Comment by thetay

Hard NOT to see something is changing, yes. Amiss? Don’t know about that.

September 16th, 2007 at 11:44 AM
Using Opera 9.01 on Windows XP

Comment by DJ Allyn, ITW

That damn climate has an annoying habit of changing all the time. We used to call it “weather”, but that won’t keep the Gorebecile in the lifestyle to which he has become accustomed.

Sure it has, and it always will. IT does it on its own, but it can get a little help from us.

All of this may be a normal cycle — albeit a long cycle — of weather.

I sometimes have trouble determining whether your opposition to the idea of climate change is because

1. Gore is saying it;
2. you don’t think humans have any impact;
3. Climate change just isn’t happening
4. Who cares, it is just the Rapture coming.

(I actually heard that last one the other day on some show I was watching while I was waiting to check out of the motel)

I don’t doubt for a moment that we are experiencing a climate change on a global scale. How much of a change, who knows? It could be catestrophic, or it could just be a blip and things will be back to ‘normal’ in a short period of time.

NORMAL is climate changes over a long period of time (thousands, if not millions of years)

normal is what we perceive to be the usual weather we are personally accustomed to.

Sometimes we have a tendency to look a little too hard at what we see. A hundred years ago (and longer) we didn’t look at weather globally. We only cared what it was doing right now, in our little “world”. Sometimes we had “hard winters” or
“cool summers” or even “warm winters”. People would talk about that “winter of ‘36″ and “how the snow buried all of the houses and stuck around until April.”

Now we look at the weather in the tenths and hundredths of a degree, apply it to a global map, track this that and the other thing then proclaim that “everything as we know it is changing!”

Duh.

We have gotten better at predicting weather most of the time. We pretty much know what it is going to be doing this weekend, or tomorrow. Sometimes you can actually rely on AccuWeather to tell you the weather fifteen days out — thanks to some of that close examination of the weather.

September 16th, 2007 at 12:48 PM
Using Internet Explorer 7.0 on Windows Vista

Comment by jaybear

DJ sez:

Meanwhile at the opposite end of the globe, they are going to open the Northwest Passage due to record ice lows. Pretty soon they will be surfing there.

Pretty hard NOT to see that something is amiss.

I don’t discount that the climate of the earth is changing Dave, but how much of that change is cyclical and how much of it is man made? The followers of the goreacle would have us believe that we and we alone are to blame. At the same time, they point at the eeeeeevil U.S. of A as the main culprit. The global warming crusaders that we hear from all the time are interested only in cashing in on their message. They have no viable solutions, they only repress, limit choices, and tax tax tax. Just look at what Snohomish County did the other day.
pay particular attention to this paragraph:

Steve Thomsen, the county’s public-works director and the man responsible for finding a solution, thinks he has one.
It’s called “ultimate capacity.”
By naming 128th — specifically between Paine Field and Interstate 5 — and 164th — between the Lynnwood and Mill Creek city limits — “ultimate capacity,” the county is saying it won’t add any new lanes to the two roads.
Instead, it will require developers to find ways to reduce traffic before new permits will be approved for new construction or expansion of existing developments. The idea is to add new people without adding new vehicles.

so we have “ultimate capacity” but no more lanes will be added to relieve that congestion. Let me ask a question here:
so the local government wants to make my commute as long and miserable as possible…specifically to prove a point to me about single occupancy vehicles…thinking that I will get fed up with their intentional gridlock and switch to taking mass transit…Now as I sit with an idling engine adding to my carbon footprint for 1 -2 hours in their gridlock contemplating that, I come up with another idea. Howzabout building more lanes, so instead of me sitting in one place spitting pollutants in the air for over an hour I can get home in 15 20 minutes…shut off my engine, and eliminate my carbon footprint altogether….jeeepers what a concept, but that plan has some flaws:

1…State and County officials have too much invested, and are getting wayyyy to rich from public transit projects to allow common sense to influence them.
2…What would the local govt do without all the taxes they are proposing to hamstring commuters. You know, taxes like the mileage tax, SUV tax, making all cross lake bridges toll bridges….
3…Most importantly, what would algore do to make himself relevant if the climate debate actually had some common sense pumped into it? Logic trumps hysteria every day in my book…and that would shut gore out of the debate altogether.

Oh, and never mind that fully 25% of our oil consumption goes to the production, processing, and transport of food that keeps a large percentage of the Earth’s population from starving. Shall we put a fuel tax on their economies as well? or restrict shipments to them due to rising fuel costs? or lighten the shipments to conserve fuel?

It seems to me that what’s good for the eeevil American goose is also good for the rest of the worlds gander, but that makes too much sense…so I guess it’s hopeless after all

Oh yeah, here’s some interesting data about volcanoes and climate change

September 16th, 2007 at 1:11 PM
Using Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.6 on Windows XP

Comment by Beth* A.

I’ve been following a prolonged disagreement in the comments thread at HotAir today (same link as Misha’s, above)about the role of CO2 in GW that is at once snarky and fascinating. A cage bout might be titled ‘Fast and furious Science meets the non sequitorial Strawman! I kept up as best I could, links dutifully included in an attempt to actually learn something, but now…Oof!, my head hurts!

This in the comment section also, made my time spent there worthwhile:

Until the US gets serious about this War on earthly warmth, we will continue to suffer setbacks such as this.
What needs to be done is a major strike against the biggest carbon emitters on the planet… volcanoes.
I propose strategic nuclear strikes on 67 major ACTIVE volcanoes in the next few days.
Termites, another major carbon spewer,(who by the way, outnumber humans and could take over if ever organized) must be put in check as well, napalm hits on major mounds is in order.
We MUST show the Earth who is in charge.
When the ice sheet receded from Kentucky, I’ll admit I was for global warming. But thanks to the Allah Goracle I have felt the heat altered my shoeprints.

We must learn the lessons of our caveman brothers (and cave woman sisters), their lackadasical approach to stopping Pangea from breaking apart was archaic and halfhearted.
We run this planet, it is about time the Earth started spinning to a different tune.

christophercube on September 16, 2007 at 12:33 PM

I don’t care who you are; that’s funny, right there.

September 16th, 2007 at 1:23 PM
Using Internet Explorer 6.0 on Windows XP

Comment by DJ Allyn, ITW

All the ice in the Arctic could melt and it wouldn’t make for any kind of threat to humanity.

Actually, it would do a lot to effect the weather if one or both poles were to melt, and that could be a threat to humanity. Any major change to the land or ice masses would effect the weather patterns.

Would the melting of the ice raise the levels of the oceans worldwide? Sure it would — if it were ice that is not currently floating in the water. It would also change the salinity (at least for a short time in the areas where the ice melted) potentially killing off part of the food chain.

My opposition to the Global Wormening balderdash is that it is just that, balderdash, as proven by the complete and utter lack of conclusive evidence in favor of it.

Global warming/cooling. Just call it climate changes. It is all cycles, and there is a LOT of conclusive evidence that it is happening. What is NOT conclusive (but still evidence of sorts) is to what extent and its cause.

Do I beleive everything that Gore is talking about? Some of it is pretty solid, but a lot of it is conjecture.

I do think that we could be doing a lot to come up with alternative fuels and energy technology that doesn’t rape the earth or polute out environment, and if it happens to not change the weather patterns in the process, then that is a plus.

I look at what Gore is doing as a wake-up call to at least have a plan in place IF we are heading into a severe climate change. I don’t think we could stop the inevitable, but we could do something to prepare for it.

We are here because of a perfect balance in nature. If we mess with that balance too much, it will either try to balance itself, or tip over in the process. To think that man can’t effect the balances of this planet is just being stubborn or naive. The real argument is how much are effecting it right now.

Now if you will pardon me, I have some carbon to expell from my fireplace. It is getting a bit chilly outside…

September 16th, 2007 at 1:36 PM
Using Internet Explorer 7.0 on Windows Vista

Comment by LC Mrs. M-ITT™

We are here because of a perfect balance in nature. If we mess with that balance too much, it will either try to balance itself, or tip over in the process.

Considering how long the Earth has been here and how long we puny humans have occupied it, I think that She’s perfectly capable of determining what her balance is regardless who the occupants happen to be and what they are driving.

The problem with those that believe this stuff is that they actually give humans WAY too much power and importance with it comes to how much they can affect the earth, it’s cycles and it’s balance. Surely there is enough evidence from the past even for your liberal brain DJ to see that Earth is very, VERY self balancing. Humans are simply a butterfly fart in a windstorm to her.

You can believe that she’s a “victim” of human occupation and is incapable of helping herself (Right out of Liberal Victimology 101) but she’s much more capable of dealing with us than you are willing to accept.

September 16th, 2007 at 2:50 PM
Using Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.6 on Windows XP

Comment by Beth* A.

Skyechild, I wish I could say I was surprised about the volcano-capping,-hey-it’s-a-really-nifty-idea-and-would-solve-ALL-Gaia’s-problems! idiocy. Can’t say that, though.

Mrs. M, your comment reminded me of a phrase ‘the Earth will shake us off like a bad case of fleas…‘ that George Carlyn came up with as part of a rant of his dozen or so years back.

Hmm, maybe the volcano cappers are a piece of the cunning Earth’s plan…

September 16th, 2007 at 3:39 PM
Using Internet Explorer 6.0 on Windows XP

Comment by LC Stargazer

This isn’t even at historic lows. The Vikings have records of circumnavigating Greenland - which is not possible with the current meltback for any ship that stays on the surface of the water.

The only thing solid about the Goreacle’s presentation is his head.

September 16th, 2007 at 4:43 PM
Using Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.6 on Windows 98

Comment by DukeFenton

#4 by Emperor Misha I

I’d ask the woolly mammoths what it was all about if they were still around.

But those damn caveman SUVs wiped them all out.

‘Scuse me, nitpicking biologist here…

The best available evidence indicates that most North American megafauna, including the mammoths, were wiped out by roving bands of bipedal, pelt-deficient primates. Yes, the ones whose descendants brag about their close, balanced relationship with Mother Nature.

Yes, really. Of course, that’s from the field of *evolutionary* biology so you may want to dismiss it out of hand.

September 16th, 2007 at 6:41 PM
Using Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.6 on Windows XP

Comment by DukeFenton

#12 by DJ Allyn

Actually, it would do a lot to effect the weather

‘affect’

Any major change to the land or ice masses would effect the weather patterns.

‘affect’

We are here because of a perfect balance in nature.

‘Scuse me, resident scientist calls BULLSHIT. The ‘balance of nature’ is a fatuous concept of ignorant populist appeal. And it sure as hell isn’t ‘perfect’ or it wouldn’t be *changing* all the time, would it?

To think that man can’t effect the balances of this planet

‘affect’

The real argument is how much are effecting it right now.

‘affecting’

Someone apparently flunked both English *and* biology.

September 16th, 2007 at 7:10 PM
Using Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.6 on Windows XP

Comment by mindy1

While I believe that the climate is changing, it is hard to say how much is man made and how much is natural. I do believe that people have had an impact, but how much is hard to say. I think what bothers people are the absolutists on both sides, leaving undecided people like myself out to dry. Science is not quick, especialy climate science;both sides should just wait for the evidence to come in.

September 16th, 2007 at 7:14 PM
Using Internet Explorer 6.0 on Windows XP

Comment by The Lone Haranguer

Originally posted by DukeFenton:
The best available evidence indicates that most North American megafauna, including the mammoths, were wiped out by roving bands of bipedal, pelt-deficient primates.

What evidence? Whose?

I ask because nothing in Wiki indicates that the woolly mammoth or Smilodon (the saber-toothed cat) died off in this manner.

September 16th, 2007 at 9:49 PM
Using Internet Explorer 6.0 on Windows XP

Comment by DukeFenton

#25 by The Lone Haranguer

>> The best available evidence indicates that most
>> North American megafauna, including the mammoths,
>> were wiped out by roving bands of bipedal,
>> pelt-deficient primates.

What evidence? Whose?

Two primary factors:
1) Fairly close correlation between the arrival of ‘paleo-Indian’ migrants and the disappearance of many species; including - at a minimum - mammoths, Smilodon, giant ground sloths, native camelids, and horses.
2) Presence of bones of said species in early human middens, bearing tool and weapon marks.

Granted, it’s not absolute proof, just the best available evidence.

I ask because nothing in Wiki indicates that the woolly mammoth or Smilodon (the saber-toothed cat) died off in this manner.

Leaving aside the usual smart-ass comments about Wiki, the article does mention human hunting but notes that the hypothesis is not universally agreed upon. Other species have persisted by, among other things, moving to similar habitat; bears and wolves, for example, both have high adaptability to different environments and survived the last major climate shifts and several lesser changes since. Habitat similar to that used by other extinct megafauna still exists, suggesting that climate change and habitat shift would not have driven them to extinction.

In brief: Based on the observed adaptability of most species to climatic shifts (within limits), and the proven capacity of humans to drive species (notably terrestrial mammals) to extinction, I put more credence in human activity as the cause. Unlike AGW, however, there is no claim of ‘consensus’ on the topic, mainly because there’s no money to be made on it.

September 16th, 2007 at 10:14 PM
Using Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.6 on Windows XP

Comment by ACLPoo

# The obvious underlying economic motives of the players.
# The obvious political motives of the players.
# The blatant hypocrisy of the preachers of The Movement (for me, but not for thee).

My opinion as well. Gore just so happens to own a company that profits from these “carbon credits”, am I right?
Politics are involved because it’s such an easy cause to push to everyone. If you want the democratic vote, and that is inevitably going to be the next presidency, you push the Gorespeak as much as possible.
The hypocrisy of the preachers of the movement is easily disguised to your average sheep. So actors/producers find it in their hearts to occasionally drive Prius’s (sp?), and some have the chutzpah to actually live “off the grid”…well woopdeefuckindoo….when you have tens of millions of dollars at your disposal, it’s not exactly a sacrifice to have your 20,000 ft home run on alternative energy.

I’m not shitting on people for trying to lessen the impact on the environment, I agree that the internal combustion engine has been obsolete for decades - but I think we need to build more nuclear plants and run our cars on electricity. I care way more about not buying oil from the middle east than I do the environment, sadly. Honestly, as long as the world lasts as long as I do, I really couldn’t give a shit. Let the next generation clean it up.

September 16th, 2007 at 10:42 PM
Using Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.6 on Windows Vista

Comment by Special Ed

Two comments, if I may.

Alternative energy sources will be utilized widely when, and only when, they become fiscally attractive.

If widely dispersed roving bands of hominids can strip two continents of megafauna in a couple millenia (including, btw, carnivores reputedly far superior at killing), why are there elephants, hippopotami, rhinocerouses, horses, etc. on other continents? Do bison count as megafauna? Moose? …Yo Mama?

Sorry, everyone, sorry. It just slipped out …

September 16th, 2007 at 11:39 PM
Using Internet Explorer 6.0 on Windows XP

Comment by DJ Allyn, ITW

Alternative energy sources will be utilized widely when, and only when, they become fiscally attractive.

Yet it doesn’t stop us from preparing for the day when we are going to need the alternatives.

We should be having a program for the R & D of viable fuel alternatives like Kennedy put together with Apollo in 1961. While reaching the moon was Kennedy’s stated goal, the reality was we lagged behind the Soviets in ICBM technology and we needed the extra kick in the ass to get the job done.

A lot of money pumped into the private sector and the technological dividends for the project were astounding.

We need to do that again now with fuel. We can’t keep on the way we are going.

September 17th, 2007 at 12:13 AM
Using Internet Explorer 7.0 on Windows Vista

Comment by Trooper THX1138

We should be having a program for the R & D of viable fuel alternatives like Kennedy put together with Apollo in 1961. While reaching the moon was Kennedy’s stated goal, the reality was we lagged behind the Soviets in ICBM technology and we needed the extra kick in the ass to get the job done.

A lot of money pumped into the private sector and the technological dividends for the project were astounding.

And pray tell, where did the money from the public Government sector come from? Didn’t that money have to get paid into the gov’t coffers through, I don’t know, taxing the private sector?

Second thought: You rightly point out the strategic necessity of improving ICBM tech beyond that of the Soviets. What you fail to do is point out the analogous situation with fuel. Yes, I know the Arab League can use oil as a weapon against us (and have since at least the 1970s), but our problem is that we don’t want to think on like terms. IF we could find/discover/invent a substance with the versatility of crude oil (plastics, fuel, pitch, and zillions of other things) and maintain a national monopoly over it, THEN it would be an analogous situation.

Third thought: we’ve had gov’t funded R&D programs for alternative fuels since the 1970s, and so far, they have not produced anything with comparative energy density or price. The next major economic fuel requires BOTH those qualities. It can’t be something like ethanol, which has about half the energy density.

However, there is hope. As I read in a Popular Mechanics article, Generation IV reactors (being designed for the Idaho testbed area) could operate at temperatures high enough to make hydrogen production by electrolysis efficient enough to allow it to be on the same price level as gasoline. (NB: Hydrogen also has DOUBLE the energy density of gasoline!)

So, if we’d just get out of our own way and do as France did (one of the smarter things they did was build enough fission plants to power over 75% of their country) and use technology without letting the eco-Luddites get the better of us, we could have our own energy/economic weapon.

Wasn’t that nice? I just gave you the analogous situation I mentioned earlier. If we clear some hippie-inspired bureaucratic roadblocks, C. Montgomery Burns could save us all, bless his black, greedy heart.

*Taps fingers together* Excellent.

Edited to qualify a statement. Not ALL the bureaucracy is useless. Speed is good, but speed with safety is better.

September 17th, 2007 at 1:45 AM
Using Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.6 on Windows XP

Comment by DukeFenton

#32 by Special Ed

If widely dispersed roving bands of hominids can strip two continents of megafauna in a couple millenia (including, btw, carnivores reputedly far superior at killing), why are there elephants, hippopotami, rhinocerouses, horses, etc. on other continents?

That’s actually a valid question. Some possible factors, not mutually exclusive and probably not uniformly applicable to all species:
1) Some critters are harder to kill than appearances might suggest, or just too much work to be worth it;
2) Greater range, larger population, faster reproduction etc. make the species harder to kill off than appearances might suggest;
3) Some critters are more heavily hunted because they are seen as more threatening (or tasty) than others;
4) Being perversely imaginative, hairless apes might decide a species has some use other than merely being knocked off;
5) Even in their highly accomplished field of killing things, humans can only do so much so fast.

Do bison count as megafauna? Moose?

By most conventional definitions, yes.

…Yo Mama?

Technically, some humans do. I’ll leave it to you to wonder about individuals.

Sorry, everyone, sorry. It just slipped out …

I bet you say that to all the ladies…

September 17th, 2007 at 2:50 AM
Using Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.6 on Windows XP

Comment by LC NCLivingBrit

As far-fetched as that sounds, I read something awhile back where there was a movement afoot to CAP volcanoes…in effect, try to keep them from erupting. Well, now, I’m no scientist, nor do I play one on television, but it seems *logical* that the pressure would have to go somewhere, like, perhaps, an earthquake.

Or Mount St Helens. Or Krakatoa.

I’m no scientist (although I do have a lab coat somewhere), but isn’t containing a sudden surge of pressure pretty much a bomb?

I know if I burned (redacted) and (redacted) on the table it was fairly dull, but if you packed them into a spare piece of capped pipe it would pep things up a bit.

Although, all that dust and smoke in the atmosphere would cool things down a bit, so maybe catastrophic explosions are good for the environment?

September 17th, 2007 at 6:16 AM
Using Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.6 on Windows XP

Comment by philmon

Let’s see, we’ve been keeping tabs on the polar ice caps for what, a whole 35 years now? And watching it by sattellite for 32?

Yeah, we know a lot about what the “normal” fluctuation in the polar ice caps is. I mean, it’s the smallest it’s, ahem ever been! Why, it’s alarming! Not in Thirty-Five whole years has it been this small. With a massive dataset like that, we know we finally have our smoking gun!

And the Northwest passage, why that’s never been open before!

A little light reading for ya

September 17th, 2007 at 10:09 PM
Using Internet Explorer 7.0 on Windows XP

Comment by philmon

climate is what you expect, weather is what you get

That is a perl of distilled wisdom.

Make a great T-Shirt.

September 18th, 2007 at 8:57 AM
Using Internet Explorer 7.0 on Windows XP