Global warming?

Regardless of whether you accept anthropogenic climate change or not, this is the result of a decade or more of doing little or nothing to develop renewable energy technologies:

China Leading Race to Make Clean Energy

China vaulted past competitors in Denmark, Germany, Spain and the United States last year to become the world’s largest maker of wind turbines, and is poised to expand even further this year.

China has also leapfrogged the West in the last two years to emerge as the world’s largest manufacturer of solar panels. And the country is pushing equally hard to build nuclear reactors and the most efficient types of coal power plants.

These efforts to dominate the global manufacture of renewable energy technologies raise the prospect that the West may someday trade its dependence on oil from the Mideast for a reliance on solar panels, wind turbines and other gear manufactured in China.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/bu...1renew.html?hp

[classicman]

I read that same article. Doesn't look good for the West does it?

Originally Posted by classicman

I read that same article. Doesn't look good for the West does it?

That is why I have said repeatedly to get the extremists on both sides out of the discussion and begin to make a significant government commitment to alternative energy development that is both economically and environmentally sustainable and in our long term interest.

[xoxoxoBruce]

We're doing a great job.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

That is why I have said repeatedly to get the extremists on both sides out of the discussion

Problem is it seems like thats who is in charge . . . on both sides.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I don't know if they're in charge, but they make better headlines, so they get the press coverage.

[TheMercenary]

UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation and magazine article

The United Nations' expert panel on climate change based claims about ice disappearing from the world's mountain tops on a student's dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...e-article.html

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

The United Nations' expert panel on climate change based claims about ice disappearing from the world's mountain tops on a student's dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine.]

Same half truths and misinformation that proved Saddam had WMDs. And from the same political agenda.

Clearly the diminishing Arctic ice is a Jewish conspiracy. Posting a political agenda and overt lies worked for Hitler. When do you blame the Jews? Oh. The political agenda did not yet instruct what to believe? Why did White House lawyers rewrite science? Because the political agenda must tell some how to think. Global warming is a problem created by man - as was air pollution, acid rain, ozone depletion, dead zones, collapse of so many fisheries, and other environmental problems. All directly traceable to mankind. Some solved only because science - not politics - created solutions.

Tsonis' simulation was promoted here by these same "global warming deniers" because lying to promote a political agenda is routine. Same people who lied about Saddam’s WMDs also deny global warming – because that is what the political agenda says. An agenda that would blame it on the Jews told to believe it. Same agenda with so much contempt for the American soldier as to promote “Mission Accomplished”. Only the political agenda – not science – is important.

Why were lies about Tsonis simulation posted here and promoted by the political agenda? What happened to those White House lawyers since rewriting science papers?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

Global warming is a problem created by man...

Now that I agree with.

[TheMercenary]

Someone please call Al Gore. We need a new internet.

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Someone please call Al Gore. We need a new internet.

Internet is working just fine. It even expose myths and overt lies about Tsonis simulation. And did so without contributing to global warming. Putting a chill on the political agenda - a good thing.

[classicman]

In a scientific paper, each statement of fact will have a reference to the study that substantiated it. Typically a scientific paper will have dozens of references, perhaps fifty, whilst a larger document, such as this report, may have many hundred. Of these, some may be non-peer reviewed, e.g. personal communications between scientists, abstracts from conferences, unpublished data, etc. Theses are given a form of peer-review (I know my doctoral thesis was) and are legitimate references, indeed in my field the theses of one of the earlier scientists was practically required reading. Remember that Nobel prize winning work has been published in theses before.

The point is that none of these more "questionable" references are alone used to support a conclusion, they are merely part of a larger web of information. It seems people are overly keen to seek error here.

Frankly, I'm a scientist that is more sceptical about the political agenda of both climate change advocates and sceptics than the science around the subject. As far as I can tell, the science is largely sound, whilst my faith in the good intentions of politicians is not.
Dr. Philip Thomas

[classicman]

From SG's favourite paper. . .

Last week the Information Commissioner's Office – the body that administers the Freedom of Information Act – said the University of East Anglia had flouted the rules in its handling of an FOI request in May 2008.

Days after receiving the request for information from the British climate change sceptic David Holland, Jones asked Prof Mike Mann of Pennsylvania State University in the United States: "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4? Keith will do likewise.

"Can you also email Gene [Eugene Wahl, a paleoclimatologist in Boulder, Colorado] and get him to do the same ... We will be getting Caspar [Ammann, also from Boulder] to do the same."

The University of East Anglia says that no emails were deleted following this exchange.

Link

[Undertoad]

I believe there is a global warming trend. But the hysterics are getting rediculous. Via Gateway Pundit comes this note:

San Francisco Gate 7 months ago: Get Ready for Even Foggier Summers

The Bay Area just had its foggiest May in 50 years. And thanks to global warming, it's about to get even foggier.

That's the conclusion of several state researchers, whose soon-to-be-published study predicts that even with average temperatures on the rise, the mercury won't be soaring everywhere.

"There'll be winners and losers," says Robert Bornstein, a meteorology professor at San Jose State University. "Global warming is warming the interior part of California, but it leads to a reverse reaction of more fog along the coast."

Telegraph Monday: Fog over San Francisco thins by a third due to climate change

The sight of Golden Gate Bridge towering above the fog will become increasing rare as climate change warms San Francisco bay, scientists have found.

The coastal fog along the Californian coast has declined by a third over the past 100 years – the equivalent of three hours cover a day, new research shows.
And it is not just bad for scenery, the reduction in the cooling effect of the fog could damage the health of the huge Redwood Forests nearby.

"Since 1901, the average number of hours of fog along the coast in summer has dropped from 56 per cent to 42 per cent, which is a loss of about three hours per day," said the study leader Dr James Johnstone at the University of California.

You will see the effects of warming everywhere, as long as you're willing to listen to viable theories about it. Then you will think how smart you are for knowing why there's more fog in San Francisco.

Or less.

[TheMercenary]

They will tell you anything to get Cap and Trade Bondoggle passed. Thank God that Kennedy is spinning so fast in his grave that he has no time to haunt Scott Brown.