A review of a deplorable record on the environment.
Now that John McCain has picked a running mate, Sarah Palin, it is a good time to take a look at what a Republican victory this fall might mean for birds and wildlife.
Endangered Species
For some time now, the Republican party has not been particularly friendly to the conservation agenda. The Endangered Species Act has frequently been under attack from the current administration, and suffered a revision in 2004 that limited the impact of the law in protecting our most at-risk plants and animals (Eilperin 2004). A bright spot in the Bush administration's dealings with endangered species was considering the listing of the polar bear.…
Article comments
76 - pleasexcusetheinterruption
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.
77 - Clavos
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.
78 - Franco
"And I think Al Gore is the quintessential snake oil salesman on this issue."
The Real Inconvenient Truth'
79 - RJ Elliott
Al Gore is a lying liar:
80 - Dr Dreadful
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.
81 - Ruvy
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
82 - Franco
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
83 - RJ Elliott
Cow farts are more destructive to the planet than all human transportation activity combined, say "Global Warming" alarmists:
What's next? Global veganism, enforced by the UN? (Exempting India, Red China, and sub-Saharan Africa, of course ... even though a majority of the human population lives there...)
84 - Franco
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!.
85 - Franco
"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
86 - Cannonshop
#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.
87 - troll
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 - ?
88 - pleasexcusetheinterruption
Franco 78, 82,
RJ 79,
Calling Al Gore a liar doesn't prove anything. Every sensible person knows his claims are not scientific. End of story. Take a chill pill.
RJ 83 on Cow farts,
No converting to veganism will not solve anything because most of the bad effects of cows are not their farts but the land use changes required to raise them. Growing wheat will present the same problem, which is a loss of forest/rainforest which otherwise absorbs a much larger share of CO2 than grass or wheat.
Also the 18% of greenhouse gases for producing meat also includes the pollution caused by distribution, land use change, fertilizer production etc. It is more than personal transportation alone yes.
Power plants make up 21.3%.
Personal transportation (planes, cars): 14.0%
Industry: 16.8%
Fossil fuel retrieval and distribution: 11.3%
So is the fact that fertilizer for corn, cutting down large segments of forest to raise them, and transporting meat across the entire planet causes greenhouse gases supposed to somehow diminish the importance of the issue?
RJ your making my point for me man.
Nothing you've said so far (calling Al Gore a liar, saying cows contribute to greenhouse gases) disproves AGW in any way.
89 - Ruvy
Franco,
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 hear.
The truth of the matter is that American candidates are not addressing core problems - like the fact that you are a debtor nation, a fact which drains your economy; and you all suffer by their failure to do so. Palin said the obvious, that she was on the side of parents with children with deformities, etc. Wow. On the other hand, the conversation here has degenerated from bird shit to cow farts to arguments over old stale farts like Al Gore....
It would be funny if it weren't so damned tragic. Your candidates carefully ignore the problems that are merrily driving your coracle to hell - and you guys argue over cow farts and old farts! From now on, when examining this thread, I'm going to wear a clothespin on my nose.
90 - pleasexcusetheinterruption
Not with the only correlation being timing; not "strong," no. Evidence, yes. But not enough to be convincing.
The only correlation is not only timing. It is well established by a simple test that CO2 allows solar radiation (UV light and visible light) to pass through it. It does not allow thermal radiation from the earth to pass through it. This is a very simple test and cannot be disputed. So the correlation is not just timing. We also know the physical process by which CO2 causes global warming
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.
The highest estimate I could find is that increased solar activity this century has accounted for 20% of the warming. Also the solar theory predicts a rise in temperature of the outer atmosphere, greenhouse theory predicts a drop. The outer atmosphere is cooling.
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
Everyone acknowledges the ocean uptakes CO2. The rise of CO2 mass in the atmosphere is less than the rise we have put into it by about 40%. But I haven't read anything that suggests the ocean will magically start to absorb more than it already is.
In short, there are a lot of dissenting (or disputing) voices out there, which are not getting enough attention, IMO.
How can you say this? The president of the United States is an AGW skeptic. The u.s. congess' panel on climate is headed by a skeptic. There are many well published and well debated reports which I have read, and anyone else can read, debating the extent of AGW and the potential effects.
IMO, there is just not enough data to confirm the A in AGW yet,
1) Do you agree the rapid rise in CO2 this century is caused by humans? We release 27 gigatons/year.
2) Do you understand that CO2 has been demonstrated by simple experiment to allow solar radiation from the earth to pass through it, but does not allow the radiation which reflects off earth to pass through it?
3) Do you concede it is now warmer than any point in 400 years, and likely 1000 years?
Put it together. We know we are raising CO2 levels, we know that historically CO2 and rising temperature correlate, we know it is hotter than it has been for a long time, and we know the physical mechanism by which CO2 causes warming.
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.
Yes Al Gore is pretty bad. Some parts of his movie are good. But there are a lot of errors which negate that. There is a lot of hype over the issue. But look at the real hard science. Don't look at the media reports or the advocacy groups or even the books written about it. Ignore it all. The real hard science is what is convincing.
91 - Clavos
Every sensible person knows his claims are not scientific.
Utinam.
But, unfortunately, not true. Or, if true, there are tens of millions of americans who are not sensible.
Now that I think about it, you're right, PETI. The peasants all have their heads up their asses.
92 - Daniel Miller
Two very important points:
Now that the issue has been put to rest, can we go on to something else?1. As a hockey mom, Governor Palin knows lots about hockey sticks, and probably more than the rest of us.
2. Cows may fart, and produce methane which is bad. However, we need the critters if we want to be smart.
Dan(Miller)
93 - Andy Marsh
Yeah Dan, how 'bout.....lunch?!??!
94 - Dr Dreadful
troll:
Dreadful - isn't it the damning argument that AGW is about money and the establishment of a new industry based on public funds - ?
Or does that argument arise from the $keptical lobby's assumption that everyone thinks the way they do?
95 - Daniel Miller
Andy,
Great idea. I'd invite you over for some good red meat, but you probably couldn't get here in time.
Dan(Miller)
96 - Dr Dreadful
Dan, Dan, Dan, Dan, Dan...
Citing a Fox News report which in turn cites The Sun... are you trying to find the most disreputable sources possible?
97 - Ruvy
[putting clothes pin on nose in anticipation of methane related arguments]
Yeah guys. Let's do lunch (dinner for me, actually). How 'bout a kosher Whopper sandwich with hot fries, soda and some good parve (neither dairy or meat) apple pie? I haven't gone to a Burger King in an awful long time.... It's junk food, bad for my heart, but it tastes great!
98 - Dr Dreadful
Does kosher food reduce methane production?
99 - Andy Marsh
I hate to ask, but what's the difference between a kosher whopper and a regular whopper?
100 - Andy Marsh
Dan - the last time I was in your neck of the woods I hung out in a very "nice" section of town...all I can remember is a place called the blue something or other...one big room with a bar and lots of little rooms in the back with beds....a very "social" place it was in deed!
101 - Clavos
A Rabbi...:>)
102 - Daniel Miller
Doc *5
It ain't easy to find reputable sources these days. However, these particular disreputable sources cited the Sept. 9 issue of Neurology, whatever that is. Besides the findings as reported do support my observation that meat eaters are more intelligent than vegetarians, and for that reason alone I think they are accurate. I heard somewhere about a bumper sticker in Alaska to the effect that "Vegetarian is Indian Word for Bad Hunter." These are the important issues on which the campaign should focus. Let's stop methaneing around and get to the real meaty issues.
Dan(Miller)
103 - Daniel Miller
Andy, re your comment #100
You are most likely thinking of Panama City, Panama. It's over 400 KM from here and I avoid the place at every opportunity because I can't abide any city or town with a population over two hundred or so. You really should see the "real" Panama one of these days, i.e., the rural areas. Even here, though, there are "push button" places within twenty or thirty KM. I understand that the meat available there can be a tad risky.
Dan(Miller)
104 - Clavos
Dan(Miller):
I am inspired to remind you that punning is the lowest form of humor.
I will now duck.
Clav(os)
105 - Andy Marsh
Dan - I guess the closest I got was on the trip through the canal. It really was pretty amazing!
106 - Ruvy
[putting clothes pin on nose in anticipation of methane related arguments]
Andy,
I hate to ask, but what's the difference between a kosher whopper and a regular whopper?
A kosher whopper is a huge fish story told by a rabbi. A non-kosher whopper is a huge fish story told by anybody else.
A kosher Whopper© Sandwich (no kidding guys - that's how they write it in the BK Standard Op Manual) is made from meat from a cow/steer that has been slaughtered according to kosher regulations and has had the sciatic (I think that's what the the nerve is called) nerve removed. In addition, it has broiled in a broiler that has only had kosher meat run through it, and is served with condiments that are kosher. There is no such thing as a kosher Whopper© with cheese, or kosher Whopper© with bacon, or a kosher Whopper© with shrimp, for example.
The non-kosher Whopper© on the other hand, does not conform to the above conditions. It was the non-kosher Whopper© that I supervised serving in Minnesota when I worked as a Burger King manager...
107 - Ruvy
[putting clothes pin on nose in anticipation of methane related arguments]
Does kosher food reduce methane production?
The dead kosher cow does not fart. The eater of it might.
108 - Franco
"No, Franco, we can't. We need to know where the bastards are,"
LOL - keep our friends close, and our enemy’s closer. It’s hard to argue against that!
"Think of it as sparing New Jersey yet another dump-site for the world's toxic waste.
Aside from the rather nasty implications of that, one also must still wonder if Schumer's plate tectonics and Gore’s rising shore line ends up really make it any of it matter anyway.
109 - Dr Dreadful
Aww, Ruvy, and here was I expecting you to get all technical on me and explain the flatulence-exacerbating chemical processes used by the human body in order to digest blood in meat...
110 - Ruvy
DD,
In kosher meat, the blood is drained and rinsed out entirely. "But flesh; with its soul its blood you shall not eat." [Genesis 9:4]
111 - Franco
Ruvy
"The truth of the matter is that American candidates are not addressing core problems - like the fact that you are a debtor nation, a fact which drains your economy; and you all suffer by their failure to do so.
Palin said the obvious, that she was on the side of parents with children with deformities, etc. Wow.
Your candidates carefully ignore the problems that are merrily driving your coracle to hell."
Yes Ruvy, she did say that of parents with children with deformities,....but, before this Palin clearly stated her two key priorities as being “concentrating on energy”, and “government reform”.
Those two corners stones are key to turning this debtor nation around. And I believe she means it. And I believer that those who oppose Palin do not want her making any headway on these issues.
And your right, both of these keys have been ignored, and I say for too many decades.
Again, from the same article you linked....Palin also stressed that "too often government is the problem" rather than the solution.
Now this would be a good time to point out an example of what Palin means, and also whether I take this all seriously or not.
Case in point. The title of this thread and its written option piece is a perfect example of hot air bull shit in missing what are really key Palin objectives for all of us.
I make an example clear in post #75. Read it Ruvy, I know what I’m talking about from up front and personal experience, and so does Palin being governor of Alaska.
From the same article you linked....Palin also said that as governor of Alaska she had broken "the old oil monopoly that had controlled" the state, and eliminated the "good-ol'-boys network of lobbyists and special interests" once in power.
That is an immensely positive achievement of biblical proportion for any politician, let alone a first term governor, and a woman to boot. I believe she can have a simpler effect as VP in many other areas of hijacked government. I believer her, and if you were a moose, you would too.
From the same artilical you linked..... Palin said Alaska has nearly 20 percent of the nation's supply of oil and gas and said her job as vice president would be to help McCain, "implement his 'all of the above' strategy for energy independence."
Now for those who hold to the narrow shortsighted view that drilling now will not help lower energy costs today, and put in play a postive direction for ecconomic recovery, I could not possibly present a better argument then this.
Ruvy, it’s interesting how the two of us can read the same article and come away with such a different take on it. One sees it as the glass half-empty and other sees the glass half-full.
And as for some of the side diversions we American take in discussing cow farts and old farts, if you can’t keep a bit more of a wet sense of humor about it, it would all be too much.
112 - Ruvy
I agree that Palin can have a Biblical effect on the United States. But for that you'll have to look at my article on Jerusalem Being Divided - my long comment to Irene Wagner.
I read you comment #75. Very impressive. Honest! Regarding your comment above, it is good that Sarah Palin has taken on Big Oil. I noticed that right away. And she has my hearty praise for having done so. I happen to think very highly of her, even if I do not agree with everything she stands for.
But attempting to inch America towards energy independence will not end the debtor status you all suffer from soon enough to help you much. Of course, she cannot afford to say she'll end that debtor status with military means - that's my program. But in the end, if it is to succeed, that is what it will take - theft on a massive scale.
Sarah Palin, if she is to carry the ticket, has to tell the brutal truth about the country's debtor status to really gain credibility - and to gain power in what would be McCain's administration. Otherwise, she'll just be the pretty face who talks about being nice to kids with major birth defects. If she is to get my vote.... Well, go read that long comment to Irene Wagner and you'll understand.
I should have read your comment before saying the conversation had gone to the dogs - wolves is more like it....
113 - Daniel Miller
Clav(os), re # 104
Duck if you wish, but try not to quack at the same time. Governor Palin might shoot you.
In view of the underwhelming request for my list of meaty issues, here are just a few. These things need to be discussed, intensely, but have not yet been so much as raised. How can we have an informed electorate unless they are?
1. Senator McCain was born in Panama, far from the United States. How do we know for sure that he is not actually a Martian android, smuggled into the Canal Zone and implanted in his mother? We don't. Some evidence of this exists by virtue of his inability to use the internet, even to type and send e-mails. As all right-thinking people know, Martian androids lack manual dexterity and can't do these things. There has been no informed discussion of the meaning of this possibility.
2. Senator Obama has elephantine ears. They are his trademark in the various political cartoons. Is he a Republican in disguise? Is he therefore part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy? Dumbo, the elephant could fly by using his ears as wings. Which predominates? The right or the left? This suggests something. We need to clarify these matters.
3. What are Governor Palin's views on spaying and neutering dogs and cats? What does she think about gelding stallions? Is it right and proper to deprive them of life's simple pleasures, just to make them more amenable to human control? Have her positions been vetted adequately by PETA? Are her views on these matters consistent with her views on birth control and abortion? What books on these subjects has she had banned from the Public Libraries in Alaska? What steps does she take, upon murdering a poor, defenseless moose, to care for its orphaned children?*
4. When Senator Biden attempted to mask his baldness, by having hair plug implants, did he intend to insult all bald and balding men (and, yes, women)? Just how sexist was it? What are his views on chemotherapy induced hair loss, and how do those views comport with his religious views and those of his church?
These are just a few of the meaty issues yet to be raised and discussed. Creative minds can develop others; I hope and am confident that they will.
Dan(Miller)
*Since Governor Palin is the principal subject of the article, I felt compelled to deal with her views to a slightly greater extent than those of the other candidates, in the interest of remaining on-thread.
114 - RJ Elliott
The "Global Warming" - CO2 correlation:
Al Gore - disingenuous propagandist (and Academy Award-winning Nobel laureate!)
115 - RJ Elliott
1934 was the warmest year on record in the United States, not 1998. And 1921 was the third-warmest. And 1931 the fifth-warmest. (And there has been essentially ZERO warming since 1998.)
Also, note that "Global Warming" is presently occurring on Mars, Pluto, Jupiter, and Neptune's moon Triton. Must be all those Jovian cattle farms and Martian SUVs, amiright?
116 - Andy Marsh
to comment 113 - as if remaining on thread was really that important around here!!!
And to your number 1 point there...I can't think of the characters name...but your point made me think of the lead in Stranger in a Strange Land...
117 - Deano
Also, note that "Global Warming" is presently occurring on Mars, Pluto, Jupiter, and Neptune's moon Triton. Must be all those Jovian cattle farms and Martian SUVs, amiright?
Actually according to the MIT study, the warming observed on Triton is believed driven by seasonal changes in the absorption of solar energy by its polar ice caps, specifically the moon is approaching an extreme southern summer, a season that occurs every few hundred years. More direct sunlight = higher temperatures.
Regarding Mars and Pluto - There are varied explanations for each of these that don't require either cow farts or any increased solar output (which, depsite being measured since 1978 hasn't happened...). There is no evidence of warming on the other planets or their moons, so a solar causal effect would be effecting all, not just a few.
118 - cuervodeluna
It would be useful for PitBull Palin (who had a sexchange op last year in Thailand) to remember the Hitchcock film "The Birds".
We have a history of getting even.
119 - RJ Elliott
#117:
Oh, you mean "Global Warming" can be caused by things other than CO2 and human activity? SOMEBODY TELL AL GORE!
[Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]