public generally underappreciates that climate models are not meant for reducing our uncertainty about future climate, which they really cannot, but rather they are for increasing our confidence that we understand the climate system in general," says Michael Bauer, a climate modeler at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, in New York.

Gerald North, professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University, dismisses the notion of widespread tension among climate scientists on the course of the public debate. But he acknowledges that considerable uncertainty exists with key events such as the melting of Antarctica, which contains enough ice to raise sea levels by 200 feet.

"We honestly don't know that much about the big ice sheets," North says. "We don't have great equations that cover glacial movements. But let's say there's just a 10 percent chance of significant melting in the next century. That would be catastrophic, and it's worth protecting ourselves from that risk."

Much of the public debate, however, has dealt in absolutes. The poster for Al Gore's global warming movie, An Inconvenient Truth, depicts a hurricane blowing out of a smokestack. Katrina's devastation is a major theme in the film.

Judith Curry, an atmospheric scientist at the Georgia Institute of Technology, has published several research papers arguing that a link between a warmer climate and hurricane activity exists, but she admits uncertainty remains.

Like North, Curry says she doubts there is undue tension among climate scientists but says Vranes could be sensing a scientific community reaction to some of the more alarmist claims in the public debate.

For years, Curry says, the public debate on climate change has been dominated by skeptics, such as Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and strong advocates such as NASA's James Hansen, who calls global warming a ticking "time bomb" and talks about the potential inundation of all global coastlines within a few centuries.

That may be changing, Curry says. As the public has become more aware of global warming, more scientists have been brought into the debate. These scientists are closer to Hansen's side, she says, but reflect a more moderate view.

"I think the rank-and-file are becoming more outspoken, and you're hearing a broader spectrum of ideas," Curry says.

Young and old tension
Other climate scientists, however, say there may be some tension as described by Vranes. One of them, Jeffrey Shaman, an assistant professor of atmospheric sciences at Oregon State University, says that unease exists primarily between younger researchers and older, more established scientists.

Shaman says some junior scientists may feel uncomfortable when they see older scientists making claims about the future climate, but he's not sure how widespread that sentiment may be. This kind of tension always has existed in academia, he adds, a system in which senior scientists hold some sway over the grants and research interests of graduate students and junior faculty members.

The question, he says, is whether it's any worse in climate science.

And if it is worse? Would junior scientists feel compelled to mute their findings, out of concern for their careers, if the research contradicts the climate change consensus?

"I can understand how a scientist without tenure can feel the community pressures," says environmental scientist Roger Pielke Jr., a colleague of Vranes' at the University of Colorado.

Pielke says he has felt pressure from his peers: A prominent scientist angrily accused him of being a skeptic, and a scientific journal editor asked him to "dampen" the message of a peer-reviewed paper to derail skeptics and business interests.

"The case for action on climate science, both for energy policy and adaptation, is overwhelming," Pielke says. "But if we oversell the science, our credibility is at stake."

eric.berger@chron.com

I read the same article earlier today and thought I posted it, but I guess I didn't.
"a system in which senior scientists hold some sway over the grants and research interests of graduate students and junior faculty members"

So shut up if you want to remain employed? Not the best way to get innovative - is it?

Here's a quote I found this morning.

" Here is the real point -- and I will quote one of the top climate scientists in the world:

"We simply cannot afford to gamble. We cannot risk inaction. The scientists who disagree are acting irresponsibly. The indications that our climate can soon change for the worse are too strong to be reasonably ignored."

This scientist is so credible that I am very fearful for my future. I agree, that scientists who disagree are acting irresponsibly, and must be censured. There is too much at stake. I think we should start by outlawing the burning of fossil fuels altogether, as this eminent scientist argued.

One little detail I should point out --- this scientist was quoted in 1972, and was talking about the horrors of the coming ice age, caused by human activity, which was responsible for global cooling. And these beliefs were held by the eminent climatologists of the day -- Dr. Reid Bryson, Dr. S.I Rasool, Dr Steven Schneider, and others, and reported in peer-reviewed journals.

Here's the important point: what are the common threads between the climate debate in 1972 and the climate debate today? 1) The solution is to punish producers of, and users of energy -- to put an end to the evils of capitalism and free markets, and 2) scientists who didn't agree were marginalized by the true believers.
True Believer | January 22, 2007"

That's been the worrisome thing all along. The first folks to embrace GW as real were those with other agendas. If it really is a problem folks need to sell it in a way that doesn't attack human progress. That is why I'm looking at the energy security issue. That is a good reason to shift away from fossil fuels and results in an economy not wedd to freeing co2.

Which means nuclear fission as well as windmill farms.

fortunately blue staters tend to hang out by the coast lines. he he he.

Are there any more details, like the name of the scientist, or the rest of the article?

Reminds me of the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark, where the Ark is wheeled into a huge warehouse just after the CIA assures Indy that "top scientists" are studying the Ark, but won't name them.

Climate expert Heidi Cullen

Global Warming

She's the one from 1972?

Yep, that's the AGW-Taliban...

Fearmongering

by Walter E. Williams
Jan 23, 2007






Political commentator Henry Louis Mencken (1880-1956) warned that "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and hence clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." The Weather Channel has taken up that task with its series "It Could Happen Tomorrow."

The Weather Channel started its "It Could Happen Tomorrow" series in January 2006. The program includes episodes where a tornado destroys Dallas, a tsunami destroys the Pacific Northwest, Mount Rainier erupts and destroys nearby towns, and San Diego is devastated by wildfires.

They omitted a program showing a meteor striking my house, for it, too, could happen tomorrow. Of course, any one of these events could happen tomorrow, but I'm reminded of a passage in Shakespeare's "Macbeth," where after Macbeth listens to the predictions of the witches, Banquo warns him that "Oftentimes, to win us to our harm, the instruments of darkness tell us truths, win us with honest trifles, to betray us in deepest consequence." That is, gain our confidence with trifle truths to set us up for the big lie.

The big lie, conceived by the Weather Channel in cahoots with environmental extremists, is to get us in a tizzy over global warming, and they're vicious about it. Dr. Heidi Cullen, the Weather Channel's climatologist, hosts a weekly program called "The Climate Code." Dr. Cullen advocates that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) strip their seal of approval from any TV weatherman expressing skepticism about the predictions of manmade global warming, according to a report by Marc Morano, communications director for the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works.

Dr. Cullen has had a lot of help in demonizing skeptics of catastrophic manmade global warming. Scott Pelley, CBS News "60 Minutes" correspondent, compared skeptics of global warming to "Holocaust deniers," and former Vice President Al Gore calls skeptics "global warming deniers." But it gets worse. Mr. Morano reports that on one of Dr. Cullen's shows, she featured columnist Dave Roberts, who, in his Sept. 19, 2006, online publication, said, "When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards -- some sort of climate Nuremberg." (See the Morano report at: http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=264568.) He didn't say whether the death penalty should be administered to those found guilty of global warming denial.

The environmental extremists' true agenda has little or nothing to do with climate change. Their true agenda is to find a means to control our lives. The kind of repressive human control, not to mention government-sanctioned mass murder, seen under communism has lost any measure of intellectual respectability. So people who want that kind of control must come up with a new name, and that new name is environmentalism.

Last year, 60 prominent scientists signed a letter saying, "Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. . . . Significant [scientific] advances have been made since the [Kyoto] protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary."

They added, "It was only 30 years ago that many of today's global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas." These scientists have probably won The Weather Channel's ire and might be headed toward a Nuremberg-type trial.

Dr. Williams is a nationally syndicated columnist, former chairman of the economics department at George Mason University, and author of More Liberty Means Less Government

We need to cut down on CO2 emmison whether or not we are causing global warming. It will create an industry within itself so I don't know why you are complaining.

How are the scientists controlling us anyways? You don't seem to take them seriously anyways.

Ron, thanks for posting that. I read it the other day and couldn't find it when asked for it.

I heard and interview about corn produced ethanol and some other alternatives - does anyone have a link about the ratios between the loss in gas mileage vs. the gains in reduced emissions. I mean if I have to use, say 20% more ethanol to travel the same distance, do I still produce less negative emissions? How much less. . .?

I really believe if there would have been any real advancement in alternative fuels or methods... the capitalist would have jumped on it long before now."They Are Only In It For The Money".

Sugar ethanol is a good alternative but we don't use it because we tax imported sugar to protect our industry. I believe Brazil uses sugar ethanol.

Got to grow all these plants...where is the savings?..seems like the fertililzaor cost would more than make up for any savings.

Right. :cool: