Cap and Trade Passes Despite Changing Climate on Climate Change
BY: NCViking
As skepticism of man-made-CO2-caused global warming climate change grows, the Obama Administration and Congress are moving quickly to get legislation passed before this house-of-B.S.-cards falls. You can only pull the wool over people’s eyes for so long before irrational fear gives way to common sense and it seems time may be finally running out on this hoax. Even though there are mountains of inaccuracies in the theory for scientists to argue over, the rational thinking individual can look at one glaring point and conclude what is being peddled is complete bunk: the evidence simply does not support the theory.
The theory of anthropogenic CO2-caused global warming climate change is based upon computer modeling of the most complex system on our planet with incomplete and often inaccurate data inputs. At the end of the day, it is a theory and a very flawed one at that. What about facts and evidence? Isn’t this what rational individuals use to form a conclusion? Apparently not in the case of climate change hysteria and Cap and Trade legislation. The only reliable facts and evidence provided by science are ones that can be tested. It’s the one part of the Scientific Method (the most important one) that seems to get lost when it comes to climate change. Modeling is not a test and proves nothing in itself. When this modeling is actually put to a test by replication, reality or time, it fails. This is not evidence that man is causing the globe to warm to catastrophe, it’s an opinion. The principle information needed to consider if the climate is in fact changing at all out of the ordinary is analysis of historically accurate and tested data, which ironically can be found in the Vostok Ice Core data used by the IPCC and satellite temperature readings. This is some of the only reliable evidence (not theory) that can be used to form a solid conclusion, and it is quite telling.
The Vostok Ice Core data is the only lab-tested piece of evidence providing accurate readings of historical temperature and CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. Satellite readings are the only accurate source of temperature readings in modern times, and the means of determining modern atmospheric CO2 concentrations is not in dispute, though where the CO2 comes from is still a mystery. Simple plotting of this information to correlate historical patterns (trends) to modern readings shows absolutely nothing out of the ordinary. As a matter of fact, it is somewhat cooler than the last warm period, when the Vikings freely navigated the waters in the arctic and farmed on Greenland. Satellite readings also show only a slight warming in the northern hemisphere over the last 25 years and stasis in the southern hemisphere, hardly out of control and shouldn’t ‘global’ warming include the whole globe? Antarctica is getting colder, the last 10 years has shown temperature stasis, maybe even cooling, it goes on. In conclusion there is no evidence to suggest increasing anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere is warming the planet or will cause catastrophe. There is evidence that we are in a natural warming trend cycle. Stories and images of drowning cities and stranded polar bears that we are relentlessly bombarded with are just an hysteria-inducing smoke screen used as a distraction from the truth. Simple evidence and tested data shows us the truth and causes this house-of-cards theory to fall, and people are finally getting wise to it.
So if the theory of anthropogenic, CO2-caused global warming climate change is bunk, then why are we getting alarming reports and legislation crammed down our throats?
Wall Street Journal:
Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as “deniers.” The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S.
In other words, people are getting wise to this climate change crap and time is running out for the B.S.ers that are getting rich from it or set to get rich from it in the future. All of course at the expense of tax payers:
The reality is that cost estimates for climate legislation are as unreliable as the models predicting climate change. What comes out of the computer is a function of what politicians type in. A better indicator might be what other countries are already experiencing. Britain’s Taxpayer Alliance estimates the average family there is paying nearly $1,300 a year in green taxes for carbon-cutting programs in effect only a few years.
Americans should know that those Members who vote for this climate bill are voting for what is likely to be the biggest tax in American history. Even Democrats can’t repeal that reality.
Raise the costs of everything and wreck our prosperity for a very flawed theory that will achieve little to no effect on the climate. Typical government rationalization. The Cap and Trade bill has narrowly passed (ugh) despite the changing climate on climate change. Thank goodness it is likely to die in the Senate. This Cap and Tax boondoggle effort is yet more fuel added to the growing Tea Party fire!
Technorati Tags: climate change, global warming, cap and trade
- Economic Crisis of Confidence - February 8th, 2010
- Cato Analysis and Fact Check of SOTU Speech - January 28th, 2010
- State of the Union Déjà vu? - January 26th, 2010
- Purple Predestination - January 25th, 2010
- Prince Composes New Vikings Fight Song (Oh Yes He Did!) - January 22nd, 2010
I always thought Polar Bears could swim….
Hopefully the Senate will have more sense than the House.
To be fair, all scientists agree there is something big going on, even Dr Carter which you like to quote. To say that there is nothing out of the ordinary would significantly reduce the credibility of your post.
CO2 levels have been rising since the start of massive burning of fossil fuels. An exceptionally good chart is the one posted at http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/historical-trends-in-carbon-dioxide-concentrations-and-temperature-on-a-geological-and-recent-time-scale. It shows CO2 levels for the past 400,000 years (from ice core data). 280 ppm has been the norm during normally warm periods (non-ice age). Ice trapped all CO2, which was then released during warming periods. At peak, CO2 never exceeded the roughly 280ppm limit.
There are several ways to measure casuality. One is a study on GDP and CO2 emissions. There is a very strong correlation http://www.arinmorf.com/2008/01/07/co2-as-a-function-of-gdp/.
Scientists have been looking at Climate Change and CO2 for about 4 decades now. Almost all scientists agree that the data shows that something big is going on, that it is measurable and real, and that it correlates to human activity (various studies).
Cap and Trade is hardly going to end our prosperity. First, it will spur jobs in green technology; second, it will reduce the cost of electricity significantly; third, staying will fossil fuels has significant future costs. I seriously doubt that oil will be $80 per barrel 15 years from now. It could be as high as $250.
Green tech reduces the cost of electricity. Wind, thermal, and wave tech costs nothing to acquire. The only cost is facilities creation and transmission, and those are much less than nuclear tech. Secondarily, they can be upgraded as tech improves (you can tear and rebuild, which you simply cannot do with nuclear).
Simply reiterating Republican party mantra does not make it true, or convincing.
Dr Carter is not taken very seriously because his 5 tests are almost bunk. For example, scientists know that after an ice age CO2 levels increase about 400-800 years after temperature rises. Everyone knows, and Dr Carter should know, that this is process is not the same process as Global Warming.
Historically, increase in CO2 during de-glaciation periods is due almost exclusively by the growth of forests and vegetation. Forests laid dormant or were covered up by glaciers and not surprisingly, CO2 levels dropped substantially. As glaciers receded, more and more forests were uncovered and CO2 levels increased.
The historical CO2 levels at 280 ppm have helped moderate temperatures at the mid temperate zones by trapping sunlight and heat. Because CO2 levels trap sunlight, any rise is viewed with significant alarm.
You may say that many scientists do not agree, but climate specialists do agree, so much so that Sen Inhofe (R-OK) couldn’t get a list together of climate scientists that would disagree. It was not for lack of trying.
This will be my only post on this subject, unless there is a question directed at me.
Correction.
“growth of forests and vegetation. Forests laid dormant” is incorrect as stated.
It should have read
Historically, increase in CO2 during de-glaciation periods is due almost exclusively by the normal process of rebirth and rejuvenation, such as the growth and death of forests and vegetation.
Not all scientists agree something ‘big’ is going on, only that it has warmed. The debate is whether the warming is simply part of a natural cycle or man-made from our emissions of CO2. Dr. Carter believes as I do that it is natural cycle and the ice core data and satellite temperature readings show this quite clearly. Everything else being postulated are theories and opinions from faulty modeling.
As for anthropogenic-CO2-induced catastrophe, atmospheric CO2 concentrations relating to temperatures have been all over the place in earth’s history and have shown little correlation. CO2 only accounts for 0.8% of green house gas in the atmosphere. Of that amount, 4% is estimated to be attributable to man over the last 150 years and even NASA admits it does not know exactly where all atmospheric CO2 comes from or goes to in the first place. Of this, the U.S. has attributed 29% of 4% of 0.8% over time. Cap and Trade is supposed to reduce current U.S. output to 83% of 2005 levels by 2020. It is not going to remove CO2, which has a several hundred year life in the atmosphere, it is just curbing growth at a big price. Anyone looking at this can see that it will have little effect on CO2 in the atmosphere and will certainly have no effect on global warming. This is common sense free of dogma, peer pressure, scare tactics, propaganda and endless promotion.
I am all for an energy policy that moves us towards cheap, reliable, renewable, ‘green’ domestic energy sources. Economic punishment using a B.S. war on CO2 (a nutrient, not pollutant) as a supposed means to an end is not it.
Until recently, I have spent 4 years working on climate studies. I\’d like to shed some light on the facts presented here
# The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has definitely increased from around 280 ppm to 370 ppm in the last 120 years
# The amount in the atmosphere is much smaller than is being produced by human activity. Much of the CO2 is absorbed by water (glaciers, polar caps, and oceans)
# The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere far exceeds the amount that vegetation can absorb. It is only a nutrient to the degree that it can be absorbed. The remainder is a threat to ocean life
# The level at which CO2 would be just a nutrient would be about 50% of its current volume in the atmosphere. To reach that point, CO2 emissions would have to drop by 85%
# Although CO2 is 0.8% of the atmosphere (by volume), the number is significant. In 40 years, using just the growth in the human produced component of CO2, CO2 will be 2% of the atmosphere, usually considered the tipping point
# CO2 emissions control is about restricting future increases in trapped heat. In our research, satellite data is very interesting because it supports the model. The places where warming was most likely to occur are places where we see the most effect.
# No model is necessary to measure and chart CO2 and other greenhouse gases. The projected trajectory of CO2 growth is not based on a model. it is a projection based on a chart.
# The increase in CO2 above current chart is based on population growth models. These have been exceptionally accurate in the past. Human population will continue to grow within 10% of current targets simply by taking the current children that are not yet of child bearing age. It does not have to model or predict whether their children will have children at the same rates.
Hi Theresa, thanks for commenting!
CO2 in the atmosphere has been up to 12 times higher throughout earth’s history with similar temperatures. Modern day concentrations are historically anemic. It is all over the place in history and there seems to be little or no correlation between CO2 and global temperatures in the paleoclimate record up to modern times. Some scientists have even questioned whether the increase in modern atmospheric CO2 is indeed due to human industrial activity or from massive deforestation or something else entirely. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. We are simply not exactly sure. Even top scientists at NASA admit they don’t know where atmospheric CO2 comes from and where it goes with any degree of certainty.
This is the problem, postulating complete discernment of the most complex system on earth and predicting impending doom based upon grossly inadequate information and understanding. Then using this supposed ‘certainty’ wrapped in politics, propaganda, fear-mongering and peer pressure to silence critics and scare the public into sacrifices that will do little more than make a select few very powerful and wealthy. I smell a rat, others are beginning to smell it too.
The fact that the Earth had higher concentrations of CO2 65 Million years ago or much later is irrelevant to the current debate. Those concentrations were lethal to modern mammals, including humans.
The atmospheric concentrations in the distant past do not correlate to today\’s needs. The plain fact is that humans need air and concentrations above 1,000 ppm of CO2 would cause harm.
Due to the name Global Warming, there is an obsessive focus in the mainstream media and among non-technical bloggers with temperature. The process of climate change involves pollution of the oceans, melting glaciers, and raising sea levels.
When scientists speak of uncertainty, it is important to understand the degree on uncertainty. 5% uncertainty is quite different than 50%. Different studies show that we are within the 5% range.
The point was that it is all over the place historically and warming or cooling has not shown a correlation to CO2 levels.
All of the points you mention relate to warming (except maybe ocean acidification). And non-technical bloggers such as me are not the ones spreading propaganda or crying the earth is warming or Charleston, SC will be under water. I am looking at all arguments and trying to make sense of it. The conclusions that are being pushed to affect my life are not rational and are politically motivated.
There is a tremendous amount of uncertainty in the theory of anthropogenic CO2 induced catastrophe. Models not agreeing with each other, historical and modern records showing nothing out of the ordinary, inaccuracies, misrepresentation, dogma, fear-mongering, politicizing … and most importantly the arrogance and ignorance in the belief that man has complete understanding of our climate and can make it a perfect 1955 model forever.
Trillions are estimated to be spent on sequestering something that we are unsure is doing any harm at all. The war on CO2 consumes tremendous attention and resources that could be used to clean the environment, clean polluted waterways, clean real poisons from the air, soil and our food supplies, restore habitats, etc., etc. Or how about eliminating poverty or eradicating infectious diseases? This dog just don’t hunt.
The effect of CO2 in the atmosphere, throughout Earth\’s history from from 4 billion years ago to today is well understood. Most of it has been very well understood since the 1950\’s and 60\’s.
CO2 does track very well with Earth\’s temperatures, as expected. It is chemistry and chemistry works in the lab in the same way it would in the atmosphere.
Early Earth\’s atmosphere, up until about 500 mya (million years ago), contained very little Oxygen. The effect of CO2 was masked by other gases, mostly Methane. Since methane is more complex, and there was much more of it, variations in CO2 had a smaller effect.
Once the atmosphere evolved into the present day Oxygen mix, levels of CO2 had the heating affect predicted by chemistry – not models.
Adding CO2 into the atmosphere does its effects. They are within the 5% range of models.
Thank you for the opportunity to correct misconceptions about science and facts about climate change. The media often posts articles that don\’t even come close to explaining the real science.
It is important for everyone to have accurate facts and be able to make rational decisions. My advice has consistently been that this is a very real problem with very real consequences. The largest consequences are not yet observed. When these real consequences become more pronounced, it will be much more difficult and expensive to correct.
The effect of CO2 in the atmosphere may be assumed but I would argue it is not well understood. If it was, then the predicted warming in the troposphere at the equator region would be verified, yet it is not occurring. Temperature data against CO2 concentrations would correlate in paleoclimate and modern information, it doesn’t, though attempts were made to do so in the modern readings to achieve a ’smoking gun’ that proved to be false. CO2 increased dramatically in the 50’s and has been on a steady incline since, yet it cooled in the 1960’s and 70’s before warming again – now it is stasis or cooling. The southern hemisphere hasn’t warmed since 1970 according to satellite data, the northern only slightly. Knowing we came out of a cool period in the 1960’s and 70’s this should not be a surprise. The warming coming out of the Little Ice Age should not be a surprise either. Testing the affects of CO2 and earth’s atmosphere in a lab is impossible. Way too complex and I would argue out of our realm of our certain understanding. Many climate models cannot even accurately take into account clouds. Why? Because there are too many variables and they are way too complex for current understanding. The old saying a butterfly flaps its wings in China and causes a thunderstorm in New York is a good illustration of this. The second most complex system on our planet is the oceans. Our understanding of this incredibly complex system is only in its infancy. The oceans have been said to be warming, destroying the Great Barrier Reef but what was bleaching has recovered and is flourishing again showing there may be more of a natural cycle here. Hurricanes, heat waves, droughts and other volatile weather patterns have been only understood recently to be from cyclical El Niño’s and La Niña’s and other ocean variations, though the media would have you believe that every stray t-storm is a result of Global Warming.
So what we have to work with is a prediction from a fallible theory being proven wrong by reality. I am not saying we do not have any knowledge, we do, I just argue it is grossly inadequate to form absolute conclusions to drive enormously far-reaching policy decisions. This is one of the arguments Freeman Dyson warns of (paraphrasing) that the arrogance of scientists often clouds reality and can be dangerous. There are many instances in the past with apparent ‘consensus’ that have proven simply wrong all the way up to catastrophic, like in the case of Eugenics. At one point the hypothesis of Global Warming, now Climate Change (to be more inclusive … not sure why this is used since the very nature of the climate is continuous change) may have been well thought out. But the hypothesis is not holding up to testing, which would cause reasoned individuals to reconsider and/or debate it. The problem is that it was blown up so big, with so many reputations and dollars on the line at the highest levels it has become a runaway train. Debate is silenced, careers destroyed, etc. a whitewash is going on and valid dissent is suppressed.
I agree people need accurate information to make rational decisions. It’s hard to cut through the endless propaganda as average Americans to determine what is sensible and what is agenda-driven nonsense. As a blogger, it is in my nature to look at everything, try and cut though it and share my thoughts. I encourage opposing viewpoints or ones that add to my own so readers can come here and think. I appreciate that your comments are backed up with experience, knowledge and reference and not fear-mongering, insults or dismissal. This is good debate, I just wish it occurred more amongst scientists, the press and our political leaders.
It is impossible, scientifically, to ignore the rise in CO2. Scientists measure correlation of events over time. The correlation of human activity to the rise in CO2 is exceptionally high. Therefore it is impossible to ignore human activity as a cause.
Weather is a complex phenomenon. Of course, we do not and cannot model weather itself in the lab. But we can and do test factors such as wind force, temperature, and diffusion as we add various gases and concentrations. So we do know how CO2 behaves.
If anything, weather forces tend to diffuse CO2 in the habitable zones and concentrate it more at the poles.
We are not surprised by the cooling in the 60\’s and 70\’s, nor does it negate or invalidate any of the models. There are many superimposed temperature trends. Local trends that heat or cool the planet do not confirm or debunk climate change models. So, for example, it would not be a confirmation of climate change theory if the Earth heated above normal for several years.
Even with the increased CO2 thus far
# the overall affect of CO2 on temperatures in the 21st century will be minimal. CO2 has not yet hit its runaway point, and even if it did it would take many centuries before temperatures rose dramatically.
# CO2 is not the only variable in the equation. There can be other forces that create cooling or heating. El Nino is just one such force. Cooling in the 60s and 70s does not invalidate the continuing rise in CO2 pressure.
# the increase in the 50s in CO2 accelerated absorption, but that was a small shift compared to the amount of CO2 introduced into the atmosphere between 1960 and 2009.
I was surprised by the comment \”This is good debate, I just wish it occurred more amongst scientists, the press and our political leaders.\”
The scientific community and political leaders have been debating this thoroughly for 20+ years. The scientific community has been peer reviewed for at least 20 years now. The theory and basis for it has been proven time and again. All you have to look at is factors like ocean acidification.
Climate change detractors would need to demonstrate that there is no correlation between human activity, such as growth in use of fossil fuels and its corresponding measured CO2 levels. Time and again, these factors show significant correlation — an inescapable conclusion.
You postulate that any effect may not be felt for centuries yet we are being bombarded by stories of cities underwater, killer storms, ice-less poles, extinction, on and on…happening now or in the very near future. Advocates of the theory don’t even agree on what is going on as you have demonstrated. The catastrophe being promoted isn’t happening as predicted, misinformation all over the place, predictions coming and going, dissenting papers being stifled, skeptics being black-balled and dismissed all while politicians lick their chops. Should we then stop debate, even though new information continues to come out creating questions? Is CO2 release even a problem in the first place? I don’t think we even know with any sort of certainty. Cap and Trade doesn’t even put so much as a dent in global CO2 output and certainly doesn’t remove CO2 from the atmosphere. All sorts of crazy ideas are being kicked around like giant sun shades, etc. that has the ear of the President. We could wind up destroying massive amounts of wealth while increasing human suffering exponentially all for something that may not even be a problem in the first place. Continued debate is pivotal, especially now that the theory pushed as an excuse to change our lives so dramatically is losing its legs.
Please sign the petition rejecting all climate change laws at http://www.CO2isOK.org
The single minded focus on temperature is a detriment to your understanding of the consequences of CO2 as a climate changing agent. The response you provided postulates a great deal of outcomes that are unsubstantiated by the information.
The following effects are real, current and will affect you in the next 20 years:
# The largest issue in the very near term is the effects that greenhouse gases are having on acidification and raising sea levels. These are real, visible, measurable, and beyond debate.
# No one expects the ice caps to melt uniformly or that on a year to year basis that they must shrink. As a long term trend, say 40 years beginning with the last 20 and continuing for the next 20, the observed measure trend is to shrink.
# The water stored in the caps is released as rising sea levels and excess precipitation.
# There coral reefs are being eroded and with it the food chain that it supports. This will lead to very critical food shortages for substantial parts of the world. As these regions shift from local food sources to importing food from other nations, expect your own food prices to increase.
Around the mid-21st Century, CO2 effects on the atmosphere will become self feeding. At this point, those radical ideas you describe will become a requirement. We can stop the self propagating effects now.
Economists I know indicate that the $200 M cap and trade couldn\’t possibly dent a $13T economy. It may lead to jobs and new technologies that may move the US out of the current deflationary times.
You have posted before about doom and gloom of solving the problem, but I fastened to not post about them because they are unsupported by evidence. If it were really going to destroy our prosperity as you posted, I would expect a realistic report from a number of knowledgeable economists. I believe that your posts on this are political posturing and not real economics, so I will defer from further debate on those topics.
My posts relating to Cap and Trade legislation are well sourced including the most recent which included an opinion from a Harvard economist.
I mentioned the oceans several times in my comments including The Great Barrier Reef, which is spectacularly recovering from bleaching.
Well renowned scientists dispute that sea levels are rising.
Polar ice is not melting, the arctic expanded by 30% in 2008 and antarctic ice is well ahead of average.
More uncertainty.
# The section that says \”Raise the costs of everything and wreck our prosperity…\” only links to Michelle Malkin. That link does not go to an economist.
# The Great Coral Reefs reference: The bleaching at the reefs, which I have visited, was due to unusual warm waters. This is a typical cycle of natural destruction and recovery visible across all of nature. It does not mean that the long term slow destructive trends and overall reduction aren\’t occurring. One recovery does not invalidate the amount of absorption of excess CO2.
# One year or even several years of ice recovery are expected. This does not invalidate the multi-decade observed pattern.
The link you mention is to a Michelle Malkin post that republishes an article from Bloomberg and a link to an analysis at the Heritage Foundation website.
We are told it is warming, the ice melting, the reefs bleaching, polar bears dying, etc. – now. When the evidence suggests otherwise, we are told it is natural cycles and even though many predictions are proving suspect, future ones will be right.
Too much uncertainty.
You sound like a very intelligent person and I am sure that you have seen all of the charts on climate change, or certainly enough of them, to know that none shows a straight line of increased temperature, or anything else. This is a case of short term patterns mixed within a longer term pattern.
You are very focused on temperature, so this chart http://newscenter.lbl.gov/wp-content/uploads/variations.jpg should tell you why there can be cooling within a larger trend.
A very similar trend line can be shown for polar ice caps, as well as reefs, glaciers, and so on.
The trend in the chart above comes from http://newscenter.lbl.gov/press-releases/2009/05/01/climate-experts-warn/
Note that the research report shows that models are consistent with AR4 (the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report). Each report monitors the progress of Climate Change predictions against models. Each assessment report is produced every six years, with the first one coming out in 1989.
Climate Change is not a new name as you suggested in a previous post. It has always been the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. These theories have now been tested for 20 years.
You will also note that the chart referenced above shows a 0.5C average temperature increase in 25~30 years, for a 2.0~2.5C increase in a century. Satellite photos taken year over year show that the winter cover snow fall in the US has diminished significantly. These are real and observable changes.
Again, the only thing you mention that does not relate to or is a result of change in temperature is ocean acidification, all other things relate to rising temperatures. Even what was once believed to be bleaching due to climate change turns out to be natural cycle and recovery from warming – temperature related. Warming over the last 150 years is not in dispute, as the Vostok Ice Core data and satellite temperature readings show. Naturally, we are warming out of the Little Ice Age and later out of a cool period in the 1960s and 1970s. When plotted over the last several thousand years, there is nothing out of the ordinary about this warming and the speed at which it is occurring. In fact, it is somewhat cooler than the last warm period and falls nicely into a natural, cyclical pattern that some very credible scientists have postulated correlates with solar activity. Naturally, warming will cause less snow cover and ice to melt. As you have pointed out, recent cooling is causing more snow cover and ice to recover – naturally. The trend is not at all out of the ordinary in historical terms.
I always enjoy reading the back and forth when the
Global WarmingClimate Change issue comes up on TGI. I’ll admit I have my opinions that mirror those of Viking but I have no where near the knowledge and the history of all things climate – so I generally stay out of the discussion. I opt to read and learn from the comments.To get back to the original subject of the post about the overall Cap and Trade bill that passed in the House….what was the hurry to pass this massive bill. Why did no one read the ENTIRE bill? When you tack on 300 pages (to 1,200 pages) at the last minute, allow for minimal discussion, how can a responsible Representative vote Yes on such a bill? There is a problem when even the Energy Czar, Carol Browner, admits she has not read the bill. What a travesty.
It is my opinion, with actual discussion (and reading of the bill), that the public would jam the phone lines of their elected Representatives (more than they did before the vote) and some modicum of common sense (hard to find in DC) would actually happen. As it stands, the bill passed (barely) and the only hope is that the Senate can quash this in its current form. If this becomes law the new unemployment figures of 9.5% will look like a wonderful goal to achieve.
Quite the contrary, something very large and unusual is occurring in temperatures.
There are three significant temperature periods in the last 2,000 years. Taking the median temperature at 4,000 yrs ago (ya), we see warming periods at 550 ya (MWP) and now, and a drop at 250 ya (LIA). MWP is the Medieval Warming Period and LIA is the Little Ice Age.
The MWP was .55C above median, while LIA was .5 below median. Significantly, today\’s warming is .8 above median.
The LIA correlates well with solar activity, which dipped substantially below the activity recorded during the MWP. We measure past solar activity using radiocarbon methods.
The current warming correlates well with CO2 and GDP, but does not correlate at all with solar activity.
The 8 year cooling in the 1970\’s is a small variation in temperatures that we see across all long term temperature charts. We see warming in the LIA and cooling in the MWP. They do not describe in any way the long term patterns.
Whether we see cooling or heating in the next 4-8 yrs, we should not conclude that 1,000 years of trends can be described by looking at these extremely short periods of time.
This is clearly not just warming out of the LIA. That warming ended roughly at 1850.
According to the ice core data and satellite temperature readings, the Medieval Warm and Roman Warm Periods (the last two before the modern one) were warmer then now. There is an historical fingerprint of a natural climate cycle, which modern times fit nicely into. Solar activity is just one theory as to why the cycle occurs, but the fact is it does exist.
Wrongly using short-term fluctuations in temperature and/or weather events as a correlation to man-made CO2-induced Climate Change is a tactic used by promoters, not ones questioning it.
Three posts you may really enjoy;
Condi Rice on Cap & Trade
http://earth2tech.com/2009/06/29/condoleezza-rice-on-cap-and-trade-its-easily-abused/
The Future of Energy (in China)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/05/opinion/05friedman.html?em
A good book I just came across
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
Another good book I came across
http://www.regnery.com/books/redhotlies.html
Madman,
The book you posted is a war on misreporting, specifically, on some presumed outlandish reporting. I’ll bet some real cash that the author will have plucked a few quotes out of context.
How far off from the real subject do you plan to take us: to claims about outlandish claims? And how is this in any way related to the actual facts on climate change?
Just what I figured you’d say.
Funny, I’m reading this book right now (along with 10 others) and that’s not the take I have received up to this point.
How is posting a book that relates to the subject in the post taking the discussion off subject? Seems to be right on subject in my mind, but I’m sure you’ll pontificate on how I am woefully incorrect in my assumptions.
To take the discussion further, I would love to know your thoughts, and any one else’s for that matter, on the question I posed a couple of comments back regarding the incredible speed that this gargantuan legislation has been passed in House with little discussion. What was the hurry? I’m asking the question because I don’t think there is an actual answer that can be posed.
As you can guess, I don’t believe that Climate Change is a big deal. Viking is the resident expert on the nitty-gritty CC stuff and I defer to him for the gory details. Bottom line, I don’t see the vast consensus to spend Trillions on an issue that seems to be much ado about nothing, but what do I know, I’m just an average citizen wanting to hold onto my meager paycheck.
Perhaps you can share some of the elements of the book that are not a war on outlandish claims. For example, does the book you posted a link for have any real science?
The initial pages of the book sets the tone that the book will be non-science, non-fact based, and it goes on to cite a list of presumed outlandish claims. Maybe in some later chapters it takes a more serious and fact based approach.
Like many things conservative, like Fox, like the recent hysteria over the EPA denying a critical paper, the facts are quite a bit different than the reality. Outlandish claims, and a book quoting them are, out of touch with reality.
In order for you to conclude that there is no consensus on CC you would have to ignore all climate scientists who’ve looked at the matter, all scientists who worked on the IPCC for the last 20 years, and ignore all of the economic benefits to the US.
You gents have been posting about the imminent collapse of the CC theory, when in fact it seems more like CC is soon becoming a mainstream theory accepted by the US and Europe.
I’ll be sure to forward that onto you when I am finished.
I see. Pretty standard response from you I suppose…Fox News Bad…biased reporting, bad facts, etc., etc., etc. Fox News is more of a conservative network on some of the news programs, but I’d love to see the massive right wing bias on the news. I’ve read many of your posts and I know that you’re smarter than that. I’d love to see the same balance on shows on the networks, CNN and certainly on MSNBC. I realize you didn’t mention all these other networks, but I thought I’d throw that out there since you mentioned FoxNews.
All climate scientists? All scientists? Rather had to believe that All are in consensus. Economic beneifts are dubious in my book and from what I have gleaned – this legislation will raise prices on businesses AND consumers for the greater good.
From the NYT article you posted:
So since we have the “resources” we should pay. I wonder how long that will last…..
Your post demonstrates a tactic used by Fox. I happen to know that on any given day, I can bet and win money that Fox has twisted a story so far from its real roots in order to present a Republican point of view. These days its just so easy with them…
The tactic you used is to twist my comment, which were “all climate scientists who’ve looked at the matter” and “all scientists who worked on the IPCC for the last 20 years.”
Your response was “All scientists?”
That response does not deserve an answer, other than to point out how twisted it was. It is something Fox would do.
I read plenty of conservative documents, magazines, newspapers. I know the difference between reason and Fox. Point by point, Fox’s take isn’t conservative as much as it is just rag journalism.
BTW, you got the article on China wrong. It wasn’t about us paying anything. It was about how technology will transform the debate.
One interesting tidbit on China (related to energy). For all of the pollution goin on over there, they do some very interesting things that we should consider here.
While staying in a hotel in Hong Kong, I had a marvelous view of the skyline. In the evening, the lights were amazing, bright, Vegas-like but by around 10 pm the city went dark. No lights on in empty offices no neon signs going. Just lights of necessity. While coming back, I drove past downtown Charlotte at 3 am and noticed it was lit up like a Christmas tree. Why? We could save a ton of energy just turning off the lights when not needed.
Also, every hotel I stay, from Beijing, Shanghai, Ningbo, Guangzhou, Hong Kong and others all make very cool use of the key card for the room. In order to turn on the electricity in the room, one must insert the key card into a slot and leave it. When leaving the room, you remove the key card and off goes all the electric. If this was in hotel rooms in America it would save tons of energy. Tax incentives to do these things could go along way.
Just thought I’d share it since China was brought up.
Thanks Viking. Very interesting stuff about China.
Mike,
I think you are suffering from FDS (FoxNews Derangement Syndrome). Here’s a great explanation from Bernie Goldberg:
FoxNews is just one source for news. I’m glad to see you read several sources, as I do, to glean opinions (I rarely have time to watch much TV news.) The problem with how most people with a left leaning point of view see the reporting af FoxNews is that the other major outlets in TV and Print have a left-learning point of view. Obviously they don’t think so, but it is pretty obvious when you see the imbalance of liberal guests as opposed to balancing it out with those with an opposite point of view. It happens all the time – sometimes subtle – but it’s out there. At least MSNBC wears its opinions on their sleeves and doesn’t apologize for it.
Back to the issue of the original post:
The bottom line is that someone will have to pay the price for the rest of the world – that was more of the point I was making. Fossil fuels will not last forever – but they will last far past our lifetimes and those of our children. I’m all for creating alternative energy sources, but we can chew gum and walk at the same time. I don’t believe we need massive taxes that penalize the taxpayers of the US to develop new energy source for the rest of the world.
Wow, I didn’t realize there was a FoxNews “tactic”. Sorry for my “error” in regards to your statement. Absolutes (“All”) are usually absolute crap no matter what you are talking about…
That is a great idea. I stay in an ungodly about of hotels throughout the year and that would be a great energy saver. It would be a better solution than taxing us all into the poor house.
About Fox News, it’s not that they are conservative; it is that they twist the news.
If you were like me, you should be concerned about the quality of the news you are getting. If you are happy with twisted news, by all means stay with Fox News.
I would disagree with your assessment, but I don’t think we’re going to agree at any point.
I am concerned with the quality of the news I get, but I don’t see the “twisting” that you refer to in your comment. I believe that it seems twisted to some because of the built in bias with the big 3 networks, CNN and the other iterations of these stations. I trust you would be concerned with the “twisting” of the news in those outlets….
Trackbacks
HR 2454 Barely Passed, 219 - 212 « Frugal Café Blog Zone
John Boehner: Champion for Americans, Reads Aloud the Shocking Additions to the Global Warming Tax Increase Bill « Frugal Café Blog Zone
Polar Bear Numbers Surge to 50-Year High, Obama’s Approval Rating Plunges to New Dismal Low « Frugal Café Blog Zone
EPA Global Warming Skeptic Interviewed About Being Silenced | The Great Illuminator
Disastrous Health Care Bill Will Face Skeptical Senate | The Great Illuminator
Hackers Expose Emails Proving Global Warming Deception | The Great Illuminator
Leave your response!
Our Growing Debt
Countdown Timer
in 32 months, 3 weeks, 3 days, 15 hours, 54 minutes, 56 seconds
Latest Illuminations
Subscribe to Posts
Categories
Authors
Archives
Center Links
Conservative Links
Great Forums
Liberal Links
The Great Illuminator
Most Commented
Tags