Yeah, this cop was a jerk. But, if you're trying to protect yourself from jerk cops, what's to stop them from lying about having a search warrant? I guess the home-owner/gun-enthusiast could always give him a chance to produce the alleged search warrant and then shoot when the search warrant isn't forthcoming. (Note: I'm not advocating this behavior - it is merely a hypothetical extension of the previous discussion on libertarian-style rights.)
Not that I'm justifying the cop in TFA, but if a cop has a search warrant isn't he allowed to "trespass", or are you not calling that trespassing? Mightn't an extreme Libertarian in such a state not bother checking to see if a search warrant exists and just fire away? Seems one step away (if that) from legalizing resisting arrest.
Can you really make such dramatic conclusions about the last 20 years worth of data?
They're not really that dramatic of conclusions. Theory predicted that CO2 should contribute to global warming and observation revealed that the extreme amounts of CO2 we've pumped into the atmosphere have correlated with global warming.
Climate scientists have no shame!
So, you admit that you believe there is some kind of global climatology conspiracy involved here? I see no other way to interpret your postings.
I know what ad hominem means, and I'm definitely no child. I've published several articles in peer-reviewed journals (although climatology is not even close to my area of expertise), so I understand statistics and the scientific process just fine.
I don't consider McIntyre's site an "opposing" site to this discussion because he is out of his area of expertise and is being paid by ExxonMobil. For the same reasons, I wouldn't expect you to consider a site I created as an opposing site to Pielke's research.
Not that I expect you will believe Wikipedia (and I don't consider them to be the ultimate arbiter myself), but they do agree with my assessment that the NAS report supports the position that majority of global warming in the last 50 years is due to anthropogenic factors. The nice thing about that article is that it links to other sites where you can verify what they're saying.
And no, you never state that CO2 is not responsible for forcing. But you imply it in very many ways. A couple of those I documented in my previous post, and a new one is found in what you just said when you claimed that humans were responsible for 0-30 percent of global warming. Again, implied, but not directly stated.
And yes, I am quite aware of the Apostle's Creed, and it was my attempt to create a similar sounding statement since you were claiming I had a "religious" issues. I don't know why you thought it would be insulting to me to point this out, but clearly you do since you tell me I should change my statements in the future.
And with respect to approaching this with methods of science and not faith, some faith is required. I must believe that there is not a vast conspiracy by climatologists to distort the facts. I do not have the resources to attempt to prove that using some form of the scientific process.
You're using the usual points of the global warming denying crowd.
You claim to support a balanced view point.
You acknowledge that CO2 is responsible for some of the global warming.
You defend ExxonMobil shills by pulling out the "ad hominem attack" defense.
You make an ad hominem attack on me.
By now, this is almost formulaic. Not all posts contain all of these features, and some post contain additional features, but this is fairly common fare from people who pretend not to be global warming deniers.
However, I will address your issues, one by one.
I also consistently identified the RealClimate folks and McIntyre's site as opposing sites, and Pielke's site as more middle of the road. So yes, I'm trying to give some balanced information. Reading just RealClimate doesn't do that.
McIntyre's site is not an opposing site. Pielke's site is an opposing site (and hence is not middle of the road). McIntyre's site is that of someone whose hands are in the till of ExxonMobil.
Second, you'll find nothing I wrote that says anything to contradict the notion that there is some contribution to "global warming" from CO2.
No, there is not. However, you do strongly imply that it is a minor factor by bringing up the warming of Mars (which is actually due, in large part at least, to the precession of its apogee), and trying to claim that CO2 forcing was invented after the fact to explain the heating, when in fact CO2 forcing was addressed during the time when Time magazine was worried about global cooling. (Note: climatologists were NOT worried about global cooling in the 70's.)
The reality is that the overwhelming majority of climatologists know that global warming is due primarily to anthropogenic causes. Not some, but primarily.
That said, though, third, you should look up the "ad hominem circumstantial": the source of funding doesn't mean diddly to the science. McIntyre has made specific criticisms of Mann et al.'s statistical methods, all of which were supported by the NAS report. If you're competent to read them and understand them, you can follow those links to the sources, and come to your own conclusions.
I have read McIntyre's criticisms, and understand them fairly well. Basically, he's picking out a few suspect points and claiming that those suspect points invalidate the whole hockey stick. The reality is that the hockey stick survives even in the absence of the points that McIntyre finds suspect.
It looks to me, though, that you're most interested in protecting your religious convinctions. If so, stick to your fellow Church of the Hockey Stick members' sites; far be it from to me question someone's dogma.
So, this is your ad hominem attack. I do have religious convictions at stake here. I believe in the scientific process. What's more, I believe in the integrity of the majority of the scientific community. I do not believe the majority is infallible, but I do believe they follow the scientific process. I do know that CO2 levels in the seas are actually changing the seas' pH level (CO2 + H20 = carbonic acid). I do know that CO2 has a forcing effect on the Earth's temperature (because it absorbs infrared radiation). I believe that ExxonMobil is deliberately spreading falsehoods, and that McIntyre is part of their technique. I came to that belief after reading what McIntyre wrote.
If you were looking for a balanced view point on the dangers of tobacco smoking 30 years ago, would you have gone to the cigarette companies or the think tanks they supported? If not, why would you go to the think tanks of oil companies (mainly, if not exclusively, funded by ExxonMobil) today? This is, of course, in reference to climateaudit.org, which seems to be mainly written by Stephen McIntyre, who is funded (albeit indirectly through the George Marshall Institute) by ExxonMobil. If you doubt the veracity of ExxonSecrets.org, feel free to verify it against Exxon's own "giving report".
With regards to Climate Science and Roger Pielke, if you actually look at his publications, you'll find that he does believe that CO2 contributes to significant climate change. He is just a little more agnostic than many of his fellow researchers as to the nature of that climate change. I'm not sure if you want to count him as your ally.
First of all, I've never advocated seizure. Merely making the market cost of production match its actual cost. This is not seizure, this is common sense. If I find a way to make product X cheaply by dumping the by-products in the municipal water supply, then it makes sense for the government to charge me for the cost of cleaning up the municipal water supply. Replace "water supply" with "air supply" and you begin to understand the ideas involved in legislating cleaner technologies.
Somehow, I suspect you'll object even to that little bit of common sense legislation. If it makes it easier for you to sympathize with, imagine that instead of dumping the by-products into the municipal water supply, it's even cheaper to dump them straight into your veins. Surely that shouldn't be legal. Where do you draw the line? Polluters need to be responsible for the cost of cleaning up their pollution. If you're going to argue that CO2 isn't pollution, fine. The same argument applies regardless of what you label it.
Personally, I have no reason to trust "experts" in the area of climate change.
First, of all I was referring to economists, not climatologists. Secondly, I'm not surprised. It seems the only expert you trust are those funded by oil companies.
I look at the greenies own data and I see a blip of an increase since 1980. Most of the 20th century was pretty flat. Wouldn't CO2 emissions have started affecting climate hundreds of years earlier if the climate was as sensative anthrogenic changes as you suggest? Or is that a discussion you are uncomfortable with?
Really? You don't notice that it started off quite negative, rose to an average of 0 between 1960 and 1990 (which is how 0 is defined on that graph) and then became quite positive? No wonder you have a hard time believing the experts, when you can't notice what's in front of your own eyes. And yes, as you yourself mentioned in the GGP post, CO2 emissions did start climbing hundreds of years earlier. However, the most drastic changes in temperature not surprisingly coincide with the most drastic increases in production of CO2.
...Decades ago, big tobacco was doing the same thing with tobacco
Whenever someone like you brings up big tobacco they are imagining $$$ coming from the courts for climate change. It is the only practical avenue for the greenies to circumvent the will of the electorate.
So, here I'm a "greenie" because I recognize that ExxonMobil is distorting the facts much as Big Tobacco did decades ago. I never mentioned $$$, but you did - probably in an effort to create a straw man, since you can't deny the original premise. (I.e., that ExxonMobil is spending big money to fund bogus research denying global warming.)
Personally, I'm in favor of incentives to reduce pollution and encourage efficiency. I think nuclear power (fusion and fission) can be part of the solution, especially (with respect to fission) in the short term.
Efficiency will get you 20-40% reduction in usage. Energy usage grows at 5% per year. Ding. Next. Nuclear power is great. Unfortunately the greenies have hobbled reactor research since 3 mile island. Now we need the Japanese to construct them. I would like to see large ones dedicated to producing hydrogen. Don't waste your breath about fusion. After decades of hearing it is only a decade away, it is tiresome.
And here I'm fighting the "greenies". Did you consider that maybe, just maybe, that's because I can think for myself? Also, I'd always heard that fusion is 3 decades away, and has been since the 1950's, but that's just nitpicking.;)
Don't you think it is a bit unrealistic to ask for $1 trillion in worldwide economic devastation and offer nothing in return? Some first step.
Although the figure you cite might qualify as nothing, the upper bound, IMO, does not. Further more, if successful, we will also learn more about what we're capable of doing, and what the effect will be on the environment. Some economists (as opposed to us on the sidelines) actually speculate that measures to help the environment might actually stimulate the economy. Granted, this is speculation. It might stress the economy some. Not as much as global warming will, but some.
Climate has been warming for 12000 years. What was the result? The ascent of man. I fear the day when the warming stops.
The drastic climate change has only come in the last 100 or so years. The next 50 years will likely result in more drastic changes.
Imagine I see a line of people going on and on, until that line bends around a corner. Now, let's say I tell you that I'm taller than everyone in that line until it bends around that corner. Would you necessarily conclude that immediately after it bends around that corner you'll find someone taller? Because that's the kind of logic you're applying here.
Now, let's imagine that you do claim that. I now find a way to see around that corner and find tham I'm taller than everyone I can see there until it bends around yet another corner. Will you know claim that this claim means that there's someone taller right around the next corner?
Has it ever been hotter than it is now? Absolutely. Were we here to suffer the consequences? No. Has it ever heated up this quickly before? Probably not since the Earth first coalesced.
You mean one that you hypothesized, and is not supported by any scientists that I'm aware of. This isn't the best answer to global warming deniers, but it does capture the flavor of their debating style.
Ofcourse you haven't heard it from scientists. The 50% chance that warming will be beneficial does not help them extort funding.
Well, at least you warned me that you were going to use a disingenuous debating style. I can only hope you're being funny, but I fear that you are not. This is typical conspiracy theory fare - the fact that you haven't heard about it only proves that there's a conspiracy! Seriously, do you not think that there would be all kinds of money coming out of the woodwork to support this kind of research. ExxonMobil already does fund any research that might possibly shed any doubt on any aspect about global warming. Decades ago, big tobacco was doing the same thing with tobacco, and I'm sure there were people claiming that non-tobacco scientists were just extorting funding then, too. I'm grateful that many oil companies are not following ExxonMobil's example. As far as I know, they are singular in their attempts to distort the facts, and you should be embarassed that you believe them over scientists who are being funded by a Republican adminstration (as well as scientists who were funded by a Democratic administration and scientists who are being funded by other countries and non-profit organizations).
As for Kyoto, I'll admit ignorance. Do you deny there's a problem, or are you only claiming that Kyoto's no solution? If the latter, what do you recommend? Personally, I'm in favor of incentives to reduce pollution and encourage efficiency. I think nuclear power (fusion and fission) can be part of the solution, especially (with respect to fission) in the short term.
After writing that last paragraph, I decided to eliminate some of my ignorance, so I searched on "Kyoto 0.02" and found a Wikipedia article on the Kyoto Protocol. You've really distorted this, too, haven't you? It's 0.02-0.28 degrees Celsius in 50 years. So, not only did you choose the lower bound, you also changed it from 50 years to 100. Again, I'm not claiming that Kyoto is the solution (and nor are those who are pushing Kyoto - they merely claim that it's a good first step). Rather, I'm claiming that global warming is real, anthropogenic, and harmful. If you think otherwise, the benefits/dangers of Kyoto don't really factor into it.
What do you mean by sudden jumps in temperature? As far as I know there has never been such a sudden jump in temperature (and definitely not in CO2 concentrations) reflected in any of our measurements that matches the current jump. Yes, it has been hotter than it is now - and many areas that are now inhabited were underwater then.
First of all, citing Canada Free Press is not much better than citing the Institute for Creation Research. Look at the other stories they post there.
Now, the good news. My Republican leaning father, who voted for Bush in '00 AND '04, has read the Crichton novel and seen the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" (in that order). Prior to the movie, he was a skeptic (but not a denier), but he is now convinced that global warming is real and anthropogenic. He told me that he's still no fan of Al Gore, but that he was convinced. He just wished that more time was spent on what to do about it.
As for global warming being used by the "powers that be", how does this work? Is it easier for you to believe that somehow someone benefits from stopping you from polluting, but that surely ExxonMobil has no interest in lying to you? Sure, you might claim that scientists benefit from receiving grant money (as Crichton claims), but who benefits from giving them that money? With ExxonMobil, it's easy to see who benefits, and how.
They might have data from only 4 or 5 sources instead of the 6 or 7 they'd like to have, but there are multiple sources of data going back thousands of years. There are sources for CO2 levels, and different sources for temperatures. I'm sure if you wanted to, you could find these sources. A place to start might be http://www.realclimate.org/.
You mean one that you hypothesized, and is not supported by any scientists that I'm aware of. This isn't the best answer to global warming deniers, but it does capture the flavor of their debating style.
George W. Bush himself doesn't "question the gospel that global warming is caused by human generated greenhouse gas emissions." It's ExxonMobil, their "think tanks", and (some of) the ill-informed that do.
Of course, like you, I'm not fan of Dubya, but I do feel the need to defend his "honor" on this matter.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192
However, you'll find that the warming on Mars is a natural part of its cycle and is related to the eccentricity of its orbit. That is not the case for Earth.
Replace "Texaco Scientist" and "Shell Scientist" with "ExxonMobil Scientist". As far as I know, they are the only company actively trying to distort the facts. Please correct me if I'm wrong as this affects my gas-purchasing decisions. I refuse to buy gas from any ExxonMobil affiliated station.
The hottest temperature in 400 years does NOT imply that it was this hot 400 years ago. It simply means that if we look at the records of the last 400 years, the hottest temperatures are right now. Furthermore, if we look at the records of the last 1000 years (which are a little harder to read since there are fewer means of cross-correlation), the hottest temperatures are right now. Please try to understand that these two statements do not, in any way, contradict each other.
Will the goo harden in orbit, or does it need an oxidizing agent? Hardening seems like a chemical reaction that would need something to react with. Perhaps there's a coating on the outer surface of the membrane?
We probably need laws that allow for X times damages and expenses when an individual or company has X times the financial / legal resources of the opponent and loses. It would encourage much more pro-bono activity and more corporate responsibility. Not even 100% of the "extra" penalty needs to go to the winner - some could be used to offset the court costs / infrastructure that we taxpayers pay for.
I'd say that, de facto, we already do. I.e., you can't get blood from a turnip, but you can sure get blood from a..., well I don't think I want to finish that analogy. Anyways, my point is that juries routinely hand out fairly large settlements against companies (McDonald's coffee, anyone?), and companies with more financial resources are those companies that will actually have the wherewithal to pay.
On the other hand, even if a jury awarded you a $10 million dollar suit against me, well, good luck with you - or, more importantly for your point, your lawyer - collecting it.
The web-site doesn't list the EX anymore. Last year, when I bought the car, the difference from the EX was about $2,000. Of course, I also got a $2,000 tax deduction (meaning that if you're in the 30% tax bracket, a $600 savings). So, in that case it's about $1,400 more expensive. After 100,000 hwy miles, the Hybrid will have used approximately 1,960 gallons to the Coupe's 3,125 gallons. That's a savings of 1,165 gallons, or at $3/gallon about $3,495. And, that neglects the fact that that the Coupe is rated for Unleaded Super whereas the Hybrid is rated for Unleaded Regular. OTOH, actually mpg for for the hybrid is probably slightly lower. If you use 45 mpg, then the Hybrid will have used approximately 2,222 gallons, for a savings of 903 gallons or $2,709 at $3/gallon. Of course, gas will probably continue to go up in price, as well.
Slashdot Mirror
"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else." It's in the current issue of The Week.
Yeah, this cop was a jerk. But, if you're trying to protect yourself from jerk cops, what's to stop them from lying about having a search warrant? I guess the home-owner/gun-enthusiast could always give him a chance to produce the alleged search warrant and then shoot when the search warrant isn't forthcoming. (Note: I'm not advocating this behavior - it is merely a hypothetical extension of the previous discussion on libertarian-style rights.)
Not that I'm justifying the cop in TFA, but if a cop has a search warrant isn't he allowed to "trespass", or are you not calling that trespassing? Mightn't an extreme Libertarian in such a state not bother checking to see if a search warrant exists and just fire away? Seems one step away (if that) from legalizing resisting arrest.
They're not really that dramatic of conclusions. Theory predicted that CO2 should contribute to global warming and observation revealed that the extreme amounts of CO2 we've pumped into the atmosphere have correlated with global warming.
So, you admit that you believe there is some kind of global climatology conspiracy involved here? I see no other way to interpret your postings.
I know what ad hominem means, and I'm definitely no child. I've published several articles in peer-reviewed journals (although climatology is not even close to my area of expertise), so I understand statistics and the scientific process just fine.
I don't consider McIntyre's site an "opposing" site to this discussion because he is out of his area of expertise and is being paid by ExxonMobil. For the same reasons, I wouldn't expect you to consider a site I created as an opposing site to Pielke's research.
Not that I expect you will believe Wikipedia (and I don't consider them to be the ultimate arbiter myself), but they do agree with my assessment that the NAS report supports the position that majority of global warming in the last 50 years is due to anthropogenic factors. The nice thing about that article is that it links to other sites where you can verify what they're saying.
And no, you never state that CO2 is not responsible for forcing. But you imply it in very many ways. A couple of those I documented in my previous post, and a new one is found in what you just said when you claimed that humans were responsible for 0-30 percent of global warming. Again, implied, but not directly stated.
And yes, I am quite aware of the Apostle's Creed, and it was my attempt to create a similar sounding statement since you were claiming I had a "religious" issues. I don't know why you thought it would be insulting to me to point this out, but clearly you do since you tell me I should change my statements in the future.
And with respect to approaching this with methods of science and not faith, some faith is required. I must believe that there is not a vast conspiracy by climatologists to distort the facts. I do not have the resources to attempt to prove that using some form of the scientific process.
You're using the usual points of the global warming denying crowd.
By now, this is almost formulaic. Not all posts contain all of these features, and some post contain additional features, but this is fairly common fare from people who pretend not to be global warming deniers.
However, I will address your issues, one by one.
McIntyre's site is not an opposing site. Pielke's site is an opposing site (and hence is not middle of the road). McIntyre's site is that of someone whose hands are in the till of ExxonMobil.
No, there is not. However, you do strongly imply that it is a minor factor by bringing up the warming of Mars (which is actually due, in large part at least, to the precession of its apogee), and trying to claim that CO2 forcing was invented after the fact to explain the heating, when in fact CO2 forcing was addressed during the time when Time magazine was worried about global cooling. (Note: climatologists were NOT worried about global cooling in the 70's.)
The reality is that the overwhelming majority of climatologists know that global warming is due primarily to anthropogenic causes. Not some, but primarily.
I have read McIntyre's criticisms, and understand them fairly well. Basically, he's picking out a few suspect points and claiming that those suspect points invalidate the whole hockey stick. The reality is that the hockey stick survives even in the absence of the points that McIntyre finds suspect.
So, this is your ad hominem attack. I do have religious convictions at stake here. I believe in the scientific process. What's more, I believe in the integrity of the majority of the scientific community. I do not believe the majority is infallible, but I do believe they follow the scientific process. I do know that CO2 levels in the seas are actually changing the seas' pH level (CO2 + H20 = carbonic acid). I do know that CO2 has a forcing effect on the Earth's temperature (because it absorbs infrared radiation). I believe that ExxonMobil is deliberately spreading falsehoods, and that McIntyre is part of their technique. I came to that belief after reading what McIntyre wrote.
If you were looking for a balanced view point on the dangers of tobacco smoking 30 years ago, would you have gone to the cigarette companies or the think tanks they supported? If not, why would you go to the think tanks of oil companies (mainly, if not exclusively, funded by ExxonMobil) today? This is, of course, in reference to climateaudit.org, which seems to be mainly written by Stephen McIntyre, who is funded (albeit indirectly through the George Marshall Institute) by ExxonMobil. If you doubt the veracity of ExxonSecrets.org, feel free to verify it against Exxon's own "giving report".
With regards to Climate Science and Roger Pielke, if you actually look at his publications, you'll find that he does believe that CO2 contributes to significant climate change. He is just a little more agnostic than many of his fellow researchers as to the nature of that climate change. I'm not sure if you want to count him as your ally.
First of all, I've never advocated seizure. Merely making the market cost of production match its actual cost. This is not seizure, this is common sense. If I find a way to make product X cheaply by dumping the by-products in the municipal water supply, then it makes sense for the government to charge me for the cost of cleaning up the municipal water supply. Replace "water supply" with "air supply" and you begin to understand the ideas involved in legislating cleaner technologies.
Somehow, I suspect you'll object even to that little bit of common sense legislation. If it makes it easier for you to sympathize with, imagine that instead of dumping the by-products into the municipal water supply, it's even cheaper to dump them straight into your veins. Surely that shouldn't be legal. Where do you draw the line? Polluters need to be responsible for the cost of cleaning up their pollution. If you're going to argue that CO2 isn't pollution, fine. The same argument applies regardless of what you label it.
First, of all I was referring to economists, not climatologists. Secondly, I'm not surprised. It seems the only expert you trust are those funded by oil companies.
Really? You don't notice that it started off quite negative, rose to an average of 0 between 1960 and 1990 (which is how 0 is defined on that graph) and then became quite positive? No wonder you have a hard time believing the experts, when you can't notice what's in front of your own eyes. And yes, as you yourself mentioned in the GGP post, CO2 emissions did start climbing hundreds of years earlier. However, the most drastic changes in temperature not surprisingly coincide with the most drastic increases in production of CO2.
So, here I'm a "greenie" because I recognize that ExxonMobil is distorting the facts much as Big Tobacco did decades ago. I never mentioned $$$, but you did - probably in an effort to create a straw man, since you can't deny the original premise. (I.e., that ExxonMobil is spending big money to fund bogus research denying global warming.)
And here I'm fighting the "greenies". Did you consider that maybe, just maybe, that's because I can think for myself? Also, I'd always heard that fusion is 3 decades away, and has been since the 1950's, but that's just nitpicking. ;)
Although the figure you cite might qualify as nothing, the upper bound, IMO, does not. Further more, if successful, we will also learn more about what we're capable of doing, and what the effect will be on the environment. Some economists (as opposed to us on the sidelines) actually speculate that measures to help the environment might actually stimulate the economy. Granted, this is speculation. It might stress the economy some. Not as much as global warming will, but some.
The drastic climate change has only come in the last 100 or so years. The next 50 years will likely result in more drastic changes.
Imagine I see a line of people going on and on, until that line bends around a corner. Now, let's say I tell you that I'm taller than everyone in that line until it bends around that corner. Would you necessarily conclude that immediately after it bends around that corner you'll find someone taller? Because that's the kind of logic you're applying here.
Now, let's imagine that you do claim that. I now find a way to see around that corner and find tham I'm taller than everyone I can see there until it bends around yet another corner. Will you know claim that this claim means that there's someone taller right around the next corner?
Has it ever been hotter than it is now? Absolutely. Were we here to suffer the consequences? No. Has it ever heated up this quickly before? Probably not since the Earth first coalesced.
Well, at least you warned me that you were going to use a disingenuous debating style. I can only hope you're being funny, but I fear that you are not. This is typical conspiracy theory fare - the fact that you haven't heard about it only proves that there's a conspiracy! Seriously, do you not think that there would be all kinds of money coming out of the woodwork to support this kind of research. ExxonMobil already does fund any research that might possibly shed any doubt on any aspect about global warming. Decades ago, big tobacco was doing the same thing with tobacco, and I'm sure there were people claiming that non-tobacco scientists were just extorting funding then, too. I'm grateful that many oil companies are not following ExxonMobil's example. As far as I know, they are singular in their attempts to distort the facts, and you should be embarassed that you believe them over scientists who are being funded by a Republican adminstration (as well as scientists who were funded by a Democratic administration and scientists who are being funded by other countries and non-profit organizations).
As for Kyoto, I'll admit ignorance. Do you deny there's a problem, or are you only claiming that Kyoto's no solution? If the latter, what do you recommend? Personally, I'm in favor of incentives to reduce pollution and encourage efficiency. I think nuclear power (fusion and fission) can be part of the solution, especially (with respect to fission) in the short term.
After writing that last paragraph, I decided to eliminate some of my ignorance, so I searched on "Kyoto 0.02" and found a Wikipedia article on the Kyoto Protocol. You've really distorted this, too, haven't you? It's 0.02-0.28 degrees Celsius in 50 years. So, not only did you choose the lower bound, you also changed it from 50 years to 100. Again, I'm not claiming that Kyoto is the solution (and nor are those who are pushing Kyoto - they merely claim that it's a good first step). Rather, I'm claiming that global warming is real, anthropogenic, and harmful. If you think otherwise, the benefits/dangers of Kyoto don't really factor into it.
What do you mean by sudden jumps in temperature? As far as I know there has never been such a sudden jump in temperature (and definitely not in CO2 concentrations) reflected in any of our measurements that matches the current jump. Yes, it has been hotter than it is now - and many areas that are now inhabited were underwater then.
First of all, citing Canada Free Press is not much better than citing the Institute for Creation Research. Look at the other stories they post there.
Now, the good news. My Republican leaning father, who voted for Bush in '00 AND '04, has read the Crichton novel and seen the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" (in that order). Prior to the movie, he was a skeptic (but not a denier), but he is now convinced that global warming is real and anthropogenic. He told me that he's still no fan of Al Gore, but that he was convinced. He just wished that more time was spent on what to do about it.
As for global warming being used by the "powers that be", how does this work? Is it easier for you to believe that somehow someone benefits from stopping you from polluting, but that surely ExxonMobil has no interest in lying to you? Sure, you might claim that scientists benefit from receiving grant money (as Crichton claims), but who benefits from giving them that money? With ExxonMobil, it's easy to see who benefits, and how.
They might have data from only 4 or 5 sources instead of the 6 or 7 they'd like to have, but there are multiple sources of data going back thousands of years. There are sources for CO2 levels, and different sources for temperatures. I'm sure if you wanted to, you could find these sources. A place to start might be http://www.realclimate.org/.
You mean one that you hypothesized, and is not supported by any scientists that I'm aware of. This isn't the best answer to global warming deniers, but it does capture the flavor of their debating style.
George W. Bush himself doesn't "question the gospel that global warming is caused by human generated greenhouse gas emissions." It's ExxonMobil, their "think tanks", and (some of) the ill-informed that do.
Of course, like you, I'm not fan of Dubya, but I do feel the need to defend his "honor" on this matter.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192 However, you'll find that the warming on Mars is a natural part of its cycle and is related to the eccentricity of its orbit. That is not the case for Earth.
Replace "Texaco Scientist" and "Shell Scientist" with "ExxonMobil Scientist". As far as I know, they are the only company actively trying to distort the facts. Please correct me if I'm wrong as this affects my gas-purchasing decisions. I refuse to buy gas from any ExxonMobil affiliated station.
The hottest temperature in 400 years does NOT imply that it was this hot 400 years ago. It simply means that if we look at the records of the last 400 years, the hottest temperatures are right now. Furthermore, if we look at the records of the last 1000 years (which are a little harder to read since there are fewer means of cross-correlation), the hottest temperatures are right now. Please try to understand that these two statements do not, in any way, contradict each other.
Will the goo harden in orbit, or does it need an oxidizing agent? Hardening seems like a chemical reaction that would need something to react with. Perhaps there's a coating on the outer surface of the membrane?
According to TFA.
Personally, I perfer IE6 six VI. Of course, it's not due out until tomorrow.
(Note: This is only meant as a lame joke. I use Firefox.)
I'd say that, de facto, we already do. I.e., you can't get blood from a turnip, but you can sure get blood from a..., well I don't think I want to finish that analogy. Anyways, my point is that juries routinely hand out fairly large settlements against companies (McDonald's coffee, anyone?), and companies with more financial resources are those companies that will actually have the wherewithal to pay.
On the other hand, even if a jury awarded you a $10 million dollar suit against me, well, good luck with you - or, more importantly for your point, your lawyer - collecting it.
Could you turn over all the keys you've used in the last 3 days? Assuming you use SSH, scp, et al., I don't know if it's even possible.
- Civic Si Coupe: $20,290, 49/51 mpg city/hwy
- Civic Hybrid Sedan: $22,150, 23/32 mpg city/hwy
- Difference: $1,860
The web-site doesn't list the EX anymore. Last year, when I bought the car, the difference from the EX was about $2,000. Of course, I also got a $2,000 tax deduction (meaning that if you're in the 30% tax bracket, a $600 savings). So, in that case it's about $1,400 more expensive. After 100,000 hwy miles, the Hybrid will have used approximately 1,960 gallons to the Coupe's 3,125 gallons. That's a savings of 1,165 gallons, or at $3/gallon about $3,495. And, that neglects the fact that that the Coupe is rated for Unleaded Super whereas the Hybrid is rated for Unleaded Regular. OTOH, actually mpg for for the hybrid is probably slightly lower. If you use 45 mpg, then the Hybrid will have used approximately 2,222 gallons, for a savings of 903 gallons or $2,709 at $3/gallon. Of course, gas will probably continue to go up in price, as well.