I think we should abort everyone, in order to solve global climate change...

Believe it or not, there are people out there who believe that global warming is caused by a lot of breathing for a long time. God save us from the willfully stupid.

Look, everyone knows global warming is caused by all the hot air from Rush Limbaugh...

The fact that you use a non-word 'truthiness' tells me all I need to know about you.

This syntactically incorrect and incoherent sentence certainly assigns powers to GWB that I would not have assumed:

"...is that Bush administration has targeted the intellectually challenged..."

I not going to bother refuting the global warming nonsense.

Maurice:

Look here for the defintion of "truthiness."

I'm not sure what you're on about wrt syntax and the cited sentence, but it makes perfect sense to me.

And for this:

I not going to bother refuting the global warming nonsense.

"I'm not going to bother refuting the global warming nonsense."

I fixed mine. You fixed yours.

I got rid of my TV 10 years ago. If you did the same you would not be tempted to use non-words.

So you just ignore the man's whole argument simply because you are were able to find one word that you think is misused? If this is how you determine truth, then you would have to ignore nearly every word out of W's mouth, an absurd proposition.

Quit trying to feel smart by convincing yourself you are so smart you can just ignore the truth because you're the only one that really knows what the truth is. It must feel so good to be able to read a whole argument and just know how much smarter you must be than the author because he used the word truthiness.

I would recommend a good dose of "An Inconvenient Truth" for you. It's a great movie. It will give you the basics for a lifetime of recovery.

If I don't want to get my information from TV why would I want to get it from a movie?

My opinion. Peggy Noonan is a very interesting writer and does her research. Human caused global warming is a religion that I don't have enough faith to join.

Maurice, did you know that satellite and observed data tells us that 2005 was the hottest year globally since observations began in 1885. 6 of the last 10 years have been one of the hottest 10 years since 1885. A graph of global temperature when you zoom in on the last century looks something like this "/" . It is not that it is rising rapidly (only something like 1.5 degrees" but that it is a steady climb, each decade warmer than the last. Whether you want to believe it is human caused, that is more debatable. Either way it is undeniable that the temperature is rising. And the trend continues, The first half of 2006 was the hottest first half of any year in history, including 2005. The Record highs are occurring at a record rate. The evidence goes on and on and on. You just have to read it.

Do you remember the 70's when it was "universally accepted" that we were heading into an ice age?

Do you really believe CFC's could somehow overcome gravity and rise to 60 miles where they could be exposed to UV light releasing the chorine that destroys ozone?

You gotta a lot of faith.

Oh, BTW. Is butter good for us today or will it kill us?

PETI,

You missed Maurice's point. He didn't say he didn't believe the world is warming. Go read his comment again.

Believe it or not, there are people out there who believe that global warming is caused by a lot of breathing for a long time. God save us from the willfully stupid.

There are also people who believe it's caused by cow farts, and amusingly they may be at least partially correct.

But then there are other people who believe global warming should just be accepted as gospel with no further study, discussion or debate. I call those people ignorant, and they include you.

When you accept a scientific THEORY as an element of faith, how are you any better than the people who believe in intelligent design?

When you stop questioning and seeking, you become the enemy.

Dave

PETI,

They can't predict what the climate is going to do to the weather next week, and you accept their predictions for years from now?

Also i would like to point out Noonan's quote is actually quite hilarious. Her "common sense" questions show she has no understanding of the scientific questions at hand. Global warming is not about saving on heating costs in winter. That is laughable. The record droughts costing U.S. agriculture billions are a much larger concern. If the center of the country is a dust bowl, central heating and AC will be a thing of the past. This might seem dramatic, but record droughts have been occurring around the globe, as has record rainfall in other areas. Record number hurricanes, costing the U.S. Billions last year. If you know anything about meteorology, you would know prior to the 05 season, 28 named storms would be laughable- hence the running out of names and resorting to Alpha, Beta, Zeta...The one thing nearly every global climate expert will tell you is that the effects of changing global temperature will be unpredictable and sudden. Last year over 40 inches of rain fell on an Indian city in 24 hours, again a new record previously unthinkable. Another point of common sense to anyone is that warmer temperatures = rising oceans. Numerous conferences that apparently Noonan choses to ignore, have said that even with conservative estimates sea levels will ovverrun over 30 million people in 50 years. And over 100 million in 100 years. Glacier national park is forecast to lose the last of it's glaciers by 2015. Every glacier formation in the wold has shrunk in the last century, many have dissapeared entirely. Next time you want to deny global warming, take a look around.

EXCUSE ME CLAVOS, my statement contained no reference to ANY SORT OF PREDICTION. It merely referred to a the slow, steady increase in global temperature occurring nearly every, and every single decade since 1900. This is not forecasting. This is observation. Look at a graph it is almost a straight line, with virtually no bumps increasing at the rate of 1 degree celsius, every 50 years.

correction to my statement: nearly every YEAR, and every decade

I stand corrected, PETI. So the Earth is warming--didn't that happen when the Ice Ages ended?

PETI,

If Peggy Noonan isn't authoritative enough for you, how about an MIT scientist?

The earth may be warming, but analysis of temperature data for prior geologic eras show that it's still considerably cooler than has been the historical norm since the advent of humanity a couple of hundred thousand years ago.

Dave

I honestly and sincerely am thankful that we can agree the earth is warming. I will concede that the rest is debatable. As long as we can both agree that the earth is warming, then at least we can discuss what the changes/affects will be, if any.

Holy Jebus--MIT scientist Richard Lindzen??? Please.

Mr. Nalle: Perhaps you need to look up "theory" and find out what it means, unless you also think that say, the gravitational THEORY, and the germ THEORY of disease should also be "debated." All of science is provisional, including all of climate science.

Maurice: With regard to comment #12, you give away your reliance on specious talking points as opposed to actual research. Otherwise you would know that there was no such agreement in the 1970's regarding cooling (or can you provide references?), and you would also know that CFCs can reach the upper atmosphere by way of the same atmospheric phenomena that allows kites to "overcome gravity." Or are you also an air current denier?

"The point of all of this is that the Bush administration has targeted the intellectually challenged (Noonan and Ehlen are perfect examples) and pumped them full of specious reasons for ignoring the best scientific information and replacing it with appeals to morality."

Is Bush a smarmy idiot incapable of independant thought or is he a master controller of all he surveys. I always forget which it is.

Maurice:

Try reading before you comment. Nowhere do I ascribe any sort of extraordinary level of intellectual accomplisment to Bush personally. That's too easy to disprove.

Wynne, last I checked scientists hadn't given up on studying gravity and disease. And some theories are certainly more ironclad than others, while others still have lots of room for exploration.

As for the climate beliefs of the 70s, they're pretty well documented. The consensus then was that increase in greenhouse gasses caused by human industry would result in short term global warming followed by rapid global cooling. It's a theory which still isn't discredited and isn't inconsistent with current global temperature trends.

Dave

Jim

I will agree it wasn't 'universal' but it was very prevalent and great water cooler talk.

I have heard the arguments about CFCs being 'pushed up' into the atmosphere by wind much like silt is pushed to the surface of water by currents. Hard to believe enough would make it up that high to do any damage. Hard for me to believe ANY CFCs make it there. What is the reason for your belief in this tenuous theory?

Oh, and might I add that since the Montreal Protocol was signed in 1987 the level of CFC production has declined to the level we were at in the 1950s, and the ozone hole is shrinking and should be gone within a generation.

Dave

Maurice, even if only a few CFCs make it up their, one CFC molecule has the ability to destroy near infinite numbers of ozone molecules. By reducing CFC's the rate of destruction decreases, and reaches a balance with the rate of replacement.

#25 yes but by implication Bush is either controlling these people (Bush Admin.) or being controlled by them. Which is it?

I object to #28

There is no hole. A thinning but no hole.

Mr. Nalle:

I didn't suggest that there was no study of gravity or disease, but there is no credible evidence that refutes the existence of either.

As for this well-known 1970's consensus, I am still awaiting references.

I object to #31. There is a hole. The north and south pole have little or no ozone. This hole was expanding. It is no longer exanding. I remember seeing satellite picture analysis in the mid 90s showing that for the first time the south pole hole had extended far enough north to cover southern Argentina (Terra del Fuego) for a brief period (a week or so) before shrinking back southward. I may be remembering wrong, I was young then, but I ussually have a good memory for such things- please excuse my ego.

Jim Wynne,

Your link in #23 references an author, not a scientist, who doesn't agree with Prof. Lindzen, and then refers to a much ballyhhoed "bet," which has nothing to do with Prof. Lindzen's body of work.

Before you bother, I know you can link to any number of scientists who don't agree with Lindzen--I've read most, if not all, and have yet to see scientific evidence from any of them that defiitively proves him wrong.

Because he is in a minority, doesn't make him any less believable. History is full of scientists who were in a minority and later were proved to be correct.

ok..i've stayed away on this one fer numerous reasons...

but i do have a Question or two...
i understand that their is debate over cause, but there does appear to be growing concensus about temperature trends... the degree , or just how dangerous..etc, is open to debate as well...

so, i Ask... on the off chance that there IS some kind of correlation between human endeavor and increased warming (just hypothetically) and it could cause serious problem (possibly)..

why not address it as a preventative, similar to CFCs, etc?

and i mean scientifically, examine it as a Problem, and do a cost/benefit analysis based on the actuarials in the same way and insurance company calculates for natural disasters...

because, it seems to me, that if the Worse is closer to the Truth... then it's fuckign dangerous.. whereas, if it turns out to be normal trends in the long run...

what is harmed by being more careful about the Impact of humans on the biosphere as a whole, just like you maintain your house or car?

silly of me, i know...

Excelsior?

gonzo, short answer: nothing wrong with what you propose, and I (and others) have said so in other threads on BC.

What does bother me about all the alarmism, however, is that some of the advocacy has endorsed ideas (e.g. US signing the Kyoto Treaty) that are inimical to US interests.

By all means, let's study the hell out of it and THEN decide what steps should be taken to ameliorate whatever effects are likely to happen.

Presently, there isn't a real debate just a lot of "the sky is falling" rhetoric.

*Presently, there isn't a real debate just a lot of "the sky is falling" rhetoric.*

along with an equal amount of ostrich rhetoric to balance it all out

troll

Thank You Mr. Marx! This is a very dangerous situation and the risks are far too great. Ice is melting faster today than any time the past century. If the oceans continue to rise as fast as they are today (.1 in / year) and do not accelerate whatsoever (as forecast), the rise in sea level over the next century would be close to 10ft, submerging much of current Bangladesh, Shanghai, New Orleans, San Francisco, over 25% of Manhattan, etc. Never mind the increased risk posed by waves and storms. If a Category 3 Hurricane (such as Katrina) were to hit anywhere along the U.S. cost there would be 15-30ft storm surge on top of the 10ft ocean rise amounting to 25-40ft storm surge. Almost half of Florida is below 40ft, and nearly every city is below 40ft. A category 3 Hurricane hits FL every 5 years on average. The 15 foot storm surge typical of a Cat 3 while devastating, the damage from 25+ is unproportionally worse. Because most land is 10ft above sea level, only 5 of the 15ft normal surge gets in the street, compared with 15ft of 25ft.) I remind you a 10 ft increase does not factor in any further global warming, any acceleration in melting, or any acceleration of global warming, all of which, though debatable, are likely. It is based only on the current melting rate.

Maurice, even if only a few CFCs make it up their, one CFC molecule has the ability to destroy near infinite numbers of ozone molecule

And it does this by magic. Never mind that CFCs eventually break down and drop out of the stratosphere.

I didn't suggest that there was no study of gravity or disease, but there is no credible evidence that refutes the existence of either.

Which would differentiate them from Global Warming where there is credible evidence to question various aspects of the theory, especially the importance of human causation.

As for this well-known 1970's consensus, I am still awaiting references.

There's an excellent overview of climatology history at The American Institute of Physics which clearly details the dominance into the early 1980s of belief in the Milankovich cycle suggesting that we're entering a period of global cooling which will develop into an iceage. The fact that the impending iceage model was dominant through the 1970s is absolutely indisputible. In fact, many climatologists still believe that we should be in a cooling cycle, even if they believe that global warming is counterracting that trend.

Dave

Even if we want to deny that global climate trends have anything to do with humans and there is no way to change them, and that only nature can do that, then shouldn't we at least start construction of retaining walls on Greenland, and Antartica? And what on earth do we do with the artic ice caps? Shouldn't we start shipping it the Antartic where at least we can start building walls to fence it in?

By all means, let's study the hell out of it and THEN decide what steps should be taken to ameliorate whatever effects are likely to happen.

That's what's most troubling about the global warming movement - the effort to shut down debate and stop all research which doesn't fit the movement's political agenda.

Gonzo does indeed have a good general point. Regardless of whether global warming is real, as a matter of principle we should work to live as much in harmony with our environment as possible. Just not knowing one way or another is enough to justify care and caution. It's just good sense.

What troubles me is the use of global warming as a hammer to promote a political agenda, and it's never good when science is subverted to serve political ends.

Dave

Peti, what are you babbling about? You want to wall in the ocean? Good luck.

Dave

Actually, Nalle, your comment does not disprove my statement whatsoever. The reaction that destroys ozone is when Chlorine (Cl) reacts with ozone (O3) to form ClO and O2
Cl + O3 -> ClO + O2
However the ClO soon regenerates Cl through the following reaction:
ClO + O -> Cl + O2.
The O molecule (atomic Oxygen normally not present in the atmoshphere - Oxygen is normally diatomic (O2)) is present because of the remaining functioning ozone. Ozone absorbs ultraviolet light in this reaction:
O3 --> O2 + O --> O + O + O
These free radicals, atomic oxygen, allow the Chlorine to be regenerated, Fueling the first reaction again. Oxygen becomes concentrated and stuck in the O2 form, Ozone is depleted, and Chlorine is recycled. The cycle repeats. This is way it takes so long for the affects of CFCs to end.

Dave, I attempting to be satirical. My point is that there's all this talk of being cautious, preventative measures, etc. And yet no one has suggested once that we curb Co2 emmissions on the off chance they are contributing to global warming. No one has mentioned the Bush administrations failed promise of providing any sort of Co2 emmissions standards whatsoever.

Here is a link that supports what I already believe: discerningtoday.org

Highlights: "Nor do they know that stratospheric ozone thinning occurs almost exclusively at the south pole"

"Another little known fact is that the ozone layer is as much as 130 percent thicker at the poles as at the equator when polar thinning occurs. A simple computation reveals that a 10 percent thinning at the north pole (an improbable worst case scenario) would be benign."

"An article in the November 1990 Geophysical Research Letters reports the results of extensive measurements of volcanic gases taken in 1983 from Mt. Erebus in Antarctica. These results showed that hydrogen chloride (HCl) and HF emissions were 1,230 and 480 tons per day respectively."

Peti, I understand that it's an ongoing reaction and that one CFC molocule can do a lot of damage, but it's not an infinite effect. That would violate basic laws of physics. Eventually the CFCs drop out of the stratosphere. Realistic estimates are that it's a 1:10,000 ratio of CFC molocules to ozone molocules destroyed. And with our CFC production rapidly heading towards zero it's going to be a moot point anyway.

In fact, the progress we've made in a very short time with CFCs is an excellent argument that we CAN reverse whatever human caused problems there are in the environment. Plus there are other examples in the remarkable progress we've already made in air and water purity.

No one has mentioned the Bush administrations failed promise of providing any sort of Co2 emmissions standards whatsoever.

The increased CAFE standards will reduce CO2 emissions, and improved technology has already massively reduced emissions. And Bush did pass legislation reducing a lot of emissions, including a 70% reduction in SO2, NO and mercury. And the same measures which reduce those byproducts will inevitably also reduce CO2 output. Not that more couldn't be done, but Bush gets a very unfair rap on this. He's done more to improve fuel efficiency and reduce automobile pollution than anyone since Carter.

Dave

Peti,

If the oceans continue to rise as fast as they are today (.1 in / year) and do not accelerate whatsoever (as forecast)

BIG if. Most such forecasts in the past have proven to be way out in left field: Malthus, Ehrlich, the scientists in the 70s forecasting global cooling, etc. etc.

If a Category 3 Hurricane (such as Katrina) were to hit anywhere along the U.S. cost there would be 15-30ft storm surge

Not necessarily. Storm surges are a function of the state of the tide, which quadrant of the storm you are in, and the configuration of the land where the storm makes landfall. Andrew, a Cat 5 storm, had no storm surge whatsoever.

It's just this kind of alarmism and hyperbole that bothers me about the whole global warming issue. As Dave said above, the issue has become much too political.

The 15 foot storm surge typical of a Cat 3

Not at all "typical"--far more of the cat 3s that have hit here in Florida have had little or no surge than those that have. See above.

Bill Gray (University of Colorado), and Max Mayfield (Director, National Hurricane Center, Miami), THE two top hurricane experts, both deny global warming has any significant bearing on recent hurricane activity.

Well our ratio argument is getting silly so I thank you for the 10,000:1, i guess i just think 10,000 is closer to infinity ("near infinite") than you do.

But you open up a new can of worms with your reference (not by name) to the Clear Skies Initiative. I dont know whether you know this or not, but the Clear Skies initiative is simply a redo of the Clean Air Act of 1970 and the other changes to it since. For every single polutant you mentioned, the existing regulations under the Clean Air Act of 1970 were far more stringent. It also allows for emmissions trading on mercury. This means that an industry which does not emit as much mercury as it could, can legally sell it's right to emit mercury to a company that is emitting more than it's legal allotment. A company can now buy up as much right to sell mercury as it wishes, concentrating mercury in specific locations, far above any safe concentration for the environment and the humans that live there. The Bush administrations deliberate gimmicks, starting with the name of the act, are absolutely unprecedented.

I think a more common reference is 'parts per million' not 'parts per 10k'.

In response to your last post, Dave, first of all a peak of 15ft storm surge IS typical of catagory 3. Storm surge for a Category 3 is listed by the national hurricane center as "generally 9-12ft." you point out some examples of lesser storm surges. These are the exception, not the rule. Hurricane Andrew was a relatively miniscule Hurricane compared to a majority of Cat 5s (like Rita, Wilma and Katrina). It also had an abnormally high pressure for such a strong central core of winds (around 925 mb i think.. compared for 888-905 for the Cat 5's last year). So as predicted by the SLOSH forecasting system, storm surge was less than normal for a Cat 5.

You accuse my 15-30ft storm surge for cats 3-5 as alarming. I would think after Katrina (30ft surge) and Cammille (28ft surge) saying such things would no longer be alarming. It is realistic. This does happen. And it happens frequently. 15ft storm surge happens in the U.S. almost every other year. If this alarms you, i apologize.

Finally, I do not understand why you say proposing the oceans will continue to rise at .1 in per year is a big if. The only requirement for this to occur is that the earth stay the same temperature it is today. For the oceans to rise less than .1in per year (ignoring some other minor contributors to melting besides the global temperature) the earth would actually have to cool, which right now seems very unlikely, given the global temperature has risen for 10 of the last 10 decades, what is the chance that all of a sudden the next decade will be cooler?

Anyways, I'm going to go have dinner. Might come back later. Thanks for respecting my opinions Dave :). Most people your age don't bother to listen to people like me. You had some good points, and I hope you took a few of mine to heart too.

Hurricane Andrew was a relatively miniscule Hurricane compared to a majority of Cat 5s (like Rita, Wilma and Katrina)

Andrew was small, granted. But the winds (which made it a Cat 5 and are the primary cause of storm surge, along with factors listed above), were up to 164 MPH. The tides were low, and the coastline it hit was straight--an indentation would have "piled up" the water, but the conditions were right, except for the wind, for no surge.

None of those three (Rita, Wilma, Katrina) were Cat 5 storms (there have only been three Cat 5s recorded in the US).

NOAA's 9-12 ft. figure for Cat 3s is a prediction figure for what is possible, NOT a summary of historical data. Most Cat 3s have had considerably less surge than that.

If all Cat 3s had 9-12 ft. surges we here in Florida would have been washed away years ago.

Have to go take care of something now, more later.

It seems to me that regardless of trading, an overall reduction in the output of mercury remains an overall reduction in the output of mercury, even if some companies get a break in the process.

As for the other reductions, they could certainly be better, but they are improvements over the clean air act as it's been amended and modified over the years, and it includes incentives to encourage companies to comply quickly to frontload the improvements, which is a very good thing.

Dave

Peti, in #50 you're confusing me and Clavos.

Anyways, I'm going to go have dinner. Might come back later. Thanks for respecting my opinions Dave :). Most people your age don't bother to listen to people like me. You had some good points, and I hope you took a few of mine to heart too.

I'm going to dinner too. Curious how old you think I am. You don't sound like a teenager, so how do you know we're not in the same general age range?

Dave

Katrina, Wilma, and Rita WERE cat 5s, as i said. I think you mean that they were not at landfall. As I said Katrina was only Cat 3 at landfall. (althought it was Cat 4. when it hit the outer marshland 30+ miles southeast of New Orleans)

And P.S. I'm Clavos. Dave's the smart one.

I am a teenager Dave :( ...16... I don't know how old you are but I'm guessing you're at least in your 30s because several times you pointed out flaws in my arguments you could see from "real-life" (i hate that term) experience (ie paying taxes.. etc)

Category at landfall is ALL that matters and is how NOAA ranks them, What category they are at landfall is especially important to what size storm surge is developed.

OK CLAVOS! :D... I know all this, my hobby is meteorology. I dont think I ever implied that the category before landfall determines storm surge. All i said was that Andrew was smaller than other Cat 5s (Wilma, Katrina, Rita) which, although in a broader discussion of surge, was meant only to point out how small Andrew was, as we both know.

You say: Category at landfall is ALL that matters and is how NOAA ranks them.

Not true: Category before landfall is important in determining storm surge, esp. since storms tend to weaken dramatically before right before reaching the coast because of dry air off of the land intruding into the outflow pattern. This is one reason Katrina weakened from Cat. 5 to Cat. 3 by the time it hit the MS/AL coastline (along with slightly cooler water temps and more importantly, an eye wall replacement cycle.) However, Katrina maintained a much larger than normal storm surge for a Cat. 3 b/c there is a lag time between decreased windspeeds and the decrease of storm surge (along with several other factors we have mentioned already- coastline shape, sea floor structure, pressure, size of windfield, angle of the strongest quadrant to the coast etc.).
Sorry for rambling ...I tend to do that when it comes to weather.

Uh, Nalle, isn't arguing with peti sort of like debating your grandson...?

Maurice: Here is a link that supports what I already believe:

You know, if you're going to deride your opponents for taking things on faith, you might want to use something other than a religious webpage as support for your own arguments.

MCH- that would depend on how intelligent and how well informed Dave's grandson is , and if he even has a grandson. If his grandson is anything like he is, you might as well be complementing me.

MCH- discarding the arguments of someone based on their age amounts to no more than a psychological self defense mechanism. And ignoring the questions and comments of a nation's youth amounts to no more than civil irresponsibility. You can't simultaneously loathe their ignorance yet refuse to involve them in any sort of political discussion. While certain things only come from experience (esp. social and behavioral skills) the analytical, memory, creative, and expression skills develope at very young ages. If my opinions are so useless, why is it you cannot present a concise argument to discredit them? I have had several discussions online with people of varying ages (25-80), and none of them find my arguments so useless as to ignore them. Of course all of this ussually changes when they learn my age.

Peti, sad to say I was paying taxes when I was 16. Thankfully I had no kids yet at that time.

And MCH, if someone has a reasonable argument to make and can mashall some facts to back it up, then what difference does age make? The converse is also true, as you repeatedly demonstrate.

And while it's technically true that Peti could be my grandson if I'd tried really really hard to be a granpa, he's older than my eldest daughter.

If Peti had to stick with his peer group he'd be debating Anthony Grande, and how much fun would THAT be for him?

Dave

Dave et al,

Just got back and saw Peti's last few posts--I'm impressed-I don't have any grandkids, but if I did they'd be older than him (or her??)-we're all assuming here, unless I missed something in a previous post.

Anyway, Peti your knowledge about lots of stuff is truly impressive, and your ability to express it is, too. However, I still disagree with you; category at landfall IS everything in the sense that on land is where these storms do their damage (except for the occasional unlucky ship).

Hope you do come back, youngster--it's fun (and challenging) debating you.

Clavos

"Do you remember the 70's when it was "universally accepted" that we were heading into an ice age?"

No.

im backkkkk!!!!!! Well I guess I don't have that much evidence to back up this theory, but here's an example. Camille was Cat 5 at landfall, in almost the same location, but storm surge was 2 ft less (28 instead of 30 i think..) Many other things could go into this of course, but I think much of it has to do with the abnormally low pressure for a cat. 3 (Although windspeed had decreased this was not due entirely to a pressure increase, but also to a restructuring of the wind pattern), as well as the water the storm had been carrying with it. If the pressure rose from 890 to 950 millibars in the 6 hours before landfall, and windspeeds dropped from 180 to 100 mph, most of the water the storm had been carrying with it would still be carried into the shoreline 6 hours later, when it did make landfall. Anyways.. i think this is getting so trivial that neither of us can find any scientist that has bothered to record evidence of either of our positions. I do know however that storm surge is caused by the water carried with a storm, it is not unreasonable to expect a lag team between decreasing of winds and decreasing of storm surge. *I swear this is my last post on this subject.*

Don't forget you get a "bulge" of water that contributes to surge, the lower the pressure is.

OK, you're right, 'nuff said, besides I think we agree more than not.

I agree ;)

Clavos:

Re: comment #34, you seemed to have done a little selective reading. My point was that Lindzen is a shill for Big Oil. Even if his opinions are accurate, he's abdicated any hope for credibility by whoring himself to special interests.

As for the rest of the general thrust of the comments here, I'm not surprised, of course, that global warming itself became the issue of interest rather than the subject matter in the piece I wrote. This was about two people who are either woefully ignorant of the subjects they're excited about, or are willfully deceitful. The Bush administration has undeniably targeted both groups, and with alarming success.

Jim,

Re: comment #34, you seemed to have done a little selective reading. My point was that Lindzen is a shill for Big Oil. Even if his opinions are accurate, he's abdicated any hope for credibility by whoring himself to special interests.

True, and so have all those guys who oppose him--they've sold themselves out to foundations and environmental organizations for grant money.

They're ALL shills for whomever's paying them.

Clavos:

So you acknowledge that Lindzen has sold out his credibility. Thank you. Now give me *one* example of a Lindzen critic who has received grant money from a special interest group. I'm not saying that there aren't any, or that there aren't blatant prostitutes on both sides of the issue, but since you seem to have specific knowledge, why not share it with us?

Are they working for free?--whomever's paying them.

And all I "admitted" is that Lindzen's research is paid for by an oil company. If that makes HIM a sellout, then it's safe to asume ANYBODY who gets paid to research and publish on the subject is ALSO a "sellout." The fact is that the whole issue is completely political now, and a hell of a lot of money is at stake on both sides--environmental organizations and companies involved in cleaning up the environment stand to make just as much money as oil companies, if they win.

In fact, I'll really stick my neck out here and say that in the end it will be big oil that makes the big money, even of they "lose," because they have the resources to simply shift their focus, much as the tobacco companies did.

So you think that all climate scientists are funded by special interest groups? Really?

Here's what you said:

True, and so have all those guys who oppose him--they've sold themselves out to foundations and environmental organizations for grant money.

They're ALL shills for whomever's paying them.

All scientists receive their funding from somewhere. Those who want to make an issue of it can track the funding and use it as a way to try to discredit the scientists. Last I checked Lindzen got his salary from MIT, so that's who he's likely most beholden to.

The biggest source of climatology research funding is governments, and governments appear to have a vested interest in generating a certain amount of climate fear. The dreaded Richard Lindzen has a very good article on this subject in the Wall Street Journal.

Say what you will about Lindzen, but the man is sharp as a tack and knows his subject and the politics surrounding it.

Dave

Dave:

My questioning was directed to Clavos, who made a specific scurrilous claim. The fact that "all scientists get their funding from somewhere" is both obvious and meaningless. The characterization of all scientists, or at least all climate scientists, as shills just because the one one agrees with is a shill is classic projection.

Jim, it's just as valid to argue that they are all NOT shills regardless of where their funding comes from. But the truth is that there are scientists on both sides of this argument who get funding from all sorts of potentially questionable sources and some of them are shills and the vast majority on both sides are honest. I think that Lindzen is honest, because his arguments make good sense. He isn't a GW denier, he just has questions and objections to the political nature of the debate. I think that's the right attitude to have.

Dave

Jim,

I'm back--had to clear some items on the "honey do" list.

Let me start by apologizing for engaging in hyperbole regarding researchers in the GW business.

I don't really believe everyone engaged in such research is a shill, including Prof. Lindzen. It was not my finest moment and I'm not proud of it.


I DO believe that too many people involved in the discussion worldwide have an agenda.

And I also believe Dave's right about the quasi religious fervor of some of the most vocal.

Clavos:

Agreed on all counts. It's up to us, though, to separate the wheat from the chaff. One way to do that is to follow the money.

Since most of the funding actually comes from the government through the NSF and we have a pro-oil, andti-warming administration, couldn't it be argued that all the climate scientists are equally suspect - or not at all? Even those who support human causation and global warming are getting money from Exxon at least indirectly, so singling out Lindzen and his cohorts as specially subverted is disingenuous.

Dave

I have often heard environmentalist organizations referred to as having an agenda to prove global warming exists and is human caused. This is a repeated theme throughout many posts on here, and in most of our nations reference to environmentalists. I do not understands how it benefits environmentalists to prove that GW exists. For years the movement did just fine planting trees and hounding about acid rain. What is their motivation for proving GW exists and is human caused? It's much easier for me to see the agenda of say exxon-mobile. They lose money if fuel is conserved. How does environmentalist Joe gain money if GW exists?

Gives them a reason to solicit donations, apply for grants research it, write about it, lobby for correcting it, etc. it's their raison d'etre--keeps 'em going. If there were no environmental issues they would have nothing to do and would cease to exist; people would lose jobs and grant money.

couldnt they just as easily recieve all, if not more of those grants by trying to prove the opposite?

For a while, yes. But, once it was determined not to be a threat, poof! No more money.

Well if this is the case then i think it's interesting to note that on the anti-GW side the ones with the money are the ones with the agenda. They are capable of buying out altering the conclusions of scientists. They buy the anti-GW message.

On the other side of the aisle, the ones without the money are the ones with the agenda, the scientists. By creating conclusions which they can sell to concerned groups in society they profit from GW. They sell the GW message.

Which is worse? and which is more believable?

Good point...which is? But the concerned groups on the other side of the aisle are who I was referring to, not the scientists.

And I don't think anyone's actually altering any scientist's conclusions; there ARE scientists who question whether GW is principally human caused--what IS happening is the money sources on both sides choose to fund those scientists who support their viewpoint.

Also, I don't think the debate is any longer WHETHER GW exists, so much as it's WHY.

Problem is, too many people/organizations on both sides of the aisle are in the debate for something other than the pure science, IMO.

Yes, i was oversimplifying, but the basic concept holds true.

As Clavos pointed out, environmentalists need environmental crises to keep themselves in business. That doesn't bother me much since making the environment better is generally a desirable thing regardless of how it's marketed, so long as it doesn't become destructive.

What bothers me is those groups which have a political agenda and use environmentalism or for that matter any other generally positive movement for political purposes instead of just for the purposes which are natural to it.

GW is an issue in that area, because it's been latched onto by political groups whose primary goal is not necessarily to stop global warming, but to stop the United States and its industries while applying no standards or limits to industry in certain other countries. When an environmental issue becomes a political weapon and standards are designed with apply unevenly and unfairly to some countries and not others, then that's a problem.

In the case of greenhouse gasses it's particularly serious, because the US is already reducing output, while other countries (China, India and Mexico for example) are massively increasing output and their industrial technology is more primitive and less efficient and more polluting. Going into those growing industrial powers early and getting them on the right track using modern emissions control technology is ultimately far more important than trying to hammer the US with restrictions.

Dave

Im interested..

"GW is an issue in that area, because it's been latched onto by political groups whose primary goal is not necessarily to stop global warming, but to stop the United States and its industries while applying no standards or limits to industry in certain other countries. When an environmental issue becomes a political weapon and standards are designed with apply unevenly and unfairly to some countries and not others, then that's a problem." (Dave)

...but do you have any examples of such a group? It would appear it would have to be more of an international group/movement who's real agenda was to hurt the U.S. economy. I've heard of groups like that before (terrorists), but not of them using GW as a means.