Pajamas Media

90 Comments

1. Kelly:

Finally, someone with half a brain. I will make it my goal in life to leave the biggest carbon footprint. Save the vegetables…eat a rock.

Jul 7, 2008 - 4:10 am 2. Ernie G:

If that Mayan calendar has bikini babes, I’ll get one too.

Jul 7, 2008 - 5:03 am 3. JoJo:

Amen!

Jul 7, 2008 - 5:24 am 4. Boris:

Wow, you can’t tell the difference between people who believe the Aztec calendar predicts our doom and the world’s preeminent scientific bodies? You really are self-deluded.

Jul 7, 2008 - 5:36 am 5. Paul:

Boris must be referring to the 31,000 scientists, including 9,000 PHD’s who signed a petition declaring “Global Warming” is bogus.

Jul 7, 2008 - 6:05 am 6. warren:

Some one after my own heart! I couldn’t have said it better.You the man!

Jul 7, 2008 - 6:13 am 7. jerry:

Two tales to ponder, first the trivial: Toyota’s success in peddling the hybrid is a sure sign that eco-ism is the new religion of the totalitarians. The Prius started out as gimmick used by Toyota to keep its fleet CAFE mileage up so they could sell more gas guzzlers. The reality is that the diesel engine is more efficient and has a smaller carbon footprint (25% less CO2 then an equivalent amount of gasoline.) The Prius is the only hybrid that makes sense and is only really road-worthy in city/suburban driving. A Prius is actually quite dangerous and inefficient on the open road. See this Times of London article: http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/driving/used_car_reviews/article3552994.ece . The Camry and Highlander hybrids are far less efficient then the VW and Mercedes diesels sold in the United States. The Prius is the religious medallion for the eco-ist prophets of doom.

Now for the more serious point: If the Prius is the religious medal then the modelers are the high priests of eco-ism. Over the past several years global warming modelers have ventured into near-term predictions all of which have been stunningly wrong. Now they revert to telling us what the climate will be like in 100 years. How convenient that none of us will be around to judge the accuracy of their forecasts. They explain away their recent failures by claiming that the models get more accurate with time despite the well known fact that the error band around a model’s prediction gets wider the farther away from the end of the data series you get. Models that cannot predict climate patterns five years from now will do worse 25, 50 and 100 years from now. In short, climate models are just scientific exercises that are designed to confirm the eco-ists worst nightmares.

American has produced many millennialist movements who claim that the end is near. The decline of traditional religion has left a vacuum that has been filled by a new religion masquerading as pseudo-science.

Jul 7, 2008 - 6:53 am 8. Jack:

There should be an intelligence test to vote.

Jul 7, 2008 - 7:04 am 9. Boris:

“despite the well known fact that the error band around a model’s prediction gets wider the farther away from the end of the data series you get.”

Not quite. In short term series, chaos dominates. Try flipping a coin ten times versus a million times. Which method gets closer to the true odds?

As for judging the forecasts, you can simply look at the first two IPCC reports, which predicted the climate quite well.

So your accusation of a religious pseudoscience are merely your own misconceptions.

Jul 7, 2008 - 7:04 am 10. david levavi:

Environmental fears are merely one category of a general set of anxieties about the future.

Someone anxious about global warming is usually someone who thinks the country is going to hell in a handbasket politically as well. Were it not for corporate greed and the political and social policies it engenders, would the our planet be in such dire peril?

According to the liberal canon, the only safe place left on the planet is the Global Village. Luckily, getting to the Global village is easy. Any halfwit can find it. It’s the last exit on the Information Highway. Finding the Information Highway is a snap. Simply go to your local Democratic Party headquarters, hang a sharp left and look for signs for the Al Gore Thruway going south. But be alert for detours where the road is washed out by glacial melting.

Jul 7, 2008 - 7:42 am 11. Qulmos:

YES! Another person who sees through the lies of global warming!

Take a look at this site…
http://eteam.ncpa.org/

Oh, and as for the Mayan/Aztec calendar thing, the one about the world “ending” in 2012… no proof anything will happen. This thing about the Earth getting into some kind of galactic alignment every 25,800 years… well, guess what? In the past 4.5 billion years of this planet’s existence, this event has happened more than 150,000 times, and we modern human beings were already walking the Earth the past 5 or 6 times. In fact, there’s no proof that the Maya themselves believed the world would “end” in 2012. As a matter of fact, they even left behind inscriptions about events taking place in the thousands of years after THAT.

Jul 7, 2008 - 7:52 am 12. Dan:

@Boris:

Flip a coin as many times as you want; what does that tell you about the next toss? Nothing.

Next time a tropical storm / hurricane / typhoon etc. crops up, take a look at the prediction charts. What happens to the modeled path over, say, a three-day time frame? The current location can be shown pretty accurately, yes? And the general direction might be OK. But the further ahead in time we go, the wider the predicted path becomes. Why? Because there are so many variables!

Jul 7, 2008 - 7:57 am 13. HRPKathy:

Boris,
Why has the earth’s temperature cooled in the last ten years while the CO2 levels are rising?

In the scientific community we call this a negative correlation.

Climatology explained by a climatologist here.

As far as the climate models working better the farther out you go – let’s test this theory with known facts – the current modeling is incapable of reproducing historical outcomes.

Follow the money and you’ll get to the bottom of this religion…. and its high priest Al Gore. You will also find that the greatest proponents of the faith are not great practitioners of conservation. Al Gore’s house has a bigger carbon footprint than a small country (I used IPCC modeling for that estimate).

Jul 7, 2008 - 7:59 am 14. keithacita:

ecofascism

Jul 7, 2008 - 8:05 am 15. Boris:

“Why? Because there are so many variables!”

Yes, the track of a hurricane is determined by chaos. But the climate is a boundary condition and is only determined by chaos over the short term. Over the long term, the climate is determined by the amount of energy present in the earth system (and its distribution). Your analogy breaks down because hurricanes are by definition short term chaotic events.

Jul 7, 2008 - 8:05 am 16. jerry:

Boris:

The models have failed to predict the decade of declining temperatures. They also predicted record temperatures in 2007and 2008 (didn’t happen); They also predicted increased hurricane activity in the short run and yet these failed to materialize. If you have been keeping up with the latest predictions the modeler’s consensus is that temperatures will continue to cool for another 7-10 years at which point “warming” will overwhelm the natural cycle. Of course if they are wrong everyone will have forgotten about the 2008 predictions anyway.

Your assertion that in the short term chaos dominates prediction is wrong. Your example of coin flipping is confusing sample size and prediction error. They are not the same thing. The data behind the climate models are at least a century old. Of course if the time constant for climate is 100 years then your point is well taken. Now for the bad news: if the time constant is on the order of even 25 years then the model results are garbage because we don’t have a large enough sample for the forecasts to meaningful.

Modeling is not science and anybody who claims that long term models are accurate predictors of reality is indeed engaging in pseudo-science.

Jul 7, 2008 - 8:09 am 17. Boris:

“Why has the earth’s temperature cooled in the last ten years while the CO2 levels are rising?”

Ten year periods are sometimes dominated by the weather noise, so jumping to a “negative correlation” based on a small amount of data is foolish. It would be equally foolish to ignore the well known physics of CO2.

“Climatology explained by a climatologist here.”

I am familiar with Tim Ball. His work is not highly regarded in the scientific community. Actually, he hasn’t presented his work (if he has done any) in a scientific forum, so it can’t be judged. Moreover, note the conspiratorial rhetoric “possibly the greatest deception in human history that CO2 is causing global warming/climate change” This is 911 Truther thinking.

“the current modeling is incapable of reproducing historical outcomes.”

Wrong:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm

Jul 7, 2008 - 8:20 am 18. Boris:

“The models have failed to predict the decade of declining temperatures.”

Thevas t majority models predict long term climate and do not attempt to predict short term weather. They are not initialized to do so.

“If you have been keeping up with the latest predictions the modeler’s consensus”

This is absolutely false. You are referring to one study publisher in Nature and it is not the consensus view. It does represent one attempt to predict the short term, however.

“Your example of coin flipping is confusing sample size and prediction error.”

I think you are confused. The reason sample size is important is because of randomness! If there were no random component then sample size wouldn’t matter.

Jul 7, 2008 - 8:25 am 19. asdfs:

Boris,
Pointing to the IPCC is not helping your case any. Do some research on your own. If in fact GH gases are our doom then why is no one crying about the largest GH gas, water vapor? Or how the GH models require quite a bit more co2 that .03% of the atmosphere to cause changes? Or where are all the evil SUVs and factories that caused the medeval warm period? If you are so concerned about our climate and its future, you should be studying the sun and lack of spot activity which is thousands more times dangerous than co2 as it is the engine that drives all life on this planet.

Jul 7, 2008 - 8:27 am 20. Larry J:

It isn’t just the global warming fraud, to listen to the news media, everything is a crisis. No, make that A CRISIS!!!!.

There are several reasons for the fear-mongering.
1. It’s an election year and a Republican is in the White House. The Press doesn’t like that and will do anything to exaggerate every problem. And, as in 1992, within days of the election (presuming a Democrat wins), suddenly many of the problems will disappear (e.g. “Worst economy in 50 years!)

2. Newspaper readership overall is trending down, as is viewership of the mainstream news programming. Just as “sex sells” in advertising, the news media are hoping panic sells. So, the problem with food poisoning isn’t just a public health problem, it’s a crisis. The fact that 96% of Americans are paying their mortgages on time isn’t news, but the fact that a lot of people took out bad mortgages they couldn’t afford makes it a CRISIS! (better watch your wallet on this one). Just this morning, CNN Headline News made a point at noting that the average price of gas is up 1/10th of a cent!

3. There are more 24/7 news channels than ever and they have a lot of air time to fill. They’ll take a story (be it politics or the latest missing white girl) and milk it for weeks (months) until the next media front passes by.

Rivers have flooded forever, but now we’ve built so many towns and homes in the flood plain that a lot of people get wet. It didn’t help that our efforts to manage the flood waters appear to be making things worse (so much for government management). Hurricanes have hit the coasts forever but now with so many people living in the vulnerable areas (with taxpayer-backed insurance), it’s more of an issue than it was 100 years ago.

And the saga continues. What should we do?
1. Close the newspaper. It’s an obsolete news devlivery mechansim anyway (think of all the trees killed to make the newsprint! And the fuel consumed delivering it to houses!)

2. Turn off the TV news.

3. Apply a logic filter to everything you read on the Internet.

Jul 7, 2008 - 8:28 am 21. Boris:

“If in fact GH gases are our doom then why is no one crying about the largest GH gas, water vapor?”

Because WV responds to temperature and actually exacerbates CO2s warming effect. This statement shows you are the one who needs to do more research.

Jul 7, 2008 - 8:51 am 22. jerry:

Boris:

I am economist by training and there is one thing you never do with an economist is try to bluff your way through a discussion of modeling, simulation and statistics.

A model’s predictions are the outcome of the accumulation of the historical data behind it. If our current stock of climate data is too small of a sample to provide an accurate forecast of climate 5 years from now it is also too small to predict it 100 years from now. Running the model doesn’t produce any new data. I suggest you consult a basic book on forecasting error for proof that the farther you are from the end of your historical data the greater the error of the forecast. Every statistics text warns the student of the danger of forecasting beyond the sample bounds which is what climate modelers do on an everyday basis.

Economists call boundry conditions “add factors” You see we discovered in the heyday of large econometric models that these models didn’t give stable results because many of the constants were not statisticially significant from zero. So the modelers jiggled and wiggled the constants, hence the name add factors, to get a solution that made economic sense. That is what climate modelers do to make the models come out the way they do. There is probably a set of boundry conditions that would produce a global cooling trend that seems realistic as well. Large econometric models did produce long term forecast that behaved as the mathematics suggested, i.e., the errors increased with time and when you compared new forecast with updated data the results were uncorrelated with the previous forecasts. In other words, forecasts beyond one or two time steps were widely inaccurate. There is no reason to believe that climate modeling is any different.

Jul 7, 2008 - 8:54 am 23. Roderick Reilly:

Climate changes. It has done so before even in recorded history. The Bronze Age was apparently somewhat milder than today’s climate. The late Middle Ages to the early 18th century ushered in an era colder than today. There were no SUVs, coal-fired plants, jet contrails or what have you. None of this climate variance was due to human activity. None. Of. It.

Does this mean that there is no anthropogenic contribution to what may be a warming trend now? Maybe, maybe not. The Earth’s Human population is many times larger then it was the last time it warmed, and our individual energy consumption is much higher per capita than the Bronze Age or the High Middle Ages (when it may have also warmed up a bit). But to assume an entirely human-based origin to whatever warming may or may not be happening defies solid science and climatological history. Even experts have been taken in by something called the “cascading effect” before, where experienced scientists and researchers have been stampeded into going along with one consensus or another about some phenomena that later turned out to be false. It is for these reasons that I am not willing to panic about climate change, and I’m also not willing to sign on to any draconian, expensive “remedies” for whatever may (or may not) be happening.

As a society, we’ve become so risk-averse that we actually have the gall, the chutzpa to demand that Mother Nature stay exactly the way she is now, forever. If there is more CO2, Mommy Nature will develop systems to absorb more of it. Those systems are called plants and the Ocean. It has happened before. nature adjusts, so should we, like the grownups we’re supposed to be. Incidentally, water vapor is the chief cause of the “greenhouse effect,” not carbon dioxide. I’m really flabbergasted that CO2 is being labeled as a pollutant, when all it is is what we exhale so that plants can breathe it and give us oxygen back. Oh, and note: that’s “CARBON DIOXIDE,” NOT CARBON. Carbon is the basis of life as we know it, so is LIFE bad?

Jul 7, 2008 - 9:12 am 24. John Samford:

This planet has been warming and cooling for as far back as humans can measure, which is about 1.2 million years. Nothing humans can do will affect that cycle. No evidence to suggest otherwise. Models, like their big brother statistics, are not evidence.
Why do Liberals love climate models but hate ‘profiling’? Profiling is based on the same math sub-sets as climate modeling and is somewhat more accurate. So why is one bad and the other good?
Explain me that oh Liberal/Socialist/ Progressive/Moonbat/Communist/Fascist/Left Winger or whatever the label de `jour is.

Jul 7, 2008 - 9:14 am 25. Dalindyebo:

From viewing outside the United States, it is fascinating to read the stance of Michele Catalano in that global context. I’m not going to get into the really weird discussion on this list about whether climate change has a substantially anthropogenic cause. I will only say that I am not interested in your panic and your guilt, Ms. Catalano. I am however interested in the exercise of your compassion and the presentation of solutions and options for those living in low lying island states such as the Maldives whose land is gradually disappearing from under their feet, today, as the water creeps further up the shore. We, out here in the rest of the world, will have to deal with refugees, wars for resources exacerbated by both human and weather changes, and the stark decisions that near term survival requires.

Jul 7, 2008 - 9:15 am 26. Will Becker:

It’s all a big fraud to herd us like sheep in the direction they want us to take.Will the American people realize that before it’s too late?

Jul 7, 2008 - 9:30 am 27. M.P.:

This is classic. George Carlin on environmentalists and global warming. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljNDbKpusT0

Jul 7, 2008 - 9:50 am 28. asdfs:

Boris says:
“Because WV responds to temperature and actually exacerbates CO2s warming effect. This statement shows you are the one who needs to do more research.”

So if it exacebates the co2 warming then why again is it no big deal? Why is that the only point i made you responded to? Must mean your position on the others is so weak it can not withstand debate.

Jul 7, 2008 - 9:59 am 29. Rex:

Boris,

When my doctor attended medical school, on the first day of school the Dean met with the new students in a seminar. He told them that all scientific inquiry needs to distinguish between PRECEDENCE and CAUSATION and to always keep this distinction in mind.

The Dean explained that if a rooster crows loudly every day before sunrise, and then the sun always rises, the rooster could presume that he CAUSED the sun to rise by his crowing.

Moral of the story – It is true that the rooster’s crowing PRECEDES the sun rising ever day, but it does not CAUSE it – not even one day.

Al Gore is one of the champion global warming client “roosters.” He crows a lot, but totally ignores the massive variables of sunspots, undersea volcanic activity, and other factors that precede mankind on the earth and precede S.U.V.’s – yet there are well-documented previous cycles of global warming that Al and his cohorts ignore because they disagree with his theory.

I’d take Al more seriously if his home didn’t consume 10 to 20 times more electricity than the home of the average American, or if he didn’t consume so much energy jet setting around crowing his one-sided story.

Your models ASSUME causation, like the rooster assumes the cosmic power of the rooster crowing crowing.

Your comments also suggest that you believe that a computer model is a substitute for common sense, or rigorous analysis and testing, or checking by other means outside of your assumptions or models.

Computer systems and models are known to give out outrageous readings on occasion which, if the human operators toss aside common sense and independent verification outside of the model, could produce disaster – even nuclear war.

Haven’t you ever heard of the flock of geese that were interpreted by trained radar operators as incoming missiles? Or the rising moon?

If not, check out –

http://www.russfound.org/Launch/webb.htm

Jul 7, 2008 - 10:19 am 30. HRPKathy:

Sorry Boris, but I AM an environmental chemist and the ten years of global COOLING is not NEGLIGABLE, nor can it be dispensed as a random ‘chaos’ effect. In chemistry we use the term entropy. Look it up. And your familiarity with Dr. Tim Ball doesn’t denigrate his arguments – I notice you avoided that course of discussion ENTIRELY.

Now as to the discussion of accuracy/precision of the models
Here’s a little basic chemistry. The cooling effect is an open chemical system equilibrating. Or maybe you prefer it stated in the words of Sir Issac Newton (a person with whom climatologists might do well to remember) – every force has an equal but opposite force. AGW omits entirely the natural corrections that occur with changes in temperature in the earth’s crust.

The idea currently being promoted that earthquakes are more frequent as a result of global warming completely ignore the science of geology, which is habitual by AGW’ers.

So sure, those who promote dramatic antropogenic causation global temperature changes frequently argue that climatologists are the sole scientists who are able to critique their theories. The primary reason is because they live in a vacuum relative to all the other sciences. Buffet chemistry and physics – selective use of chemical and physical principles – is a hallmark of this bogus claim.

Ignore that ten years of cooling – it doesn’t count. Uh – sure.

Jul 7, 2008 - 10:26 am 31. Ken Hahn:

Whenever a totalitarian wants power and people are reluctant to give up their freedoms or a con artist wants money, the first thing they attempt to create is panic. The “climate change” people want our freedom and they want our money. Some may be sincere but the tactics make me wonder. They never discuss the cost and they attempt to silence any opposition.

Jul 7, 2008 - 10:36 am 32. Paul from Hamburg:

Boris: If you are so worried that the earth is getting warmer, would you feel better if the earth were getting colder? If it turns out the the next 10 winters are the coldest on record, will you be happy? That is the really absurdity of the global warming religion. Its believers are convinced that something must be done, and they don’t mind making suggestions, but there is no real end goal. What if they are right and we can stop global warming? What happens if we actually decrease carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the temperature drops, and then keeps dropping? At that point, do we just let the glaciers keep growing? Do we rip the scrubbers off the coal-fired electrical plants to try to stop global cooling?

We hear lots of talk about how the Arctic ice sheet is getting smaller, but no one ever says how big it is supposed to be.

Jul 7, 2008 - 10:49 am 33. Rational Animal:

Does anybody know how the ‘global temperature’ is measured? You hear this term in nearly every climate debate, but i doubt that most people really know what that term means (i dont), or how the global temperature is measured.

I did several google searches and failed to find any satisfying answer.

Jul 7, 2008 - 12:02 pm 34. Bullfrog:

What interests me is how papers that support Global Warming theory are published in their respective scientific communities. The purpose of peer review is to present your theories and research into a “hostile environment” where other scientists assume your theory to be incorrect, and analyze the accompanying research to see if it changes their mind. Does this happen for GW research, or are papers published by a group of GW “Good Ol’ Boy” scientists who are already bias? Also intriguing are the 30,000+ scientists who insist GW theory is bogus. Why are they being ignored?

Jul 7, 2008 - 12:45 pm 35. Brian H:

The models are mathematical expressions of the prejudices of the “experts” who created them. The more they tweak them to look good on past predictions, the more useless they get for future forecasts. Stengel had it right: “Predicting is hard, especially about the future.” The “tweaks” to fit past curves make the model more narrowly limited to those specific cases, and worse at going beyond them. They die at the hands of Occam’s Razor — and reality.

Jul 7, 2008 - 1:07 pm 36. freetoken:

Tin foil hats apparently come in various styles, and this is one topic where so called “conservatives” don the style of their choice (e.g., “It’s all a big fraud’.)

I only wish PJM were serious about this topic.

Oh, and HRPKathy: if you are so sure the climatologists have erred so greatly in their endeavors, have you presented your concerns to the meetings of the AGU or EGU?

Jul 7, 2008 - 1:35 pm 37. Dawn:

I REALLY like you Michele!!

Jul 7, 2008 - 1:40 pm 38. Boris:

“Sorry Boris, but I AM an environmental chemist and the ten years of global COOLING is not NEGLIGABLE, nor can it be dispensed as a random ‘chaos’ effect. In chemistry we use the term entropy. Look it up. And your familiarity with Dr. Tim Ball doesn’t denigrate his arguments – I notice you avoided that course of discussion ENTIRELY.”

I find this very surprising since you don’t seem to know what unforced variability is. You also don’t seem to know that a ten year period beginning with a strong El Nino and ending with a La Nina will not reflect the underlying climate trend. Further, you state that the globe has cooled, but surface temperatures show a positive linear trend over the last ten years. You’re welcome to try again with facts.

I couldn’t find an argument in Tim Ball’s screed–just a conspiracy theory.

Jul 7, 2008 - 1:58 pm 39. Boris:

“So if it exacebates the co2 warming then why again is it no big deal? Why is that the only point i made you responded to? Must mean your position on the others is so weak it can not withstand debate.”

Because CO2 causes more WV to be held in the atmosphere. WV is not important because it’s a feedback and does not force the climate to change as anthropogenic CO2 does.

As for your other points, they make no sense at all. Just take the free science education I’ve given you and be happy.

Jul 7, 2008 - 2:04 pm 40. Boris:

“A model’s predictions are the outcome of the accumulation of the historical data behind it. If our current stock of climate data is too small of a sample to provide an accurate forecast of climate 5 years from now it is also too small to predict it 100 years from now.”

The model is a physical model, not a statistical model. The model is based on physics and observations. However, the IPCC uses ensemble means to derive long term climate trends. As a result, internal variability is averaged out. This doesn’t matter for the long term because internal variability evens out after 20-30 years. The real Earth does not get averaged, so there are large swings due to the internal variability that is not in long term forecasts.

“There is probably a set of boundry conditions that would produce a global cooling trend that seems realistic as well.”

Not true at all. CO2 will definitely warm the planet. This is unquestioned in physics.

Jul 7, 2008 - 2:13 pm 41. Jeff in Houston:

I keep waiting for someone to provide the following data:

How much CO2 is generated by mankind in a year; and how much CO2 is generated in total each year (by mankind and nature).

Then we could see whether our production is even on the radar screen. We keep seeing these numbers of billions of pounds of CO2 but I think in the general scheme of things, our production is negligeble.

I believe we may be on a warming trend but nobody has produced anything that shows either that it’s due to CO2 and if so, whether we are even a statistically significan contributer.

Jul 7, 2008 - 2:45 pm 42. bill-tb:

Pay more in taxes so government can PRETEND to control the weather. You really weren’t dumb enough to fall for the gas price reduction secret Nancy plan … were you?

Jul 7, 2008 - 3:33 pm 43. michele:

I wish I had the time to respond to all of you, but I don’t have internet at work and it’s time to go watch the sunset and stuff

I do want to say a couple of things. First, The Mayan calendar thing was tongue in cheek. I just picked them as my doomsday people of choice. Second, I never said I think global warming is a complete fraud.

I’ve been told the world is going to end since I was a kid. In grade school, they warned us that the sun would die out before we were adults. In middle school, I was told that Long Island was sinking at the rate of an inch per year and it would be under water before I was old enough to buy a house here. Eventually, the rest of the country would sink into the ocean as well. When I was in high school, it was a doomsday via aligning planets. And there was the nuclear energy scare, Russians, being overrun by our own garbage, meteors, tidal waves, god’s wrath, the rise of the animals, plagues, etc. It seemed like every year they were giving us something else to panic about, another way the world was going to end while we were still in it.

I live my life day to day. I have enough worry going on with a mortgage and two teenage kids that I really don’t want the burden of worrying about the air my great great great great great offspring will breathe. Selfish, I know.

As for the rest of you, I am certainly getting an education through your comments. Thank you.

Jul 7, 2008 - 3:34 pm 44. pril:

Boris, in all your clamoring about global warming, it seems you left your sense of humor in your other pair of pants.

Jul 7, 2008 - 3:38 pm 45. HRPKathy:

freetoken:

Oh, and HRPKathy: if you are so sure the climatologists have erred so greatly in their endeavors, have you presented your concerns to the meetings of the AGU or EGU?

If you have an argument, I suggest you make it. Your comment was a waste of space.

Boris:

I find this very surprising since you don’t seem to know what unforced variability is. You also don’t seem to know that a ten year period beginning with a strong El Nino and ending with a La Nina will not reflect the underlying climate trend. Further, you state that the globe has cooled, but surface temperatures show a positive linear trend over the last ten years. You’re welcome to try again with facts.

You’re welcome to try again with the facts. If entropy as a concept surprises you, then I suggest you avoid the use chemistry as an excuse for your bogus theories. What you call unforced variability I call equilibrating force. It’s interesting that you throw out all controvening data and still want to present this unproven theory as a fact. That’s not good science, but it makes for interesting politics. Frankly I’m not surprised that YOU can’t tell the difference.

In ten more years of “unforced variability” will you boneheads be saying “we did it” we taxed ourselves to coolness. LOL!

First – even if we accept the premise of anthropogenic causation of global warming – the solutions are all wrong. Taxes as environmental policy – what marxist thunk that up? The usurpation of dollars has never been a good substitution for good old capitalist competition to solve the problems of reducing energy usage. The fact that global climate is an excuse to raise taxes is far too convenient for those who accept the theory on faith – and obviously a great deal more inconvenient to us who are forced to pay for it. We have a right you question your motives when you put your hand in our pockets.

Second – legitimate science always tolerates inquiry – in this case the term ‘truthers’ and ‘tin foil wearers’ runs to the fore in any discussion where the religion of global warming is challenged. Faith in God is inversely proportional to AGW. Consider that man is ‘god’ in the AGW scenario, thus the intolerance of heresy.

Third – those out front screaming the climatological sky is falling haven’t altered one iota of their own lifestyles – odd behavior for true believers. They didn’t have enough room at the airport to store all of the private jets that flew in for the last environmental conference. Sad but true.

Fourth – those promoting this ‘theory’ have admitted exaggerations (we call those lies) and misrepresentations, even a court in the UK had sense enough to force classrooms to call the theory in Gore’s movie a political argument rather than a scientific one. Back in the real laboratory, the real facts speak for themselves and do not require embellishments.

Fifth – “CO2 will definitely warm the planet. This is unquestioned in physics” ROTFLMHO. Your planet is a closed system. Ever hear of Newton?

Sixth – You couldn’t find an argument in ‘that screed’? COP OUT.

Seventh – Just one additional point – how do you discern the origination of individual carbon dioxide molecules? I already know… that’s right – you have a model for that one, too. It’s only those CO2 molecules from man’s activities that really have an impact… volcanic emissions which generate far more.. not so much, eh? LOL. I submit that you’ll stop volcanoes from erupting easier than you’ll get this theory to fly past the next five years.

Science isn’t your friend on this one, Boris. The facts on the ground are simply not supporting the draconian perscriptions purported by the AGWers.

(That line about the model being physical not statistical – hilarious) If I had to defend your data, I’d throw out all the statistical evaluations, too.

The reliability of the scientific method can best be determined by accuracy and precision. All data is variable and standard deviations are calculated to determine the linearity of extrapolation. Accuracy is determined by knowns, and precision is a reflection of reproducibility. What I’ve read on the topic is that GW models do not work accurately to reproduce knowns, but the controvening data is routinely worked out to increase precision. What you have is the ability to generate the same error over and over again. Congratulations. You’ve met the definition of insanity.

Jul 7, 2008 - 3:45 pm 46. HRPKathy:

We have a right you question your motives when you put your hand in our pockets.

should read:
We have a right TO question your motives when you put your hand in our pockets.

PIMF.

Jul 7, 2008 - 3:48 pm 47. July 7th Link Round-Up | THE HOT JOINTS:

[...] The earth is warming, we’re all gonna die [...]

Jul 7, 2008 - 3:53 pm 48. freetoken:

HRPKathy said: “If you have an argument, I suggest you make it.”

Well, if my implication wasn’t clear enough and you need for me to spell it out, then here it is: the actual scientists doing work in climatology mostly publish their work in AGU and EGU journals. HRPKathy is a political blogger. If HPRKathy truly has any insights into climatology then why does she not discuss them with the people who are actually working in the field? Perhaps HRPKathy really doesn’t know about climatology?

For those people who are looking for a good background on climate change and the history of the study of CO2 in climate change, the best resource I have found is still Spencer Weart’s blog on the subject at the American Institute of Physics:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/

Recommend that people who want to understand this topic learn so from the scientists who study this, and not from political blogs.

Jul 7, 2008 - 4:21 pm 49. Boris:

“volcanic emissions which generate far more”

I’m sorry, I didn’t realize how uniformed you were. Next time you want to pretend to be a scientist on the internet, at least don’t make a mistake this large and laughable.

Jul 7, 2008 - 4:48 pm 50. HRPKathy:

freetoken,
Are you attempting irony? Let me quote you:
“if my implication wasn’t clear enough and you need for me to spell it out, then here it is”

You are making an argument against ME personally, not the points I was making – which you choose to ignore to discuss an irrelevancy. Whether or not I’ve taken my argument outside this forum is outside your ability to discern. You have no idea, but for the sake of discussion let me be even more clear – unlike liberals who make the topic – any topic – about ad hominems against people who disagree with them, conservatives prefer to discuss the SUBJECT. If you want to talk about me, wait until I’m the topic – I just know PJM is going to be knocking down my door. /Sarcasm off

I recommend that people who want to understand this topic observe its advocates. That will tell you all you need to know about the veracity of their concerns. You don’t have to be a scientist to recognize that those who have the most to gain have embraced this for their own reasons and are also embracing lifestyle changes for us and not for them.

If someone only sends you to one side of the argument, or tries to shut down the debate, what is that telling you? Why would they need to do that if the science was incontrovertible? Because it isn’t.

I restate this since I can’t type it any slower – we have a right to question your motives when you put your hands in our pockets.

Jul 7, 2008 - 5:01 pm 51. HRPKathy:

Thanks Boris, don’t know how I’ll recover from that comeback to my seven points directed at you.

But I’ll be big enough to give you the point that volcanic emissions are not ‘far more’ but – then how can we tell the proportion accurately – the amounts projected as anthropogenic are based on politically corrected models. At least I’m willing to question the proportions and acknowledge other variables that affect climate.

Unlike the zealots of the global warming religion.

Jul 7, 2008 - 5:29 pm 52. Boris:

“But I’ll be big enough to give you the point that volcanic emissions are not ‘far more’ but – then how can we tell the proportion accurately – the amounts projected as anthropogenic are based on politically corrected models.”

Lol. The point is you come on here and act like you KNOW that the science is wrong and it’s all a hoax and then you make some comment which shows you haven’t the first clue about the subject. Even this comment shows you are clueless about C12/C13 ratios and yet you are supposed to be some “environmental scientist.” Please.

Jul 7, 2008 - 6:07 pm 53. A.M. Mallett:

Boris wrote:
Yes, the track of a hurricane is determined by chaos. But the climate is a boundary condition and is only determined by chaos over the short term. Over the long term, the climate is determined by the amount of energy present in the earth system (and its distribution). Your analogy breaks down because hurricanes are by definition short term chaotic events.

I reply:
Nuts. The track of a hurricane is determined by upper atmospheric pressure systems and currents. Climate is not determined by chaos except among those who line their rooms with aluminum foil.

Jul 7, 2008 - 6:15 pm 54. Herr Morgenholz:

So, uh, what do you do for a living Boris?

Jul 7, 2008 - 6:20 pm 55. HRPKathy:

Boris,
You must have missed all the salient points in your personal attack against me. I certainly shouldn’t have to defend myself against someone who pretends to know statistics and chemistry and then doesn’t understand the basic terminology and fundamental rules of physics any Chem 101 student or high school physics student would know. Isn’t it right out of the liberal playbook to accuse conservatives of the thing they are in fact doing?

You’re the one pretending.

And please don’t look at any of the technological arguments, it’s obvious you don’t understand the underlying principles.

I know the arguments about old carbon vs. new carbon – and I also know that is the tiny little toothpick the whole bogus boogeyman suspends itself on. Using those ratios a whole host of assumptions are made- and that is the point. It is also in the midst of a controversy. It’s important to distinguish fossil fuels as the culprit – I get that, I just don’t agree with it. From my perspective the carbon in the the atmosphere behaves the same regardless of its source.

Frankly, at least I’m able to discuss the science.

But if I were you, I’d avoid the actual topic of this post, the scaremongering and it’s associated global warming alarmists, too.

Incidentally, I’ve been an environmental chemist since 1979, starting with Colorado School Of Mines Research Institute. Currently, I own an international environmental consulting firm. We specialize in everything from laboratory certification/quality systems to cradle to grave environmental remediation. Poor pitiful, unsuccessful me. The EPA, various state and local governments, and several national and international corporations have been or are currently my clients. I’m a quality expert, I have looked at reams and reams of data – so I know a crock of cooked data when I see it. One of the easiest ways to deceive is the use of computer programming as a data manipulation tool.

And you are? Just another tool. Thought so.

Here’s another article from another discredited source, the Wall Street Journal. You’d think you geniuses might know how to post a link.

Boris, you and freetoken, you’ve got the playbook down. Down argue the science. Attack the scientist.

Al Gore would be proud.

Jul 7, 2008 - 7:15 pm 56. Good Ole Charlie:

Hey Boris, Old Bolshevikii:

Have you heard of entropy and open and closed systems, and surroundings and all that other bourgeois Thermodynamics?

And have you ever tried analyzing data yourself? Have YOU ever twiddled with the equations “just a little bit to make a better fit”?

So how do you like ad hominems now that they’re directed your way?

Jul 7, 2008 - 7:30 pm 57. Brad:

I hope the planet does get warmer; my coffee always gets cold too fast.

Jul 7, 2008 - 9:18 pm 58. Mark H:

Boris’ dismissals of those whose opinions he doesn’t like point like an Arby’s sign at the emotional urges that drive his posts. I’m not putting emotion down, just saying that it shuts down objectivity, and replaces it with an arrogant smallness that poisons discourse.

That Boris condescends to others, expecting them to be grateful for the science education he has provided, clearly shows what’s driving him.

No true scientist dismisses inquiry with scorn. Nearly every true believer does. Draw your own conclusions.

Embrace of skepticism separates science from politics and religion; specific, testable predictions elevate hypotheses into theories; reproducible results convert doubt into acceptance.

Boris is 0 for 3.

Jul 7, 2008 - 9:26 pm 59. Boris:

Kathy,

In case you n ever noticed, the WSJ is not a scientific source.

The only scientific point you made was that volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans (Oh and some crack about a closed system which makes no sense.) That is an error in fact that you should be familiar with if you had merely glanced at the Keeling curve. And you pass yourself off as some kind of expert?

So, where did you get the idea that volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans?

Jul 8, 2008 - 5:01 am 60. Boris:

Oh and here’s the link, keeling curve and all…

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/223957/72

Sorry it’s not a journal, but your mistake is so basic that we can do without it. (Notice the first comment form a skeptic who thinks your argument is so dumb that the site must be making it up. lol)

Jul 8, 2008 - 5:10 am 61. HRPKathy:

Boris,

I didn’t get any idea that volcanoes emit more carbon dioxide than humans, I was raising an issue that it has other sources, and for all the accuracy of computer modeling – the ratios are not accurate. You are the one hanging on to a thread here. But keep beating that dead horse.

And your link to the IPCC – let me illustrate your main problem – your link (you really should learn HTML) reflects 1950 to the present. That’s history? Could it be that imposing the same model on the 1800s or the 1900s just doesn’t work? And why is that do you think?n (rhetorical)

The fact that a closed system makes no sense to you leads me to conclude that I am conversing with an idiot. Have you ever had a science class?

I’ve made several scientific points, but apparently you don’t recognize them. I’ll stop wasting my time on you now.

Jul 8, 2008 - 5:21 am 62. jerry:

Boris:

All science is empirically based and the parameters of physical systems have been discovered through data. Do you think that someone just pulled the coefficients out their hindquarters?

Complex models don’t predict anything. They are used to gain understanding of systems that have such a high degree of complexity that you cannot develop a closed form solution to the set of equations. As an example, most climate models assume an infinitely thick atmosphere for the boundary of the CO2 equation because when it was developed it that was the only way to solve the equation. If you change that assumption then the CO2 effect becomes self-limiting. Your statement that CO2 warms needs to carry “the everything else held constant” caveat.

I want to go back to your statement that chaotic behavior makes short term predition unreliable while the underlying warming trend can be predicted way out in the future. The good news is that is correct. Now for some more bad news: The time constant for the system can be estimated by the length of time that the true signal can be discerned from the noise caused by this so-called chaotic behavior. (By the way the short term variation in climate is not caused by system chaos but by simple random fluctuation. Chaos is a property of non-linear dynamic systems.) There are probably many time constants for climate because there are short medium and long term climate cycles. The time constant for the shortest cycles are the order of decades and not years. We really have only a half a dozen or so reliable data points for meaningful climate data that is suitable for use.
That is not enough to generate a trend.

Climate variation clearly follows an autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) process. I would gladly put a wager that use of simple ARIMA techniques will produce superior forecasts that are more accurate then the standard climate models.

Jul 8, 2008 - 5:39 am 63. ~Paules:

I am not qualified to offer an opinion on the science of global warming, but I do know something about human nature. Those who would pass legislation on climate change have no interest in the truth either pro or con. The sole motivation of our political class is the acquisition and maintenance of power. The political necessities of a two or four year election cycle will always take precedence over long-term solutions to any problem real or imagined. For the political class the thinking is always short term.

Al Gore is a typical example of our political class. He is neither a qualified scientist nor a humanitarian. Like any politician his ambition is motivated by a raw and naked desire for power. If Gore really believed that climate change is a threat, he would lead by example. But, no, Gore uses the issue to convince us that we need him and his solutions. His statements should be scrutinized with a healthy dose of cynicism.

The models, data, and scientific interpretations over climate change are irrelevent to the political class. No long-term program can be enacted because the short-term requirements of the election cycle would see such legislation overturned when the next crisis intrudes. At best congress would provide us with a plan loaded with unforseen consequences. Our current infatuation with ethanol is a good example. Someone should have forseen a rise in food prices, but that variable never entered the equation because it ran counter to the necessities of short-term political gain.

Global warming will fade as an issue when the political class can no longer use it for the maintenance of power. Science was never the issue for these people. True or not, nothing meaningful will be done to address the problem. The populace is being manipulated by the press as politicians scramble for votes.

There’s nothing more to see here, folks. Move along.

Jul 8, 2008 - 6:45 am 64. Boris:

“I didn’t get any idea that volcanoes emit more carbon dioxide than humans”

“It’s only those CO2 molecules from man’s activities that really have an impact… volcanic emissions which generate far more..”

Now you are lying.

Jul 8, 2008 - 6:51 am 65. jryan:

To Boris:

Let me get this straight…. you believe that the IPCC 1&2 has accurately predicted the climate…. but you say that it’s failure to predict the current climate trend is because they aren’t meant to predict short term climate?

Am I reading that correctly? Because that is saying that the IPCC has only “accurately predicted” climate that hasn’t happened yet.

If you are saying that the IPCC report has “accurately predicted” climate that has already happened, I suggest you look at the source models used by the IPCC. They only agree during the period of time that they had actual temperature data to fudge against. The further BACK in history you go the less they agree as well.

Jul 8, 2008 - 7:11 am 66. jerry:

Boris:

All science is empirically based and the parameters of ph Climate variation clearly follows an autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) process. I would gladly put a wager that use of simple ARIMA
ysical systems have been discovered through data. Do you think that someone just pulled the coefficients out their hindquarters?

Complex models don’t predict anything. They are used to gain understanding of systems that have such a high degree of complexity that you cannot develop a closed form solution to the set of equations. As an example, most climate models assume an infinitely thick atmosphere for the boundary of the CO2 equation because when it was developed it that was the only way to solve the equation. If you change that assumption then the CO2 effect becomes self-limiting. Your statement that CO2 warms needs to carry “the everything else held constant” caveat and of course everything doesn’t remain equal in the real world.

I want to go back to your statement that chaotic behavior makes short term predition unreliable while the underlying warming trend can be predicted way out in the future. The good news is that is correct. Now for some more bad news: The time constant for the system can be estimated by the length of time that the true signal can be discerned from the noise caused by this so-called chaotic behavior. (By the way the short term variation in climate is not caused by system chaos but by simple random fluctuation. Chaos is a property of non-linear dynamic systems.) There are probably many time constants for climate because there are short medium and long term climate cycles. The time constant for the shortest cycles are the order of decades and not years. We really have only a half a dozen or so reliable data points for meaningful climate data that is suitable for use.

Climate variation clearly follows an autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) process. I would gladly put a wager that use of simple ARIMA

Jul 8, 2008 - 7:17 am 67. jryan:

Oh, also, as far as the 10 vs 1,000,000 flips of a coin… that is all well and good except that you need to replace the two sided coin with marbles, and then understand that each study is trying to pin down which atom will be at the apex of the marble, and you are figuring that out using only a few of a trillion marbles in your study.

Jul 8, 2008 - 7:32 am 68. HRPKathy:

Boris:
“I didn’t get any idea that volcanoes emit more carbon dioxide than humans”

“It’s only those CO2 molecules from man’s activities that really have an impact… volcanic emissions which generate far more..”

Now you are lying.

Jul 8, 2008 – 6:51 am

No, Boris, but you are giving no doubt that you are stupid. Can’t recognize sarcasm, can you?

And way to miss the point entirely. Like I said you think you’ve found something, and like a dog with a bone, feel free to enjoy the dalliance. Now go away and let the adults have a conversation.

Jul 8, 2008 - 9:15 am 69. Boris:

Now you’re lying again. You didn’t mention sarcasm when you said:

“But I’ll be big enough to give you the point that volcanic emissions are not ‘far more’”

Utterly pathetic.

Jul 8, 2008 - 11:20 am 70. Boris:

“your link (you really should learn HTML) reflects 1950 to the present. That’s history? Could it be that imposing the same model on the 1800s or the 1900s just doesn’t work?”

Could it be that you can’t read a graph?

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm

The graphs start at 1850. Which means that your stupid comment was–well, just that.

At this point I’d either ignore this thread or pretend you have to take your kitten to the vet or something. Even I’m starting to feel bad for you.

Jul 8, 2008 - 11:29 am 71. Bullfrog:

Boris: you are clearly out-gunned, and now you are down-right annoying buddy.

I have the sense to recognize I am intellectually and informationally incapable of participating in this debate, except to answer questions (that don’t get answered).

Why don’t you consider the same, instead of making pointless, asinine comments that attack people on a personal level?

Jul 8, 2008 - 11:57 am 72. Paul from Hamburg:

Boris, would you care to explain this:
From the IPCC report:
“It is likely that the rate and duration of the warming of the 20th century is larger than any other time during the last 1,000 years.”

The report says that this based on proxy data. It says proxy data is tree rings, ice cores and coral. Fine. Which of those apply to Arizona, New Mexico, Utah and other areas that are basically deserts? There are large, old trees, there are no ice cores, and there is no coral? What was the average annual temperature of what is now Mesa, Arizona in 1550?

Jul 8, 2008 - 12:31 pm 73. Paul from Hamburg:

Sorry, my prior should have said “There are NO large on trees.”

Jul 8, 2008 - 12:43 pm 74. bear:

Boris holds onto his argument with the tenacity of a toddler that has been given a new toy. He never speaks to the Occams Razor comment earlier in the posts. While it is prudent for us to reduce our compsumption as occupants of the planet, the whole point of the article to me is that we should realize the law of unintended consequences when we prescribe solutions. The author was making a valid point, at the end of the day we can’t live in fear over postulations. Boris is a crusader. He should lighten up lest he be proven wrong. The variable he overlooks is population and consequent human indulgences. (maybe not all but some are overly focused on elements – fundamental to life). I agree that the planet will find equilibrium (one way or another). And I find it humorous that Boris thinks this to be an open system, but that’s not the point. (I’d like to know what assumptions go into his models).

But that aside, I don’t want to be branded a heretic on either side of the argument because as one writer said, it’s all about political power. Global polical power. I’m not speaking about Energy policy either. I really don’t like being a pawn to the politicians and the scientists in bed with the politicians so I’ll just wait for the next supervolcano to blow boris out of the water (vapor) or the next super bug or the next meteor to hit the planet, and then see who’s left to fight GW.

Jul 8, 2008 - 2:31 pm 75. Annony:

Boris, you thought that by coming here from Climate Audit, you’d find dumber opponents. While there are some very bright people over at CA, it looks like you’re intellectually outgunned no matter where you go.

Go commiserate with Gavin. He’ll tell you what you want to hear.

Jul 8, 2008 - 2:37 pm 76. Fred:

I just figured it out, Boris is Al Gore!

Jul 8, 2008 - 3:23 pm 77. Catnamedjake:

I hope Boris IS Algore, and if a piece of the sky does fall, that it know just who to aim for. Dang! just can’t shut him up! Well, discussion is good. I’m just glad so many people care enough about the fact that global “warming” is a bunch of crap to do all the research.

Jul 8, 2008 - 3:57 pm 78. Javelin:

That’s right conflate the environmentalists into totalitarians, way to go righties for dishonest, childish logic! Go follow your talk show messiahs and go start another war based on some small chance there are WMD’s. Then lecture on us on logic and restraint.

Jul 8, 2008 - 4:17 pm 79. Boris:

Wow, people who have never cracked a book have stopped by to call me stupid. Clearly the National Academies of Science should be alerted to this thread.

Jul 8, 2008 - 4:55 pm 80. Mark H:

Javelin lectures others about conflation of environmentalists with totalitarians, and in the very next sentence, links skeptical examination of the flaws of climate modeling with the existence of WMDs in Iraq.

Boris, meanwhile, now thinks it’s all about him.

These guys don’t understand the simplest principle of debate – that you not create a defensive or hostile reaction in your opponent, or you lose the chance to persuade. Which leaves the question of what exactly motivates them, given the certain outcome of their approach?

Despite their self-proven inability to grasp the effects of provocation and look-down-your-nose proselytizing, they want us to believe they grasp the infinitely greater complexities of ocean/atmosphere cycles and the global climate machine.

Ooookkkaaaayyyy.

Jul 8, 2008 - 7:53 pm 81. Paul from Hamburg:

Boris, since you have resorted to sarcastic ad hominem attacks (it’s Latin; look it up, Javelin), can we assume that you are surrendering?

And yes, I would still love to find out how anyone knows, within 1 degree, what the average temperature of Arizona was in 1550.

Jul 8, 2008 - 7:54 pm 82. Boris:

“Boris, since you have resorted to sarcastic ad hominem attacks (it’s Latin; look it up, Javelin), can we assume that you are surrendering?”

Just returning kind to kind, Paul. As for your question, since temperature patterns are teleconnected over great distances (farther than you would intuitively guess) we don’t have to have proxies everywhere to get an idea of global temperature.

There might be broehole proxy evidence in Arizona, but I haven’t checked.

Jul 9, 2008 - 3:42 am 83. Dan:

You guys are too much. This whole debate would be laughable if it wasn’t so damn sad.

Suffice it to say that we’ll have destroyed ourselves some other way long before any ‘global climate adjustment’ can have a significant impact, and this big blue ball will spin on without us.

Jul 9, 2008 - 6:05 am 84. Paul from Hamburg:

Boris:
“temperature patterns are teleconnected over great distances”. Now we know you are making this stuff up. “Teleconnected” isn’t even a real word. (I can’t find it a dictionary, and my spell checker is underlining it even as I type.)

“…to get an idea of global temperature”. The report doesn’t claim to “get an idea”. The report claims to know the temperature within 1 degree.

“There might be broehole proxy evidence in Arizona, but I haven’t checked.” The report says they used ice cores, tree rings and coral. As I said before, there are no ice cores, no large old trees, and no coral.

Jul 9, 2008 - 6:36 am 85. Boris:

I’m not making it up, moron.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleconnection

Jul 9, 2008 - 7:24 am 86. Annony:

Boris, teleconnections are specific relationships between specific locations based on specific phenomena. They’re not general purpose wild cards to be yarded out whenever you want to establish a relationship between point “a” and point “b”, despite what Mann says about his Californian “sweet spot”.

Jul 9, 2008 - 7:49 am 87. bear:

Boris is smart as are the others that post here. The internet has decreased the (virtual) distance between people across the planet. Consider the expected population in 50 years. Now look at how hostile people are on this site. Turn up the temperature in a crowded room (or plane) and see what happens after an extended period of time.

I sure hope Boris is wrong, because we’ll do each other in if we get even a few degrees of warming in that timeframe. But we’ll probably do that anyway,

BTW if you’re going to debate you should use the LCD of language.

Jul 9, 2008 - 11:06 am 88. Kevin:

Boris, HRPKathy has taken away your candy and made you look like a baby. You might want to give up while you are 1,000 runs down – you know the mercy rule.

HRPKathy, from one person who looks at data for a living to another, thanks!

Jul 10, 2008 - 9:55 am 89. Lily:

I have an idea. Someone tell us what the temperature of the earth is supposed to be and we can just set the thermostat.

Jul 11, 2008 - 1:16 pm 90. John:

This would have been a great “post” Hurricane Fay story..

In SW Fl. the media throws every senior into a panic, lines at the pumps are blocks away, shelters are open, all for the “hurricane that never happened”

I understand the danger in “not” heeding good advice..

but with todays technology, you would think that the onslaught of “hype” i have witnessed the last 72 hrs would have been kept in check

Aug 19, 2008 - 12:35 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: