Along with environmental damage, Exxon Valdez destroyed a number of fishing -boat businesses, including my daughter's best friend's Dad...he now is assisting his wife in a day-care business, and they get food stamps every month to survive instead of paying about $45K in income taxes...

That sucks!

No financial award ever tricked down to him.....and he was never allowed to go back

Books by Lyn Hancock, including "There's a Seal in my Jacket" are good references

Polar Bear info:

Legates finds that their claims of an impending, human-induced Arctic meltdown are not supported by the evidence. For example, the Arctic Assessment proclaimed that Arctic air temperature trends provide an early and strong indication that global warming is causing polar ice caps and glaciers to melt. However, current research suggests that coastal stations in Greenland are instead experiencing a cooling trend, and average summer air temperatures at the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet have decreased at the rate of 4°F per decade since measurements began in 1987.

In addition, the Arctic Assessment ignored a relatively recent long-term analysis of records from coastal stations in Russia. Russian coastal-station records of both the extent of sea ice and the thickness of fast ice (ice fixed to the shoreline or seafloor) extending back 125 years show significant variability over 60- to 80-year periods. Moreover, the maximum air temperature reported for the 20th century was in 1938, when it was nearly 0.4°F warmer than in 2000. The Russian study concludes that actual temperature measurements do not show the increased warming predicted by computer climate models.

However, even if warming is occurring, it has happened before, as ice cores from Baffin Island and sea core sediments from the Chukchi Sea show. For example, in Alaska, the onset of a warming in 1976-1977 ended the multi-decade cold trend in the mid-20th century and simply returned temperatures to those experienced in the early 20th century. Sharp, substantial fluctuations are typical of the historic pattern of natural climate variability extending back several centuries. And, as expected in response to natural variability, Alaskan ecosystems have responded rapidly and visibly to this recent warmth. By contrast, if the recent warmth were human-induced by constant additions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, responses in the Arctic region would be expected to be gradual and modest when viewed within any short time period.

...

Though polar bears are uniquely adapted to the Arctic region, they are not wedded solely to its coldest parts nor are they restricted to a specific Arctic diet. Aside from a variety of seals, they eat fish, kelp, caribou, ducks, sea birds and scavenged whale and walrus carcasses. In addition, as discussed above, Arctic air temperatures were as high as present temperatures in the 1930s and polar bears survived.

Interestingly, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), an international organization that has worked for 50 years to protect endangered species, has also written on the threats posed to polar bears from global warming. However, their own research seems to undermine their fears. According to the WWF, about 20 distinct polar bear populations exist, accounting for approximately 22,000 polar bears worldwide. As the figure shows, population patterns do not show a temperature-linked decline:

* Only two of the distinct population groups, accounting for about 16.4 percent of the total population, are decreasing.
* Ten populations, approximately 45.4 percent of the total number, are stable.
* Another two populations -- about 13.6 percent of the total number of polar bears -- are increasing.

The status of the remaining six populations (whether they are stable, increasing or decreasing in size) is unknown.

Moreover, when the WWF report is compared with the Arctic air temperature trend studies discussed earlier, there is a strong positive (instead of negative) correlation between air temperature and polar bear populations. Polar bear populations are declining in regions (like Baffin Bay) that have experienced a decrease in air temperature, while areas where polar bear populations are increasing (near the Bering Strait and the Chukchi Sea) are associated with increasing air temperatures. Thus it is difficult to argue that rising air temperatures will necessarily and directly lead to a decrease in polar bear populations.

Conclusion. Are human activities causing a warming in the Arctic, affecting the sea ice extent, longevity and thickness? Contradictory data exists. What seems clear is that polar bears have survived for thousands of years, including both colder and warmer periods. There may be threats to the future survival of the polar bear, but global warming is not primary among them.

More:

Research done by the U.S. Department of the Interior to determine if global warming threatens the polar bear population is so flawed that it cannot be used to justify listing the polar bear as an endangered species, according to a study being published later this year in Interfaces, a journal of the Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences.

...

Professor J. Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School says, "To list a species that is currently in good health as an endangered species requires valid forecasts that its population would decline to levels that threaten its viability. In fact, the polar bear populations have been increasing rapidly in recent decades due to hunting restrictions. Assuming these restrictions remain, the most appropriate forecast is to assume that the upward trend would continue for a few years, then level off.

"These studies are meant to inform the US Fish and Wildlife Service about listing the polar bear as endangered. After careful examination, my co-authors and I were unable to find any references to works providing evidence that the forecasting methods used in the reports had been previously validated. In essence, they give no scientific basis for deciding one way or the other about the polar bear."

Gee, one moment she's an inexperienced smalltown mayor, and in another, she's death to birds...

Try my original Sarah Palin tune if you love America @ www.conservativemusiconline.com

MORE:

First there came the computer-generated polar bear in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth; then that heartrending photo, syndicated everywhere, of the bears apparently stranded on a melting ice floe; then the story of those four polar bears drowned by global warming (actually, they'd perished in a storm).

Now, in a new cinema release called Earth - a magnificent, feature-length nature documentary from the makers of the BBC's Planet Earth series - comes the most sob-inducing "evidence" of all: a poor male polar bear filmed starving to death as a result, the quaveringly emotional Patrick Stewart voiceover suggests, of global warming.

Never mind that what actually happens is that the bear stupidly has a go at a colony of walruses and ends up being gored to death.

...

Having been up to the bears' habitat in Svalbard, I do have a certain amount of sympathy with these concerns. To claim, however, that they are facing imminent doom is stretching the truth. In 1950, let us not forget, there were about 5,000 polar bears. Now there are 25,000.

...

But never let the facts get in the way of a good story. The doom-mongers certainly won't. Despite evidence from organisations such as the US National Biological Service that in most places polar bear populations are either stable or increasing, Ursus maritimus will continue to top the eco-hysterics' list of animals in danger because it's so fluffy and white and photogenic.

If you're really that worried about their demise, I'd book yourself a ticket to Churchill, Manitoba, where the evil buggers (about the only creature, incidentally, that actively preys on humans) are so rife they're almost vermin.

And if things get really bad, we can always ship the survivors off to Antarctica where, unlike the North Pole, the ice shelf appears to be growing.

Here's something the leftist greenies don't want you to know:

President Bush on Thursday created the world's largest marine protected area -- a group of remote Hawaiian islands that cover 84 million acres and are home to 7,000 species of birds, fish and marine mammals, at least a quarter of which are unique to Hawaii.

At a White House ceremony, the president designated the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands the United States' 75th national monument. The islands have been described as "America's Galapagos" and as the most intact tropical marine region under U.S. jurisdiction.

"To put this area in context, this national monument is more than 100 times larger than Yosemite National Park," Bush said. "It's larger than 46 of our 50 states, and more than seven times larger than all our national marine sanctuaries combined. This is a big deal."

...

The decision immediately sets aside 139,000 square miles of largely uninhabited islands, atolls, coral reef colonies and underwater peaks known as seamounts to be managed by federal and state agencies.

Conrad Lautenbacher, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which will manage nearly all of it, said the new protected area would dwarf all others.

"It's the single-largest act of ocean conservation in history. It's a large milestone," Lautenbacher said. "It is a place to maintain biodiversity and to maintain basically the nurseries of the Pacific. It spawns a lot of the life that permeates the middle of the Pacific Ocean."

...

The national monument, about the size of California, is larger even than Australia's Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.

Roger Rufe, president of The Ocean Conservancy, agreed the area was on par with Yellowstone and the Grand Canyon. "Teddy Roosevelt is largely considered the father of our national park system," he added. With this national monument, "President Bush may be securing a similar legacy in our oceans."

There's been ZERO "Global Warming" over the last decade. All the scare-mongering models are broken. GI-GO.

Now, having cited all that, what the hell does Sarah Palin have to do with protected birds?

Your article never actually connected any dots. You just implied that, because she was opposed to listing polar bears as "endangered" (and for good reason), that she necessarily must want to butcher protected birds en masse, and that she must be opposed to all aspects of the Endangered Species Act. That, of course, is inaccurate.

And you further suggest that because she (rightly) is suspect of the whole "human beings are causing Global Warming - ZOMG WE'RE ALL GONNA FUCKIN' DIE!!!" hysteria, that she must hate nature, and seeks to turn the entire planet into a giant landfill. Again, that's obviously not the case.

Color me a greenish shade of "unimpressed."

Oh, and any drilling in ANWR (which McCain still opposes) would occur on a few hundred acres in a National Park of 19 million lichen-infested acres of permafrost tundra wasteland.

Sarah Palin Supports the Aerial Hunting of Wolves

Aerial hunting involves a slow (non-clean) kill and a painful, brutally slow death as the terrified animal bites at itself where it been shot and attempts to flee. It involves multiple shots, over time, while chasing the animal to exhaustion.

Palin provided a bounty of $150 for the forelegs of dead wolves to encourage this practice.

She thinks this is a fine way to kill bears as well.

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided. United States Constitution, Article I, Sec. 3, in part.

If you riffle through the entire constitution of the United States, those are all the powers you find granted to the vice president.

So, a dumb question for all the geniuses (and progressive intellectuals) out there who think they know it all.

Unless a bill is before the senate where there is a tie, how does the power of a vice president affect policy? How does Sarah Palin get to affect anything? If McCain dies or gets a stroke, that is one thing. But other than that?....

This entire article is nonsense based on the assumption that McCain will die in office. In other words, no matter how objectionable Palin may be, unless McCain is unable to serve, it makes no difference what she thinks.

Just a reminder. McCain has a pretty wife who will be keeping a sharp eye on him. And Todd Palin will be keeping a close eye on his wife. So the relationship between McCain and Palin is unlikely to descend to vice, in spite of the title she would hold. Advice would have to be platonically rendered.

You want to kill thousands of babies in the womb each new day in America? Well OK, as long as you don't mess with those polar bears, wolves and birds.

It's truly sickening to observe where the priorities of some in this nation lie.

Ruvy: "Just a reminder. McCain has a pretty wife who will be keeping a sharp eye on him. And Todd Palin will be keeping a close eye on his wife. So the relationship between McCain and Palin is unlikely to descend to vice, in spite of the title she would hold. Advice would have to be platonically rendered."

Eww... Please... I would have thrown up my breakfast, had I had any.

Ok, folks, You seem not to get the whole Polar Bear and Wolf dynamic. Despite whatever silly shit you hear from the NRDC, these species are overpopulated and not underpopulated and they are infringing on human settlements in truly alarming ways. Polar Bears are more aggressive than other bear species and more dangerous. Only their low level of contact with humans keeps the death count from Polar Bears lower than from Black Bears. And because of decades of hunting restrictions wolves are now overpopulated, having trouble finding food and moving into human communities looking for it. Wolf packs have attacked animals and children in Anchorage. Years of not being hunted have resulted in a loss of their fear of humans.

IMO Palin should be commended for promoting responsible management of dangerous and overpopulated species.

Dave

FYI, there is only one recorded fatal wolf attack in the wild on a person in North America - Kenton Joel Carnegie in Saskatchewan in 2005.

The only other fatalities recorded in North America were wolves in captivity or wolves being kept as pets.

For the most part wolves are not prone to predation on human beings, although it does happen, generally when the animals have become habituated to people through humans feeding them, or access to garbage. These type of wolves - in proximity to urban environments - are probably a significant issue. Wolves in the wild are much less of an issue and the biggest reason they are often cheerfully culled is predation on livestock and straight-out fear.

there is only one recorded fatal wolf attack in the wild on a person in North America

all wolves must be shot for failure to do their job...

500000000 or bust - !

Dave,

Nice try, but as usual, just because something sounds plausible to you, doesn't mean you should just put it out there as fact.

Even Palin isn't claiming aerial wolf hunting is used to prevent predator attacks on humans.

172 Scientists Protest Alaska's Aerial Wolf Hunting

It's brutal Dave. There's no reason for it other than "sport" (vomit). Watch the video.

If wolves were attacking people because they became familiar with humans, then I could see shooting the wolves that were causing the problem. But, aerial hunting wouldn't be the method used for close contact wolves.

You're proposing that flying out to the wilderness and hunting down wolves (in a particularly savage way), who aren't likely to even come into contact with people, is done to control wolf attacks?

You need to give a little more thought to your imaginary justifications.

More on the letter from scientists:

A letter sent today to Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin from nearly 200 scientists states, "We urge the State of Alaska to consider the ecological role that large predators play in preventing eruptions and crashes [of prey populations], and to consider conservation and preservation of predators on an equal basis with the goal of producing more ungulates for hunters."

What really shocks me Dave, is that I would have thought that as a Libertarian or Liberty Republican, you would have gone with what the people of Alaska want rather than what the state wants.

For more than a decade, the citizens of Alaska have voiced opposition to much aerial wildlife hunting and have twice voted to put an end to the state's use of aircraft to kill wolves. But each time, the legislature has overturned the will of the people. [emphasis mine]

"The intent of Alaska's citizens is clear," said Joel Bennett, former member of the Alaska Board of Game. "We have voted against the practice of private hunters using aircraft to hunt wolves twice now, only to have our vote overturned both times. It is obvious we need the support of Congress to close this loophole."

Come on Dave! Stand up for the will of the people!

Quotes from here.

Cindy,

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided. United States Constitution, Article I, Sec. 3, in part.

So, a dumb question for all the geniuses (and progressive intellectuals) out there who think they know it all. Unless a bill is before the senate where there is a tie, how does the power of a vice president affect policy? How does Sarah Palin get to affect anything? If McCain dies or gets a stroke, that is one thing. But other than that?....

Can we get a simple answer to a high school civics question from your highness and the other "progressive intellectuals" pontificating here?

Elliott:

Why exactly wouldn't the 'leftist greenies' want us to know about the new marine reserve? Do you have a source for that? You seem to have no difficulty finding and citing sources, as comments 3 through 13,000,009 demonstrate...

Archie:

What about Drew's article gave you the impression that he's pro-choice?

Sure do love your strawmen, don't you, lads?

Still waiting for the "progressive intellectuals" to answer my high school civics question. I'll repeat for them, in case they have so exercised themselves in their passion for birds, seals, whales, bears, snails and the other of G-d's creations, that it has slipped their brilliant minds....

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided. United States Constitution, Article I, Sec. 3, in part.

So, a dumb question for all the geniuses (and progressive intellectuals) out there who think they know it all. Unless a bill is before the senate where there is a tie, how does the power of a vice president affect policy? How does Sarah Palin get to affect anything? If McCain dies or gets a stroke, that is one thing. But other than that?

The cat must have their tongues. Are cats on the endangered species list - along with pontificating progressive intellectuals who can't answer simple high school civics questions?

Ruvy:

Two words.

Dick Cheney.

If that doesn't help you, I think you answered your own question.

Maybe "progressive intellectuals", whatever the fuck they are, aren't reading your words, Ruvy.

As to pontificating, which, outside of Catholic circles most commonly means "express one's position as if it is absolutely correct", isn't that your strong suit?

(happy belated birthday Chris)

(or would that be: belated happy birthday...)

Ahem?

The Experiment doesn't Support the Models, so we'll throw the experiment out because otherwise, the Models are WRONG, right?

Global Warming panic is too important to the agenda to bother with inconvenient facts.

One thing I haven't quite gathered from you kind Americans is how global warming is a political issue at all. Can someone fill me in?

I can't read Ruvy any more because he has this Armageddon stuff going so much of the time... and because it seems like he is saying that if I were a good Jew I would move to Israel and think like he does.... so it is hard to separate out what he might say that makes sense, like yeh, his civics lesson about the VP power. OTOH if Palin gets into the White House with McCain she had wrest whatever power she wishes, a la Cheney, who has had NO PROBLEM flouting the Constitution to do pretty much as he pleases, and IF the Big C takes out Old John while he is in there then she can absofuckinglutely do whatever she wants about whatever she wants a la our current Prez.

And Jordan, that is a perfectly reasonable question to which I do not have the answer. Just like abortion, global warming seems to have taken on some sort of mythic quality and become an US vs THEM issue. And has been politicized. There are those who say OK, yes, it is happening but it is just nature and therfore not our fault and so we don't have to do anything about it and fuck worrying about emissions and stuff like that and there are those who say but even if it isn't our fault we can do something to curb it and there are those who say it probably is partially our fault and so we must do something.....

Basically it is between the Fuck it, let's do nothing! and the Let's try our best to do something! groups.

The U.S. of A can be a very strange place sometimes.

For example, the Arctic Assessment proclaimed that Arctic air temperature trends provide an early and strong indication that global warming is causing polar ice caps and glaciers to melt. However, current research suggests that coastal stations in Greenland are instead experiencing a cooling trend, and average summer air temperatures at the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet have decreased at the rate of 4°F per decade since measurements began in 1987.

Standard deniers tactic. Use one single specific location to use debunk a governmental panels conclusion that the entire arctic is warming. The cooling over Greenland is universally agreed by any meteorologist to have been caused by a multi-decadal positive NAO index. I know this for a fact because I am an amateur meteorologist. Look it up if you don't believe me.

Moreover, the maximum air temperature reported for the 20th century was in 1938, when it was nearly 0.4°F warmer than in 2000. The Russian study concludes that actual temperature measurements do not show the increased warming predicted by computer climate models.

For example, in Alaska, the onset of a warming in 1976-1977 ended the multi-decade cold trend in the mid-20th century and simply returned temperatures to those experienced in the early 20th century. Sharp, substantial fluctuations are typical of the historic pattern of natural climate variability extending back several centuries. And, as expected in response to natural variability, Alaskan ecosystems have responded rapidly and visibly to this recent warmth. By contrast, if the recent warmth were human-induced by constant additions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, responses in the Arctic region would be expected to be gradual and modest when viewed within any short time period.

NASA disagrees. They say warming has occurred at 1.2C per decade in the arctic overall. The acknowledge regional variation and mention Greenland specifically as a place for cooling.

I will certainly admit the Polar Bear population is not under immediate threat from global warming because I have found no compelling evidence. But don't try convincing me the arctic is cooling using a few scant and insignificant observations.

Happy to, Jordan. It's a political issue because it's being used as a shilleleagh to drive a political agenda, mostly focused on punishing the industrialized west. The most obvious example of this, is the Kyoto Protocols, which were predicated on falsified evidence (If you input random numbers into Mann's hockeystick graph, you end up with the same graph you get using the observational data.)

It's not science because the whole thing is based on cooked books where evidence is cherry-picked to provide a result (as seen in the link I posted in #26) as opposed to following the scientific method (When the experiment fails to confirm, or even denies, your model, the model, not the evidence, is wrong.)

Remember the "Y2K Bug" panic a few years ago, Jordan? The Global Warming Panic works much the same way-it's a method to sell a product to the gullible. There was no Y2K bug, but thousands of networks and computer systems were "Fixed" to solve it because of the dire, frightening predictions of the promoters.

Same thing here. Doomsday Scenarios are always in style as a fallback when traditional pressure methods fail, and it's a good way to strong-arm grants for research.

Let me give you a basic example:

Which study do you think the Dept. of Interior is more likely to fund...

1)How Global Climate Change is impacting the life cycle of the three-striped chipferret of the North Woods.

2)Studying the lifecycle of the three striped chipferret of the North Woods.


The first one ties the three-striped chipferret's lifecycle to a "Global Problem", the second one is just a standard observational nature study. Since studying the three-striped chipferret's what we would call a "basic science" study (that is, it has no commercial value), grants come from foundations or the government. A government official bombarded by "Global Warming" hucksterism is a lot more likely to fund the first study (even over science that may have more immediate results improving conditions or solving real problems) than he is the second study (which would tend to be a low-priority study unless there's suddenly a market for chipferret fur gloves or something.)

The down-side is, now that we have a study to "Observe the impact of Global Climate Change/Warming on three striped chipferrets", do you suppose the PhD who's running the study might have a vested interest in making sure that Global Climate change/Warming continues to be "a critical issue" that requires all sorts of studies and political backing?

Sure he does. It's one of those fun things-once you've (ab)used a false pretense to get funding, you have to keep it going, and defend it vigourously.


Jordan, here's the thing: in 1000CE (about a thousand years ago-a drop in the ocean compared to the age of the planet as best we can determine) they were growing french grapes in scotland for wine, "Greenland" was wheat country, the "Desert" southwest was wet and lush and good ground for corn (even had a nice civilization down there). The climate cooled. Greenland got a nice thick ice-cap, scotland turned cold and nasty, and the Anasazi collapsed, leaving us some really nifty cliff-house pueblos and artifacts. (When the climate cools, it gets drier, less rain...)

Move up to the period of the 1950's to 1980's and Climate scientists were predicting a global cooling trend and new ice-age. This was current until the 1980's. Oddly enough, they were using the same exact culprits.

We've only been able to reliably measure microclimates with instruments for about three hundered years. We've only had Sattelites with instruments and radios since the 1950s, about fifty years or thereabouts, and only been able to compile the data in one place for analysis for about twenty years. Evidence says the climate changes-has changed, likely will change. Humans or not, but saying "Humans are destroying the Climate" fits a political and social view and provides a back-door method of imposing central controls now that National Socialism and Communism have both been disproven as viable systems.

Politicians LIKE power, and so, it's moved from being hypothetical to Proven in their minds because it works as an excuse to gather MORE.

So essentially, global warming is a tool to be used by politicians to grab power? And the scientists are in on the ruse?

Jordan, here's the thing: in 1000CE (about a thousand years ago-a drop in the ocean compared to the age of the planet as best we can determine) they were growing french grapes in scotland for wine, "Greenland" was wheat country, the "Desert" southwest was wet and lush and good ground for corn (even had a nice civilization down there). The climate cooled.

No, Cannon. Available data suggests that the 'medieval warm period' was localized to parts of the northern hemisphere (the fact that there's a lot more land there might have been a factor). The planet as a whole does not seem to have been warmer during that time.

Move up to the period of the 1950's to 1980's and Climate scientists were predicting a global cooling trend and new ice-age.

The 'new ice age' scare resulted from some newspapers picking up on a couple of research papers, sniffing a good story, and blowing their findings out of proportion. There was never a consensus on the scale that there is today with warming, nor anything like the level of concern.

The temperature data from the ocean probes is intriguing, and shouldn't be discounted if for no other reason than that the mass of the oceans is greater by several orders of magnitude than that of the atmosphere. But trumpeting it, without any connectivity, as evidence for the absence of warming is just the sort of cherry-picking you're accusing the other side of.

So essentially, global warming is a tool to be used by politicians to grab power?

Partly. It also serves to ensure a bountiful supply of grant funds for the "scientists," not to mention a golden opportunity for all the pointy-headed "intellectuals" like St. Al Gore to tell all the rest of us how we should lead our lives.

Not for nothing does Dan Miller call it "The Church of Global Warming."

Doc, the difference is thus-I believe the climate's going to change, that it is changing, and that it's prone to change regardless of human input or effort. History says it changes, geology says it's going to change. We're in a fluid environment. Proportionally, the crust of the earth is about the thickness of that skin you get on a hot cup of homemade cocoa. The atmosphere is even thinner than that, and the forces that govern both are far out of the scale of human capability to alter in any significant way except on a local level. (Los Angeles, for instance, areas contained in 'bowls' with relatively stable climatic conditions and reduced exchange rates with the climate as a whole).

So far, climate models have failed to hit their marks in spite of increased carbon emissions from the industrialization of China and India surpassing many Western Nations, notably without the environmental provisions common in such western industrialized nations as the U.S. and Canada. (which can be marked, among other ways, by China's influence on the availability and price of Petroleum-the increased demand has increased the price).

Now, when most of your models rely on increasing water temperature (which most of them do), and the test-data says the water isn't increasing in temperature, is the test data wrong, or is the model wrong?

The Earth is under a G2 VARIABLE star, in a wobbly orbit, influenced by a wide variety of sources including a rather large moon, it has an active, liquid core kneaded by those gravitational forces, an active crust, active volcanism that releases green house gasses in huge amounts including water-vapour, nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, particulate ash, and other fun chemicals into the atmosphere on a daily basis in quantities even the coal-age couldn't produce.

Basic mechanics says the Climate is GOING to change, human efforts or not. People generally fear change, Doc, and the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) community uses that fear of change to assure them that if they just do the right things, the climate will be static and nice to them, and won't change.

And THAT is why it is political.

Yes, we dare not listen to "scientists" with their crazy radical mixed-up ideas like gathering factual data to prove or disprove scientific theories and testable hypotheses....

Those wacky numbskulls might "invent" something like weather satellites or toothpaste or interferon...

After all everyone knows that Global Warming is just another nefarious, "agin-the laws o' Gawd" plot, like the Large Hadron Collider or evolution.

**** 'em all. Pointy-headed nerds...now where'd I leave my remote?

INTELLECT SHOULD COUNT FOR SOMETHING

What scares me is that the GOP has chosen two morons to save this nation.
We have a man at the top of the ticket that was in the bottom of his class intellectually.
And the person that is 1/2 a breath away from the presidency flunked out of 5 colleges before she received her diploma from the University of Idaho. But what else is new we elected a moron to lead the United States Of America and look where it brought us.

Doc, I very much enjoyed your article on another thread. Do you see any parallels in the Man made Global Warming stuff?

Just curious.

Dan(Miller)

Well, Deano, that's a very nice screed, and it completely misses the point.

AGAIN.

You're arguing the Authority Figure Knows Best when you should be looking at the Science. The Science doesn't support the Hucksterism, but the Hucksterism can be printed on the back of a 3x5 and works really well as a political weapon.

(of course, since it's a weapon on your side, I can understand it if you insist the Emperor's clothing is lovely...)

People generally fear change, Doc, and the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) community uses that fear of change to assure them that if they just do the right things, the climate will be static and nice to them, and won't change.

I question this, Cannon. As a motive it seems flimsy and self-defeating. Besides which, much of the literature and reporting I've read and watched makes a point of reminding us that warming is already happening and will continue even if we act now.

I tend to pay more attention to scientists, especially on this issue, than I do to those with a political agenda.

What about the notion of taking care of the planet for the sake of taking care of the planet, Global Warming Cult or not? Or is that also a political notion?

Dan, thanks. As I touched on in my response to Cannonshop, there are some similarities, with some oversimplification and distortion on both sides.

The most significant point that strikes me is that there are some weighing in on the debate who tend to confuse the motives of the scientific community with those of political think tanks.

#40 That notion becomes political the moment you have to ask "okay, How?".

Nobody wants to live in a cesspool of pollution, Jordan, but the fact is, only people with economic slack can afford to be concerned about their environment. It isn't the super-rich who have old cars they can't fix parked on the lawn in front of an unpainted trailer, it's not the very wealthy that have to drive whatever rattletrap they can afford a long distance to work because they can't afford to live closer.

Compare pricing for Hybrid automobiles to non-hybrids. The question is "can and will", but that's not the only question out there that has to be answered before you're "Taking care of the Planet" and not "Keeping the riff raff in their place."

It isn't as easy as it looks, balancing out the equation, and it sure as hell can't be printed on a playing card. (also, just because a thing is organic, doesn't mean it isn't a pollutant. Rabbits are organic, ask the Aussies about Rabbits. Tigersnake venom is also organic, does that mean you want it on your skin?)

There's a big difference between conservation, and Environmentalism (capital "E" environmentalism, the movement in other words).

Nobody wants to live in a cesspool of pollution, Jordan, but the fact is, only people with economic slack can afford to be concerned about their environment.

Nonsense. It's actually cheaper to live in ways that are more efficient and environmentally friendly. There's an old moniker floating around the Progressive Community (don't ask me what the fuck that is, by the way): "Simply living so that others may simply live."

Living with sustainability in mind costs very little, in fact, and helps more in the long run than any gimmickry will. You don't have to drive a hybrid to take care of the environment. We certainly don't drive a hybrid, but we do make choices that are better for our world. Driving less helps, for instance, as does (yes, Obama) properly inflating and maintaining your car's tire pressure and fluid levels. Recycling is free, too, as is taking some time to pick up some trash on the street or doing other simple things like planting trees and using food products and clothing that is made in North America or made locally.

One doesn't need to go organic, drive a hybrid, and switch to solar power in order to make a difference. The political bullshit has told that lie, both from the left and the right. Instead, I challenge people to simplify their lifestyles and ignore the bullshit. It's easy, cheap, and smart.

And by "we," I mean my wife and I. Although Cannonshop and I might make a cute couple tooling down the road in a Prius.

;)

It's no use denying it, Jordan. Cannonshop lives in Washington, you live in Vancouver. I can read between the lines.

;-)

*renews passport*

Now we know (not that we weren't previously aware of it) that human affairs are to some extent cyclical, and have no precipitating proximate cause. Senator Obama said so:

During his interview with "GMA," Obama indicated the big shift of white women voters to McCain was part of a "cycle" in a long[???] campaign rather than McCain's selection of Palin as his running mate. (emphasis and question marks added)

I wonder if I could get federal funding for a study of the correlation between the pace of warming and the amount of hot air being emitted on the campaign trail.

Dan, are you suggest that a big shift in white women is causing global warming?

"There's an old moniker floating around the Progressive Community (don't ask me what the fuck that is, by the way): "Simply living so that others may simply live.""

There are very few "Progressives" out there that walk that walk, Jordan, especially compared to the numbers of them that say that-but mean it for others, not themselves. I know, I live in a state FILLED with them, and have only met a handfull that actually practice what they wish to compel others to do.

I don't think you would believe the number of plastic water-bottles I've picked up in places where there are no 'water bottle trees', the number of times I've collected trash left by people who talk a good line about recycling while they leave a trail behind them in the woods made of litter and trash Marked with words like "Organic" and "Green", that aren't.

There's another old saying, "Leave it better than you found it", or "Pack out what you pack in". The times I've gone out scouting for sign, I've found all sorts of shit left behind by city people with all the right bumper stickers to prove they're "Real" progressives who "care" about "Mother Nature".

That MAY have some influence on my point of view.

Did you see them drop it, Cannon?

#48

Based on expansion by volume, and energy output, if there WAS a correlation, it would indicate that the globe MUST be cooling-or we would surpass Venus in temperature.

There's no question about that, Cannonshop. My wife and I have "adopted" our street and you wouldn't believe the shit that we pick up from people passing through. But that doesn't mean that people shouldn't try to act behind the adages. People that fake it are worse than people that never try, no doubt.

#51 Sometimes Have. I remember scaring the hell out of some mountain bikers who seemed to think the cascades were their personal trash-pit.

Jordan, I think I've told you before-I have a great respect for anyone that upholds their views through action rather than mere endorsement. I just wish that the louder endorsers maybe would make some effort to live up to the standards they want to lay on someone else.

I kind of count it as the difference between a "Real" conservationist, and some jackass with a cause.

I can't stand the jackass-with-a-Cause. Just no tolerance for that.

Agreed.

You're arguing the Authority Figure Knows Best when you should be looking at the Science.

First Cannon, I AM looking at the science - at the collective encompassing view of the science, not at one specific instance around just the ocean temperature study. Second, nowhere in my admittedly overwrought little screed do I come down on one side or the other on Global Warming, so you are basically pigeon-holing me based on your own interpretation, not on anything that has been written.

And being condecending to boot.

No, what actually got me irritated was not the usual blind repetition of GOP talking points but that psuedo-insult that was implicit in the quotation marks around the word scientist in Clavo's remarks.

The vast majority of scientists I've been exposed to are intellectually interested in the questions, not in the politics. For years they have been presenting their data in all the myrid ways and having it collectively ignored or dismissed with easy, airy gestures, just like you do in your comments. Being scientists they go back, resume their research, refine their questions and thinking and then present a new set of data supported by their facts and theories - with a little more detail, more theory, more depth - only to be dismissed yet again. So around the fourth go-around or so, they start to tune in on it politically...since the powers that be (Dems and GOP) have been collectively ignoring the conclusions for more than 10 years.

And you wonder what makes it political? It has ALWAYS been political, it's just been safely tucked away as a non-issue until recently. Now that it is an issue, wonder-of-wonders, here come the various interests each extolling their own specific spin on the data. The anti-global warming side wages a PR and media war (mainly because the collective consensus of scientific data and studies do NOT support their conclusions) while the extreme elements of the environmental movement hijack and exaggerate the facts around global warming, citing extreme worst-case scenarios based on spurious or highly limited knowledge as factual events. Both sides are spinning the issue to suit their own agenda.

Given that you guys are the same intellectual powerhouses currently blindly extolling the virtues of the Alaska Hockey-Mom/Moose-killing Governer as presidential material based on her stellar TWO EFFING YEARS as governer of a fraking state with a population smaller then my city, you will pardon me if I prefer to draw my own stance on global climatology from sources that actually study the science behind the issue and not inane Internet commenters... honestly you guys just don't have the street cred.

#45 Doc, you know, you almost owed me a keyboard and a screen for that, and breathing coffee isn't healthy!

(though I wouldn't pick a Prius, I can't fix one of those, and I belong to the "Reuse, Repair, and Recycle" school of thought where the devaluing curve of automobile ownership is concerned.)

Besides, My wife and His wife might have objections.

Doc, re Comment #48. It's worth a try. Sillier grants have been made. I would hope that if you do secure such a grant, you might consider outsourcing it; Somalia would be a wise choice. You are rather more useful doing what you are now doing (:>).

Jordan, re Comment #49 -- it is a definite possibility. Or perhaps the converse is true. It seems to be a valid basis for a Federal Grant. Of course, the Global Warming caused by the hot air coming out of Washington, D.C. would never be deserving of a Federal grant, because we all know that it is confined to within the Beltway. Or, maybe not. We need to have a rigorous scientific investigation, by the best and brightest, to resolve these highly important issues.

Dan(Miller)

Let's count the number of times cannon and RJ are wrong.

1) Wrong about Greenland cooling having any bearing on global temperature. (see my post 29)

2) Wrong about global temperatures in the arctic being the same as in the first half of the 20th century. (see my post 29)

3) Wrong about warming being similar to warming in past centuries. There has not been a warming this warm, or as fast, in any other period this millennium.


4)
the atmosphere is even thinner than that, and the forces that govern both are far out of the scale of human capability to alter in any significant way except on a local level. (Los Angeles, for instance, areas contained in 'bowls' with relatively stable climatic conditions and reduced exchange rates with the climate as a whole).

Wrong. We have drastically changed the composition of the atmosphere. This is an undisputed fact. CO2 has risen from about 250ppm to 400ppm in the lower atmosphere as a whole. Don't tell me humans are not able to change the atmosphere because "it's too big." Look around you. We have drastically changed every corner of this globe.. but not the atmosphere you say. HAHA.

5) We release about 27 gigatons of CO2 per year. The atmosphere contains 3 teratons. Simple math tells me that we would increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 1% a year at this rate, which is about what has been observed (hypothesis confirmed).

6) It is warmer now globally than at any point in the medieval warm period. YOU ARE WRONG about that too. You can describe wheat fields in Greenland all you want, but not one scientist, denier or not, in the world will say it was warmer globally then than it is now.

Put it all together and Cannon and RJ are completely unreliable. CO2 has risen by 70% in the past century. Average global temperature is warmer now than at any point this millennium. These are indisputable facts. Put the two together.

I'm actually predicting a global cooling trend or at least enough cooling to cancel out global warming temporarily for the next 10 or 20 years. This is due to some meteorological factors which are not taken into account in climate models.

What really shocks me Dave, is that I would have thought that as a Libertarian or Liberty Republican, you would have gone with what the people of Alaska want rather than what the state wants.

Governing by polls is just irrational mob rule.

As for hunting wolves, as I understand it the rationale is that they are overpopulated and exceed the capacity of their food supply, causing them to move into populous areas looking for food. It's the same reason we distribute birth control to hundreds of thousands of coyotes here in Texas (also dropped from planes).

And don't try to get to me with the evilness of hunting from a plane. I'm not opposed to hunting in any reasonable form.

Dave

From a political perspective, complaining about the deaths of wolves or polar bears is not going to get you anywhere.

Deano,

If some of the the scientists weren't attributing practically every phenomenon in the world to global warming, THEY might have more "street cred." Some so-called "experts" and politicians even attempted to pin the 2004 Indonesian tsunami on global warming! A tsunami, as everyone knows, is the result of an undersea earthquake.

Kerry Emanuel of MIT insists that GW will result in bigger, stronger and more frequent hurricanes, but Colorado's William Gray, and former Directors of the National Hurricane center Max Mayfield and Neil Frank, as well as prominent hurricane expert Chris Landsea, all disagree with him.

There is plenty of dissension among the scientific ranks; some of the scientists have steadfastly refused to jump on the bandwagon, including the well-respected Roy W. Spencer, who, in his well-written and authoritative book, Climate Confusion, which calls into question much of the research on a variety of points, including lack of peer review (A characteristic of the (in)famous IPCC Report).

From the totally discredited and risible Mann "Hockey Stick" graph, to the hysterical and unfounded claims in Gore's film (10 ft. increases in sea levels, when the most pessimistic scientists talk of inches), and even Paul Ehrlich's 1988 bomb, The Population Bomb (which was totally erroneous, but not about GW, which hadn't been invented yet), there are a lot of reasons to be skeptical of the "scientific consensus" that most, if not all, of GW is anthropogenic.

Dave,

????

Governing by polls is just irrational mob rule.

Polls?

Dave! The people of Alaska voted against this! Sarah Palin went out of her way to do whatever the fuck she feels like despite what THE PEOPLE OF ALASKA wanted.

What polls are you talking about?

I am talking about how the people voted.

Please, just don't bother replying unless you research it.

As for hunting wolves, as I understand it the rationale is that they are overpopulated and exceed the capacity of their food supply, causing them to move into populous areas looking for food.

The way you understand it Dave, is the way Palin and friends wants it to be understood. Which is why I did the research and posted the link to what scientists say. Palin is a fucking liar and has hidden scientific though from her populace before.

I don't give a fuck what a fucking hillbilly like Palin supposes.

Lastly, if you think buckshotting animals from a plane for no fucking sensible reason is REASONABLE. Then you deserve to live in the septic tank of a country that people with beliefs similar to yours has created.

Skeptical I have no problem with. Testing and disputing hypotheses, validity of data etc. are all part of the scientific methodology. I would expect that significant changes to the current understanding of global climatology are and will be developed from the studies and scrutiny that is resulting around global warming.

What I find irritating and annoying is when I see casual, shallow and smugly dismissive commentary on the subject that smacks more of partisan demagogery then scientific reason.

If some of the the scientists weren't attributing practically every phenomenon in the world to global warming, THEY might have more "street cred." Some so-called "experts" and politicians even attempted to pin the 2004 Indonesian tsunami on global warming! A tsunami, as everyone knows, is the result of an undersea earthquake.

This does not disprove AGW.

Kerry Emanuel of MIT insists that GW will result in bigger, stronger and more frequent hurricanes, but Colorado's William Gray, and former Directors of the National Hurricane center Max Mayfield and Neil Frank, as well as prominent hurricane expert Chris Landsea, all disagree with him.

As far as my limited reading goes, the effect of global warming on hurricanes is unknown. This does not have anything to do with AGW.

There is plenty of dissension among the scientific ranks; some of the scientists have steadfastly refused to jump on the bandwagon, including the well-respected Roy W. Spencer, who, in his well-written and authoritative book, Climate Confusion, which calls into question much of the research on a variety of points, including lack of peer review

Have you read the book? Could you cite an example? As far as I know the Mann graph has been extensively peer reviewed and is largely agreed with.

From the totally discredited and risible Mann "Hockey Stick" graph

The Mann graph is not discredited or risible. Although many question Mann's original methodology from his 1988 paper, almost all estimates of past climate look general similar to the graph he described.

to the hysterical and unfounded claims in Gore's film (10 ft. increases in sea levels, when the most pessimistic scientists talk of inches), and even Paul Ehrlich's 1988 bomb, The Population Bomb (which was totally erroneous, but not about GW, which hadn't been invented yet

As far as a scientific debate about AGW, neither of these people have any relevance.

there are a lot of reasons to be skeptical of the "scientific consensus" that most, if not all, of GW is anthropogenic.

Did I miss them?

I don't think I've ever heard a scientist say that a tsunami was caused by global warming. I have heard that the frequency and strength of our storms could be a result of it, however.

As far as I'm concerned, the science here is pretty sensible. As human beings, we can't keep leaving a footprint on the planet in the way that we are and not expect that we have some impact on how things are playing out. Our actions relating to nature impact people the world over and we need to be more mindful of that without getting more political about it.

I have to wonder how differently the global warming science would have gone over in the United States had it not been presented by a famous Democrat with a documentary and touted as a Dem vs. Rep thing. Would the sceptism have been as strong had the news escaped via a presentation by a bunch of credible scientists and not somebody affiliated so closely with a particular political agenda? Would people be striving so hard to oppose it?

When I've encountered those that deny global warming, I find that they usually have a reason to deny it that goes beyond actually wanting to protect the earth. They usually want to preserve a way of life or perhaps be continually comfortable. They usually fear or dislike change. While these are indeed generalizations, when I compare a scientist whose work in the field is second to none with a "scientist" from an oil company whose work is designed to discredit the real science, I can't help but question the underlying motivation more than the science. Global warming isn't going to go over well with oil tycoons and the "Drill, Baby, Drill" crowd, is it?

On the other side, what exactly is it that people think those who "believe in" global warming have to gain? What's the prize? Votes? What about in countries where there is a virtual political consensus regarding global warming? What's to gain then? Global warming is not an American issue, regardless of what some may believe. So there is a sense in the world that while those in the U.S. are using this issue to fuck around after votes and grants and whatever the hell else, the world is declining in its health. And it shouldn't be.

We have overcrowding, pollution, war, starvation, economic strife, etc. and we're arguing about potential causes. Tell you what, guys. HELP first, talk later.

Have you read the book? Could you cite an example? As far as I know the Mann graph has been extensively peer reviewed and is largely agreed with.

Only for you, PETI, because this is going to require me to actually type in an excerpt from Spencer's book, rather than simply do a copy-and-paste (and I'm a two-finger typist), but here goes. I bought the book a couple of weeks ago, and have read all but a few pages at this point. Re Mann's hockey stick, Spencer writes:

A National Academy of Science review panel in 2006 addressed an ongoing flap about whether the Earth is warmer now than anytime in the last 1,000 years. The infamous "hockey stick" curve of global temperatures published by paleoclimatologists in 1998 made a huge splash because it downplayed the warmth of the Medieval Warm Period, thus elevating the late twentieth-century warmth to record status. Without explicitly scolding the hockey stick inventors for using questionable statistical techniques to make their warmest-in-a-thousand-years claim, the NAS panel finally agreed that about all one could say with considerable confidence is that the Earth is warmer now than anytime in the last 400 years.

Thanks a bunch Clavos, I'm reading away right now :).

There is no consensus. That's an Al Gore lie:

More than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition denying that man is responsible for global warming.

The academics, including 9,000 with PhDs, claim that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane are actually beneficial for the environment.

...

It added: "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of ... greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments."

The petition was reissued last year by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, an independent research group, partly in response to Al Gore's film on climate change, An Inconvenient Truth.

Its president, Arthur Robinson, said: "If this many American scientists will sign this petition, you certainly can't continue to contend that there is a consensus on this subject."

Recycling is a waste of time:

Part One

Part Two

Part Three

More than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition denying that man is responsible for global warming.

And how many of those scientists are climate scientists, RJ?

Try again.

It continues to amaze me that both sides of this argument are so utterly convinced that they are 100% right and those who differ are 100% fucked. And it divides almost exclusively along ideological lines.

Hmmm, could that just possibly mean there is inconclusive evidence on both sides? Not nearly as much fun that way, I guess.

drewweber,

OK, so you're a bird freak. I solute you, I like um too, especially birds of prey.

To most American citizens the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and many other environmental laws are a noble effort to save species from extinction, and to protect the environment from reckless destruction by man.

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) was drafted to protect threatened and endangered species and to provide this protection while implementing trun around recover habitat programs for such species. The ESA has been successful in recovering my species as you point out in your opinion piece. And once they have made habitat recovery they are carefully delisted from the ESA and then monitored.

That is the heart of the ESA. And I think that is a fair assumption of how you see it.

However, I can not help but see your naivete in what is really going on.

While you pull on our heart strings with all the benefits of species recover that has taken place, the very heart of the ESA recovery programs are being relentlessly attacked, not by Palin, but by radical environmental NGO;s all the time.

Radical environmental NGO's want a species once listed as threatened or endangered to be locked up for all time and they come out of their skin whenever the USFWS delists a species after successful in recover has been secured. The Internet has decades of this information if you are truly interested.

Case in point:

Animal Rights Coalition Sues the USFWS Over Wolf Delisting.

On April 28, 2008 a coalition of 12 animal rights groups filed a lawsuit against the federal government in an attempt to have the northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf placed back on the endangered list.

The northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf was officially removed from the federal endangered species list on Friday, March 28, 2008 after the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) determined that federal recovery efforts have been successful and the animals no longer belong on the endangered list.

Shortly after the Endangered Species Act (ESA) delisting took place, the coalition announced that it would be filing a lawsuit.

The coalition, including the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), Defenders of Wildlife, Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council, among others, is challenging the USFWS decision to remove the wolf from the federal list of endangered species.

If successful, this lawsuit brought by anti-hunters will make it virtually impossible to remove recovered wildlife populations from the federal endangered list. Obstructing delistings will also prevent states from resuming control of healthy wildlife populations.

-----------------------------

Now all that sounds like this coalition of 12 animal rights groups are willing to go to all the trouble and huge expense to file a lawsuit against the federal government, they must have good reason and must be noble or why else would they spend the time and money.

I will touch on this so called nobility a few paragraphs down, but first let me ask you the following questions.

Have you ever personally worked with anyone involved with the USFWS and Endangered Species Act (ESA) at the professional level in dealing with licenses and permits and their varied regualtions for dealing with endangered species? Do you have any ideal what is going on inside the USFWS and their handling of the ESA?

I can tell you that I have on all accounts, and for years, as I hold working licenses from both the USFWS and the UN to conduct international trade in some endangered species in recovery work. I am on a first name basic with most of the key personnel at USFWS and the ESA.

The authority of species protection all starts at the United Nations (UN) under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). This authority then trickles down to world governments who have signed up and engage them within their governmental environmental policies.

In the case of the US and our ESA, that authority falls on USFWS whose legal responsibility it is to enforces it by law in the US. I know this law from cover to cover as I have to if I want to stay out of jail.

At the UN there are three (3) levels of classification for endangered species under CITES in which the USFWS subscribe to. In addition, the USFWS has two (2) additional classifications as well, namely, "Threatened" and "Endangered".

Between the three (3) UN and the two (2) USFWS classifications, what ever combination of clarification a species is given determines it ranking for protection.

The most forceful protection comes from a combination of and UN class I, in combination with a USFWS class of "Endangered". This means that if you or I disturb this species in it is natural habitat for any reason we will be fined $250.000.00 or face imprisonment for 10 years, of both.

The weakest classification would be a UN class III in combination with a USFWS class of "Threatened". This you can still disturb in it natural habitat, take in home, sell it, grow it, or eat it but the USFWS is monitoring its habitat.

All the other varies combination levels of protections requires special permits from the UN and or the USFWS. I have both and have maintained them in good standing for over 12 years.

For decades since the ESA went into effect in 1973 it has been under mountains of legal pressures from radical special interest environmental NGO's who are forcing "their agenda" into the ESA and upon all Americans and it is going on unchecked by the American public.

Both greed and private property rights are at the main corners stones in this battle and has crippled community and business interest who have all been thrown under the bus. Why, money talks.

Today the USFWS and the ESA has morphed into an out of control monster due to Bill Clinton's signing into law granting environmental NGO"s the full right to sue to USFWS / ESA over anything at any time for any reason. The Clinton bill states that regardless of the out come of the case, the US government would have to pay all attorneys for all NGO's participation in the case even it they loose the case.

Radials environmental NGO's quickly put this money power angle to work and have turned the state against its own citizen's rights.

So much for the noble efforts of the radical NGO's

Since Clinton signed this law, the radical NGO's have set up in house legal teams who can attack in a formation of a coolition of multibpe NGO's as sighted about in there attact of USFWS over the Rocky mountain gray wolf. This so intangles the ESA in the courts on a full time bases that it morphs it into their agenda and these legal teams get paid big bucks whether they win their cases or not. The cases have become both so frivolous and radical that the ESA not longer belongs to ether the people of the US or the authorities in government running it. Palin sees that. You could not be a governor of the state of Alaska with all of it's many species of animals and plants and not know this fully.

The species are being used as a means to get hold of both citizen's private property, and lock up larger and lager section of state land from public use or utility.

These negative effects have caused the USFWS to suffered under a never ending mountain of aggressive and radical environmental NGO legal attract machines that consumes the USFWS entire yearly budgets within the first 4-6 months of each fiscal year. This leaves the USFWS with little else in which to creatively serve the interest of the American people and the integrity of the ESA itself.

This has lead to internal conflicts within USFWS that have made them fare less open and effective in addressing individual, community, and public needs on issues that require attention.

These are the results of being hijacked by radical interests and why the USFWS is not able or even willing to serve the greater needs of communities and business.

1. The USFWS lacks both the means and the time to serve the public by being under the endless onslaught of radical NGO's
.
2. The USFWS knows that the general public neither has the means or the time either to deal with them while they are under such a never ending onslaught of attacks from radical NGO's.

3. The USFWS knows that the general public and or business who files cases (who all have to pay their own legal fees) will also cause the USFW to be attacked by the NGO's over the cases filed by the general public and or business, and the USFW wants to avoid that at all costs so the public and business are shoved aside.

As if this was not bad enough, today there are many ex-NGO radical environmentalists working for the USFWS. I have friends at USFWS and I also have enemies. It is a house divided against it self. Truly an utter nightmare working with them if you are in the general public and or a business. It's not the way government is supposed to work yet who the hell can reel it back in. Only those with the means to sue garner any serious attention.

The general public has lost their constitutional rights at the hands of radical environmental NGO's. The ACLU is not one bit interested in assisting the public on environmental issues relating to Constitutional rights. Environmentalism is like a sacred cow over and above the US Constitution that remains too politically correct to challenge.

It has become an out of control authoritarian monster that out of its own survival has had to cast off public and business interests. This is not new and is out there on the Internet if you were truly interested.

Following are comments made by a public citizen who sued for his Constitutional rights and his attorney who sued USFW for taking his property using the Endangered Species Act to do it. The cast took four (4) years in the courts to win.

"This is a major victory for all those fighting for their property rights taken by the Endangered Species Act, This settlement shows that if you stand up for your constitutional rights, you can win." said Nancie G. Marzulla, president, Defenders of Property Rights, a legal foundation based in Washington, D.C.

Here is what the man who's property were taken away by the USFWS .

"I am elated that it is finally over, but am still disheartened that it took four years and a lawsuit to get the government to obey the Constitution."

Here is a review of just this one case.



Now you want to talk about the - ESA - Polar Bears - and Palin - and try and stir our hearts and minds using a radically hijacked ESA to put the poo hoo on Palin.

You don't even know which end is up!

Let me start by prefacing that if any politician knew of the dysfunctional workings of the hijacked USFW / Endangered Species Act, it would surly be a governor from the state of Alaska with all of its diversified wildlife and plants.

Palin would be the very best thing in helping us common citizens gaining back control of a hijacked government. Responsable citizesn like Shara Palin who live, work, and enjoy the wilderness as she clearly done are more caring and responsalble then most people.

Not only is she smart, and a breath of fresh air in wanting to sweep out hijackers of government, she is savvy to their hijack games.

Now since you make this play on the ESA to put it to Palin, I have some more questions for you.

The same hijacked game that Obama played in spades with his close accocate Bill Ayers and his Chicago Annenberg Challenge in school reform in the 1990s with Obama served in heading up the board with Ayers until it was closed down failing to raising the required school educational standards to a minimum that the charter grant funds that Bill Ayers had secured required.

Bill Ayers first cash outlay of said funds went to the New Communits of America headed by one of Bill Ayers old SDA buddies who works in Chicago.

The Chicago Annenberg Challenge was a hijacked radial group pushing funds into unfrindly Amerian activisim.

What was Obama doing as head of the board of the failed charter shcool Chicago Annenberg Challenge?

Why is Obama today calling for more money for charter school grants.

Obama is on record claiming he dose not know Bill Ayers when the FACTS show otherwise.

Obama launched his political career from the home of Bill Ayers.

Obama needs to explain his ties to William Ayers

Obama needs to explain why his efforts at leading the board of Bill Ayers Chicago Annenberg Challenge failed and were forced to close.

Here's another reference on the hockey stick graph, from Technology Review, published by MIT:

Suddenly the hockey stick, the poster-child of the global warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics. It goes into much greater detail (very convincingly). Use the link.

Good article. The author provides an understandable explanation which is 100% accurate. However, the implications are not exactly what he says they are. Here's a brief summary of the findings of McIntyre explained in the article.

We have a whole bunch of data from trees, sea sediment, ice bores, historical observation, and modern temperature readings. There are 70 data sets. Mann needed a way to analyze these data sets in order to graph the single best estimate line which compares everything to "average."

He took the average temp (T) of the period 1902-1980 for which we have solid temperature evidence of. He formed his graph in two parts.

900-1902: He subtracted this average T from the average T of the all the data prior to 1902.

1902-1980: He subtracted the average T of 1902-1980 from the known global temp 1902-1980.

The problem is his graph is not centered around 0. The period 1902-1980 is centered around 0. But the entire graph is not.

Because the mean from 1902-1980 was higher than the mean for the first period (900-1902), the first period falls mostly below the 0 line.

This leads to McIntyre's finding that if you plug in any random data for 900-1902 with the same mean as the entire graph, it will mostly fall below the period 1902-1980.

Basically, Mann incorrectly compared the entire period 900-1980 to the mean of 1902-1980, which inevitably leads to a hockey stick because 1902-1980 has a higher mean than 900-1980.

However, even if you don't do this, you still get a hockey stick. Even if you compare the temperatures 900-1980 to the mean of 900-1980 you still get a hockey stick. It essentially shifts the whole graph up.

Wahl and Ammann (2007) showed that using the original data, from the 70 data sets, directly without calibration you still get essentially the same result.

I quote IPCC: ""Wahl and Ammann (2007) showed that this was a consequence of differences in the way McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) had implemented the method of Mann et al. (1998) and that the original reconstruction could be closely duplicated using the original proxy data."


So to be clear: Even if you do away with Mann's statistical calibration which McIntyre objected to and you, Clavos, have based your entire argument so far on, you STILL get a hockey stick.

Partly due to the confusion caused by the Mann vs McIntyre debate Congress sponsored The Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Past 2,000 Year.. which found that

1) It can be said with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries. This statement is justified by the consistency of the evidence from a wide variety of geographically diverse proxies.

2) Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period from A.D. 900 to 1600. Presently available proxy evidence indicates that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than during any period of comparable length since A.D. 900. The uncertainties associated with reconstructing hemispheric mean or global mean temperatures from these data increase substantially backward in time through this period and are not yet fully quantified.

So it is very likely it is warmer that at any point in 400 years.

It is likely it is warmer than at any point in 1000 years as most available evidence indicates.

To respond to your book's claim

Without explicitly scolding the hockey stick inventors for using questionable statistical techniques to make their warmest-in-a-thousand-years claim, the NAS panel finally agreed that about all one could say with considerable confidence is that the Earth is warmer now than anytime in the last 400 years.

First of all, they NAS attacks Mann's work only on the statistical basis just covered. As I noted, you get a hockey stick without using Mann's flawed analysis. The NAS report did not address any of the independent studies not using the two-mean flawed statistics of Mann such as Wahl's.

Second, the NAS report confirms the claim it is now warmer than any point in the last 400 years. It does not say it is NOT warmer than any point in the last 1000 years. It just says Mann's data (without even looking at any of the better data and studies since then), does not prove it is now warmer than any point in 1000 years.

Third, the NAS report was done at the behest of an anti-global warming politician. The findings were presented in front of a committee headed by the same anti-global warming politician, who asked the questions, and gave the closing remarks.

Fourth, despite this NAS (remember this is the same group you cited authoritatively) concludes it is warmer now than any time in 400 years.

NAS concludes it is warmer now than any data for the past 1000 years, but that you cannot say "It is warmer now than at any point in 1000 years" because they are not sure that data is accurate.

NAS concludes available evidence demonstrates it is warmer now than at any point in history for which we have accurate data for. In effect, it is warmer now than at any point in the modern era for which we have good data.

This is despite the politically driven nature of the proceedings, and despite the fact that the study ignored better data independent of Mann. The panel essentially only refereed between Mann and McIntyre over one issue.

Do you want to revise your opinion of NAS Clavos? Or will you accept their findings are strong evidence for AGW? Because those are your only two alternatives right now.

PETI, I can't revise my opinion of NAS because I never gave one; I quoted Spencer.

Or will you accept their findings are strong evidence for AGW?

Not with the only correlation being timing; not "strong," no. Evidence, yes. But not enough to be convincing.

Some researchers point to the existence of solar flares as a possible source for GW, others note that there is evidence of historical cyclical global cold/warm periods, etc.

Other researchers point to the mechanism of uptake and release of CO@ performed by the world's oceans as having a potential effect on the warming There needs to be a lot more study of all these issues before we sart making profound changes to our culture. In short, there are a lot of dissenting (or disputing) voices out there, which are not getting enough attention, IMO.

IMO, there is just not enough data to confirm the A in AGW yet, and I'm very concerned that the American public is being hustled to support ill-advised ideas which assume too much about the extent to which human activity is causing GW.

And I think Al Gore is the quintessential snake oil salesman on this issue.

"And I think Al Gore is the quintessential snake oil salesman on this issue."

The Real Inconvenient Truth'

Al Gore is a lying liar:

Al Gore's award-winning climate change documentary was littered with nine inconvenient untruths, a judge ruled yesterday.

An Inconvenient Truth won plaudits from the environmental lobby and an Oscar from the film industry but was found wanting when it was scrutinised in the High Court in London.

Justice Burton identified nine significant errors within the former presidential candidate's documentary as he assessed whether it should be shown to school children. He agreed that Gore's film was "broadly accurate" in its presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change but said that some of the claims were wrong and had arisen in "the context of alarmism and exaggeration."

In what is a rare judicial ruling on what children can see in the class-room, Justice Barton was at pains to point out that the "apocalyptic vision" presented in the film was politically partisan and not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change.

...

"It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film - although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion - but that it is a political film."

...

The first mistake made by Gore, said Justice Burton in his written judgment, was in talking about the potential devastation wrought by a rise in sea levels caused by the melting of ice caps.

The claim that sea levels could rise by 20 ft "in the near future" was dismissed as "distinctly alarmist". Such a rise would take place "only after, and over, millennia".

...

A claim that atolls in the Pacific had already been evacuated was supported by "no evidence", while to suggest that two graphs showing carbon dioxide levels and temperatures over the last 650,000 years were an "exact fit" overstated the case.

Gore's suggestion that the Gulf Stream, that warms up the Atlantic ocean, would shut down was contradicted by the International Panel on Climate Change's assessment that it was "very unlikely" to happen.

The drying of Lake Chad, the loss of Mount Kilimanjaro's snows and Hurricane Katrina were all blamed by Gore on climate change but the judge said the scientific community had been unable to find evidence to prove there was a direct link.

The drying of Lake Chad, the judge said, was "far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and overgrazing, and regional climate variability."

...

The judge also said there was no proof to support a claim that polar bears were drowning while searching for icy habitats melted by global warming. The only drowned polar bears the court was aware of were four that died following a storm.

It continues to amaze me that both sides of this argument are so utterly convinced that they are 100% right and those who differ are 100% fucked. And it divides almost exclusively along ideological lines.

What's sad is the ulterior motives each side ascribes to the other - particularly the skeptics' insistence that the proponents of AGW are either on some kind of power trip or are trying to punish the West.

I don't think I'm alone when I say that I honestly, dearly wish that the skeptics were right. Unfortunately, the vast bulk of scientific evidence seems to indicate otherwise.

This whole conversation appears to have gone to the dogs. It would be more useful to look at the news and see how Governor Palin views her potential role as vice president. But hey, you guys can't even handle simple civics questions, so I don't want to confuse you all

Clavos, thought you would like this one.

Shorly after Gore's film came out in 2006, George Stephanopoulos interviewed him on ABC. During this interview Al Gore himself inadvertently and by mistake admits there's no "consensus" when trying to defined himself with George Stephanopoulos)

The story came out shorly after the interview in the WALL STREET JOURNIAL on July 2, 2006. Heres the meat and potoatos of the piece.

Don't Believe the Hype

Al Gore is wrong. There's no "consensus" on global warming.

According to Al Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth," we're in for "a planetary emergency". And why not? Mr. Gore assures us that "the debate in the scientific community is over."

That statement, which Mr. Gore made in an interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC, ought to have been followed by an asterisk. What exactly is this debate that Mr. Gore is referring to? Is there really a scientific community that is debating all these issues and then somehow agreeing in unison? Far from such a thing being over, it has never been clear to me what this "debate" actually is in the first place. Even Mr. Gore qualified his statement on ABC only a few minutes after he made it, clarifying things in an important way.

When Mr. Stephanopoulos confronted Mr. Gore with the fact that the best estimates of rising sea levels are far less dire than he suggests in his movie, Mr. Gore defended his claims by noting that scientists "don't have any models that give them a high level of confidence" one way or the other and went on to claim--in his defense--that "scientists don't know. . . . They just don't know."

So, presumably, those scientists do not belong to the "consensus." Yet their research is forced, whether the evidence supports it or not, into Mr. Gore's preferred global-warming template--namely, shrill alarmism.

To believe it requires that one ignore the truly inconvenient facts. To take the issue of rising sea levels, these include: that the Arctic was as warm or warmer in 1940; that icebergs have been known since time immemorial; that the evidence so far suggests that the Greenland ice sheet is actually growing on average. A likely result of all this is increased pressure pushing ice off the coastal perimeter of that country, which is depicted so ominously in Mr. Gore's movie. In the absence of factual context, these images are perhaps dire or alarming.

They are less so otherwise. Alpine glaciers have been retreating since the early 19th century, and were advancing for several centuries before that. Since about 1970, many of the glaciers have stopped retreating and some are now advancing again. And, frankly, we don't know why.

Link

Cow farts are more destructive to the planet than all human transportation activity combined, say "Global Warming" alarmists:

Meet the world's top destroyer of the environment. It is not the car, or the plane, or even George Bush: it is the cow.

A United Nations report has identified the world's rapidly growing herds of cattle as the greatest threat to the climate, forests and wildlife. And they are blamed for a host of other environmental crimes, from acid rain to the introduction of alien species, from producing deserts to creating dead zones in the oceans, from poisoning rivers and drinking water to destroying coral reefs.

The 400-page report by the Food and Agricultural Organisation, entitled Livestock's Long Shadow, also surveys the damage done by sheep, chickens, pigs and goats. But in almost every case, the world's 1.5 billion cattle are most to blame. Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together.

A United Nations report has identified the world's rapidly growing herds of cattle as the greatest threat to the climate, forests and wildlife. The 400-page report.......

Can we shove that building located on an 18-acre site on the East side of Manhattan off into the ocean.....please!.

"This whole conversation appears to have gone to the dogs".

Ruvy, your crack me up. But I would have said the whole conversation your objecting to is about the dogs.

Any way. I read through your link and i like what it reports about Palin. If there is something particular from the link that you would like to address, I would love to here.

Shalom

#84 No, Franco, we can't. We need to know where the bastards are, and it's not like New York has a shortage of parking tickets, garbage, hookers, and crooks, after all. It's Schumer's home town and Rangel's home town. Think of it as sparing New Jersey yet another dump-site for the world's toxic waste.

What's sad is the ulterior motives each side ascribes to the other - particularly the skeptics' insistence that the proponents of AGW are either on some kind of power trip or are trying to punish the West.

Dreadful - isn't it the damning argument that AGW is about money and the establishment of a new industry based on public funds - ?