Tuesday, December 08, 2009

Teabaggers More Popular Than GOP

This is an interesting development. People like the teabaggers more than they like Republicans. Here's Politico:
Should the “Tea Party” movement organize itself to run congressional candidates across the country, it would poll better than the Republican Party, according to a new survey by Rasmussen Reports.

In the national telephone poll of 1,000 likely voters released Monday, 23 percent said they preferred to vote for a candidate from the yet unformed “Tea Party” for Congress in 2010. The Republican Party trailed the non-existent political organization by 5 percentage points, getting the support of 18 percent of respondents.

Democratic candidates were preferred of 36 percent.

Local tea party organizations have sprung up in states across the country, but there is little national – or even state-level – cohesion among them. Most states have several groups competing for support. 'Tea party' polls better than GOP

The Tea Party movement is a kind of interesting phenomenon. It is not made up of politically astute or particularly involved individuals -- you might have seen the Sarah Palin book-signing video, where people love Sarah Palin but don't have any clue what her position on domestic or foreign policies might be. People just have an idea that they're fed up, they don't really have any better idea how to manage a country of three hundred million extremely diverse citizens in a world of fickle friends and enemies, but they know "we want our country back."

The Republican Party built its foundation on the unlikely alliance of wealthy capitalists and working-class white people, where the working people were persuaded to prefer policies that were bad for them. Eight years of Bush presidency embarrassed the whole bunch of them, of course the rich got richer and the poor got poorer as expected, but the in-betweens began to realize, dimly, that their needs were not being met. Now that America has elected an African-American as President, their revulsion is gelling into a movement that has no real leaders, no doctrine, it is an aggregation of people who feel that their values and their ways are better than other people's, and they feel that they are being left out while elites and minorities get all the goodies. They are suspicious of government, suspicious of scientists and academics, suspicious of foreigners and people who are not white, suspicious of people who are not heterosexual and who are not stereotypical in their gender behavior. They see themselves as normal people and believe that's how everybody should be.

This is what you get after decades of second-rate education, after eight years of an anti-intellectual Presidency, where you had a President who mocked the PhD's who worked for him and claimed to make decisions "from the gut" rather than using his brain. Bush was the perfect teabagger President, though nobody will ever want to claim him. We tried it, it didn't work.

Bush was a Republican, and you can distance yourself from his failure by ... starting a new party that's just the same, but with a different name.
Despite the disorganization, the tea party brand is strong enough that a number of conservative candidates, including Republican California Senate hopeful Chuck DeVore, have tried to adopt the movement’s message.

According to the poll, 41 percent of all respondents said they had a “favorable view” of the so-called “Tea Party,” while only 22 percent characterized their view of the grassroots anti-tax movement as “unfavorable.” Thirty-seven percent said they were unsure.

Seventy percent of Republicans said they had a favorable view.

Fifty-seven percent said they were following news about the new movement either “very” or “somewhat” closely, while 40 percent said they were watching “not very closely” or “not at all.”

It will be interesting to see if these people can organize themselves into a political movement with any real power. This CNN story suggests that it might fall apart before it gets itself together...
It emerged in anger and it threatens to split in anger.

One major group in the Tea Party movement -- named after the famous Boston Tea Party -- is set to host its first convention in February, with former Alaska governor and 2008 Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin as its keynote speaker.

But there are fractures in the movement that threaten its future. And if history's any guide, such movements tend to flame out.

The Tea Party movement erupted on April 15 -- tax day -- over criticism of President Obama's economic policies and what organizers called big government out of control. The movement, made up of local, state and national groups, continues to protest what it considers fiscally unsound policies.

And the movement is well funded. Action groups like FreedomWorks -- chaired by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey -- helped organize and fund its April 15 rally in Washington.

Other groups, including Americans for Prosperity, Tea Party Nation and Tea Party Patriots, are also vying for the helm of the movement, and it's creating what some are calling "competitive chaos."

Some Tea Partiers have voiced anger and concern over whether the powerful groups are "astroturfing'' what is supposed to be a grass-roots coalition -- the idea that the movement is being organized by old-fashioned GOP bigwigs to promote their agenda. Tea Party movement threatened by internal rifts

For one thing, the party has no core principle, unless it's opposition to paying taxes, and I just don't see that going anywhere. Yes, government is big, it's inefficient, but it's stable and a country needs governing. Anybody can point to any particular incident of wastefulness, and the government can constantly try to streamline itself, but there's just no way to manage a country this size without redundancy and bureaucracy. Taxes are the price we pay for living in a civilized society, you put in something, you get something back. I understand not enjoying having a big chunk of your paycheck disappear before you see it, sorry, we do enjoy the stability and prosperity that result, we would not enjoy anarchy or the tribalism represented by these primitive groups.

They're fighting among themselves before they get off the ground -- are these the people you want running things?

46 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim, sorry you don't get it but the 2008 election wasn't a mandate to turn toward socialism and anti-family and anti-life social policies

the positions of Americans haven't changed much

they've become slightly more conservative

they are also disappointed that Obama has basically surrendered policy development to the liberal wing of his party in Congress after promising a bipartisan era

we won't get fooled again

December 08, 2009 1:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

no one cares about political parties, other than Democrats

Sarah Palin, for example, has offered support for any candidate who supports American values, proving it in the recent NY congressional race where she supported someone who wasn't the Republican nominee

I, for one, have no objection to Obama serving his full eight years if he reforms his views

it took us two years to break Bill Clinton but, after 1994, he worked with Republicans to make good on Newt Gingrich's Contract with America

Obama will soon be a teabagger

the process has already begun

this morning, he conceded that tax cuts, not government spending, is the way to fight unemployment

John McCain should schedule a meeting to receive Obama's apology:

"With unemployment at nearly a three-decade high (that would be since the Jimmy Carter era) and expected to remain elevated for at least another year, Obama unveiled the administration's latest ideas to boost hiring, the centerpiece of which is tax breaks for small businesses. Capital-gains taxes on new investments made by small businesses would be cut to zero for a year. Small businesses would also get a yet-to-be-determined tax break to spur them to hire more workers.

"The federal government should cut taxes on small businesses to encourage them to invest and hire more workers, Obama said at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C."

thanks, Barry, for those words of wisdom

how in the world did you ever think of that?

December 08, 2009 2:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

when Obama was elected, unemployment was 6.8%

a year later, after his various stimulus programs and government takeover of businesses and socialist policies, it is 10%

wonder why everyone is disgruntled

December 08, 2009 2:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

here's a guy clearing working on his resume:

"Washington (CNN) – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, has compared the battle over health care to the battle over the legacy of slavery.

Reid, who is in danger of losing his re-election bid next year, made the remarks Monday morning on the floor of the Senate.

"Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all Republicans can come up with is this: slow down, stop everything, let's start over," Reid said.

"If you think you've heard these same excuses before, you're right. When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said slow down, it's too early, let's wait, things aren't bad enough.""

Republicans, btw, were the party that ended slavery.

December 08, 2009 2:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

in today's latest poll, Marist has Obama's approval rating at 46%

December 08, 2009 2:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

it's been a great month or so for pro-family forces

gay marriage fails in Maine and NY

Dana Beyer found guilty of unethical behavior

Blade goes out of business

Adam Lambert kicked off of ABC

now, the gay bookstore, Lambda Rising at Dupont Circle is being shut down

we're getting there, folks

the arc of history bends towards justice

December 08, 2009 3:01 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Hmmmm, a flock of discontented voters. Where have we heard of that before?

Oh yeah. "Ross Perot's flock of discontented voters has thrown open the race for the Republican presidential nomination as the campaign heads for a showdown..."

Oh yes, those third party candidates to save the GOP from Bushleaguers work so well, for the Democrats!

December 08, 2009 3:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you're right anon-B

they'll all wind up voting for the Republican anyway because moderate Republicans have shown they can't win elections

Palin will be nominated by both the Republican and Tea parties

Obama will get the Green and Socialists parties

Hillary will be Democrat nominee

December 08, 2009 3:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

liberals are getting desperate and angry:

"(Dec. 8) -- A man faces charges for allegedly throwing tomatoes during a Sarah Palin book signing at the Mall of America on Monday.
Jeremy Olson, 33, allegedly threw two tomatoes from a second-story balcony, aimed at the former vice presidential candidate.

The local CBS station, WCCO, said Olson hit a police officer instead.
The red, juicy projectiles missed Palin, who was in the massive Bloomington, Minn., mall to sign copies of her new book, "Going Rogue."

Olson was arrested on suspicion of assault and disorderly conduct, the TV station reported."

December 08, 2009 4:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you do realize that the bush tax cuts had the LARGEST percentage cut on the lowest brackets....

and that when they expire the lowest bracket goes from 10% to 15 ?

look here is what they used to be :

15% from 0-43,050
28% from 43,050 to 104,050
31% from 104,050 to 158,550

and here is what the bush tax cuts did....

10% from 0 to 16,050
15% from 16,050 to 65,100
25% from 65,100 to 131,445

so actually, percentage wise those at the bottom of the tax code got the biggest break anyway (50%)

and right now the congress has not done anything about extending the cuts for the lowest brackets even.

You do realize that right ?

and you should also realize that over 50% of america DOESN'T PAY any taxes...

the earned income credit and standard deductions bring them down to zero, they get money back....

December 08, 2009 9:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This story comes to us from Broward County, Fla. Teah Wimberly, 16, is charged with murdering Amanda Collette, a friend and classmate at Dillard High School in Fort Lauderdale. Both girls were 15 at the time of the shooting.

According to police, Ms. Wimberly wanted more than just a friendship with Collette, whom she'd known since childhood. Wimberly wanted a lesbian relationship with Collette, who rebuffed the idea, news reports indicate. On Nov. 12 of last year, police say, Wimberly took a .22-caliber handgun to school and fatally shot Collette.

Wimberly's trial started last week and is expected to continue this week. This may be the first time you've read about the case, unlike when Matthew Shepard was murdered in Wyoming.

Shepard was murdered because he was gay. Collette was murdered was murdered because she was straight.

See the difference?

Despite the rhetoric, hate crimes laws are only applied to crimes against gays.

Gays don't have to worry about committing hate crimes against straights.

December 08, 2009 10:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

completely off topic but I have a question....

has anyone checked on installing solar panels on their house ?

there is a site that claims you can get

30% of the cost of the system from Fed (with no cap)

per 500w installed (maybe 500kw) up to 2500.00 per up to 10K from MD.

and 50% up to the cost of the system from MC up to 5K.

so, I ran some estimates and to cover our electric use given that MD gets pretty lousy solar return from commercial companies it looked like 90K for a very large system which is clearly out of the question....

BUT.
If you build your own solar panels and do the work yourself you could do this same system for about 12K... (not counting the labor, building the solar panels and hooking it up yourself). that is a materials only cost.

that is a large system. about a 1500 square feet.

whatever, I have now designated it as the mandated anyway science project for hubby and son this spring, and they will become an expert on feasibility.
Great thing for the kids to learn about, hook it into the grid and get a tax credit, no emissions (which everyone agrees is a good thing)... engineering hubby teaches son about everything he knows about electricity AND big bonus... tax credit if they actually make it work. All positive points.

If the tax credits will pay for a system you install and build yourself, and then you save the energy on top of it, this would seem like a nobrainer. I just don't know if it is really feasible to power a home in MD via solar. I have been searching for a site that lists number of solar panel outfitted homes in USA to no avail.... Bea ? you are great at this .... can you find a site that lists number of solar residential home installations and trend in the US ? by state would be very helpful.

Commercial solar panels run like 1.5K/panel... but to build the same panel equivalent energy with purchased cells looks like 250.00 per panel for materials assuming 8.00/labor and 8 hours of labor. Enormous difference. Plenty of teenage kids in the neighborhood, lots of dads are engineers, kids needs a summer job, get them all assembling/installing solar panels courtesy of tax credits. Use out of work uncle with electrical engineering expertise to supervise. Create summer company to do this, have the teenage kids build them and the engineering dads check them, install them for all the kids parents in the neighborhood (8 identified), pay the teenage kids for their work via your summer company and the tax credits. After you prove it works on these 8 homes owned by these kids parents, do the same for any and all your neighbors (if you have time left over). Supervise the kids via various dads time off.... they can train each other, only one needs to be a certified PE and that is just an engineering degree (which at least 3 have) and get one to take the MC cert test.

IF, BIG IF, Solar is feasible.

Government is offering up to 20K per home to figure it out.

sounds like it is time to figure it out. Credit expires at the end of next year.
Credit is for installing in 2010 and 2009.


has anyone on this blog installed solar ?

December 09, 2009 2:07 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

American values?

I think you underscore Jim's point.

December 09, 2009 7:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous":
11 posts (out of 13) is really a bit too much...don't you agree? (especially as this is NOT your blog site). Redundancy is your forte; you ramble all over the universe in attempting to impart your particular parochial "wisdom", prognosticate fantastical futures and consistently push the weakest and least qualified losing candidates, and make ridiculous pronouncements such as: "Jim, sorry you don't get it but the 2008 election wasn't a mandate to turn toward socialism and anti-family and anti-life social policies."
You know what?
Your ego is overbearing and boring. Get a life...get your own blog site!
Citizen

December 09, 2009 9:40 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

And do your own research too.

December 09, 2009 9:48 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Anon Asked:

“has anyone on this blog installed solar ?”

Great question. Unfortunately I have not installed solar. However I am currently putting together a presentation about different green energy alternatives with one of my church colleagues who has installed a solar water heating system at her home this past year. I think she told me the installed cost was around $7000, and her tax rebate was on the order of half of that. She was put on the waiting list for rebates, which was about 2 years, (since MD didn’t budget enough to pay for all the rebates) but apparently MD has channeled some of the stimulus funds it got from the feds into reducing that list.

I have been looking into solar for my own home though. As an EE, hooking up the solar panels would be trivial. Getting them onto my roof would be a real pain, but I’d pay someone for that. However, if you look at the total system cost, and where your real needs are (or at least mine anyway), blindly putting up a bunch of solar cells isn’t a cost effective answer. The cost analysis you sketched out above did not include the inverter you’re going to need (several thousand dollars for one large enough for a house) and several thousand more for batteries and charger.

I don’t have time to go into all the details now, but for my own house, the biggest electric bills (by far) come in the cold months, where I consume about 2100 KWH of electricity per month (WAY too much for solar cells) whereas during the summer I only consume about 400 KWH – less than a fifth, and something more reasonable for solar cells.

My house uses electric baseboards for heat, and even though they are 100% efficient (every watt you put into them comes out as heat, which is what you want) they are not the most energy efficient way of getting heat into my house. That’s why I’m looking into wood gasifiers. I have a ready supply fallen branches in my back yard I could certainly make better use of. I should note that I’ve already increased the thermal time constant of my house from about 2 hours to nearly 8 hours by installing R36 insulation in my attic. This has reduced my electricity need significantly, but there is still more that can be done – like insulating the crawl space.

Even then, the most (cost) effective thing to do is NOT solar cells, but passive solar heating. Residential grade solar cells are only about 10% efficient. A passive solar heating system can be many times that (70 – 85% if I remember correctly). If you don’t already use gas for your water heating, you’ll definitely want solar to augment your electric system.

You’ll also want to convert all of your incandescent light bulbs over to fluorescent, reducing the electricity you need for lighting by more than 75%. Once you’ve done all these other things, you might have whittled done your actual electric needs to a size where solar panels will be a viable option.

Have a nice day,

Cynthia

December 09, 2009 10:06 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Whoever put up the "Married, filing jointly or Qualified Widow(er) tax bracket numbers" -- you omitted the 35% bracket completely and reported only some of the brackets in each of your examples. Check out this chart at Wikipedia and then see if you can find Bush's tax rate cut offs for all of the categories so we don't have to try to compare apples to oranges, unless of course confusion is your aim.

December 09, 2009 2:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

one thing alt-anon is right about:

when Democrats allow Bush tax cuts to expire, lowere income people will pay more in tax

I'm glad the globe is warming

think how bad things would be if it hadn't

a "powerful winter storm" and it's not even winter yet:

"DES MOINES, Iowa (Dec. 9) — A fierce storm left dangerous ice, heavy snow and vicious winds in its wake as it slogged eastward Wednesday, snarling traffic and closing hundreds of schools from the Upper Midwest through New England.

More than a foot of snow was expected in parts of Illinois, Wisconsin and Iowa, where the National Weather Service warned of "extremely dangerous blizzard conditions" and near whiteout driving conditions. Wind gusts of up to 50 mph could build snow drifts between 8 and 15 feet tall. Parts of New England also girded themselves for bone-chilling wind gusts and snow accumulations of up to a foot.

The storm was blamed for at least 10 deaths.

A powerful winter storm system closed hundreds of schools from the Midwest through New England Wednesday, and prompt warnings of "extremely dangerous blizzard conditions" and possible whiteouts.

A powerful storm clobbered the Western U.S. with snow and strong winds Monday.

It's horrible out there," said Todd Lane, an assistant manager of a Quik Trip convenience store in Des Moines, where several inches of new snow was reported overnight. Plow drivers came into the store all night seeking energy drinks and coffee to keep them alert.

Motorists got stuck on drift-blocked highways all over Iowa. State troopers were dispatched with National Guard soldiers in Humvees, but some drivers had to wait two hours or longer for rescue. Even the plows were being pulled off the roads because snow drifts were too high to navigate.
"They're not even plowing the streets anymore because the wind will just blow it back down and cover it," said Dan Hansen, a carrier for the U.S. Postal Service in Iowa City. He was bundled up in hand and feet warmers, snow boots and a parka to brave his route. "It'll get worse before it gets better.""

December 09, 2009 4:19 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Imagine that. A snow storm in the Northern Hemisphere in December.

I'm glad the globe is warming

think how bad things would be if it hadn't


You may want to rethink these comments. You seem to have forgotten about August 2003's killer heatwave.

European heatwave caused 35,000 deaths

At least 35,000 people died as a result of the record heatwave that scorched Europe in August 2003, says an environmental think tank.

The Earth Policy Institute (EPI), based in Washington DC, warns that such deaths are likely to increase, as "even more extreme weather events lie ahead". [like this week's killer winter storm in the US, which began by dusting snow in LA and San Diego.]

The EPI calculated the huge death toll from the eight western European countries with data available. "Since reports are not yet available for all European countries, the total heat death toll for the continent is likely to be substantially larger," it says in a statement.

France suffered the worst losses, with 14,802 people dying from causes attributable to the blistering heat. This is "more than 19 times the death toll from the SARS epidemic worldwide", notes the EPI.

Silent killer

August 2003 was the hottest August on record in the northern hemisphere...

December 09, 2009 5:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

thanks for making our case, inane-B

just like your ice shelf that hasn't really broken from the lamd and isn't near any glaciers and has reformed repeatedly any cracks that sometimes appear, this incident shows how little the climate is understood

"The Earth Policy Institute (EPI), based in Washington DC, warns that such deaths are likely to increase, as "even more extreme weather events lie ahead"."

six years later and this hasn't proven true

they also, at the time, predicted steadily increasing temperatures and intense hurricane activity in the North Atlantic

none of this happened and now they are trying to convince us that we are near the point of no return, where we won't be able to stop escalating temperatures

it appears that climate change is untestable and thus not based on scientific principles

there was a theory that increased levels of carbon dioxide would result in higher temperatures

it was tested and failed

or, rather, observed and failed

the steady increase of carbon dioxide since 1998 has not increased temperatures a whit

why should we invest untold trillions on an unproven hypothesis?

not logical

December 09, 2009 5:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sarah Palin, who lives on the front lines of global warming in Alaska, has come out against the fraudster scientists at East Anglia:

"With the publication of damaging e-mails from a climate research center in Britain, the radical environmental movement appears to face a tipping point. The revelation of appalling actions by so-called climate change experts allows the American public to finally understand the concerns so many of us have articulated on this issue.

"Climate-gate," as the e-mails and other documents from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia have become known, exposes a highly politicized scientific circle -- the same circle whose work underlies efforts at the Copenhagen climate change conference. The agenda-driven policies being pushed in Copenhagen won't change the weather, but they would change our economy for the worse.

The e-mails reveal that leading climate "experts" deliberately destroyed records, manipulated data to "hide the decline" in global temperatures, and tried to silence their critics by preventing them from publishing in peer-reviewed journals. What's more, the documents show that there was no real consensus even within the CRU crowd. Some scientists had strong doubts about the accuracy of estimates of temperatures from centuries ago, estimates used to back claims that more recent temperatures are rising at an alarming rate.

This scandal obviously calls into question the proposals being pushed in Copenhagen. I've always believed that policy should be based on sound science, not politics. As governor of Alaska, I took a stand against politicized science when I sued the federal government over its decision to list the polar bear as an endangered species despite the fact that the polar bear population had more than doubled. I got clobbered for my actions by radical environmentalists nationwide, but I stood by my view that adding a healthy species to the endangered list under the guise of "climate change impacts" was an abuse of the Endangered Species Act. This would have irreversibly hurt both Alaska's economy and the nation's, while also reducing opportunities for responsible development."

December 09, 2009 7:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Our representatives in Copenhagen should remember that good environmental policymaking is about weighing real-world costs and benefits -- not pursuing a political agenda. That's not to say I deny the reality of some changes in climate -- far from it. I saw the impact of changing weather patterns firsthand while serving as governor of our only Arctic state. I was one of the first governors to create a subcabinet to deal specifically with the issue and to recommend common-sense policies to respond to the coastal erosion, thawing permafrost and retreating sea ice that affect Alaska's communities and infrastructure.

But while we recognize the occurrence of these natural, cyclical environmental trends, we can't say with assurance that man's activities cause weather changes. We can say, however, that any potential benefits of proposed emissions reduction policies are far outweighed by their economic costs. And those costs are real. Unlike the proposals China and India offered prior to Copenhagen -- which actually allow them to increase their emissions -- President Obama's proposal calls for serious cuts in our own long-term carbon emissions. Meeting such targets would require Congress to pass its cap-and-tax plans, which will result in job losses and higher energy costs (as Obama admitted during the campaign). That's not exactly what most Americans are hoping for these days. And as public opposition continues to stall Congress's cap-and-tax legislation, Environmental Protection Agency bureaucrats plan to regulate carbon emissions themselves, doing an end run around the American people.

In fact, we're not the only nation whose people are questioning climate change schemes. In the European Union, energy prices skyrocketed after it began a cap-and-tax program. Meanwhile, Australia's Parliament recently defeated a cap-and-tax bill. Surely other nations will follow suit, particularly as the climate e-mail scandal continues to unfold.

In his inaugural address, President Obama declared his intention to "restore science to its rightful place." But instead of staying home from Copenhagen and sending a message that the United States will not be a party to fraudulent scientific practices, the president has upped the ante. He plans to fly in at the climax of the conference in hopes of sealing a "deal." Whatever deal he gets, it will be no deal for the American people. What Obama really hopes to bring home from Copenhagen is more pressure to pass the Democrats' cap-and-tax proposal. This is a political move. The last thing America needs is misguided legislation that will raise taxes and cost jobs -- particularly when the push for such legislation rests on agenda-driven science.

Without trustworthy science and with so much at stake, Americans should be wary about what comes out of this politicized conference. The president should boycott Copenhagen."

December 09, 2009 7:27 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

thanks for making our case

"Our" case? You and the charlatans?

Speaking of which, Salon's Glenn Greenwald has a great piece today about Rachel Maddow's interview with Richard Cohen two nights ago. He links to the 17 minute interview and says it "is worth watching if you want to see how an extremely smart and well-prepared interrogator can absolutely destroy a guest who is brazenly spouting baseless claims and patent falsehoods." AKA, a charlatan.

I'll let
Scientists from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center make their scientific case because Vigilance readers have no interest in your half-truths.

Scientists from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center have been working for several years to create and refine a satellite map of long-term temperature change in Antarctica. This image illustrates long-term changes in yearly surface temperature in and around Antarctica between 1981 and 2007. (An earlier version of this map is pictured in a previous posting on the Earth Observatory.) Places where it warmed over time are red, places where it cooled are blue, and places where there was no change are white...

...Across most of the continent and the surrounding Southern Ocean, temperatures climbed. In some places the rate of warming approached a tenth of a degree Celsius each year, which would translate to more than two degrees over the entire period. The most dramatic changes appear as solid red streaks and splotches. In most cases, these changes are likely linked to major iceberg calving events on the ice shelves that fringe the Antarctic coastline, including the Ross Ice Shelf and the West and Shackleton Ice Shelves in East Antarctica. In the case of the Larsen B Ice Shelf on the Antarctic Peninsula, the entire ice shelf collapsed. After the calving or collapse, the satellite saw open water where there had previously been ice, so the temperature increase was stark.


And here's what scientists at the US Geological Survey report about Antarctica's Wordie Ice Shelf.

Scientists previously knew that the Wordie Ice Shelf has been retreating, but this study documents for the first time that it has completely disappeared. Moreover, the northern part of the Larsen Ice Shelf no longer exists. An area more than three times the size of the State of Rhode Island (more than 8,500 km2) has broken off from the Larsen Ice Shelf since 1986.

isn't near any glaciers

For Vigilance readers who have trouble with reading comprehension, perhaps this detailed map of Antarctica's Graham Land Peninsula (which takes a few minutes to load) might help. Using the ZOOM IN function will enable readers to enlarge details on the map and see the many glaciers that feed the Antarctic ice shelves on the Graham Land Peninsula. Once a glacier fed ice shelf collapses, there is nothing to keep the glacier from dumping it's contents into the sea.

December 10, 2009 8:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

bea - did you look at your picture ?

the blue area (where antartica is getting colder) is BIGGER than the red area where it is getting warmer.... not sure what you think that proves !

also, check out this story about new zealand temperature data being forged....

the raw data shows no increase, the scientist adjusted data shows a marked temperature increase, and the scientists won't explain why they adjusted the data....

that doesn't bother you ?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/uh-oh-raw-data-in-new-zealand-tells-a-different-story-than-the-official-one/

December 10, 2009 8:53 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

not sure what you think that proves

Of course you're not sure, it's that reading comprehension problem of yours.

Antarctica is both warming and cooling with a net of a slight overall cooling trend. The area that is warming is warming faster than any other area on Earth according to published reports from a variety of scientific sources. Coupled with the warming of the Arctic, the sea level rise in Asia and Oceania, and more, this means that the net effect is global warming and a loss of frozen fresh water in glaciers and land ice to the sea.

The fact that your last two sources of documentation for "your case" have come from a website posted by a former TV weatherman -- clowns I think you called them -- says it all.

that doesn't bother you ?

What bothers me is when "your case" is made picking and choosing isolated data (the east side of Antarctica, for example) and think it proves anything or means something more valid than all the data combined.

December 10, 2009 9:18 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Maybe anonymous treats scientific data like he treats bible verses.

December 10, 2009 9:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Once a glacier fed ice shelf collapses, there is nothing to keep the glacier from dumping it's contents into the sea."

and the scientists have said that this is unlikely to happen anytime soon to the Wilkens Ice Shelf, which is not near any glaciers

"Antarctica is both warming and cooling with a net of a slight overall cooling trend."

which explains why sea ice is increasing in the Southern Hemisphere, which was my orginal point that you have cut and pasted hundreds of lines of irrelevant text trying to divert attention from

it also mirrors the globe as a whole which has been cooling for over a decade, a fact the East Anglia fraudsters have tried to hide

"think it proves anything or means something more valid than all the data combined"

all the data combined show that the planet has been cooling for over a decade despite increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and that, prior to the small ice age in the prior millenium, temperatures were similar to what they are now

warmists only look at carbon emmissions and not "all the data"

solar activity, cloud cover and water vapor and magnetic activity all seem to affect the climate more and are little understood and unpredictable at present

the reaction of climate scientists to the climategate scandal is so revealing

first, the claim was that the banter was just science as usual

that didn't work because so many of the e-mails spoke for themsleves

next, they tried to claim the East Anglia scientists only control a small part of the research

this turns out not to be true

the scientists involved in the e-mails are the leading climate scientists and most other climate research is dependent on their manipulated data

of course, it's also notable that the first defense undermines the second

if all climate scientists delete inconvenient information and supress data, maybe all the current climate research is unreliable

finally, as these two lines of defense have failed, the final strategy is a cult-like, "you're either for us or against us"

but this is patently false as well

to criticize one scientist or group of scientists is no more an attack on science than attacking one journalist is an attack on freedom of the press or an attack on one politician is an attack on democracy

truth is, the whole human-caused global warming theory now needs to be re-examined by scientists with integrity because most of those working on it now have proven to have none

December 10, 2009 10:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

it won't be winter for ten more days:

"DES MOINES, Iowa (Dec. 10) -- Frigid temperatures iced the Upper Midwest on Thursday as a massive storm that dumped more than a foot of snow in several states from Iowa to New England neared the end of its cross-country trek.

Commuters from Des Moines to Chicago were warned of morning temperatures reaching 10 degrees at best and icy roads. Wind chill values could dip to as low as minus 25 in parts of Wisconsin and Iowa, according to the National Weather Service.

"It's already very cold across the entire region ... when (the storm) moves east and the skies clear over Illinois, it'll get even colder," said Casey Sullivan, a weather service meteorologist in Romeoville, Ill. "Iowa's even colder."

Des Moines, which saw 16 inches of snow by Wednesday, could see a high near 9 degrees but wind chill values could make temperatures feel like negative 25. In Madison, Wis., near where almost 19 inches of snow fell, the wind chill could hit minus 20, according to the weather service.

New England, also pounded by heavy snow and strong winds on Wednesday, expected temperatures to hover around freezing.

The storm was expected to move off the coast of Maine by Thursday night, having affected about two-thirds of the country since hitting California earlier this week, meteorologists predicted."

December 10, 2009 10:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The hugely important issue which those organising the Copenhagen conference are only too anxious to brush aside is the inescapable fact that the science on which all this frenzy of activity is based has recently begun to look considerably shakier than it did only a few years ago.

The first thing any of us in the West need to be sure of, as we face by far the largest bill in the history of the world, is that the science being used to justify this is 100 percent reliable.

Ultimately the whole case for a Copenhagen treaty rests on the projections of the computer models relied on by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC). These show that, as CO2 levels continue to rise, so temperatures must follow, leading inexorably to catastrophe - unless mankind takes the most drastic action to cut down on its emissions of CO2.

But as more and more eminent scientists have recently been pointing out, the only reason why the computer models predict that rising CO2 must cause temperatures to rise is that this is what they were programmed to show.

What world-ranking physicists such as Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT and Professor Will Happer of Princeton have been arguing is that the models are fatally flawed because they do not take proper account of all sorts of other factors which play a key part in shaping the world’s climate - such as shifts in ocean currents, the effects of magnetic activity on the sun and the ‘feedback’ from clouds and water vapour, far and away the most important greenhouse gas in our atmosphere, which counteracts any impact from the rise in CO2.

The greatest ally this growing army of ‘sceptical’ scientists can point to is what has actually been happening to the climate in recent years. No one can predict with certainty where temperatures will be in 100 years time, But the one thing that is indisputable is that, as CO2 levels continue to rise, the trend in global temperatures has not recently been rising as the computer models predicted, but has been flattening out and even dropping.

In other words, it becomes increasingly clear that the models were wrong - because their programming was biased according to a theory which now looks ever more questionable. Yet it is on their projections that the world is now faced with by far the most expensive set of measures ever proposed by politicians in history.

For months in the run-up to Copenhagen we have been subjected to an unremitting bombardment of scare stories: how the ice caps and glaciers are melting much faster than predicted, how sea levels will rise much higher than anyone imagined, how we face ever more hurricanes, droughts, floods and heatwaves.

Yet every time one of these scares is subjected to proper objective scientific examination it can be found either that these disasters are not happening as claimed or that they have been exaggerated far in advance of anything the evidence can justify.

The importance of Copenhagen is that we are at last arriving at the moment of truth. On one hand we are waking up to the scarcely imaginable cost of what our politicians are proposing, just when on the other the reliability of the evidence on which all this is based is being called into question more than ever before.

Despite our having for years been assured by politicians from Al Gore to President Obama that ‘the science is settled’, it is now obvious that it is nothing of the kind. Not least has this been confirmed by ‘Climategate’ and the leak of that ‘dodgy dossier’ from the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, for years at the centre of driving the scare over global warming as the most influential source of temperature data in the world. Far from Copenhagen being the end of the debate, the real debate is only just beginning.

December 10, 2009 11:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't know about Iowa but, here in Washington:

baby, it's cold outside!

how much longer is this global "warming" going to last?

December 10, 2009 11:19 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you guys may have already heard about this but there are reports that Frosty the Snowman has been signed as a PR rep for the University of East Anglia

Frosty apparently has come out of retirement because he has become concerned that soon he won't be able to say "don't you cry, I'll be back again next year"

in a counter-move, Exxon is offering a multi-year deal to Santa Claus and Todd Palin

we'll be watching this story closely!

December 10, 2009 2:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Of course, there are thousands of evil laws enacted around the world and I cannot speak to pastors about every one of them, but I am taking the extraordinary step of speaking to you – the pastors of Uganda and spiritual leaders of your nation – for five reasons:"

"First, the potential law is unjust, extreme and un-Christian toward homosexuals, requiring the death penalty in some cases. If I am reading the proposed bill correctly, this law would also imprison anyone convicted of homosexual practice."

"Second, the law would force pastors to report their pastoral conversations with homosexuals to authorities."

"Third, it would have a chilling effect on your ministry to the hurting. As you know, in Africa, it is the churches that are bearing the primary burden of providing care for people infected with HIV/AIDS. If this bill passed, homosexuals who are HIV positive will be reluctant to seek or receive care, comfort and compassion from our churches out of fear of being reported. You and I know that the churches of Uganda are the truly caring communities where people receive hope and help, not condemnation."

"Fourth, ALL life, no matter how humble or broken, whether unborn or dying, is precious to God. My wife, Kay, and I have devoted our lives and our ministry to saving the lives of people, including homosexuals, who are HIV positive. It would be inconsistent to save some lives and wish death on others. We're not just pro-life. We are whole life."

"Finally, the freedom to make moral choices and our right to free expression are gifts endowed by God. Uganda is a democratic country with remarkable and wise people, and in a democracy everyone has a right to speak up. For these reasons, I urge you, the pastors of Uganda, to speak out against the proposed law."
-Rick Warren

December 11, 2009 12:05 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

bea - did you look at your picture ?

the blue area (where antartica is getting colder) is BIGGER than the red area where it is getting warmer.... not sure what you think that proves !


Of course I looked at both of the "pictures" I provided links to. Did you only look at one picture?

Tell us, Anone, did you bother to notice the dates covered by the data depicted in the picture with the BIGGER blue area and compare it to the dates covered by the data depicted in the picture with the BIGGER red area?

Old Version = BIGGER BLUE AREA PICTURE

New Version BIGGER RED AREA PICTURE

The text accompanying the New Version, the BIGGER RED AREA PICTURE states:

This image illustrates long-term changes in yearly surface temperature in and around Antarctica between 1981 and 2007. (An earlier version of this map is pictured in a previous posting on the Earth Observatory.) Places where it warmed over time are red, places where it cooled are blue, and places where there was no change are white.

The text accompanying the Old Version, BIGGER BLUE AREA PICTURE states:

Editor’s note: This image was first published on April 27, 2006, and it was based on data from 1981-2004. A more recent version was published on November 21, 2007. The new version extended the data range through 2007, and was based on a revised analysis that included better inter-calibration among all the satellite records that are part of the time series.

Reading Comprehension - Needs Improvement

How could this change happen in only three years? Because the most recent decade includes most of the hottest years on record. Contrary to your repeated bulloney about cooling like
"sea ice is increasing in the Southern Hemisphere...it also mirrors the globe as a whole which has been cooling for over a decade, a fact the East Anglia fraudsters have tried to hide", in fact, world wide the temperatures continue to rise.

NASA reports:

In our analysis, 2008 is the ninth warmest year in the period of instrumental measurements, which extends back to 1880 (left panel of Fig. 1). The ten warmest years all occur within the 12-year period 1997-2008.

NOAA reports:

U.S. and global annual temperatures are now approximately 1.0 degrees F warmer than at the start of the 20th century, and the rate of warming has accelerated over the past 30 years, increasing globally since the mid-1970s at a rate approximately three times faster than the century-scale trend. The past nine years have all been among the 25 warmest years on record for the contiguous U.S., a streak which is unprecedented in the historical record.

December 11, 2009 9:32 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

The EPA reports

Since the mid 1970s, the average surface temperature has warmed about 1°F.
The Earth’s surface is currently warming at a rate of about 0.29ºF/decade or 2.9°F/century.
The eight warmest years on record (since 1880) have all occurred since 2001, with the warmest year being 2005.


Yale University forum on Climate Change reports

The world has, in fact, continued to warm over the past decade in all five available temperature series (including both satellite and surface records), though the trend for some series is statistically indistinguishable from zero. The only way to obtain a cooling trend over the period is to cherry-pick an earlier start date to include the 1997-1998 El Niño event or to look at a time span of eight years or fewer.

However, such discussions of short-term trends obscure the fact that temperatures over the entire decade have been high relative to all other decades on record.


Anyone who says the earth has "been cooling for over a decade" is cherry picking data and is wrong.

the Wilkens Ice Shelf, which is not near any glaciers

The Wilkins Ice Shelf is a composite ice shelf, it is partially fed by glaciers, which are already spilling into the ocean. But the Wilkins Ice Shelf is not the only ice shelf in Antarctica. Some have already disappeared and others are in retreat. The Wordie Ice Shelf is completely gone, as are the Prince Gustav Channel, Larsen Inlet, Larsen A, Larsen B, Muller and Jones Ice Shelves. Further, Antarctica is not the only place on Earth with ice shelves and the meager increase in ice in eastern and central Antarctic ice does not make up for the massive quantities of Arctic ice that has been lost.

Maybe you remember the US spy satellite photos that Bush kept hidden from the public so as to not alarm us about the startling loss of Arctic sea ice. These four US spy satellite photos are all from the Northern Hemisphere and show great loss of sea and glacial ice. Other formerly hidden pictures from these spy satellites are available at http://gfl.usgs.gov/ And maybe you also remember that instead of having ice for hunting this summer, Alaska had an algae bloom "...unlike anything anyone can recall seeing before..." too.

In addition to worldwide net ice loss and rising temperature, there's a corresponding rise in sea level

Signs of warming are evident in many places, regardless of the diversionary tempest in the teapot away from these signs global warming deniers are trying to create over the IPCC emails.

December 11, 2009 9:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anon-B keeps going back to the same place where we're all in agreement

yes, the globe is warmer than it was a hundred years ago

slightly

what is not settled science is:

-whether the cause is human activity

-whether it will continue to rise

-whether the warming is significant over a longer period than a century or two

-whether there are natural processes that mitigate climate changes

-whether non-controllable natural processes are more determinative than than controllable factors

-whether reducing carbon output by human activity will change anything

-whether it will rain tomorrow

warmists may be right about all these things but they haven't made a convincing case and the climategate scandal shows they may not be able to, at present

also, at present, it is freezing today in MC

not even winter yet

since it looks like warming has, at worst, plateaued, I can live with it until we get some proof that it hasn't

does anybody know how the ozone layer is doing?

December 11, 2009 10:19 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Warren=weak

December 11, 2009 10:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Robert=moron

December 11, 2009 1:29 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

we're all in agreement

yes, the globe is warmer than it was a hundred years ago

slightly


Only weak morons agree with that statement.

NASA says since 1997, we have experienced the "ten warmest years" since 1880.

NOAA says our warming is "unprecedented."

EPA says between 2001 and now, we have experienced "the eight warmest years on record."

Average global temperature is not the only variable that indicates global warming is occurring. We are also experiencing overall loss of both polar sea ice and glacial ice, and the continued rise of sea level.

it is freezing today (Dec. 11, 2009) in MC

So what? Eight days ago, on December 3, 2009, record high temperatures were broken up and down the east coast of the US.

December 11, 2009 3:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

mr anon-deluxe:

"yes, the globe is warmer than it was a hundred years ago

slightly"

ms inane-B:

"Only weak morons agree with that statement.

Average global temperature is not the only variable that indicates global warming is occurring."

you see the irony here

she calls me a "moron" and then says higher temperatures are "not the only variable that indicates global warming is occurring"

I know the rest of you are laughing but, for the benefit of ms. anon-B, I must point out that higher temperatures are the definition of global warming

don't say anything mean, guys

she can't help it

mr. anon-deluxe:

"it is freezing today (Dec. 11, 2009) in MC"

ms inane-B:

"So what? Eight days ago, on December 3, 2009, record high temperatures were broken up and down the east coast of the US."

the so-what, my friend, who is so unarmed in the battle of wits, is that temperatures haven't been increasing for over ten years, a fact that the East Anglia fraudsters tried to hide, and, if this is as bad as it gets, it doesn't seem to be a problem

oh, I know, you'll post a quote from some scientist who says how high the temperatures will be in 2050 and 2100 and how we reached the point of no return, yada yada yada

but they made predictions like that ten years ago that haven't come true and there is now evidence they tried to repress the data that showed it

what happened to science testing theories and interpreting the result?

global warming seems to exist in the realm of faith since every result seems to validate it to its believers and, thus, it is untestable

think about it

in consultation with your therapist

December 12, 2009 9:07 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

News from AP:

AP IMPACT: Science not faked, but not pretty
Dec 12, 8:29 AM EST

"LONDON (AP) -- E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data - but the messages don't support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press.

The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored private doubts, however slight and fleeting, even as they told the world they were certain about climate change. However, the exchanges don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

The scientists were keenly aware of how their work would be viewed and used, and, just like politicians, went to great pains to shape their message. Sometimes, they sounded more like schoolyard taunts than scientific tenets.

The scientists were so convinced by their own science and so driven by a cause "that unless you're with them, you're against them," said Mark Frankel, director of scientific freedom, responsibility and law at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He also reviewed the communications.

Frankel saw "no evidence of falsification or fabrication of data, although concerns could be raised about some instances of very 'generous interpretations.'"

Some e-mails expressed doubts about the quality of individual temperature records or why models and data didn't quite match. Part of this is the normal give-and-take of research, but skeptics challenged how reliable certain data was.

The e-mails were stolen from the computer network server of the climate research unit at the University of East Anglia in southeast England, an influential source of climate science, and were posted online last month. The university shut down the server and contacted the police.

The AP studied all the e-mails for context, with five reporters reading and rereading them - about 1 million words in total..."

December 12, 2009 10:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

OK, now that five reporters from AP have examined the evidence, it's all cool

not

they aren't scientists

here's the thing:

the globe is slightly warmer than it was in 1900

most of the change happened from 1920-1945 and 1975-1998

the rest of the time, more than half, temperatures were sometimes flat, sometimes falling

yet, carbon emissions have gone up steadily and at an increasing rate that whole time

the temperatures should be too if human activity is causing the rise

scientists at East Anglia admitted in their e-mails to one another that they this doesn't confirm the theory

back to the drawing board

we can afford to take our time

we're in a flat period

December 12, 2009 8:07 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

OK, now that five reporters from AP have examined the evidence, it's all cool

not


But because one Anonymous troll says it ain't so, we're supposed to buy that?

< eye roll >

Anone is too lazy to even read the entire AP article. Well, that figures! Here's some of what Anone missed:

...As part of the AP review, summaries of the e-mails that raised issues from the potential manipulation of data to intensely personal attacks were sent to seven experts in research ethics, climate science and science policy.

"This is normal science politics, but on the extreme end, though still within bounds," said Dan Sarewitz, a science policy professor at Arizona State University. "We talk about science as this pure ideal and the scientific method as if it is something out of a cookbook, but research is a social and human activity full of all the failings of society and humans, and this reality gets totally magnified by the high political stakes here."

In the past three weeks since the e-mails were posted, longtime opponents of mainstream climate science have repeatedly quoted excerpts of about a dozen e-mails. Republican congressmen and former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin have called for either independent investigations, a delay in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulation of greenhouse gases or outright boycotts of the Copenhagen international climate talks. They cited a "culture of corruption" that the e-mails appeared to show.

That is not what the AP found. There were signs of trying to present the data as convincingly as possible.

One e-mail that skeptics have been citing often since the messages were posted online is from Jones. He says: "I've just completed Mike's (Mann) trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (from 1981 onward) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

Jones was referring to tree ring data that indicated temperatures after the 1950s weren't as warm as scientists had determined.

The "trick" that Jones said he was borrowing from Mann was to add the real temperatures, not what the tree rings showed. And the decline he talked of hiding was not in real temperatures, but in the tree ring data which was misleading, Mann explained.

Sometimes the data didn't line up as perfectly as scientists wanted.

David Rind told colleagues about inconsistent figures in the work for a giant international report: "As this continuing exchange has clarified, what's in Chapter 6 is inconsistent with what is in Chapter 2 (and Chapter 9 is caught in the middle!). Worse yet, we've managed to make global warming go away! (Maybe it really is that easy...:)."

But in the end, global warming didn't go away, according to the vast body of research over the years.

None of the e-mails flagged by the AP and sent to three climate scientists viewed as moderates in the field changed their view that global warming is man-made and a threat. Nor did it alter their support of the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which some of the scientists helped write.

"My overall interpretation of the scientific basis for (man-made) global warming is unaltered by the contents of these e-mails," said Gabriel Vecchi, a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientist.

Gerald North, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University, headed a National Academy of Sciences study that looked at - and upheld as valid - Mann's earlier studies that found the 1990s were the hottest years in centuries.

"In my opinion the meaning is much more innocent than might be perceived by others taken out of context. Much of this is overblown," North said...

December 14, 2009 9:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"We talk about science as this pure ideal and the scientific method as if it is something out of a cookbook, but research is a social and human activity full of all the failings of society and humans, and this reality gets totally magnified by the high political stakes here."

exactly, which is why scientists need quality control procedures and not the automatic deference TTF always argues for

I've always said that and the response here is some BS about the hallowed process of peer review

"Republican congressmen and former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin have called for either independent investigations, a delay in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulation of greenhouse gases or outright boycotts of the Copenhagen international climate talks. They cited a "culture of corruption" that the e-mails appeared to show."

Others, such as Democratic Senator Jim Webb and heads of states of other countries and estimable scientists have said the same.

"Sometimes the data didn't line up as perfectly as scientists wanted."

which is not something for them to alter or hide

this is a euphemism for: the data didn't confirm the theory

"But in the end, global warming didn't go away, according to the vast body of research over the years."

what did go away was the notion that this hasn't happened before

CRU was the main source of research into climate before the mid-19th century and they had manipulated it

"None of the e-mails flagged by the AP and sent to three climate scientists viewed as moderates in the field changed their view that global warming is man-made and a threat."

that could happen if you carefully choose your "three climate scientists"

""My overall interpretation of the scientific basis for (man-made) global warming is unaltered by the contents of these e-mails," said Gabriel Vecchi, a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientist."

NOAA consistently makes innaccurate predictions of climate

the science is not that advanced in thsi area

"Gerald North, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University, headed a National Academy of Sciences study that looked at - and upheld as valid - Mann's earlier studies that found the 1990s were the hottest years in centuries."

how tiresome

no one has argue that it is not slightly warmer

the uncertainty is the cause and whether it will continue to rise

""In my opinion the meaning is much more innocent than might be perceived by others taken out of context. Much of this is overblown," North said..."

thanks, Prof North

could check with the economics dept before you dismiss this all as trivial?

the economic impact of the changes being suggested would lead to massive poverty and suffering

you might want to take this all a little more seriously

December 14, 2009 10:02 AM  
Anonymous he who wears a kilt said...

"the 1990s were the hottest years in centuries"

isn't it interesting how warming alarmists say we shouldn't put too much emphasis on what's happened in the last ten years and, yet, so much of their argument focuses on what happened in the 90s?

December 14, 2009 12:44 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

isn't it interesting how warming alarmists say we shouldn't put too much emphasis on what's happened in the last ten years and, yet, so much of their argument focuses on what happened in the 90s?

What a stupid thing to say. Global warming is cumulative. We keep pumping green house gasses into the environment, and as they build up, effects become obvious. For example, arctic sea ice and permafrost are vanishing now and unheard of algae is blooming in arctic seas, whereas a few years ago, we had lots of arctic ice, no arctic seas had algae blooms, and we thought permafrost was just that, permanent.

Now we know better. At least those of us who do not deny what is actually happening to our planet today know better.

no one has argue that it is not slightly warmer

Oh really?!? Then who said this on December 10, 2009 10:38 AM:

"the globe as a whole which has been cooling for over a decade

...all the data combined show that the planet has been cooling for over a decade"
?

In less than a week, Anone has gone from claiming the globe has been cooling for over a decade to agreeing that, in fact, global temperature is actually warmer now.

Spin spin spin!

December 15, 2009 10:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you are such a lying sack of crap, anon-B

the globe is slightly warmer than a century ago

it's slightly cooler than a decade ago

you knew that

it's two facts

there's no proof it's caused by green house gases

there's no way to know if it will keep going down or back up again or stay the same

there's no realistic possibility that, even it were proven to be a result of CO2, that voluntary emmission control will solve the problem

liberals are stupid:

"It's the season of believing, and let’s face it: Liberals will believe anything.

Check out the new study from the bipartisan Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. They find that liberals and Democrats are far more likely to believe in ghosts, psychic powers and astrology than their conservative/Republican counterparts. About 50 percent more Democrats than Republicans say they have spoken to the dead.

Or as it’s known at Democratic Party headquarters, “voter outreach.”

Byron York, writing about this Pew study, calls the results “startling.” The word I would use is “obvious.” The essence of contemporary liberalism is the ability to believe in nonsense.

This week, President Obama told “60 Minutes” that he is serious about dealing with America’s debt problem. That very same Sunday, Senate Democrats pushed through a $1.1 trillion spending bill, every penny of which has to be borrowed.

President “No More Earmarks” is going to sign a bill that includes subsidies for Amtrak, a government pay raise and more than 5,000 individual earmarks for pork-barrel pols to send home the bacon. The ObamaCrats need to raise the debt ceiling by $1.8 trillion just to get through the 2010 elections. That’s as much debt in one year as the entire eight years of George W. Bush.

I’m supposed to believe that these guys are going to stop spending away my kids’ future? It would be easier to believe my dead Uncle Harry was visiting me with stock tips he got from the Psychic Friends Hotline.

Then there’s the latest version of health care reform put forward by Sen. Harry Reid. We all know what great financial shape Medicare is in, right? (“It’s not technically bankrupt, it just needs more money” - Barney Frank).

Now Democrats want you to believe that the way to fix health care is to push millions of Americans into becoming new Medicare patients, while simultaneously cutting the Medicare budget by $500 billion. It’s going broke, you’re adding millions of patients while cutting billions of dollars - and you think it will fix the problem?

That’s not “starry-eyed optimism,” that’s jaw-dropping stupidity.

Even to believe that, one must have the faith of a child (and the brains of a cardboard box) to trust that the estimates of what a government health care plan will really cost over the next 10 years. The numbers we’re getting from the Congressional Budget Office are just projections. They’re predictions about what pols will do tomorrow once a government-give-away program is in place.

Even if their math is right today, who is naive enough to believe this trillion-dollar government program will come in on budget?

I know people who believe in leprechauns who aren’t that gullible.

I don’t believe in man-made CO2, that tiny fraction of all greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that Al Gore believes has the power to destroy the Earth.

I don’t believe in Cinderella courtrooms with charms to turn international terrorists into mere criminals with all the rights of U.S. citizens.

I don’t believe in invisible jobs “saved” by magic “stimulus” money in Neverland’s 99th Congressional District.

Compared to my liberal friends, I’m a flint-hearted cynic. I just believe in Santa Claus."

December 15, 2009 2:27 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home