2006 Hottest Year in U.S.

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
<font size="5"><center>Climate Experts Worry as
2006 Is Hottest Year on Record in U.S.</font size></center>


By Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 10, 2007; Page A01

Last year was the warmest in the continental United States in the past 112 years -- capping a nine-year warming streak "unprecedented in the historical record" that was driven in part by the burning of fossil fuels, the government reported yesterday.

According to the government's National Climatic Data Center, the record-breaking warmth -- which caused daffodils and cherry trees to bloom throughout the East on New Year's Day -- was the result of both unusual regional weather patterns and the long-term effects of the buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

"People should be concerned about what we are doing to the climate," said Jay Lawrimore, chief of the climate monitoring branch of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. "Burning of fossil fuels is causing an increase in greenhouse gases, and there's a broad scientific consensus that is producing climate change."

The center said there are indications that the rate at which global temperatures are rising is speeding up.

Average temperatures nationwide in 2006 were 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit higher than the mean temperatures nationwide for the 20th century, the agency said. It reported that seven months in 2006 were much warmer than average, and that last month was the fourth-warmest December on record. Average temperatures for all 48 contiguous states were above or well above average, and New Jersey logged its hottest temperatures ever.

Many researchers are concerned that rising temperatures could lead to widespread melting of the polar ice caps, resulting in higher sea levels and more extreme droughts and storms. But NOAA also pointed to one silver lining: The unusually warm temperatures from October to December helped keep residential energy use for heating 13.5 percent below the average for that period.

NOAA said an El Ni?o weather pattern in the equatorial Pacific also contributed to the warm temperatures by blocking cold Arctic air from moving south and east across the nation.

Climate experts generally do not make much of temperature fluctuations over one or two years, but Lawrimore said the record 2006 temperatures were part of a long and worrisome trend. For instance, NOAA said, the past nine years have all been among the 25 warmest years on record for the continental United States.

Advocates for more action to control carbon dioxide emissions also voiced concern.

"No one should be surprised that 2006 is the hottest year on record for the U.S.," said Brenda Ekwurzel, a climate scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, a public interest group. "When you look at temperatures across the globe, every single year since 1993 has been in the top 20 warmest years on record."

"Realistically, we have to start fighting global warming in the next 10 years if we want to secure a safe environment for our children and grandchildren," she said.

Lawrimore said other NOAA research has found that the rate of temperature increase has been significantly greater in the past 30 years than at any time since the government started collecting national temperature data in 1895. Globally, 2005 was the hottest year on record, Lawrimore said, and 2006 was slightly cooler.

He said that although there is a scientific consensus that carbon dioxide from cars, power plants and factories is leading to global warming, there is no consensus yet on whether the warming will increase more quickly or more slowly in the future. Some researcher have predicted that temperatures worldwide will increase by a catastrophic 7 to 8 degrees on average by the end of the century, while others project an increase of a more modest 2 degrees by century's end.

The burning of oil and other fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide, which rises, blankets the Earth and traps heat. Climate scientists report that there has not been this much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in the past 650,000 years.

The Bush administration has rejected proposals to cap carbon dioxide emissions or impose carbon taxes as a way to limit global warming. Lawrimore said he believes the problem could and should be addressed by developing new technologies for powering vehicles and industry.

Late December's springlike temperatures in the eastern two-thirds of the country made it the fourth-warmest December on record in the United States and contributed greatly to the record high for the year. Several Northern cities were unusually warm -- with Boston 8 degrees above average and Minneapolis-St. Paul 17 degrees above average for the last three weeks of the month.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/09/AR2007010901949.html
 
Last edited:

nittie

Star
Registered
Maybe if someone stopped the lumber industry’s from cutting down the Rain Forest and pretty much every tree it can get it's hands on this wouldn’t be happening. But the chance of that happening is slim and none. It would be easier to get the oil industry to stop drilling for oil.
 

histick

Potential Star
Registered
nittie said:
Maybe if someone stopped the lumber industry’s from cutting down the Rain Forest and pretty much every tree it can get it's hands on this wouldn’t be happening. But the chance of that happening is slim and none. It would be easier to get the oil industry to stop drilling for oil.

Not a chance on stopping the oil drilling. Companies drill for oil because there is a huge demand for it. Huge demand means huge revenues. Would you stop drilling? People like driving cars and shitty gas mileage cars seem to be chic in the U.S. We're too blame too.

Regarding fossil fuels, alternate energy sources are they way to go but if you understand the energy potetial of fossil fuels such as oil, then you understand why they used over alternate clean energy source. Fossil fuels just put out more energy by a long shot when compared to the available clean alternatives. Switching to from "dirty energy" to "clean energy" can be compared to switching from MS Windows to a commercial Linux platform. Yeah the latter alternative is better but the transition would take some time, effort, and money. It would also be awkward for many.

Anyways, I suggest upgrading your home with solar panels and maybe a few wind turbines if you live in a windy area. Too many trees in my neighborhood blocking the sun and wind so not really an option for me. I hear if you can actually receive checks rather bills from a power company if you are not using any of their power.

BTW QueEx, why no commentary with your post. No thoughts? Just wondering here.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
histick said:
BTW QueEx, why no commentary with your post. No thoughts? Just wondering here.
You mean someone actually wants to read my comments ??? Its a trick, right? You setting me up right ? lol

Nevertheless, what few comments I have on this evolving situation were expressed here: http://198.65.131.81/board/showthread.php?t=56881&page=1&pp=45

1. There appears no question that the earth is/has been in some kind of warming trend;

2. There is growing evidence that the warming is man-induced -- though it seems some experts disagree;

3. If it is man-habits-induced, we all have some hard cold choices and life-style altering changes to make, perhaps, sooner than any of us know;

4. I'm hoping, probably against hope, that the warming is just some kind of cycle the earth is going through and in a year or two, all will be fine and the scientist can use the warming trend as some kind of benchmark for the next time it happens. But, thats hope against the odds-on favorite: fossil fuels.

QueEx
 

nittie

Star
Registered
Not a chance on stopping the oil drilling. Companies drill for oil because there is a huge demand for it. Huge demand means huge revenues. Would you stop drilling?

If I thought it would stop the world from burning up yeah I would stop drilling but thats just me.

The thing about global warming is no one is sure why it's happening so taking extreme measures isn't a good idea. But we do know that destroying natural habitats like the rain forest doesn't help and the govt. should be doing more to control it. If the Supreme Court supports eminent domain laws against private citizens because they serve the greater community they should do it against the logging industry.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
I didn't know the Supreme Court had jurisdiction in Brazil, Central America, Southeast Asia ...

QueEx
 

nittie

Star
Registered
It's not common knowledge but yeah our judicial system influences what happens in Brazil, China and everywhere else.
 

histick

Potential Star
Registered
nittie said:
If I thought it would stop the world from burning up yeah I would stop drilling but thats just me.

The thing about global warming is no one is sure why it's happening so taking extreme measures isn't a good idea. But we do know that destroying natural habitats like the rain forest doesn't help and the govt. should be doing more to control it. If the Supreme Court supports eminent domain laws against private citizens because they serve the greater community they should do it against the logging industry.

Global warming is normal. There are natural green house gases in the atmoshere which trap heat and keep the earth warm. The planet would be in a constant ice age if weren't for them. Thing is burning fossil fuels contributes to global warming by adding to the amount of green house gases in the atmosphere. These are refered to as man made green house gases. So with more polltution comes more gases which leads to more heat in the atmosphere.

Just an FYI green house gases have nothing to do with the o-zone. Totally different thing.

QueEx, the earth does have cycles in regards to climate on a global scale although they normally occur over hundreds of thousands of years. The speed at which the current climate is rapidly changing is definitely not normal. A trend like that would normally, according to geological studies, occur over a much broader span of time not merely 60 years. Man made pollutants are just speeding up the process by acting as a sort of multiplier [think compound interest].
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
nittie said:
It's not common knowledge but yeah our judicial system influences what happens in Brazil, China and everywhere else.
Influence? Hell, to some degree, everything has some influence, however slight, on everthing else. Jurisidiction, however, is quite a different thing. It conveys the might/right to effect change. Its not the Supreme Court -- its governments that possess the might, though maybe not the will, to effect change on the environment .... and .... the many "Green" private agencies and corporations that are working hard, right or wrong, to preserve the rainforest and other precious resources.


QueEx
 

GET YOU HOT

Superfly Moderator
BGOL Investor
Thanks for revamping this thread and posting the link to the other one. This year I will be paying $6 more each month in my utilities, specifically for electricity.
I opted for the Green Plan, which gives the provider the permission to use alternative means to provide service to me...
 

Fuckallyall

Support BGOL
Registered
So, 10% of the land on average gets hot, and the sky is falling ? Over a period of time that is statistically irrelevant in climactic science ? While I wholeheartedly agree that there are some practices that are unsustainable, the predictions and suppositions have yet to be consistent or properly predicted. For example, as I said before, NOAA predicted a record season. It was a record alright, WITH NOT A SINGLE HURRICANE LAND FALL IN THE ENTIRE U.S. There has also been a more recent development. Scientists have underestimated the amount of Methane excreted from the northern tier of the world greatly. FYI, methane is a far more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. Also, not all of the U.S. has heated. Just the overall average. Also, the earth overall COOLED slightly in 2006, coming off the 2005 record.

More to come, and it's good to be back.
 

muckraker10021

Superstar *****
BGOL Investor
<font face="georgia" size="3" color="#000000">
The Bush crime family, who has collected millions of dollars from the international oil cartel (Exxon/Mobil, ConocoPhillips, ChevronTexaco, Shell, British Petroleum, etc.) has used this payoff money to put a muzzle onto the world’s best climate scientists, if they attempt to speak out about the reality of Global Warming.

In a coordinated propaganda effort with big oil, the Bush crime family is using high-paid fake scientists to publish anti-Global Warming reports. It also has put an international oil cartel lawyer into a White House office next to Karl Rove to censor all official US government scientific reports about Global Warming.

The story and videos below contain the details of these miscreants willful distortion of reality in the pursuit of unbridled greed.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml </font>
<p><hr noshade color="#0000FF" size="6"></hr><p>
[WM]mms://winmed.cbsig.net/nfs/cbsnews/archive/2006/03/19/video1419490.wmv[/WM]
<p><hr noshade color="#0000FF" size="6"></hr><p>

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/LPazf-eudc4"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/LPazf-eudc4" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="600" height="350"></embed></object>
<p><hr noshade color="#0000FF" size="6"></hr><p>
Download the complete 12 minute video here : <font size="4" color="#FF0000"><b>CBS 60 minutes -White House Censors Global Warming Science</b></font>
 

Fuckallyall

Support BGOL
Registered
Muck,

I understand your revulsion to the Bushes, as I share some of it. However, whatever their machinations may be, it does not obviate the fact that not a single warming prediction has been accurate, nor is there a concensus among the community that believes that global warming is totally man-made of how much or when the earth will warm. Like I posted earlier, NOAA itself was waaaayyyyy off in thier predictions only 6 months away ! Hell, 30 years ago the growing concensus was that the earth was COOLING because of mans activity. Also in the recent (within 100k years) meteorlogic record, there has been several frostings and warm-ups. Some sudden, some subtle, but they were there.

I have to say the following often, for many of my brethren have selective memory: I do not think it's a good idea to interrupt the carbon cycle like we are doing, but I am far from convinced with the evidence presented that what many say is happening is happening for the reasons stated.

Also, I feel that many of the "enviromental" policies, if enacted, will continue keeping the most vunerable in harms way, ala the ban of DDT in much of the third world.

I'm about to head to En Why Cee, so I'll holla at yall when I get back.
 

VegasGuy

Star
OG Investor
It could be that God planned all this. Might not have anything to do with green house gas or anything like that. Could be he's sick of us and is allowing this planet to burn the hell on out because he's planning an Earth XP or Vista Earth and we are not invited.

This place used to be a frozen mass covered with ice and then water anyway. That stuff receded millions of years ago and it's still happening. How that translated into this burning sulfur cause and effect bullshit is still a mystery to me.

But anyway let's keep doing fairytales and ghost stories because you have to admit, there is big money in it. Like that bullshit of man landing on the moon and Reagan's space shield from nuke's SDI bullshit. Nothing but another big money grab. But that's another post.

But since we lke ghost stories like An Inconvenient Truth and that Kyoto crap, lets keep it going as long as somebody can make a dollar. They'll keep selling it the concept.

Even the brits who are all into this global warming crap and talked about reducing it's output of greenhouse gases by 12 percent by this year didn't do so well. It went UP 9 percent. Go figure.

-VG
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
<font size="5"><center>
US answer to global warming:
smoke and giant space mirrors</font size>
<font size="4">
Washington urges scientists to develop ways to reflect sunlight as 'insurance' </font size></center>


arizona372ready.jpg

Smog above Phoenix, Arizona – US report suggests reflective dust
could reduce warming. Photograph: Deirdre Hamill/AP


David Adam, environment correspondent
Saturday January 27, 2007
The Guardian

The US government wants the world's scientists to develop technology to block sunlight as a last-ditch way to halt global warming, the Guardian has learned. It says research into techniques such as giant mirrors in space or reflective dust pumped into the atmosphere would be "important insurance" against rising emissions, and has lobbied for such a strategy to be recommended by a major UN report on climate change, the first part of which will be published on Friday.

The US has also attempted to steer the UN report, prepared by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), away from conclusions that would support a new worldwide climate treaty based on binding targets to reduce emissions - as sought by Tony Blair. It has demanded a draft of the report be changed to emphasise the benefits of voluntary agreements and to include criticisms of the Kyoto Protocol, the existing treaty which the US administration opposes.
The final IPCC report, written by experts from across the world, will underpin international negotiations to devise a new emissions treaty to succeed Kyoto, the first phase of which expires in 2012. World governments were given a draft of the report last year and invited to comment.

The US response, a copy of which has been obtained by the Guardian, says the idea of interfering with sunlight should be included in the summary for policymakers, the prominent chapter at the front of each IPCC report. It says: "Modifying solar radiance may be an important strategy if mitigation of emissions fails. Doing the R&D to estimate the consequences of applying such a strategy is important insurance that should be taken out. This is a very important possibility that should be considered."

Scientists have previously estimated that reflecting less than 1% of sunlight back into space could compensate for the warming generated by all greenhouse gases emitted since the industrial revolution. Possible techniques include putting a giant screen into orbit, thousands of tiny, shiny balloons, or microscopic sulphate droplets pumped into the high atmosphere to mimic the cooling effects of a volcanic eruption. The IPCC draft said such ideas were "speculative, uncosted and with potential unknown side-effects".

The US submission is based on the views of dozens of government officials and is accompanied by a letter signed by Harlan Watson, senior climate negotiator at the US state department. It complains the IPCC draft report is "Kyoto-centric" and it wants to include the work of economists who have reported "the degree to which the Kyoto framework is found wanting". It takes issue with a statement that "one weakness of the [Kyoto] protocol, however, is its non-ratificiation by some significant greenhouse gas emitters" and asks: "Is this the only weakness worth mentioning? Are there others?"

It also insists the wording on the ineffectiveness of voluntary agreements be altered to include "a number of them have had significant impacts" and complains that overall "the report tends to overstate or focus on the negative effects of climate change." It also wants more emphasis on responsibilities of the developing world.

The IPCC report is made up of three sections. The first, on the science of climate change, will be launched on Friday. Sections on the impact and mitigation of climate change - in which the US wants to include references to the sun-blocking technology - will follow later this year.

The likely contents of the report have been an open secret since the Bush administration posted its draft copy on the internet in April. Next week's science report will say there is a 90% chance that human activity is warming the planet, and that global average temperatures will rise another 1.5C to 5.8C this century depending on emissions. The US response shows it accepts these statements, but it disagrees with a more tentative conclusion that rising temperatures have made hurricanes more powerful.

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1999968,00.html
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
<font size="4"><center>
"In conclusion, I can only say that there is absolutely no
credible evidence of significant human influence where
global warming is concerned."
</font size></center>



[frame]http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272611262.shtml[/frame]
 

muckraker10021

Superstar *****
BGOL Investor
new_indy_logo3.gif
<p>
<img src="http://mywebpage.netscape.com/camarilla10029/GLOBAL_WARMING_UK.jpg"></p>

<font face="georgia" size="3" color="#000000">
<h2>January 29th 2007</h2>

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded the most intensive study of climate change by 2,000 of the world's leading climate scientists.


<b><font size="4">Key findings of the IPCC's fourth assessment report</font></b>

* Global temperatures continue to rise with 11 of the 12 warmest years since 1850 occurring since 1995. Computer models suggest a further rise of about 3C by 2100, with a 6C rise a distant possibility

* It is virtually certain (there is more than a 99 per cent probability) that carbon dioxide levels and global warming is far above the range of natural variability over the past 650,000 years

* It is virtually certain that human activity has played the dominant role in causing the increase of greenhouse gases over the past 250 years

* Man-made emissions of atmospheric aerosol pollutants have tended to counteract global warming, which otherwise would have been significantly worse

* The net effect of human activities over the past 250 years has very likely exerted a warming influence on the climate

* It is likely that human activity is also responsible for other observed changes to the Earth's climate system, such as ocean warming and the melting of the Arctic sea ice

* Sea levels will continue to rise in the 21st Century because of the thermal expansion of the oceans and loss of land ice

* The projected warming of the climate due to increases in carbon dioxide during the 21st Century is likely to cause the total melting of the Greenland ice sheet during the next 1,000 years, according to some computer forecasting models

* The warm Gulf Stream of the North Atlantic is likely to slow down during the 21st Century because of global warming and the melting of the freshwater locked up in the Greenland ice sheet. But no models predict the collapse of that warm current by 2100.


<b><font size="4"><U>The Articles</U></b>

<font color="#006600" face="arial black">Global Warming: The Vicious Circle</font>


<font color="#006600" face="arial black">Steve Connor: Global Warming Is Not Some Conspiratorial Hoax</font>

</font></FONT>

<hr noshade color="#0000ff" size="10"></hr><P>
<font face="times new roman" size="4" color="#333333">
Peeps, the “tipping point” on the issue of Global Warming has already been reached. The US is behind the rest of the world in the implementation of tougher fossil fuel emission standards and energy efficiency. A fifty story office building in Singapore uses <b>One Half</b> the energy of its modern (built in the last ten years) counterpart in Dallas, Philadelphia or New York. Among worldwide elites few argue the science of what is happening. As usual, follow the money. </font><br>
<img src="http://users1.wsj.com/img/wsjLogo.gif">

<font face="arial black" size="5" color="#d90000">
New Consensus: In Climate Controversy, Industry Cedes Ground; Support Grows for Caps On CO2 Emissions; Big Oil Battles Detroit</font>
<font face="helvetica, verdana" size="3" color="#000000"><b>
by Jeffrey Ball.
Wall Street Journal.

<font color="#0000ff">January 23, 2007. page A.1</font></b>

http://users1.wsj.com/lmda/do/check.../SB116949687307684055.html?mod=hpp_us_pageone

The global-warming debate is shifting from science to economics.

For years, the fight over the Earth's rising temperature has been mostly over what's causing it: fossil-fuel emissions or natural factors beyond man's control. Now, some of the country's biggest industrial companies are acknowledging that fossil fuels are a major culprit whose emissions should be cut significantly over time.

A growing number of these companies are pushing for a mandatory emissions limit, or "cap." Some see a lucrative new market in clean- energy technologies. Many figure a regulation is politically inevitable and they want to be in the room when it's negotiated, to minimize the burden that falls on them.

The broadening, if incomplete, consensus that fossil fuels are at least a big part of the global-warming problem signals real change in the environmental debate. The biggest question going forward no longer is whether fossil-fuel emissions should be curbed. It's who will foot the bill for the cleanup -- and that battle is heating up.

Yesterday, 10 companies, including industrial giants that make everything from bulldozers to chemicals to electricity, joined environmental groups in calling for a federal law to "slow, stop and reverse the growth" of global-warming emissions "over the shortest period of time reasonably achievable." Tonight, President Bush, whose administration has rejected such caps as economically unacceptable, will deliver a State of the Union address in which he's expected to announce a bigger push for such things as low-emission alternative fuels.

In the center of the regulatory cross hairs are utilities. They're the world's biggest emitters of carbon dioxide, the global-warming gas that's produced whenever fossil fuels are burned. Written one way, a cap would help utilities in the Southeast or the Midwest, which burn lots of coal, a particularly carbon-intensive fuel. Written another way, a rule would help utilities on the West Coast, the Northeast and the Gulf Coast. They use mainly natural gas, which produces lower CO2 emissions than coal, and nuclear energy, which produces essentially no CO2.

Auto makers and oil producers also are worried about a potential cap, and they're lashing out at each other. The Big Three auto companies are making speeches and running advertisements calling on Big Oil to crank out more low-carbon alternative fuels such as corn- based ethanol. Big Oil, in its own speeches and ads, says the auto makers should build more-efficient cars.

Lobbying on the issue is ramping up. The American Iron and Steel Institute, which opposes any emission cap, this month assigned an executive who had been working broadly on environmental issues to focus specifically on global warming. Some companies that oppose a cap argue it would raise their costs and hurt their competitiveness against rivals in developing countries such as China, where no cap exists.

DuPont Co., the chemical giant, heartily endorses a cap in part because it figures it would help boost demand for energy-efficiency products the company makes.

Entergy Corp., a utility that's also pushing for a cap, had a lobbyist in the room last week when Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, announced a carbon-cap bill. Entergy would likely benefit from her measure because the company's fuel mix includes a lot of low-carbon fuels.

"It was a hand-holding, kumbaya moment," says Brent Dorsey, Entergy's director of corporate environmental programs. "Every company is going to be playing to their own strengths and weaknesses" in the regulatory battle that's breaking out over global warming, he adds.

Among scientists, a broadening consensus has developed that fossil- fuel emissions are contributing to global warming; the debate has been over whether they're the main cause. In 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations body that periodically assesses climate science, cited "new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities." In 2005, representatives of scientific societies from 11 countries, including the U.S., called the science "sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action."

Still, uncertainties remain. Among them, the U.N. panel noted in its 2001 report, is the extent to which "natural factors" unrelated to human activity play a role in the rising temperatures. The U.N. panel is set to release its next climate-science report Feb. 2.

Fossil fuels provided 80% of global energy in 2004, and they're on track to provide 81% in 2030, according to the International Energy Agency, a Paris-based energy watchdog for Western industrialized countries.

Significantly curbing their emissions would require sweeping technological change, from more-efficient power plants and cars to the potential injection and burial of massive amounts of CO2 underground.

Another possibility would be to reduce the rate of growth in fossil- fuel consumption by supplementing the fuel mix with alternatives, from nuclear power to crops to the wind and the sun.

Outside the U.S., many countries already have modest experience in emissions caps, thanks to the Kyoto Protocol. The treaty, which hasn't been ratified by the U.S., requires ratifying nations collectively to cut their emissions 5% below 1990 levels by 2012.

Several Northeast states and California already have announced plans to impose emission caps of their own. And a handful of proposed federal caps are under consideration in Congress. The least stringent is one from senators led by Jeff Bingaman, a New Mexico Democrat. By 2030, it would raise gasoline prices 12 cents per gallon, according to a study issued this month by the U.S. Energy Information Administration, and slow the rate at which U.S. coal consumption increases.

The federal proposals differ in the structural details of the "cap and trade" system they would set up to regulate CO2 emissions. Under such a system, the government would set a ceiling on how much CO2 the U.S. economy -- or whichever sectors lawmakers pick -- could emit each year. It would ink a corresponding number of pollution permits, each entitling the bearer to emit one ton of the gas.

Then, based on complex allocation rules it devises, the government would divide up the permits among companies. Those companies could buy and sell permits among themselves on a greenhouse-gas market like a Kyoto-related one already under way outside the U.S. Companies that decide it's too expensive to cut their own emissions enough to comply with their government cap would go to the market and buy extra emission permits from companies that ended up with more than they needed. The theory behind the market is to create an economy of scale that reduces everyone's cost.

Other regulatory structures are possible, including a straight tax on CO2 emissions. Politically, a cap-and-trade system is more popular than a tax. Environmentalists like the severity of an absolute ceiling on the amount of CO2 companies can emit. Industry likes the flexibility of a market in which permits to pollute can be bought and sold.

And cap-and-trade systems already are in use. The U.S. has had one for more than a decade to curb the pollution that causes acid rain, a regulation widely viewed as successful.

Still, Steven Rowlan, director of environmental affairs for Nucor Corp., one of the biggest U.S. steelmakers, warns U.S. industry is in for a shock if Washington follows Europe and imposes a global-warming cap. The U.S. steel industry already has gotten more energy-efficient in recent years, he says, so it would be unfair to require it to make further emission cuts while its competitors in the developing world, where emissions are rising fastest, remain free from a cap. The steelmaking process itself emits large amounts of CO2.

A smarter tactic, he says, would be for the U.S. to slap trade restrictions on developing-world steelmakers requiring them to meet minimum environmental standards as a condition for exporting their products to the U.S.

"The biggest hammer that the United States has is its market," Mr. Rowlan says. "And that, more than anything we do domestically, will have the greatest impact on greenhouse gases." Nucor, based in Charlotte, N.C., is considering running ads to drive this point home.

DuPont, on the other hand, is actively promoting an emissions cap. It thinks a cap would help its business. DuPont makes materials used in such devices as solar cells, wind turbines, fuel cells, and lightweight automobiles -- all of which are likely to be in higher demand in an economy in which CO2 emissions carry a cost.

"We think there is a lot of market opportunity," says Linda Fisher, a former U.S. Environmental Protection Agency official who's now DuPont's chief sustainability officer.

But DuPont, based in Wilmington, Del., doesn't want just any cap. For one thing, it wants a cap that covers all sectors of the economy -- not one that's limited to utilities, as are some proposals pending in Washington. The more industries covered by a cap, the more potential customers for DuPont's environmental products.

DuPont also wants a cap to award companies credit for past emission cuts they've made. DuPont already has invested to significantly cut its emissions.

Utilities, for their part, are split on whether they want a cap -- and, if so, what kind. Where a utility stands on this issue depends largely on where in the country it sits.

Duke Energy Corp., based in Charlotte, is the country's third- largest burner of coal, though it also has significant nuclear assets. It's pushing for permits to be distributed based on the amount of CO2 a utility has emitted in the past -- a system that would protect big coal burners such as itself.

James Rogers, Duke's chairman and chief executive, notes that Duke already is assuming in its investment decisions that it will have to pay for carbon emissions. So it has begun investing in new plants that will burn coal more cleanly than today's plants do. He argues any cap should ensure adequate permits to utilities making such investments. "It's going to take several decades to bring this on," he says of the technology. "We shouldn't have an economic scheme that puts an undue economic burden on regions of the country that are reliant on coal."

Given Duke's coal reliance, it might seem strange that Mr. Rogers has emerged in recent years as perhaps the U.S. utility industry's most outspoken proponent of a global-warming constraint. His position is a bit "awkward," he notes, because he also serves as chairman of the Edison Electric Institute, the electric industry's Washington trade group, which opposes any mandatory global-warming cap. He's set to speak on three panels discussing global warming this week at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

Mr. Rogers, wearing his Duke hat, says he's just being realistic. He has concluded a cap is coming -- and that his shareholders are likely to do better if he can influence the details. "If you're not at the table when these negotiations are going on, you're going to be on the menu," he says. "This is about being at the table."

Fighting Duke and other coal-burners are utilities such as Entergy. Based in New Orleans, it uses a lot of natural gas and nuclear fuel. Unlike Duke, Entergy wants permits to be distributed based on a utility's total electricity output -- a system likely to give low- carbon generators such as itself excess permits they could sell.

Duke's Mr. Rogers says that would amount to a "windfall" for low- carbon utilities. "Even though they don't need allowances, they would get them, just because," he says.

Entergy's Mr. Dorsey says his company isn't asking for a windfall. The permits Entergy would get amount to "a revenue stream that we will need to build a new nuclear plant," he says. Still, he allows, "because of our natural gas and nuclear, we will fare better than most" under a carbon cap.

Auto companies also are jockeying to shape a potential carbon constraint to their advantage. They've been playing this sort of regulatory game for years.

They already face a kind of carbon limit in the federal government's longstanding fuel-economy standards for cars and trucks, because vehicles that burn less gasoline emit less CO2. Those rules give auto makers extra credit for building versions of their conventional vehicles they've modified to run on either gasoline or ethanol. Very few of those vehicles actually wind up running on anything but gasoline. But the credits let the auto makers build more thirsty sport-utility vehicles and pickup trucks -- the industry's bread and butter, particularly when oil was cheaper.

Auto officials who declined to be named said the industry probably will accept some toughening of the fuel-economy standards. But in return, it may seek bigger credits for selling vehicles that burn less oil, including those that can run on ethanol.

At the same time, auto makers want to ensure other industries get hit. In a speech last week in Detroit, Rick Wagoner, General Motors Corp.'s chairman and chief executive, said his company plans to build more ethanol-capable and electric-powered vehicles. But he also stressed "important roles for other industries, like oil and electric utilities, to name a few." He called for more tax credits and subsidies for alternative fuels.

The oil industry itself is mobilizing -- including Exxon Mobil Corp., the Irving, Texas, oil giant that in the past has been outspoken in its questioning of global-warming theories. Scientific questions remain, says Kenneth Cohen, Exxon's vice president for public affairs, but "we know enough now -- or society knows enough now -- that the risk is serious and action should be taken." Exxon isn't calling for an emission constraint, but it's starting to talk about how it wants one structured if one is imposed.

In November, Rex Tillerson, Exxon's chairman and chief executive, called in a speech for "steps now to reduce emissions in effective and meaningful ways." Then he listed two: boosting automotive fuel economy and cutting emissions from coal-fired power plants.

</font>
<p>
<hr noshade color="#ff0000" size="12"></HR>
<P>
 
Last edited:

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
<font size="5"><center>Panel hears climate 'spin' allegations</font size>
<font size="4">Groups Charge White House Pressuring Government Scientists
to Down Play Global Warming and
Limit What They Tell American Public</font size></center>

H. JOSEF HEBERT
Associated Press
January 30, 2007

WASHINGTON - Federal scientists have been pressured to play down global warming, advocacy groups testified Tuesday at the Democrats' first investigative hearing since taking control of Congress.

The hearing focused on allegations that the White House for years has micromanaged the government's climate programs and has closely controlled what scientists have been allowed to tell the public.

"It appears there may have been an orchestrated campaign to mislead the public about climate change," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif. Waxman is chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee and a critic of the Bush administration's environmental policies, including its views on climate.

Climate change also was a leading topic in the Senate, where presidential contenders for 2008 lined up at a hearing called by Sen. Barbara Boxer. They expounded - and at times tried to outdo each other - on why they believed Congress must act to reduce heat-trapping "greenhouse" gases.

"This is a problem whose time has come," Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., proclaimed.

"This is an issue over the years whose time has come," echoed Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., said "for decades far too many have ignored the warning" about climate change. "Will we look back at today and say this was the moment we took a stand?"

At the House hearing, two private advocacy groups produced a survey of 279 government climate scientists showing that many of them say they have been subjected to political pressure aimed at downplaying the climate threat. Their complaints ranged from a challenge to using the phrase "global warming" to raising uncertainty on issues on which most scientists basically agree, to keeping scientists from talking to the media.

The survey and separate interviews with scientists "has brought to light numerous ways in which U.S. federal climate science has been filtered, suppressed and manipulated in the last five years," Francesca Grifo, a senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, told the committee.

Grifo's group, along with the Government Accountability Project, which helps whistle-blowers, produced the report.

Drew Shindell, a climate scientist with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said that climate scientists frequently have been dissuaded from talking to the media about their research, though NASA's restrictions have been eased.

Prior to the change, interview requests of climate scientists frequently were "routed through the White House" and then turned away or delayed, said Shindell. He described how a news release on his study forecasting a significant warming in Antarctica was "repeatedly delayed, altered and watered down" at the insistence of the White House.

Some Republican members of the committee questioned whether science and politics ever can be kept separate.

"I am no climate-change denier," said Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia, the top Republican on the committee, but he questioned whether "the issue of politicizing science has itself become politicized."

"The mere convergence of politics and science does not itself denote interference," said Davis.

Administration officials were not called to testify. In the past the White House has said it has only sought to inject balance into reports on climate change. President Bush has acknowledged concerns about global warming, but he strongly opposes mandatory caps of greenhouse gas emissions, arguing that approach would be too costly.

Roger Pielke Jr., a political scientist at the University of Colorado who was invited by GOP lawmakers, said "the reality is that science and politics are intermixed."

Pielke maintained that "scientific cherry picking" can be found on both sides of the climate debate. He took a swipe at the background memorandum Waxman had distributed and maintained that it exaggerated the scientific consensus over the impact of climate change on hurricanes.

Waxman and Davis agreed the administration had not been forthcoming in providing documents to the committee that would shed additional light on allegations of political interference in climate science.

"We know that the White House possesses documents that contain evidence of an attempt by senior administration officials to mislead the public by injecting doubt into the science of global warming and minimize the potential danger," said Waxman, adding that he is "not trying to obtain state secrets."

At Boxer's Senate hearing, her predecessor as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., had his own view of the science.

There is "no convincing scientific evidence" that human activity is causing global warming, declared Inhofe, who once called global warming a hoax. "We all know the Weather Channel would like to have people afraid all the time."

"I'll put you down as skeptical," replied Boxer.

---

Associated Press writer Erica Werner contributed to this report.
 

mk0069

wannabe star
Registered
It is very interesting to read all of the "news" articles by everyone's favorite experts. Seems these days you can find an expert to support just about any position on practically any topic of discussion.

My biggest question is this:

What kind of SUV's were the dinosaurs driving to cause the last formal ice age or if the dinosaurs did not cause it, what kind of powerplants did the cavemen have to actually end the last ice age?

There are rounded over, smooth edged rocks in the plains of Kansas. Do you know why? From the glaciers that once moved across the North American continent.

I think anyone who believes we have anything to do with the plan of mother nature is a bit arrogant. You remember that natural disaster that we were able to stop? Yeah, I don't remember it either.

Mother Nature is going to do whatever she wants to do and there is nothing anyone- not even the internet inventing, global rocket scientist, punchline of the scientific community, former vice presidents- can do to change it. The earth was around long before any of us... it'll be here when we're gone.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
<iframe width="780" height="1500" src="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6320515.stm" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
Last edited:

Fuckallyall

Support BGOL
Registered
Will: Inconvenient Kyoto Truths
Was life better when a sheet of ice a mile thick covered Chicago? Was it worse when Greenland was so warm that Vikings farmed there?
By George F. Will
Newsweek
Feb. 12, 2007 issue - Enough already. It is time to call some bluffs. John Kerry says that one reason America has become an "international pariah" is President Bush's decision to "walk away from global warming." Kerry's accusation is opaque, but it implies the usual complaint that Bush is insufficiently enthusiastic about the Kyoto Protocol's binding caps on emissions of greenhouse gases. Many senators and other experts in climate science say we must "do something" about global warming. Barack Obama says "the world" is watching to see "what action we take."

Fine. President Bush should give the world something amusing to watch. He should demand that the Senate vote on the protocol.

Climate Cassandras say the facts are clear and the case is closed. (Sen. Barbara Boxer: "We're not going to take a lot of time debating this anymore.") The consensus catechism about global warming has six tenets: 1. Global warming is happening. 2. It is our (humanity's, but especially America's) fault. 3. It will continue unless we mend our ways. 4. If it continues we are in grave danger. 5. We know how to slow or even reverse the warming. 6. The benefits from doing that will far exceed the costs.

Only the first tenet is clearly true, and only in the sense that the Earth warmed about 0.7 degrees Celsius in the 20th century. We do not know the extent to which human activity caused this. The activity is economic growth, the wealth-creation that makes possible improved well-being—better nutrition, medicine, education, etc. How much reduction of such social goods are we willing to accept by slowing economic activity in order to (try to) regulate the planet's climate?


We do not know how much we must change our economic activity to produce a particular reduction of warming. And we do not know whether warming is necessarily dangerous. Over the millennia, the planet has warmed and cooled for reasons that are unclear but clearly were unrelated to SUVs. Was life better when ice a mile thick covered Chicago? Was it worse when Greenland was so warm that Vikings farmed there? Are we sure the climate at this particular moment is exactly right, and that it must be preserved, no matter the cost?

It could cost tens of trillions (in expenditures and foregone economic growth, here and in less-favored parts of the planet) to try to fine-tune the planet's temperature. We cannot know if these trillions would purchase benefits commensurate with the benefits that would have come from social wealth that was not produced.

In 1997, when the Kyoto Protocol's essential provisions were known, a "sense of the Senate" resolution declared opposition to any agreement that would do what the protocol aims to do. The Senate warned against any agreement that would require significant reductions of greenhouse-gas emissions in the United States and other developed nations without mandating "specific scheduled commitments" on the part of the 129 "developing" countries, which include China, India, Brazil and South Korea—the second, fourth, 10th and 11th largest economies. Nothing Americans can do to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions will make a significant impact on the global climate while every 10 days China fires up a coal-fueled generating plant big enough to power San Diego. China will construct 2,200 new coal plants by 2030.


The Senate's resolution expressed opposition to any agreement that "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States," which the Senate correctly thought Kyoto would do. The Senate said any agreement should be accompanied by "a detailed explanation of any legislation or regulatory actions that may be required to implement" it, and an analysis of the agreement's "detailed financial costs and other impacts" on the U.S. economy.

The president is now on the side of the angels, having promised to "confront" the challenge of climate change. The confronting is one reason for his fascination with new fuels. (Another reason, he says, is U.S. imports of oil from unstable nations. Our largest foreign source of oil is turbulent Canada. Our second largest is Mexico, which is experiencing turbulence because of the soaring cost of tortillas. They are made from corn, which is ... well, read on.)

Ethanol produces just slightly more energy than it takes to manufacture it. But now that the government is rigging energy markets with mandates, tariffs and subsidies, ethanol production might consume half of next year's corn crop. The price of corn already has doubled in a year. Hence the tortilla turbulence south of the border. Forests will be felled (will fewer trees mean more global warming?) to clear land for growing corn, which requires fertilizer, the manufacture of which requires energy. Oh, my.

President Clinton and his earnest vice president knew better than to seek ratification of Kyoto by a Senate that had passed its resolution of disapproval 95-0. Fifty-six of those 95 senators are still serving. Two of them are John Kerry and Barbara Boxer. That is an inconvenient truth.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16960409/site/newsweek/page/3/
 

VegasGuy

Star
OG Investor
Fuckallyall said:
Will: Inconvenient Kyoto Truths
Was life better when a sheet of ice a mile thick covered Chicago? Was it worse when Greenland was so warm that Vikings farmed there?
By George F. Will
Newsweek
Feb. 12, 2007 issue - Enough already. It is time to call some bluffs. John Kerry says that one reason America has become an "international pariah" is President Bush's decision to "walk away from global warming." Kerry's accusation is opaque, but it implies the usual complaint that Bush is insufficiently enthusiastic about the Kyoto Protocol's binding caps on emissions of greenhouse gases. Many senators and other experts in climate science say we must "do something" about global warming. Barack Obama says "the world" is watching to see "what action we take."

Fine. President Bush should give the world something amusing to watch. He should demand that the Senate vote on the protocol.

Climate Cassandras say the facts are clear and the case is closed. (Sen. Barbara Boxer: "We're not going to take a lot of time debating this anymore.") The consensus catechism about global warming has six tenets: 1. Global warming is happening. 2. It is our (humanity's, but especially America's) fault. 3. It will continue unless we mend our ways. 4. If it continues we are in grave danger. 5. We know how to slow or even reverse the warming. 6. The benefits from doing that will far exceed the costs.

Only the first tenet is clearly true, and only in the sense that the Earth warmed about 0.7 degrees Celsius in the 20th century. We do not know the extent to which human activity caused this. The activity is economic growth, the wealth-creation that makes possible improved well-being—better nutrition, medicine, education, etc. How much reduction of such social goods are we willing to accept by slowing economic activity in order to (try to) regulate the planet's climate?


We do not know how much we must change our economic activity to produce a particular reduction of warming. And we do not know whether warming is necessarily dangerous. Over the millennia, the planet has warmed and cooled for reasons that are unclear but clearly were unrelated to SUVs. Was life better when ice a mile thick covered Chicago? Was it worse when Greenland was so warm that Vikings farmed there? Are we sure the climate at this particular moment is exactly right, and that it must be preserved, no matter the cost?

It could cost tens of trillions (in expenditures and foregone economic growth, here and in less-favored parts of the planet) to try to fine-tune the planet's temperature. We cannot know if these trillions would purchase benefits commensurate with the benefits that would have come from social wealth that was not produced.

In 1997, when the Kyoto Protocol's essential provisions were known, a "sense of the Senate" resolution declared opposition to any agreement that would do what the protocol aims to do. The Senate warned against any agreement that would require significant reductions of greenhouse-gas emissions in the United States and other developed nations without mandating "specific scheduled commitments" on the part of the 129 "developing" countries, which include China, India, Brazil and South Korea—the second, fourth, 10th and 11th largest economies. Nothing Americans can do to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions will make a significant impact on the global climate while every 10 days China fires up a coal-fueled generating plant big enough to power San Diego. China will construct 2,200 new coal plants by 2030.


The Senate's resolution expressed opposition to any agreement that "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States," which the Senate correctly thought Kyoto would do. The Senate said any agreement should be accompanied by "a detailed explanation of any legislation or regulatory actions that may be required to implement" it, and an analysis of the agreement's "detailed financial costs and other impacts" on the U.S. economy.

The president is now on the side of the angels, having promised to "confront" the challenge of climate change. The confronting is one reason for his fascination with new fuels. (Another reason, he says, is U.S. imports of oil from unstable nations. Our largest foreign source of oil is turbulent Canada. Our second largest is Mexico, which is experiencing turbulence because of the soaring cost of tortillas. They are made from corn, which is ... well, read on.)

Ethanol produces just slightly more energy than it takes to manufacture it. But now that the government is rigging energy markets with mandates, tariffs and subsidies, ethanol production might consume half of next year's corn crop. The price of corn already has doubled in a year. Hence the tortilla turbulence south of the border. Forests will be felled (will fewer trees mean more global warming?) to clear land for growing corn, which requires fertilizer, the manufacture of which requires energy. Oh, my.

President Clinton and his earnest vice president knew better than to seek ratification of Kyoto by a Senate that had passed its resolution of disapproval 95-0. Fifty-six of those 95 senators are still serving. Two of them are John Kerry and Barbara Boxer. That is an inconvenient truth.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16960409/site/newsweek/page/3/

Perfect! Couldn't have said it better Fuckallyall

If these people who are talking much shit in Washington actually believe this bullshit and not just talking to make headlines and scaring people, why did NONE of them support the treaty?
Hillary is going to far as to say if she is president, SHE WILL STOP GLOBAL WARMING! So those that believe IN her should support her.

I also read recently that the planet Mars is heating up too.
Read it yourself.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192
Now it seems we are burning fuels enough to change the climate on distant worlds. Amazing.

-VG
 

Fuckallyall

Support BGOL
Registered
Re: Article re: Global warming (good read)

From the NY Times



Article published Aug 13, 2007
When it's not, it's not


August 13, 2007


Mark Steyn - Something rather odd happened the other day. If you go to NASA's Web site and look at the "U.S. surface air temperature" rankings for the Lower 48 states, you might notice something has changed.

Then again, you might not. They're not issuing any press releases about it. But they have quietly revised their All-Time Hit Parade for U.S. temperatures.

The "hottest year on record" is no longer 1998, but 1934. Another alleged swelterer, the year 2001, has now dropped out of the Top 10 altogether, and most of the rest of the 21st century — 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004 — plummeted even lower down the Hot 100. In fact, every supposedly hot year from the '90s and Oughts has had its temperature rating reduced. Four of America's Top 10 hottest years turn out to be from the 1930s, that notorious decade when we all drove around in huge SUVs with the air-conditioning on full-blast. If climate change is, as Al Gore says, the most important issue anyone's ever faced in the history of anything ever, then Franklin Roosevelt didn't have a word to say about it. And yet we survived.

So why is 1998 no longer America's record-breaker? Because a very diligent fellow called Steve McIntyre of climateaudit.com labored long and hard to prove there was a bug in NASA's handling of the raw data. He then notified the scientists responsible, and received an acknowledgment that the mistake was an "oversight" that would be corrected in the next "data refresh." The reply was almost as cool as the revised chart listings.

Who is this man who understands American climate data so much better than the National Aeronautics and Space Administration? Well, he's not even America: He's Canadian. Just another immigrant doing the jobs Americans won't do, even when they're federal public servants with unlimited budgets? No. Mr. McIntyre lives in Toronto. But the data smelled wrong to him, he found the error, and NASA has now corrected its findings — albeit without the fanfare that accompanied the hottest-year-on-record hysteria of almost a decade ago. Sunlight may be the best disinfectant, but, when it comes to global warming, the experts prefer to stick the thermometer where the sun don't shine.

One is tempted to explain the error with old the computer expert's cry: That's not a bug, it's a feature. To maintain public hysteria, it's necessary for the warm-mongers to be able to demonstrate something is happening now. Or as the Fort Worth Star-Telegram put it at the end of 1998: "It's December, and you're still mowing the lawn. You can't put up the Christmas lights because you're afraid the sweat pouring off your face will short out the connections. Your honeysuckle vines are blooming. Mosquitoes are hovering at your back door.

"Hot enough for you?"

It's not the same if you replace "Hot enough for you?" with "Yes, it's time to relive sepia-hued memories from grandpa's Dust Bowl childhood."

Yet the fakery wouldn't be so effective if there weren't so many takers for it. Why is that?

In my book, still available at all good bookstores (you can find it propping up the wonky rear leg of the display table for Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth"), I try to answer this question by way of some celebrated remarks by the acclaimed British novelist Margaret Drabble, speaking just after the liberation of Iraq. Miss Drabble said:

c "I detest Coca-Cola, I detest burgers, I detest sentimental and violent Hollywood movies that tell lies about history. I detest American imperialism, American infantilism, and American triumphalism about victories it didn't even win."

That's an interesting list of grievances. If you lived in Poland in the 1930s, you weren't worried about the Soviets' taste in soft drinks or sentimental Third Reich pop culture. If Washington were a conventional great power, the intellectual class would be arguing that the U.S. is a threat to France or India or Chad or some such. But because it's the world's first nonimperial superpower the world has had to concoct a thesis that America is a threat not merely to this or that nation-state but to the entire planet, and not because of conventional great-power designs but because — even scarier — of its "consumption," its very way of life.

Those Cokes and cheeseburgers detested by discriminating London novelists are devastating the planet in ways that straightforward genocidal conquerors like Hitler and Stalin could only have dreamed of. The construct of this fantasy reveals how unthreatening America is.

And, when the cheeseburger imperialists are roused to real if somewhat fitful warmongering, that's no reason for the self-loathing to stop. The New Republic recently published a "Baghdad Diary" by one "Scott Thomas," who turned out to be Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp. It featured three anecdotes of American soldiering: the deliberate killing of domestic dogs by the driver of a Bradley Fighting Vehicle; a child's skull worn by a U.S. serviceman as a fashion accessory; and the public abuse of a woman to her face, a half-melted face disfigured by an improvised explosive device (IED). The soldier doing the abusing was said to be the author himself, citing it as evidence of how the Iraq war has degraded and dehumanized everyone.

According to the Weekly Standard, army investigators say Pvt. Beauchamp has now signed a statement recanting his lurid anecdotes. And even the New Republic's editors concede the IED-victim mockery took place in Kuwait, before Pvt. Beauchamp was anywhere near Iraq.

They don't seem to realize this destroys the entire premise of the piece, which is meant to be about the dehumanization of soldiers in combat. Pvt. Beauchamp came pre-dehumanized. Indeed, he was writing Iraq atrocity fantasies on his blog back in Germany. It might be truer to say he was "dehumanized" by American media coverage. In this, he joins an ever lengthening list of peddlers of fake atrocities, such as Jesse MacBeth, an Army Ranger who claimed to have slaughtered hundreds of civilians in a mosque. He turned out to be neither an Army Ranger nor a mass murderer.

There are many honorable reasons to oppose the Iraq war, but believing that our troops are sick monsters is not one of them. The sickness is the willingness of so many citizens of the most benign hegemon in history to believe they must be.

As Pogo said, way back in the 1971 Earth Day edition of a then famous comic strip, "We have met the enemy, and he is us." Even when we don't do anything: In the post-imperial age, powerful nations no longer have to invade and kill. Simply by driving a Chevy Suburban, we can make the oceans rise and wipe the distant Maldive Islands off the face of the Earth.

This is a kind of malignant narcissism so ingrained it's now taught in our grade schools. That may be why, even when the New Republic's diarist goes to Iraq and meets the real enemy, he still assumes it's us.

Mark Steyn is the senior contributing editor for Hollinger Inc. Publications, senior North American columnist for Britain's Telegraph Group, North American editor for the Spectator, and a nationally syndicated columnist.
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Re: Article re: Global warming (good read)

From the NY Times



Article published Aug 13, 2007
When it's not, it's not


August 13, 2007


Mark Steyn - Something rather odd happened the other day. If you go to NASA's Web site and look at the "U.S. surface air temperature" rankings for the Lower 48 states, you might notice something has changed.

Then again, you might not. They're not issuing any press releases about it. But they have quietly revised their All-Time Hit Parade for U.S. temperatures.

The "hottest year on record" is no longer 1998, but 1934. Another alleged swelterer, the year 2001, has now dropped out of the Top 10 altogether, and most of the rest of the 21st century — 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004 — plummeted even lower down the Hot 100. In fact, every supposedly hot year from the '90s and Oughts has had its temperature rating reduced. Four of America's Top 10 hottest years turn out to be from the 1930s, that notorious decade when we all drove around in huge SUVs with the air-conditioning on full-blast. If climate change is, as Al Gore says, the most important issue anyone's ever faced in the history of anything ever, then Franklin Roosevelt didn't have a word to say about it. And yet we survived.

So why is 1998 no longer America's record-breaker? Because a very diligent fellow called Steve McIntyre of climateaudit.com labored long and hard to prove there was a bug in NASA's handling of the raw data. He then notified the scientists responsible, and received an acknowledgment that the mistake was an "oversight" that would be corrected in the next "data refresh." The reply was almost as cool as the revised chart listings.

Who is this man who understands American climate data so much better than the National Aeronautics and Space Administration? Well, he's not even America: He's Canadian. Just another immigrant doing the jobs Americans won't do, even when they're federal public servants with unlimited budgets? No. Mr. McIntyre lives in Toronto. But the data smelled wrong to him, he found the error, and NASA has now corrected its findings — albeit without the fanfare that accompanied the hottest-year-on-record hysteria of almost a decade ago. Sunlight may be the best disinfectant, but, when it comes to global warming, the experts prefer to stick the thermometer where the sun don't shine.

One is tempted to explain the error with old the computer expert's cry: That's not a bug, it's a feature. To maintain public hysteria, it's necessary for the warm-mongers to be able to demonstrate something is happening now. Or as the Fort Worth Star-Telegram put it at the end of 1998: "It's December, and you're still mowing the lawn. You can't put up the Christmas lights because you're afraid the sweat pouring off your face will short out the connections. Your honeysuckle vines are blooming. Mosquitoes are hovering at your back door.

"Hot enough for you?"

It's not the same if you replace "Hot enough for you?" with "Yes, it's time to relive sepia-hued memories from grandpa's Dust Bowl childhood."

Yet the fakery wouldn't be so effective if there weren't so many takers for it. Why is that?

In my book, still available at all good bookstores (you can find it propping up the wonky rear leg of the display table for Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth"), I try to answer this question by way of some celebrated remarks by the acclaimed British novelist Margaret Drabble, speaking just after the liberation of Iraq. Miss Drabble said:

c "I detest Coca-Cola, I detest burgers, I detest sentimental and violent Hollywood movies that tell lies about history. I detest American imperialism, American infantilism, and American triumphalism about victories it didn't even win."

That's an interesting list of grievances. If you lived in Poland in the 1930s, you weren't worried about the Soviets' taste in soft drinks or sentimental Third Reich pop culture. If Washington were a conventional great power, the intellectual class would be arguing that the U.S. is a threat to France or India or Chad or some such. But because it's the world's first nonimperial superpower the world has had to concoct a thesis that America is a threat not merely to this or that nation-state but to the entire planet, and not because of conventional great-power designs but because — even scarier — of its "consumption," its very way of life.

Those Cokes and cheeseburgers detested by discriminating London novelists are devastating the planet in ways that straightforward genocidal conquerors like Hitler and Stalin could only have dreamed of. The construct of this fantasy reveals how unthreatening America is.

And, when the cheeseburger imperialists are roused to real if somewhat fitful warmongering, that's no reason for the self-loathing to stop. The New Republic recently published a "Baghdad Diary" by one "Scott Thomas," who turned out to be Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp. It featured three anecdotes of American soldiering: the deliberate killing of domestic dogs by the driver of a Bradley Fighting Vehicle; a child's skull worn by a U.S. serviceman as a fashion accessory; and the public abuse of a woman to her face, a half-melted face disfigured by an improvised explosive device (IED). The soldier doing the abusing was said to be the author himself, citing it as evidence of how the Iraq war has degraded and dehumanized everyone.

According to the Weekly Standard, army investigators say Pvt. Beauchamp has now signed a statement recanting his lurid anecdotes. And even the New Republic's editors concede the IED-victim mockery took place in Kuwait, before Pvt. Beauchamp was anywhere near Iraq.

They don't seem to realize this destroys the entire premise of the piece, which is meant to be about the dehumanization of soldiers in combat. Pvt. Beauchamp came pre-dehumanized. Indeed, he was writing Iraq atrocity fantasies on his blog back in Germany. It might be truer to say he was "dehumanized" by American media coverage. In this, he joins an ever lengthening list of peddlers of fake atrocities, such as Jesse MacBeth, an Army Ranger who claimed to have slaughtered hundreds of civilians in a mosque. He turned out to be neither an Army Ranger nor a mass murderer.

There are many honorable reasons to oppose the Iraq war, but believing that our troops are sick monsters is not one of them. The sickness is the willingness of so many citizens of the most benign hegemon in history to believe they must be.

As Pogo said, way back in the 1971 Earth Day edition of a then famous comic strip, "We have met the enemy, and he is us." Even when we don't do anything: In the post-imperial age, powerful nations no longer have to invade and kill. Simply by driving a Chevy Suburban, we can make the oceans rise and wipe the distant Maldive Islands off the face of the Earth.

This is a kind of malignant narcissism so ingrained it's now taught in our grade schools. That may be why, even when the New Republic's diarist goes to Iraq and meets the real enemy, he still assumes it's us.

Mark Steyn is the senior contributing editor for Hollinger Inc. Publications, senior North American columnist for Britain's Telegraph Group, North American editor for the Spectator, and a nationally syndicated columnist.

There goes that damn science again

source: NASA.gov

Updates to Analysis
Graphs and tables are updated around the 10th of every month using the current GHCN and SCAR files. The new files incorporate reports for the previous month and late reports and corrections for earlier months. NOAA updates the USHCN data at a slower, less regular frequency. We will switch to a later version, as soon as a new complete year is available.


Several minor updates to the analysis have been made since its last published description by Hansen et al. (2001). After a testing period they were incorporated at the time of the next routine update. The only change having a detectable influence on analyzed temperature was the 7 August 2007 change to correct a discontinuity in 2000 at many stations in the United States. This flaw affected temperatures in 2000 and later years by ~0.15°C averaged over the United States and ~0.003°C on global average. Contrary to reports in the media, this minor flaw did not alter the years of record temperature, as shown by comparison here of results with the data flaw ('old analysis') and with the correction ('new analysis').
200708_1.gif


800px-Checkmate.jpg
 
Last edited:

Greed

Star
Registered
Re: Article re: Global warming (good read)

You know you didn't disprove the article if you didn't provide the rankings of the hottest year.

1st article of the thread says 2006 has been declared warmest year on record. Subsequent articles say 1998. Hasnt't that changed? Hasn't that changed to 1934?

Contrary to reports in the media, this minor flaw did not alter the years of record temperature
Ok, it didn't alter which years were really really hot, but did it alter the order in which those years were ranked? Are all the hottest 100 years a result of 100 years of industial related pollution? Are the majority of the hottest years a result of 100 years of industial related pollution? Noticed how I asked a question instead of told you a definitive answer because it's pretty obvious this shit isn't figured out yet despite what the politicians and the environmental lobby says.
 

Fuckallyall

Support BGOL
Registered
]Thoughtone,

There is STILL discussion from the parties that had NASA change thier datasets, and more will come. Also, there was some other text from the same site you mentioned:

Contrary to some statements flying around the internet, there is no effect on the rankings of global temperature. Also our prior analysis had 1934 as the warmest year in the U.S. (see the 2001 paper above), and it continues to be the warmest year, both before and after the correction to post 2000 temperatures. However, as we note in that paper, the 1934 and 1998 temperature are practically the same, the difference being much smaller than the uncertainty.

If this is the case, doesn't that mean that the teperature in the US have been either the same, or cooler, than 1998, or 1934 since 1998 ?


Your right, damn that science and reason.


800px-Checkmate.jpg


Right back at ya, slick.
 

Greed

Star
Registered
I didn't even notice it said the rankings hadn't changed. Makes you wonder why all these articles in this thread, no matter what their leanings are, kept getting that fact wrong despite NASA saying the 1934 ranking is consistent over the years.
 

Greed

Star
Registered
I'm having a hell of a time trying to find this list.

Anyone else having any luck? I know we're all desperately searching for it.
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Google Mark Steyn, Steve McIntyre and climateaudit.com. Find out how impartial they are. Of course who would you rather believe the organization responsible for sending humans in to space or those responsible for maintaining oil profits? You decided.
 
Last edited:

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
]Thoughtone,

There is STILL discussion from the parties that had NASA change thier datasets, and more will come. Also, there was some other text from the same site you mentioned:



If this is the case, doesn't that mean that the teperature in the US have been either the same, or cooler, than 1998, or 1934 since 1998 ?


Your right, damn that science and reason.


800px-Checkmate.jpg


Right back at ya, slick.

You’re trying to mate me with a bunch of questions you are having with yourself. The data is empirical, how you interpret it is up to your personal political spin.
 
Top