I knew there was something wrong with the human-caused global warming scenario when I mentioned "insolation" to a couple of guys who were really talking it up, and they didn't know that it's not a constant.

Real estate on Sedna is going to look pretty attractive when the sun goes red giant.

Can we start selling it now? This could be a better scam than FL swamp land. I'm thinking "cozy" 1,000 acre building lots with a beautiful galactic view for maybe $1M each.

had we only ratified Ktyoto.

Another thing the global-warmies ignore is the pole reversals.

We're overdue for one and the earth's magnetic field has been showing some disturbing fluctuations recently.

Don't suppose weakening magnetic field has anything to do with the amount of radiation reaching the surface? or upper atmospheric chemistry?

Naaa, its all Bush's fault.

First the rings of Saturn, now Mars. Damn you Bush!!!

What we're all ignoring here is the obvious: the Martians fucked themselves. Damn SUVs, smogging up Olympus Mons.

Where oh where is Rock Hudson when we need his wisdom now?

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

So I waded into the fever swamps of DU to see if anyone is discussing this topic. I found this thread. At the time of my posting here, not one commentor admitted that the warming of both Earth and Mars just might have a common, non-human cause. They seemed the think it is cool and interesting, and one commenter even joked that we are now exporting global warming, but that's it! They just dance around the obvious.

What? No "pussy" jokes? You're slippin', Ace. =D

not one commentor admitted that the warming of both Earth and Mars just might have a common, non-human cause

R.O.V.E is not "human" - he is the diety.

...Pole Reversals??
It's all those Refrigerator Magnets.

Yeah but I mean the smog in San Francisco, LA, or any large city is caused by the SUN!.... or aliens, or some other thing besides us humans...

Rivers, here in Michigan, around Jackson (birthplace of the Republican Party), are empty of fish because of the Sun!... or aliens, or some other thing besides humans...

Pollution is caused by the SUN!... or aliens, or something else besides us humans...

Animals that have gone EXTINCT are because of the SUN!... or aliens, or something else but definately not humans!

Increase in cancer or other illnesses that depend on the current big business of the medical companies is because of the SUN!... or aliens, but definately not those humans!

Bush is to blame! Well... if I was to say that I'd be to ignorant. It all depends upon how much Bush or any leaders in power truly know.

Honestly, I blame the businesses that are contributing to these things. I also blame anyone that contributes to these things by purchasing and using products that contribute to this.

I'll say this here and I'll say this now and I hope you remember when someone said this when it happens:

Many people will die and the way of living will change. The only families that won't feel the effect in full, because they are prepairing, is the families of wealth and power. For those of you that comment here who isn't part of the higher end of wealth in society, you are not part of the plan of the wealthy or powerful. You are only there to make sure they stay wealthy and powerful while you remain their tool.

L.A. had smog 300 years ago when the first Spanish missionaries noted it.

Extinctions have been going on since at least the Devonian era. I don't think it would be rational to blame lack of Trilobites or roaming dinosaurs on man.

The earth has been polluting itself for a while too. The Athabasca tar sands are tar because all the light volatiles evaporated quite a while ago.

Texas Dave, yes, Kyoto would have made it illegal for the sun to become any hotter.

Alan B.
If business is so bad for human health, then why is life expectancy in the US soaring?
The places on Earth with lessening life expectancies, predominantly Africa and Russia, are the most anti-capitalist known. Even China is experiencing a booming life expectancy, due to the embrace of capitalist systems, though they still suck at the freedom thing.

Leftists prefer high suicide rates to hold down the population problems...

How much human-created pollution affects climate change is not even close to being settled. (There is plenty of natural pollution in my state thanks to Mt. St. Helens.) I think it's funny that libs claim to be soooo open minded, yet when confronted with evidence that contradicts their enviro dogma, they preach armageddon and call disbelievers and agnostics "tools."

There are certainly naturally occurring cycles of warming and cooling, but that fact is not particularly relevant to the question of human activities impact on global warming. It may be that we are currently in a natural warming cycle in addition to greenhouse warming resulting from the megatons of greenhouse gases we humans have dumped into the atmosphere in that last couple of centuries.

Indeed, if we are in a natural warming cycle it is all the more important for us get our part in the warming under control. Do any of you really think that we can simply dump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere for centuries while clear cutting forests and NOT have an impact on our climate? Seriously think about that, think about what happened to Lake Erie or the Mediterranean or any other natural resource that we at some point assumed to be limitless. Get a grip.

Kytoto.

loose shit.

vK -- I grew up in California, where Spanish explorers noted smog trapped beneath a temperature inversion when they came to the Los Angeles basin, and where those coming to the city of Carpinteria noted the natives caulking their boats with abundant pitch found on the beach. I have experienced severe smog alerts and been slimed by glops of tar in the ocean. As such, I have a keen appreciation for nature, pollution, and the throwing around of blame.

You say, "There are certainly naturally occurring cycles of warming and cooling, but that fact is not particularly relevant to the question of human activities impact on global warming. It may be that we are currently in a natural warming cycle in addition to greenhouse warming resulting from the megatons of greenhouse gases we humans have dumped into the atmosphere in that last couple of centuries."

While I might agree with your first sentence, there are several postulates in the latter that I have to consider unproven. I have yet to see any solid data on the effects of widespread irrigated agriculture on the relative level of carbon in in the atmosphere and biomass (which mainly occurs in developed countries). I have yet to see any serious work on the effects of slash and burn agriculture and deforestation on such ratio (which is primarily in undeveloped countries). I have yet to see any quantification of such human effects related to any natural effects. Finally, I have yet to see anything showing a straightforward link between atmospheric carbon (as opposed to, say, particulates or water vapor) and global temperatures.

What I HAVE seen is a great deal of pontification based upon a quasi-religious set of credos in which all these things (and more!) are taken as a matter of faith. And the correlation between the high priests of such superstition and human-hating, tree-hugging, civilization-despising, anti-Western moonbats is pretty phenomenal.

So, you'll forgive me if I'm not all "hot and bothered" over global warming.

And the correlation between the high priests of such superstition and human-hating, tree-hugging, civilization-despising, anti-Western moonbats is pretty phenomenal.

Or as I prefer to call them, scientists.

Tony: Actually, libs/moonbats/wide-teary eyes prefer euthanasia to suicide, but the results are the same anyway.

vonK: "It MAY be that we are currently in a natural warming cycle..." And it MAY be that human activity has nothing to do, or at least a minimal effect, with global warming or anything else except emphysema. Get some concrete proof (nearly impossible, I would think), then get back to intelligent life.

AlanB: Have you read what you wrote? It is not only fairly incoherent, but incredibly poorly written. I would have red-lined it, had been turned in as a paper in my class, to the point your writing could not be seen. Without red-lining, it was close to unreadable! Try exhibiting at least a secondary education, please. Or is this the state of education today?

Actually, libs/moonbats/wide-teary eyes prefer euthanasia to suicide

Desire versus actual result. World Health Organization suicide rate data indicates the leftists are succeeding with increasing suicides...even if they don't mean to.

Euthanasia is something they have to "sell" the public on and get via legislative efforts.

Increased suicide rates require none of those PR efforts and "officialdome". Just fuck up the economy, create a nation of aimless godless dopers/drunks on the dole (sorry Ace), and voila you get high suicide rates.

Tony,

Point taken, but they will find a way in the next decade or so to make the transition to legal euthanasia by judicial fiat. That's one reason Roberts has to be the more centrist of GW's nominies. The next (and hopefully the third) by necessity will have to be solidly and historically as conservative as Scalia and Thomas, if not more so.

And I still think Souter's mansion land would be more suitable as a strip mall. More taxes and a better economy that way. What's good for the poor goose has to be good for the pencilneck.

while clear cutting forests and NOT have an impact on our climate?

The more the planet warms, the less fossil fuel used for heating.

I meant "nominees". My bad.

And I still think Souter's mansion land would be more suitable as a strip mall.

I was thinking more along the lines of stripmine

Carlos. My only answer is I only answer once to egotistical, ignorant "narrowminds" hellbent on thinking they are right because they start with the insulting exposé.

As far as the rest of the comments related to mine.

Its not proven that what we are doing is ruining the environment? Erm... though I beg to differ with that lets say it is true.

Which would mean that we don't know. You cannot say that you know for sure it isn't true. So in conclusion since it MAYBE destroying the environment and causing global warming, as thats what I'm assuming you mean, then isn't it wise to stop things that maybe doing this until we know for sure they don't?

I mean you wouldn't jump off a cliff unless you knew it was safe to do so somehow would you?

What about polluted streams? Or I guess they had signs of being polluted by some Spanish explorers?

The dilemma facing Salmon spawning? I guess the Spanish seen that too?

The continued loss of habitat thats endangering many species? Some apparently gone extinct? I guess the Spanish seen that happening too?

Honestly. People who think that the human race has hasn't upset the balance and that what we are doing is perfectly fine are completely dilusional.

Sure Mt Saint Helens may have released *pollution* just like many volcanoes do but those have been natural processes for billions of years. And the Earth could easily deal with that pollution because of its natural filtering.

But contrary to the dilusion of people who think that the Earth is infinite: it is not infinite. Trees are renewable but the renewable aspect takes into account the idea of overusing it to where it cannot renew fast enough.

Until we humans get over the fact that we are part of a ecosystem and not above it we'll continue towards a destructive path and ultimately pay huge prices for it.

And the Earth could easily deal with that pollution because of its natural filtering.

Krakatoa ejecta darkened the world's skies for a full year.

A few good erruptions will put more crap into the atmosphere than man ever did through his whole history on the planet.

AlanB: Earth (Mother Goddess to some) is capable of filtering out its own polutants, but not those of man? Somehow I have a hard time believing that.

Stop what we are doing because we MAY be destroying the balance of nature and its cooling and heating cycles? I guess I shouldn't go driving tomorrow because I MAY be run down by some drunk.

That arguement and the one about species disappearing reminds me of when I was growing up (in the Dark Ages, obviously). The state I live in got all hot and bothered about how many deer we meat-eaters were killing, and decided they would "control" the deer population by limiting the amount of deer killed. The brilliance of that decision is still being felt today, decades later, although the state has backed off considerably and the deer populations are gaining significantly.

Same with salmon. Yes, the salmon can be overfished. But I would venture to guess the state(s) has done significantly more damage to that population by their benevolent management than could possibly ever be done by sport fishermen.

As a Christian I believe we were made stewards of the earth, not protectors. Our God has a way of protecting his creation by Himself, He doesn't need our help. But he did command man(kind) to take care of it. That doesn't mean stay out of it, don't use it or its resources, and it certainly doesn't mean worship it. Species were disappearing long before man was here, and the process won't stop till this earth is gone and a new earth is created. Nothing I can do about that, except use what's available as He said.

Finally, your last post was significantly better grammatically, and I would expect that. I am old-fashioned that way: I expect those who argue thoughtfully to write in a grammatically correct way. One who's sloppiness extends to habits in communication tend to be sloppy in their arguements, too. I appreciate your response.

From vK:
"'And the correlation between the high priests of such superstition and human-hating, tree-hugging, civilization-despising, anti-Western moonbats is pretty phenomenal.'

Or as I prefer to call them, scientists."

Y'know, I wouldn't be all that impressed if you called 'em the "Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal". As goes the old joke -- "how many legs does a cow have if you call it's tail a leg? Four, 'cause callin' it one doesn't make it so."

The National Enquirer and Weekly World News often quote supposed scientists...

I can lay claim to being a "scientist" - I've got a graduate degree, filed some patents, wrote some journal and magazine articles, and can bullshit my way (competently) through almost any topic if I got 20 minutes to research it with Google.

Trust me - being a scientist doesn't imply credibility, it just means you know a little bit more than the people you're trying to bullshit.

Do any of you really think that we can simply dump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere for centuries while clear cutting forests and NOT have an impact on our climate?

yes. climate be bigger dan we

Are the environmentalists who argue for taking preventive measures against the greenhouse effect for the sake of pragmatism because there may be global warming the same people who scoff at religious people?

I'm just wondering. Because, you know, you could apply the same logic to religion. The only way to avoid eternal damnation may be through Jesus Christ, so it only makes sense to become a Christian, right? I mean, you can't say for sure that your eternal soul isn't in peril.

Or you could look at things another way. Alien beings may be beaming mind controlling gamma rays at your brain from their space ship hovering near the moon. It's a possiblity , right? You can't prove that they aren't. Doesn't it then make sense to strap on a tinfoil hat to foil their nefarious plan? I mean, just in case?

Funny how apply the same logic to different scenarios can yield such radically different conclusions.

To cite some scienti... um I guess I mean human-hating, tree-hugging, civilization-despising, anti-Western moonbats:

“Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise.”
-Climate Change Science, U.S. National Academy of Sciences Moonbats, 2001

The average surface temperature of the globe has warmed appreciably since the late 1800s,
by about 0.6°C. Since this warming cannot be adequately explained by natural phenomena such as
i n c reased solar activity, human-induced increases in greenhouse-gas concentrations appear to be at
least partly responsible.
- The Science Superstition of Climate Change, National Center for Atmospheric Research Vodoo and Civilization Hating

Loose shit above, my strikethrough tags showed as working in the preview, but are missing from the posted text. Please visualize all bolded "science" text and "research" as containing strikethrough.

Dave notes that the, "climate be bigger dan we". True, but also stupid, so let's not get stuck there.

Lake Erie is also bigger than we are, as are the Mediterranean and the Aral Seas. Lake Erie and the Med were all but dead bodies of water before we began to take serious action to reverse the damage we created; the Aral Sea is a growing, or should I say shrinking, environmental disaster. These examples show that us industrious humans are capable of both destroying what is bigger that "we" and also capable of reversing this damage given the political will to do so. The atmosphere is indeed MUCH bigger than these examples, but it is also impacted by ALL of humanity rather than just by a particular watershed.

I am more passionate about this issue than any other policy issue because this is the one thing that I believe will certainly have a dramatically negative impact on my son's life if we do not take remedial action. And I'm not even sure that it is not already too late to prevent that impact on my son.

Citing scientists who share your view isn't the least bit compelling vK. It's boring, actually. I could do the same, but I find that just as boring.

Not to mention choosing other strawmen examples like Lake Erie. I can dump garbage in my back yard and clean it up in one day. Therefore we must be causing global warming and must do everything we can to stop it.

Everyone I meet who is as "passionate" as you are on this policy issue when asked what exactly we should all do about it, starts running down a list of "let's just stop capitalism in its tracks". Tony Blair made that point about Kyoto a few days ago.

Well screw that. No nation will do that. China and India certainly weren't going to.

Neither will we.

Ok, so now at least they're scientists and not high-priests of civilization hating tree-hugging superstitions. That's progess.

My take is not that I'm citing scientists who share my view, but rather I am citing scientists who have shaped my view. Scientists for instance from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences . You could cite some people with science degrees, but I will be surprised if you are able to come up with any scientifically rigorous and prestigious scientific organizations to cite claiming that there is no human impact on global warming.

I don't believe that we must stop capitalism in its tracks to deal with the human impacts on global warming. Capitalism is far and away the most adaptive political-economic form to date and I am confident that if we have the political will to deal with global warming capitalism will have the economic ability to turn a profit on the venture. Yes, there will be some and even severe economic dislocations as capitalism adjusts, but not as severe as trying to adjust to losing Shanghai and Manhattan and much of the worlds cropland.

China and India's non-participation is an issue, but why should we allow ourselves to stuck on their stupidity?

Well, that's long, but doesn't really address the question. What do you think we should do?

Implement the Kyoto accord to start. More generally, seed money/incentives to foster the development and deployment of greenhouse gas reducing technologies;i.e., stringent emission standards, tax breaks, research grants, mass transit incentives/funding/requirements. We need to put money into mass transit instead of more roads. We need to increase taxes on gas to both fund GW initiatives AND reduce emissions AND make alternative engines more economical. We should figure out how to encourage more telecommuting.

As much as absolutely hate to say so, we need to start re-investing in nuclear energy even though we don't really have any idea how to keep the waste safe for 10,000 years. But we need to also invest in wind/geothermal/solar power generation, and I don't care what it does for Ted Kennedy's view property.

There is obviously a lot of cost, both economic and social, to many of these items, but in the long term I believe we will profit both from risk mitigation and directly from bringing new technologies to market and this will increase our long term social-economic viability.

Implement the Kyoto accord to start.

We won't do that, for reasons I've already mentioned. Kyoto is dead. Put it in the ground, cover it up, weep no more.

Actually your whole first paragraph about tax the shit outta everything and everybody (including gasoline) and pour all those tax dollars into everything from mass transit to unnamed GW initiatives pretty much proves my point about "laundry list of anti-capitalism" steps. Too bad, for a minute there I thought you were going to be the first one I met that didn't recite it. Ah well.

Nukes? Ok, but I have yet to see one that didn't cost ten times what they budgeted.

There is obviously a lot of cost, both economic and social, to many of these items, but in the long term I believe we will profit both from risk mitigation ...

No shit there's a lot of cost. What's at the heart of our disagreement is accepting that it's necessary. You think it's burning gas. I think it's the sun.

You think it's the sun, and apparently only the sun, but to think this you have to cover your eyes and ears while chanting, "human-hating, tree-hugging, civilization-despising, anti-Western moonbats" so you don't have to hear the scientists who are convinced that we cannot dump megatons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere for centuries without creating greenhouse conditions. No, since that is what they think they MUST be human-hating, tree-hugging, civilization-despising, anti-Western moonbats.

Also, your lack of faith in capitalism is disturbing.

Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities

Sure - some. But WHAT are these "greenhouse gasses" and how efficiently do they actually operate?

THIS is where the moonbats are lying their asses off to the public in proclaiming SUV's and fossil fuels are the "great satan".

Do the moonbats mention that methane is ~20-50 times more efficient at trapping heat than CO2? Hell no!

Do the moonbats mention that CFCs are ~20,000 times more efficient at trapping heat than CO2? Hell no!

Do the moonbats mention that WATER VAPOR is a "greenhouse gas" and more efficient at trapping heat than CO2 and far more plentiful? Hell no!

Do the moonbats mention that the oceans have vast amounts of dissolved CO2? Hell no!

Do the moonbats mention that dissolved CO2 release might be affected by things like natural cyclic ocean current variations that sometimes stir deeper/colder masses towards the surface where they can release their ancient dissolved CO2 loads? Hell no!

You my respect you're going to have to tell me the WHOLE STORY, not a bunch of incompletely-researched agenda driven bullshit.

By "moonbats" do you mean scientists? This is being driven by scientific research, not "moonbats", but I do understand that in order to maintain your partisan political position it is necessary for you to continue to chant "human-hating, tree-hugging, civilization-despising, anti-Western moonbats" so as to drown out the scientists.

The gentleman who can't stop repeating "greenhouse gases" sounds silly accusing anyone of chanting anything.

Particularly when it hasn't been said once.

Particularly when it hasn't been said once.

Check the 19th post, by Cthulhu. Greenhouse gases is at least the point of he discussion, such as it is.

Here, go look at what the National Academy of Science has to say in a report written by a committee of 11 climate scientists, including a Nobel Prize winner. They mention greenhouse gases much more than they mention moonbats.

You think it's the sun, and apparently only the sun, but to think this you have to cover your eyes and ears while chanting, "human-hating, tree-hugging, civilization-despising, anti-Western moonbats" so you don't have to hear the scientists who are convinced that we cannot dump megatons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere for centuries without creating greenhouse conditions.

I see. And what do you chant so you don't have to hear the scientist who are convinced the models are inaccurate, the data doesn't support the conclusion or the cure is worse than the disease? And if my group of scientists is bigger than your group of scientists do I win? Is physical reality to be defined as "whatever it is the largest number of scientists says it is"?

There's nothing precluding a university trained "scientist" from being an agenda driven moonbat.

All the term "scientist" does is add cachet to deception and lies.

For the past 300 years the *SUN* has been getting steadily warmer -- radiation incident on the earth has gone up from ~1364W/square meter to ~1368W/square meter. This increase has been almost linear over that period.

I want some of the GWM(Global Warming Moonbats) to tell me what their fucking plan is for dealing with THAT.

Look, its like this: solar radiation has increased ~.3% over the past 300 years. Every .1% increase in solar ratiation causes ~.2C degree increase in earth temp.

Do the fucking math. .2*3 == .6C degree increase allowing for sufficient soak time for it to take effect (10-100 years or so).

This .6 figure is almost *EXACTLY* the increase the increase the GWM's are whining about!

Coincidence? I don't think so.

If you think you're going to trump the sun's heating effects by some miniscule reduction in CO2 you're fucking nuts.

If your group of scientists is bigger than mine then I guess that would mean that the mainstream of scientific thought does not think that human influenced GW is happening and I would be much less concerned. And yes, physical SCIENTIFIC understanding of reality is indeed defined as what the rigorously reviewed current conscencus of the scientific community says it is. So, find me some SCIENTIFIC papers published by organizations with the scientific credibility of the National Academy of Science or the EPA or the IPCC or the American Institure of Physics that claim that there is no signifincant human inputs to global warming and we will be talking on the same ground. Until then yes, you are covering your ears and going "lalalalalalICAN'THEARYOU!" to avoid dealing with the issue.

Tony - Got some citations from reputable scientific organizations for your solar heating formula vs. greenhouse heating?

So, find me some SCIENTIFIC papers published by organizations with the scientific credibility of the National Academy of Science or the EPA or the IPCC or the American Institure of Physics that claim that there is no signifincant human inputs to global warming and we will be talking on the same ground.

There are papers from individual scientists with appropriate credentials (I'll check my file o' links from home). Philip Stott is an excellent place to start.

Organizations, not so much. Many of those that deal with climate and environment have become highly politicized. Disagree with the consensus view, and you're out. Like...who was that guy recently who refused to sign off on a global warming report because he thought they were stretching it? Hey presto, he's off the report. Orthodoxy rescued from dissent once again.

I know AlanB is one of those hit-and-run trolls but I can't let him get away with his loose poop. The birthplace of the Republican Party is here. Now, in fairness, if God were to give Gaia an enema Jackson, Michigan might be where the hose would go.

Four out of five scientists agree... that VonK has his head shoved so far up his sphincter that he actually thinks that "implementing the Kyoto" bullshit will do thing one to make any sort of change to the climate. Wait -- strike that, it will generate a huge mountain of paperwork, bog down the economies of the wealthy nations so they won't be able to afford all the shiny new pollution-control magic moontards like VonK seem to think people invent for free in their spare time, and leave untouched those nations in the world that are actually emitting way more pollution than the evil, capitalistic, SUV-driving USA, like China. And when Western Civilization collapses under the weight of Kyoto, we'll all have to go back to burning coal and the forests to keep warm. So, I guess the Kyoto Treaty will have an effect on the weather after all.

Right, so you are forced to argue that prestigious scientific organizations are involved in a partisan conspiracy, but the individuals who disagree with the consensus are the ones speaking truth to power. Sorry, but I like my science the old fashioned way, peer reviewed.

Particularly when it hasn't been said once

by me vK. You'll have to pardon me not going back and reading every damn comment every time I respond to you.

But I'll save you more time so you can worry about somebody else. I question the motivation of those who issue dire warnings about "greenhouse gases", so I question the "scientific evidence" they show me.

Andrea claims from deep in her own ass:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/

According to GAO, the US is by far the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases at 1,578 metric tons in 2000. China is a distant, though rising, second at 780 metric tons. In fact this study shows that in 2000 the US emitted more greenhouse gases than the following four countries combined.

Ah, loose cut and paste shit, what Adrea declaimed from within her rectum was:
leave untouched those nations in the world that are actually emitting way more pollution than the evil, capitalistic, SUV-driving USA, like China.

I question the motivation of those who issue dire warnings about "greenhouse gases", so I question the "scientific evidence" they show me.

That would of course be the "National Academy of Sciences" and other "reputable" "science" "organizations" that you are resolutely ignoring.

lalalalallalalallalalalalalalalallalala

yeah, those are the ones.

the US emitted more greenhouse gases than the following four countries combined.

This is a bullshit statement unless you break it down into its constituent parts.

As I've stated previously, there are VAST differences in the retention effects from the things called "greenhouse" gases.

Are you talking CFC, Methane, CO2? What are you saying?

I don't think you know or understand what you are saying. I think you are just repeating talking points.

Do you have a degree in the sciences or engineering? Are you competent to evaluate this stuff?

Tony - Nope, no science or engineering degree, I'm repeating the talking points of the National Academy of Sciences and the General Accounting Office among others. I guess I naively trust groups of scientists who peer review each other's work instead of going out and getting my own doctorate in atmospheric science so that I can have an opinion.

So Tony, you've got a doctorate in atmospheric science?

And to answer your question about what emissions are being measured I went back to my link and found that this report focuses on CO2 emissions.

Ok, much as I've truly enjoyed this conversation, I've got to get some work done so I'm logging off.

How many members of the NAS have specialty-competence to evaluate what they're affirming? Just a thought.

I have a good friend who spent several years on the inside of the The Sky Is Falling RIGHT FUCKING NOW, DAMN IT industry ... it's largely an agenda-driven scam, shock shock horror horror.

So Tony, you've got a doctorate in atmospheric science?

Don't need one to do simple multiplication on known data. My engineering masters from UCSD works just fine for that level of sophistication.

Don't need a PhD to figure out that .2*3 == .6

Don't need a PhD to recognize that .6 is substantially identical to the GMW claims of .6

Don't need a PhD to figure out that in a footrace with the sun that's pumping an extra 4W/square meter into the whole FUCKING planets surface, bullshit like Kyoto is just a big feelgood ZERO.

The only thing that can trump the sun is to physically block the sun with orbital mylar space shades. THAT is cheaper than all this Kyoto bullshit and allows for fine tuning depending on the sun's output in any given year.

When your problem is obviously mostly due to the sun, don't go looking for lesser solutions elsewhere.

As an engineer I demand cost effectivness in everything I do. This Kyoto shit is not cost effective because it ignores the principle component to the "problem" (which I'm not convinced is a problem). Kyoto worries about the ants in the sugar bowl, while the termites are eating the house.

... it's largely an agenda-driven scam, shock shock horror horror.

We've seen it all before from this crew. Its the whole debunked Silent Spring crowd all over again under a new banner.

You know what it is, VonK?
Mostly for me its the crying wolf that has been going on since I was a kid. I don't even remember half the shit they had us all scared about.

Well, here's one; don't forget about the great garbage crisis of the 70's and 80's. We were supposed to be knee deep in rotting, sickening trash about, oh, 15 years ago.
They had me, as a little girl, practically peeing myself with worry about the state of the world. The garbage! Oh no the garbage!

When was the last time you saw a commercial with some film star hectoring us about using too much 'packaging,' or 'runaway consumption.' It was, is, and will always be, a bullshit disguise for another agenda.

And by the way, when top scientists stop saying that global warming causes global cooling, then I might pay some attention.

Or maybe if they say that the long term effects of global warming are unknown and therefore possibly beneficial. Because that would be true. They don't know; so what basis do they have to automatically assume catastrophe?

And the Earth was warmer in the past. Apparently the Earth's atmospheric conditions fluctuate regularly, completely independent of the existence of combustion engines or even humanity.

Imagine that. Something happened on Earth, and there were no people to pin it on.

Or maybe if their computer models could predict weather events and cycles that actually happened. But apparently all they can do is predict doomsday scenarios that have great power to scare eight-year olds but never fucking happen.

I know that the amount of gases and environmental pollutants that people release seems staggering, but a single volcanic eruption can release more of all of that toxic mess than people have, ever, in all time.

We aren't even a pimple on the Earth.
Relax and enjoy the ride, and don't let the ninnies fill you with fear is my motto.
Or more succinctly put, in American; Whatever.

I got totally taken in by the Y2K bug panic. Well, okay, not totally. I wasn't stockpiling ammo and MRE's in my bunker. But we had six weeks worth of toilet paper and champagne and canned kidney beans and we thought about filling the bathtub with water, just in case.

The refreshing difference with the Y2K bug was that we knew we would all learn at 12:01 on January 1, 2000 if it was bullshit. Which it was.

The coming global famine? The avian flu pandemic? The new Ice Age? Silent spring? The mad cow epidemic? Global warming? Comet attack? Nuclear holocaust? There's no real deadline. As long as they haven't happened, they still might. So you can keep getting grants and publishing bullshit until your scientific gaze is arrested by the next shiny catastrophe. Shoot, a couple of those still strike me as plausible.

Global warming is the most brilliant one yet, though. It might be a hundred years before we truly know how much of it is rubbish, so those of us chatting together may never figure out who won. Except I don't think the scientific attention span has got a century worth of this one in it.

Question: when did VonKreedon become such an asshole? I could swear that for a liberal weenie, he used to be fairly levelheaded and semi-polite. But I guess that wasn't getting him enough attention. It's pretty amusing, though, that he uses ancient (in Internet time) arguments about global warming and the Kyoto Treaty. Grousing about how the failure of the president of the United States to sign a piece of paper is causing the Mars ice caps to melt is so 2004.

The refreshing difference with the Y2K bug was that we knew we would all learn at 12:01 on January 1, 2000 if it was bullshit. Which it was.

The issue was real, but the China Syndrome aspect that was being pitched to the public by the press was largely Hollywood style fantasy.

I spent about 4 years prior to 2000 at various places working on some Y2K related stuff. A lot of the reason why there were minimal glitches in the industrialized nations was because the issues HAD been getting fixed over the prior 5 years. It was a non-event because it had already been dealt with.

The 3rd world was largely unaffected because they're not all that dependent on computers to begin with.

What I did see a lot of was hardware companies using Y2K as an excuse to scare large corporations into buying a load of new computers with "Y2K clean" RTC chips.

In most cases, this was of course a BIG SCAM. A *LOT* (not all, but most) of the supposedly "non-Y2K" ready hardware deployed in corporate America WAS in fact perfectly usable after 2000. All it needed was a MANUAL date reset on Jan 1 then it would have been fine for decades after that. All the IBM machines going back to at least 1987 were Y2K capable using a manual date reset.

But NOOOOO, these fucking vultures scared people into thinking that millions and millions of dollars worth of perfectly good hardware would go permanently belly up so they could sell new crap.

This was a massive scam/scandal that never saw the light of day in the press (because they're all technical idiots too)

Centuries ago the most revered scientists knew the earth was the center of the universe. They knew the earth was flat (even the village idiot could see that).

More recently, we were coming into a new Ice Age, and the massive hurricanes of the 50's and 60's were proof of that (all due to the interference of man with nature).

It's amusing to see such stock put into such science. There will always be a place for doomsday science in society. It makes us all victims. Oh, for the faith of a liberal.

Andrea,

So far as I can tell, this was one of vonK's mellower moments. All he was really saying was, "I'm scared, and I want to do something about it."

Unfortunately, the crowd that he hangs with -- what's the phrase, again? "human-hating, tree-hugging, civilization-despising, anti-Western moonbats" -- have been telling him that his free-floating anxieties should be focused on global warming. Furthermore, they've got him 99% convinced that it's human-produced CO2 that's going to do it to him, personally.

Compounding his problem is the sad fact that academia, journalism, and government have largely been abandoned by everyone who is not an agenda-driven pseudo-intellectual leftist, probably on the grounds that such non-lefties can get better-paying jobs in industry. This has resulted in an unusual amount of research papers, newspaper articles, and government studies that are filled with complete twaddle.

Fortunately, this rot has started at the top -- so while the conclusions of such papers, articles, and studies are generally worthless, some of the underlying data may yet be of value to properly skeptical analysts. Accordingly, you can get commonsense observations like Tony's, based on published data.

Not that I would rely completely on Tony's back-of-the-napkin figuring, but it seems at least as plausible as the tenets of the True Church of Global Warming.

Furthermore, as noted above, "I have yet to see any solid data on the effects of widespread irrigated agriculture on the relative level of carbon in in the atmosphere and biomass (which mainly occurs in developed countries). I have yet to see any serious work on the effects of slash and burn agriculture and deforestation on such ratio (which is primarily in undeveloped countries). I have yet to see any quantification of such human effects related to any natural effects. Finally, I have yet to see anything showing a straightforward link between atmospheric carbon (as opposed to, say, particulates or water vapor) and global temperatures." -- and, as I might add in specific rebuttal to vonK's 9/22 14:35 assertion, I have yet to see anything that conclusively links global warming to greenhouse gasses specifically or atmospheric effects in general. For that matter, it wouldn't take too much for me to find the evidence of "global warming" to argue more for "global climate fluctuation".

But -- while I might in all kindness recommend that vonK investigate scientific, medical treatments for his condition -- I will not begrudge him the right to avail himself of any crackpot religion, half-baked theory (supported by "groups of scientists who peer review each other's work"), or pie-in-the-sky wishful belief in the greater goodness of political solutions.

It's not like I've never been scared, after all.

BTW, I am particularly facinated by the solar shade concept. Such a system could perform several duties.

Regulated stabilization of the sun's radiation is obvious, but two others leap to mind as well.

Power collection. If the shade(s) are framed with say thin carbon fiber fillaments that embed a wire, they can become natural power collectors as they pass through the magnetic field. This power could be transmitted via microwave anywhere within line of sight.

Low frequency antenna The embedded wires would (for free) be the largest low frequency antenna ever constructed. The radio-astronomy aspects of such a large antenna grid are staggering. It might let us examine FAR deeper into the cosmos than has ever been accomplished previously.

Naturally we can sell advertising space on the shades as well. On the night side it would be awsome to look up into the sky and see a Halliburton, Nike or Coke ad! ;->

The issue was real, but the China Syndrome aspect that was being pitched to the public by the press was largely Hollywood style fantasy.

To the extent it was real, it was tiny. The company I work for spent zillions on Y2K compliance. However, I was abroad for the turn of the millenium, and I knew Europe had spent a great deal less. In fact, the government of Italy had gleefully spent nothing at all, regarding the whole thing as a pack of American nonsense.

Which wasn't far off the mark.

I was abroad for the turn of the millenium, and I knew Europe had spent a great deal less. In fact, the government of Italy had gleefully spent nothing at all, regarding the whole thing as a pack of American nonsense.

There were a number of notable failures here - ATM's that malfunctioned, gas pumps that were rejecting swipe cards, bills going out for millions of dollars, things like that.

If anyone was expecting train crashes or power station failures, cars that wouldn't start, they would be disapointed. Date failures tended to be less spectacular.

I'm sure Italy has spent the last 5 years fixing a myriad of things on an "as encountered" basis -- this WAS a valid approach to the problem if you didn't have any critical systems with known vulnerabilities. It all depends on the level of irritation your customers were willing to put up with.

Italian govt services being notoriously inept and slow anyway, a lot of people wouldn't care or notice anyway.

I don't think europe was saddled with quite the volume of legacy software the US was either. COBOL never quite caught on over there the way it did here.

Companies with contracts and agreements that had lengthy terms (like insurance policies) tended to be the most affected.

I work for a 26B company - we spent about 4 years, couple of million, correcting/remediating about 22% of our code.

Companies with contracts and agreements that had lengthy terms (like insurance policies) tended to be the most affected.

Yep. I spent all of 1999 working as a consultant at a major regional bank doing Y2K remediation. And, I agree with Tony; the Y2K thing didn't materialize as expected due in large part to the effort expended over the 5 years prior to Y2K, and not because there were 'no problems' to start with.

Funny, I had a conversation with an exec in our company about that very thing (a guy I don't get along with), who said something along the lines of "that Y2K thing, boy that turned out to be a lot of nothing, didn't it"?

I forget exactly, I replied with something along the lines of "Brian, usually you're dead wrong - and this is a perfect example", and reminded him how many man-hours and money we spent 4 years prior, fixing not only our software but that of our customers and suppliers, manning the data center on New Year's eve with 40 people while he was having drinks at the club, to keep this business running. It wasn't the disaster it had been hyped to because people planned and executed remediation.

Ha MARVIN THE MARTIAN been testing his ELUTIUM Q-38 EXPLOSIVE SPACE MODULATOR again? or hose him and k-9 have a suv maybe those idiots from GREENPEACE should go and take his FROD EXPLORER away and i hope marvin has his CME DISINTIGRATING PISTOL cleaned and ready