Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
Reddit
Long-time greens are painfully aware that the arguments of global warming skeptics are like zombies in a '70s B movie. They get shot, stabbed, and crushed, over and over again, but they just keep lurching to their feet and staggering forward. That's because -- news flash! -- climate skepticism is an ideological, not a scientific, position, and as such it bears only a tenuous relationship to scientific rules of evidence and inference.
One of the most resilient skeptic tropes is the notion that back in the '60s and '70s the scientific community predicted that the globe would cool in the coming century. "Those scientists ... first it's one trendy theory, then it's the opposite. You just can't trust 'em!"
(Incidentally, this is one of the many skeptic arguments debunked by Coby Beck in our definitive How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic guide. If you're looking for ammo when talking to your local skeptic, bookmark it.)
Now comes a new study showing, once and for all, that:
- there was no such consensus in the scientific community -- quite the opposite, and
- there was no such consensus in the popular press.
Forthcoming in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, the study "surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. [Study co-author Thomas] Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends." Added Peterson, "I was surprised that global warming was so dominant in the peer-reviewed literature of the time."
As for the popular press, says Peterson, "even cursory review of the news media coverage of the issue reveals that, just as there was no consensus at the time among scientists, so was there also no consensus among journalists."
So, that's that. The zombie's dead, right? [Ominous bumping, shuffling sound in background.]
(In addition to Peterson, who works at the National Climatic Data Center, the survey was co-authored by William Connolley, who blogs at Stoat and occasionally at RealClimate, and John Fleck, a science journalist who blogs at InkStain.)
If you care about the scientific issues involved, read on:
Insofar as there were scattered predictions of cooling in the '70s, they had to do with what's called "global dimming" -- the tendency of particulate pollution (soot) to block solar radiation a cool the earth's surface temperature. Since human beings have been pumping more and more pollution up into the atmosphere for centuries now, global dimming has become a significant and measurable phenomenon. It is, for example, largely responsible for the leveling off and even dropping of global temperatures in the '40s, '50s, and '60s. For a while, some scientists thought that the dimming effect would outweigh the greenhouse effect in the long run, leading to aggregate global cooling.
It didn't work out that way. A couple of papers in Science in 2005 showed that dimming had halted and reversed by 1990, mainly due to the reduction in particulate pollution in developed countries. (Ironically, that victory over pollution may now accelerate the effects of greenhouse warming. D'oh!)
For a while, a few (not most) scientists thought that one set of factors would outweigh another. We now know that they were badly wrong. This isn't some sort of embarrassing gotcha. It's progress. It's how human beings figure stuff out. It's how science works.
Hey Dave, guess what? I'm not giving up my car or my husband's SUV. We've worked too hard and too long and sacrificed too much to get were we are. We're not going to let you tree-hugging hippies try to hold us hostage with your rhetoric on global warming.
Posted by ACook at 02/24/2008 @ 8:23pm
Hey Dave, guess what? I'm not giving up my car or my husband's SUV. We've worked too hard and too long and sacrificed too much to get were we are. We're not going to let you tree-hugging hippies try to hold us hostage with your rhetoric on global warming.
Posted by ACOOK 02/24/2008 @ 8:23pm
perhaps you should listen to the scientists at nasa...........
even dumbflock bush is finally kinda sorta
(naw. he's just pandering)
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/24/2008 @ 9:02pm
Mr Roberts, it's one of the tough crosses the GW must bear.
I do remember some of that time, even a sci-fi disaster called "Ice" which ended with a GLACIER plowing down Broadway, crushing the climatologist who stayed behind, still dreaming of a grandiose plan to drop coal dust on the encroaching polar sheet...as the secondary characters move on to become "new Eskimos".
The psychology behind it too was based on the on-going energy crises. Fear of heating oil being $200 a barrel or being non-existant as winter stretched into April and May and fall came in August to Dixie.
"The New Ice Age" theory and scenario DID exist...we must admit that. But admit it and say but the data is solid now, after 30 years. CO2 raises the planet's temperature and it will continue.
And we must also avoid draconiam demands and eschew "Polar bears are drowning" idiocies. (How the heck does a polar bear drown when they can swim to the next-most-southern ice floe...and finally to Canada's mainland?!?!?)
Posted by Mask at 02/24/2008 @ 9:05pm
Hey Dave, guess what? I'm not giving up my car or my husband's SUV. We've worked too hard and too long and sacrificed too much to get were we are. We're not going to let you tree-hugging hippies try to hold us hostage with your rhetoric on global warming.
Posted by ACOOK 02/24/2008 @ 8:23pm
It's not rhetoric when every scientist not employed by an oil company agrees with the theory. I'm not sure where you've been lately, but mainstream society (even BUSH!) have acknowledged the significance of global warming, not just "tree-hugging hippies". Your selfish attitude in this matter is consistent with that of your party on virtually every issue.
Posted by MATTMAN at 02/24/2008 @ 9:06pm
AC
sadly science is more than rhetoric - simple fact, 12 of the past 20 years have been the warmest since we started using instrumentation to record such things. Heck, even old Dumbya has gotten on the GW bandwagon (albeit in limited fashion) Of course your choice of auto indeed reflects your concern for the environment. I see oh too many SUVs with a soccer mom inside and a couple bags from W-mart.
You see, AC, us "tree-hugging" hippies do what we can to counter the effects of those driving needless behemoths such as you and yours. Funny how the size of the car is viewed as an "inalienable right" and not a big-oil greed driven, status oriented artifice of the overblown egos of the buyers.
BTW to Dave Roberts - keep'm coming Dave. I love this blog...
Posted by leftofcenter at 02/24/2008 @ 9:06pm
Posted by MASK 02/24/2008 @ 9:05pm
It's funny; I have an old science book from the 70's that talks about the "global cooling theory". I got some big yucks over that one!
Posted by MATTMAN at 02/24/2008 @ 9:08pm
Mask
Polar bear drown by virtue of the fact that they hunt from the ice. Apparently they the go "ice-fishing" after a fashion. They sit atop a piece of ice and they sense (see, hear, smell .. a polar bear-ologist I'm not) the fish or seals below. They then pound a hole in the ice and "go fishin", and swim to shore (if need be) when done. Normally the ice is connected, or semi-connected and only short swims are needed. Long swims are even rough for a polar bear though, and the ice floes are fewer and further between.
Posted by leftofcenter at 02/24/2008 @ 9:10pm
It's how human beings figure stuff out. It's how science works.
yep. quasi-exponentially.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/24/2008 @ 9:14pm
And we must also avoid draconiam demands and eschew "Polar bears are drowning" idiocies. (How the heck does a polar bear drown when they can swim to the next-most-southern ice floe...and finally to Canada's mainland?!?!?)
Posted by MASK 02/24/2008 @ 9:05pm
oooh, frosty bait!
heheh
the wheels on the bus go round and round
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/24/2008 @ 9:44pm
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 02/24/2008 @ 9:10pm
naw, let 'em go down to churchill manitoba and have some trash for dinner.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/24/2008 @ 9:53pm
Is Global Warming Killing the Polar Bears?
By JIM CARLTON
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
December 14, 2005
It may be the latest evidence of global warming: Polar bears are drowning.
Scientists for the first time have documented multiple deaths of polar bears off Alaska, where they likely drowned after swimming long distances in the ocean amid the melting of the Arctic ice shelf. The bears spend most of their time hunting and raising their young on ice floes.
In a quarter-century of aerial surveys of the Alaskan coastline before 2004, researchers from the U.S. Minerals Management Service said they typically spotted a lone polar bear swimming in the ocean far from ice about once every two years. Polar-bear drownings were so rare that they have never been documented in the surveys.
But in September 2004, when the polar ice cap had retreated a record 160 miles north of the northern coast of Alaska, researchers counted 10 polar bears swimming as far as 60 miles offshore. Polar bears can swim long distances but have evolved to mainly swim between sheets of ice, scientists say.
The researchers returned to the vicinity a few days after a fierce storm and found four dead bears floating in the water. "Extrapolation of survey data suggests that on the order of 40 bears may have been swimming and that many of those probably drowned as a result of rough seas caused by high winds," the researchers say in a report set to be released today.
While the government researchers won't speculate on why a climate change is taking place in the Arctic, environmentalists unconnected to the survey say U.S. policies emphasizing oil and gas development are exacerbating global warming, which is accelerating the melting of the ice. "For anyone who has wondered how global warming and reduced sea ice will affect polar bears, the answer is simple -- they die," said Richard Steiner, a marine-biology professor at the University of Alaska.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/24/2008 @ 9:55pm
I see oh too many SUVs with a soccer mom inside and a couple bags from W-mart.
idling for an hour with the air-conditioner running.
Funny how the size of the car is viewed as an "inalienable right" and not a big-oil greed driven, status oriented artifice of the overblown egos of the buyers.
AMERICA HATER. ARTICLE 32 ACT 3 SCENE 7 OF THE CONSTITUTION SAYS THAT GOD DROVE A FORD EXPLOITER
BTW to Dave Roberts - keep'm coming Dave. I love this blog...
yep. he's smart and funny.
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 02/24/2008 @ 9:06pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/24/2008 @ 10:00pm
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 02/24/2008 @ 9:10pm
LOC, I'm not a GW denier....but please show me evidence that polar bears are so incredibly stupid (or more accurately, have such little innate instinct) that they are DROWNING from the massive distances between ice floes in the summer.
Posted by Mask at 02/24/2008 @ 10:07pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/24/2008 @ 9:55pm
Sorry, FROSTY, re-check that story. I think you'l find it imploded about a year later.
Posted by Mask at 02/24/2008 @ 10:08pm
Oh, and FZ and LOC....THAT kind of stuff, is the kind of stuff that HELPS the Oil Guys and the "God wouldn't allow global warming" types.
S'why I mentioned it. Hysteria and "GW urban legends" feed the "It's ALL a bunch of b.s., because THIS thing has been proven false!"
Like a Nader run (to go off-topic), it does more damage than good for the overly earnest folks who promote it.
Posted by Mask at 02/24/2008 @ 10:10pm
ROBERTS: We now know that they were badly wrong. This isn't some sort of embarrassing gotcha. It's progress. It's how human beings figure stuff out.
How true, and someday decades from now, we'll find out much of what Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truths", were but a bunch of "Convenient BS".
IF earth's 6+ billion year history is analyzed in 1 million year intervals, we're looking at >6,000 intervals.....anyone wants to guess how many were warming or cooling intervals? How many were exactly `right' like say, 500 years ago before mankind `mucked' the earth up?
Amazing how some people's capacity for `worry' is as big as the Universe! Watched too many "Day After Tomorrow"!
Posted by Happy at 02/24/2008 @ 10:16pm
The fact that the climate is changing is undeniable. The evidence that we are having some effect on this is more than probable.
This is where I branch off from established orthodoxy. It seems like those that want to fight global warming want the environment to stay static simply for the convenience of humans. As there has been ample evidence that the earth has changed many many times over the eons, and we've only been here for a tiny sliver of that, isn't it the height of arrogance to say that just because THIS environment is pretty darn good for us, that therefore we have to preserve it? Are we honestly that arrogant?
Posted by yutsano at 02/24/2008 @ 10:17pm
Posted by MASK 02/24/2008 @ 10:10pm
i know why you posted it.
i've already seen that it has been "disproven".
let's ask the inuit:
Anecdotal evidence indicates that polar bears may be leaving the sea ice to den on land in winter. In Russia, large numbers of bears have been stranded on land by long summers that prevent the advance of the permanent ice pack. Some Inuit hunters in Canada say they can no longer hunt polar bears in the spring because of early ice melts. In the Western Hudson Bay area, permafrost has declined, leaving polar-bear denning areas susceptible to destruction by forest fires in the summer. A warm spring might also lead to increased rainfall, which can cause dens to collapse.
Polar bears depend on a frozen platform from which to hunt seals, the mainstay of their diet. Without ice, the bears are unable to reach their prey. A shorter hunting season has already adversely affected the polar bears of Western Hudson Bay (the population near Churchill in the Province of Manitoba, Canada). Scientists have documented a 22% drop in the Western Hudson Bay polar bear population since the early 1980s. The decline directly correlates with a longer ice-free season on the bay.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/24/2008 @ 10:21pm
Mask
While it does appear some reports may have been overblown, the USGS Biology Div. report looks at the mid-long range projections as pretty grim. BTW: AK doesn't want the PBs on the Endangered Species list - harder to build new pipelines!
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hMlxURK285Yo1BohLmxxZJQ6xxWwD8UVI24G0
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1704808,00.html
Posted by leftofcenter at 02/24/2008 @ 10:21pm
Posted by ACOOK 02/24/2008 @ 8:23pm | ignore this person
don't see that happinin'. don't that suv suck up the money, though?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/24/2008 @ 10:36pm
"Your selfish attitude in this matter is consistent with that of your party on virtually every issue."
Posted by MATTMAN 02/24/2008 @ 9:06pm
MATT, I'm not selfish, I'm just keeping it real. I'm sick and tired of groups who feel they have right to take away everything that I've worked for.
Posted by ACook at 02/24/2008 @ 10:39pm
"don't see that happinin'. don't that suv suck up the money, though?"
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/24/2008 @ 10:36pm
Not really, unlike most folks, we have a budget that we stick to religously and we don't eat out a lot. I made sure my husband and I stayed on target with our financial goals.
Posted by ACook at 02/24/2008 @ 10:47pm
"You see, AC, us "tree-hugging" hippies do what we can to counter the effects of those driving needless behemoths such as you and yours. Funny how the size of the car is viewed as an "inalienable right" and not a big-oil greed driven, status oriented artifice of the overblown egos of the buyers."
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 02/24/2008 @ 9:06pm
LOC, my husband drives a GMC Envoy. Nice ride too.
Posted by ACook at 02/24/2008 @ 10:59pm
MATT, I'm not selfish, I'm just keeping it real. I'm sick and tired of groups who feel they have right to take away everything that I've worked for.
Posted by ACOOK 02/24/2008 @ 10:39pm
Don't worry. Our government only does that to brown people in other countries.....anymore.
Posted by Malcontent at 02/24/2008 @ 11:32pm
yeah - there probably will come a time when ACOOK will be more than happy to replace her gluttonmobile with something a bit more economical. but you are right - people dont know/want to be told the implications...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/25/2008 @ 01:26am
MATT, I'm not selfish, I'm just keeping it real. I'm sick and tired of groups who feel they have right to take away everything that I've worked for.
Posted by ACOOK 02/24/2008 @ 10:39pm
just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.
i'm sure you are familiar with the georgia water guy, mr. carlos?
http://www.wsbtv.com/drought/14545360/detail.html
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/25/2008 @ 08:42am
LOC, my husband drives a GMC Envoy. Nice ride too.
Posted by ACOOK 02/24/2008 @ 10:59pm
war for oil.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/25/2008 @ 08:43am
LOC, my husband drives a GMC Envoy. Nice ride too.
Posted by ACOOK 02/24/2008 @ 10:59pm
slave to canada.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/25/2008 @ 08:43am
Hey Dave, guess what? I'm not giving up my car or my husband's SUV. We've worked too hard and too long and sacrificed too much to get were we are. We're not going to let you tree-hugging hippies try to hold us hostage with your rhetoric on global warming.
Posted by ACOOK 02/24/2008 @ 8:23pm |
I had a look at a great many images of climatologists and climate scientists. They looked like solid citizens, no hippies there. Chased a few of their journal articles. Seems they're doing real, repeatable science. Seems they're substantially in agreement. Seems it's them who are telling us this stuff about climate change.
It is tough being stuck, like all humans, with a brain evolved in the stone age and hard-wired for short-term gain, but our neurology is uncommonly flexible and allows to reinvent ourselves and our motivations.
Posted by mikecope at 02/25/2008 @ 08:49am
The Climate Change struggle, if it is to be won at all, will be won by individuals. Individuals in governments, individuals in civic and religious organisations and so on.
ACOOK I presume you have no children, or you might be casting about to see what you could do to help their certain plight, even if by a fraction, rather than cleaving to the wasteful & destructive stuff that you have blown your life working for.
Posted by mikecope at 02/25/2008 @ 09:18am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/24/2008 @ 10:21pm
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 02/24/2008 @ 10:21pm
Both of which have to do with feeding and habitat...not "drowning".
Ya see, you guess made my point. If they had come out and said "GW reduces the ice floes and makes it harder for polar bears to go after their usual prey, the seals"....no problem.
But some IDIOTS took a picture of a polar bear on a tiny ice floe and posted the story that FZ quoted from 2005 saying that the polar bears were DROWNING. Like some cartoon, where the ice berg gets smaller and smaller as the Arctic heat wave hits and land is 1000 miles away to the south, and Petey the Polar Bear drowns like diCaprio after the Titanic goes under.
That kind of hyperbole and urban legend crap (and the legitimate promotion by some excitable types in the late 70s of "the new Ice Age") are a problem that REAL concern about global warming has got to come to terms with.
It's like when "The Day After Tomorrow" came out. Lotta guys probably thought, "Great! A disaster film about global warming will raise awareness". Then they saw it and say what a piece of crap Roland Emmerich "Poseidon Adventure" bit of silliness it was, and it did more harm than good. Especially since the science was not only BAD, but totally unbelievable and fantastic....
like Petey going "glub, glub" within eyesight of the Nunavut shoreline.
Posted by Mask at 02/25/2008 @ 09:24am
There are at least two reasons why the arguments of the skeptics keep on returning. First, there is not one scintella, not one single solitary jot of experimental evidence that connects the recent rise in average world temperatures with the recent rise in CO2 concentrations; AGW is, was, and always will be, merely a hypothesis with no experimental data to support it. Second, the data of world temerature anomalies shows that over the last 40 years or so, world temperatures rose, but have since stabilized and are now falling. The slope of the temperature/time graph in February 2008 is negative; this despite a continuing and unprecedented rise in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. In many ways, the climate skeptics are the true heirs of Robert Watson-Watt's Natural History of the Boffin Bird, written I believe in 1940. Unfortunatley I lost my copy many years ago, and have been unable to find another anywhere. Quoting from memory "The eggs (ideas) of the Boffin Bird are of a peculiar bi-conic construction, such that no matter how far or in which direction they are rolled, they always come back to be the center of attention. And they are absolutely indestructible, because they are made of good, solid meat".
Posted by Jim Criwpell at 02/25/2008 @ 09:26am
So the skeptics have been wrong about every notion regarding the scientist predictions, eh? All, DAVE, or just the ones that don't fit with the Global warming hysteria?
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 02/25/2008 @ 10:21am
So the skeptics have been wrong about every notion regarding the scientist predictions, eh? All, DAVE, or just the ones that don't fit with the Global warming hysteria?
STOP WHINING! START THE WALL NOW!
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 02/25/2008 @ 10:22am
www.msnbc.com 22 January 2008
'JERUSALEM - Israel's government on Monday endorsed the ambitious plan of a private entrepreneur to install the world's first electric car network here by 2011, with half a million recharging stations to crisscross the tiny nation. ...
The initiative is the brainchild of Shai Agassi, a 39-year-old Israeli-American entrepreneur and high-tech star, who raised $200 million to get the project off the ground. ...
Agassi's spokesman said his home country of Israel was the ideal laboratory to market his vision because of its high fuel prices (around $6.30 a gallon), dense population centers and supportive government. In Israel, 90 percent of car owners drive less than 45 miles per day and all major urban centers are less than 100 miles apart, making the use of battery operated cars more feasible than in countries with longer average commutes.
Green cars are also particularly attractive to Israel, which hopes to weaken the political clout of its oil-rich enemies.
"Today is a new age with new dangers and the greatest danger is that of oil," President Shimon Peres said. "It is the greatest polluter of our age and oil is the greatest financier of terror." ...
"There was a time when people said you couldn't stop smoking," Peres said. "Using gas is like smoking."...'
Posted by HonestLiberal at 02/25/2008 @ 10:28am
You can lead a horse to water...
And you can do even less with a jackass.
Posted by mtspence05 at 02/25/2008 @ 11:00am
David looks too young to remember the 1970s but I do and I am a scientist. There was talk of a new ice age. There was no talk of global dimming. There was no talk of global dimming in the 40s, 50s, and 60s. We had more to worry about then. Like how to survive one war after another. How was this global dimming measured back then? There was not the technology. Give us a reference to a learned paper of the time and we can chceck it. You will not do it because there are none. All of this is simply the usual nonsense which passes for logic amongst those trying to convince us we are all going to die. It is a common trait in humanity. We must have something to worry about. I don't mind changing to cope with diminishing resources but why this nonsense about devastating climate change. It has stopped getting warmer if you haven't noticed. I measure temperature using a thermometer not a polar bear.
Posted by Wotan1 at 02/25/2008 @ 11:05am
Posted by MASK 02/25/2008 @ 09:24am
I'll admit that I haven't followed every bit of science on this subject, but regardless of whether polar bears are drowning it follows logically that if their environment is changing significantly, that will most likely have a negative impact on the species native to that environment. Their natural order is being upset quicker than nature would otherwise allow, ruling out the argument that they could make necessary adaptations. So the caricature/symbol of a drowning polar bear is not necessarily to be construed literally; it signifies the peril that a dominant species of that region faces.
If you don't care about polar bears, climate change will have its effect on our species; our future generations of humans. If you don't want to accept that the toxins that humans have spewed into the atmosphere, that are known to destroy our protective ozone layer, have no effect on this process-- you're an apologist and only seek to rationalize irresponsible behavior.
There are micro-level changes that we as individuals can make that collectively yield results. Then there are macro-level changes that we as a society can and absolutely should implement to set standards in the world, and produce the most significant results.
Posted by MATTMAN at 02/25/2008 @ 11:06am
It has stopped getting warmer if you haven't noticed. I measure temperature using a thermometer not a polar bear.
Posted by WOTAN1 02/25/2008 @ 11:05am
Golly, that sure sounds scientific enough. Case closed!
Posted by MATTMAN at 02/25/2008 @ 11:37am
"...not one single solitary jot of experimental evidence that connects the recent rise in average world temperatures with the recent rise in CO2 concentrations..."
Posted by JIM CRIWPELL 02/25/2008 @ 09:26am
Well, aside from the entire science of atmospheric chemistry, eh?
FZ Love them "Yogi" Polar Bears
Mask Perhaps a more empathic appeal could have been made on the noted increase in Polar Bear cannibalism and infanticide:
Harry you're a beast!
Posted by leftofcenter at 02/25/2008 @ 12:12pm
ALL GW Cultists need to read this article via Drudge Report....
Forget global warming: Welcome to the new Ice Age
Lorne Gunter, National Post Published: Monday, February 25, 2008
Most snow cover in 4+ decades, Arctic ice thickness back to above average, coldest China in a century.....sunspot activity at low cycle alarming scientists who fear Little Ice Age may be forthcoming......Man's influence is "a drop in the bucket"......past modeling of Arctic warming way off due to not accounting for the northward wind movements circulating warm southern water towards the Arctic.....blah, blah, blah....
How right Mr. ROBERT is: "We know that they were badly wrong..."
Posted by Happy at 02/25/2008 @ 12:14pm
Posted by WOTAN1 02/25/2008 @ 11:05am
A scientist and no idea of the concept of "proxy measures"? Who do you work for, the "Creation Research Institute"?
Posted by leftofcenter at 02/25/2008 @ 12:14pm
Posted by HAPPY 02/25/2008 @ 12:14pm
One cherry from the article you forgot to put in the bowl "OK, so one winter does not a climate make..."
Posted by leftofcenter at 02/25/2008 @ 12:18pm
Poor Dave; He became a recent convert the last few years to the Manmade GW cause and now speaks like a true cultist.
If you visit his link for debunking skeptics, the articles are filled with more holes than Swiss cheese.
But it ignites the true believers like Frosty and LOC. LOC is also a true believer and swears that there is no conflicting science. This immediately makes his scientific objectivity suspect. There is always conflicting scientific argument, because that is the nature of science and it is healthy. But like Al Gore, these true believers summarily dismiss every scientist who does not take the vow of fidelity to their Manmade Causation GW Religion.
At least as a Christian pastor, I acknowledge and respect the free will right of others to disagree with my faith.
As to Frosty, his bombardment of links supposedly proving that mankind is evil and are destroying the planet because we eat meat and drive cars repeatedly demonstrate that he looks for evidence within only those sites that agree with his own dogma. Nothing wrong with it, we all do it. However, FZ and the like cannot even accept their own bias in presenting us with the evidence for all of the evil mankind is inflicting on "mother earth".
Here is some opposing information on just the polar bear example which perfectly illustrates FZ's myopia.
Are Polar Bears in Decline? Greenpeace and the Natural Resources Defense Council initially presented only one academic study that found polar bears are currently in jeopardy. The study examined one population of polar bears in Canada's Western Hudson Bay, where the average weight of female polar bears fell, leading to reduced cub survival. It linked the early break up of seasonal ice in the bay to a 21 percent decline in that polar bear population.
However, Alaska's polar bear population is stable, and research by Mitchell Taylor, a biologist with the Nunavut Territory government in Canada, shows that the Canadian polar bear population has increased 25 percent during the past decade, from 12,000 to 15,000. Where polar bear weight and numbers are declining, Taylor thinks that it is due to too many bears competing for food rather than Arctic warming.
During the FWS's review of the listing decision, it requested nine administrative reports from government agencies to bolster its case for listing the bears. Because they are based on the same climate models, these reports share a number of common assumptions concerning sea ice levels during the 21st century. The models predict that the area of the Arctic covered by sea ice in the summer will decline by more than two-thirds. As a result, the studies predict, seal populations will decline. Seals currently constitute a majority of the polar bears' diet; therefore, the reports predict that bear populations will collapse. No ice, no seals; no seals, no bears -- case closed.
History and Bear Biology Show Warmer Temperatures Aren't a Threat. Fortunately, comprehensive research demonstrates that since the 1970s -- while much of the world was warming -- polar bear numbers increased dramatically to approximately 25,000 today (higher than at any time in the 20th century). Research conducted by the World Wildlife Fund shows that of the 20 distinct polar bear populations worldwide only two -- accounting for about 16.4 percent of the total number of bears -- are decreasing. Those populations are in areas where air temperatures have actually fallen, such as the Baffin Bay region. By contrast, another two populations -- about 13.6 percent of the total -- are growing, and they live in areas were air temperatures have risen.
Evolutionary biologist and paleozoologist Susan Crockford, of Canada's University of Victoria, points out that polar bears have historically thrived when temperatures were warmer than today's -- during the medieval warming 1,000 years ago and during the Holocene Climate Optimum 5,000 to 9,000 years ago.
Polar bears thrive during warmer climates because they are omnivores, like brown and black bears. Though seals are currently their primary food source, research shows that they have a varied diet and take advantage of other foods when those are available. Their diets can include fish, kelp, caribou, ducks, sea birds, the occasional beluga whale and musk ox and scavenged whale and walrus carcasses.
Mitchell Taylor also testified to the FWS that a modest warming may be beneficial to bears. It creates a better habitat for seals and would dramatically increase the growth of blueberries on which the bears like to gorge.
The Amstrup report, for example, simply accepted the projections made by selected general circulation models concerning the number of future ice-free days in the Arctic. But these projections themselves violate forecasting principles and ignore significant evidence to the contrary. For instance, climate scientist David Legates has noted that the decline in snow and ice pack in the Arctic region has not been uniform. In Greenland, he notes, recorded coastal temperatures show cooling and the average summer air temperature at the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet has decreased by 4° F per decade since measurements began in 1987.
In addition, records from Russian coastal stations show that the extent and thickness of sea ice has varied greatly over 60- to 80-year periods during the past 125 years. Moreover, the warmest air temperature they report for the past century was in 1938, when it was nearly 0.4° F warmer than in 2000. Finally, a study commissioned by Canada's Department of Fisheries and Oceans examining the relationship between air temperature and sea ice coverage concluded that "the possible impact of global warming appears to play a minor role in changes to Arctic sea ice."
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba610/
Posted by lvliberty1 at 02/25/2008 @ 12:22pm
"OK, so one winter does not a climate make..."
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 02/25/2008 @ 12:18pm
OK, here's the full context:
OK, so one winter does not a climate make. It would be premature to claim an Ice Age is looming just because we have had one of our most brutal winters in decades.
But if environmentalists and environment reporters can run around shrieking about the manmade destruction of the natural order every time a robin shows up on Georgian Bay two weeks early, then it is at least fair game to use this winter's weather stories to wonder whether the alarmist are being a tad premature.
And it's not just anecdotal evidence that is piling up against the climate-change dogma.
According to Robert Toggweiler of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton University and Joellen Russell, assistant professor of biogeochemical dynamics at the University of Arizona -- two prominent climate modellers -- the computer models that show polar ice-melt cooling the oceans, stopping the circulation of warm equatorial water to northern latitudes and triggering another Ice Age (a la the movie The Day After Tomorrow) are all wrong.
"We missed what was right in front of our eyes," says Prof. Russell. It's not ice melt but rather wind circulation that drives ocean currents northward from the tropics. Climate models until now have not properly accounted for the wind's effects on ocean circulation, so researchers have compensated by over-emphasizing the role of manmade warming on polar ice melt.
But when Profs. Toggweiler and Russell rejigged their model to include the 40-year cycle of winds away from the equator (then back towards it again), the role of ocean currents bringing warm southern waters to the north was obvious in the current Arctic warming.
Last month, Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, shrugged off manmade climate change as "a drop in the bucket." Showing that solar activity has entered an inactive phase, Prof. Sorokhtin advised people to "stock up on fur coats."
He is not alone. Kenneth Tapping of our own National Research Council, who oversees a giant radio telescope focused on the sun, is convinced we are in for a long period of severely cold weather if sunspot activity does not pick up soon.
The last time the sun was this inactive, Earth suffered the Little Ice Age that lasted about five centuries and ended in 1850. Crops failed through killer frosts and drought. Famine, plague and war were widespread. Harbours froze, so did rivers, and trade ceased.
It's way too early to claim the same is about to happen again, but then it's way too early for the hysteria of the global warmers, too.
lgunter@shaw.ca
Posted by Happy at 02/25/2008 @ 12:27pm
"LOC is also a true believer and swears that there is no conflicting science."
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/25/2008 @ 12:22pm
Sorry to disappoint you LL, but I never made that claim. As I told you previously, I will own what's mine, but not what is not.
That being said oh "bearer of false witness", please send us some of this conflicting science refuting climate change....
Posted by leftofcenter at 02/25/2008 @ 12:28pm
"LOC is also a true believer and swears that there is no conflicting science."
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/25/2008 @ 12:22pm
Sorry, LVLIB...what is your current occupation, again???
Posted by Mask at 02/25/2008 @ 12:29pm
Posted by MATTMAN 02/25/2008 @ 11:06am
Again, the point was the silly stuff hurts the serious stuff. Polar bears were NOT "drowning", unless they were so incredibly stupid that evolution would be weeding them out with or without GW.
Not distancing themselves from that stuff or guys like Paul Ehrlich, have done more to hurt the environmental cause than all the right-wingers or "Americans for Energy Independence" front-groups supported by Exxon-Mobil.
Posted by Mask at 02/25/2008 @ 12:34pm
Sorry, LVLIB...what is your current occupation, again???
Posted by MASK 02/25/2008 @ 12:29pm
Mask, I would contend there is a real distinction to be made.
I acknowledge that the doctrines of my faith make no allowance for accepting other paths to God. Whether you accept it or not (and you have no evidence to the contrary), the Bible says that Jesus declared that no one comes to heaven apart from faith in Jesus.
However, my acceptance of this doctrine does not make any imposition on your ability to live out your life, or your liberty.
But those like LOC do want to impose restrictions and other changes on my life and liberty, whether I agree with them or not.
That is a profound distinction.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 02/25/2008 @ 12:46pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/25/2008 @ 12:46pm
I would posit LL, that when you living your life impinges on my liberty (via pollution, climate change, fossil fuel depletion, or whatever appropriate environmental ill we are discussing)then limits are the only way for all of us to "happily get along" unless you have another idea that isn't "we'll do it my way and I don't give a shit what you think."
And just to point to the obvious - and while I do respect your right to believe in whatever faith you like - that the fact that your religion sentences all "non-believers" to hell, or purgatory, or whatever other downscale afterlife neighborhood, indicates to me that such a belief structure is inherently "wrong" by virtue of the idea that no god of "benevolence" could be that anal-retentive.
Posted by leftofcenter at 02/25/2008 @ 12:59pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/25/2008 @ 12:46pm
Really? So your view that abortion should be outlawed is NOT based on any religious aspects whatsoever?
Posted by Mask at 02/25/2008 @ 1:05pm
Posted by ACOOK 02/24/2008 @ 8:23pm
Climate and politics aside, you have been brainwashed by those who would take your money that you have some God-given right to purchase their products, and that everyone who's concerned about the fate of the planet is conspiring to abridge that right.
After all those years of working "too hard and too long", is this what's important to you?
Posted by drhammer at 02/25/2008 @ 1:08pm
I consider myself to be open-minded about the subject of climate change, but skeptical of climate change solutions. I question how we could have an efficient response to a phenomenon that we don't seem to fully understand. When it comes to temperature data, what sort of data is best when it comes to understanding climate change? Given that climate changes occur naturally, what is the relation between carbon emissions and the natural climate cycles of the earth?
While there certainly seems to be a growing scientific consensus that global warming is occurring, there seems to be no where near a consensus as to exactly how much the earth is warming. It all makes me wonder how large scale policy responses to global warming could be crafted in the first place.
A recent study by the Cato institute [cato.org] indicates that even given the more dire global warming scenarios, it would be more economically efficient to modernize the developing world and continue to develop technology than it would be to attempt to halt the tide of global warming.
Many global warming skeptics are in the same position- it's not the science we're skeptical of, but the overall narrative- the idea that yes global warming is occurring, yes it's bad, and yes we have to stop it now.
Posted by Garrett J at 02/25/2008 @ 1:21pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/25/2008 @ 12:22pm
I searched out information on Mitchell Taylor the first time I saw him cited in a posting here two years ago.
Five minutes of search engine work would expose Mitchell Taylor's conflicts of interest vis-a-vis the hunting industry, and the fact that, while he does have scientific credentials, his opinion on the degrading polar bear habitat is simply that. Since he first ventured his esteemed opinion years ago, he has not had the confidence to submit it for peer review.
Bullshit is bullshit. It does not gain credibility when recycled.
Posted by drhammer at 02/25/2008 @ 1:27pm
And just to point to the obvious - and while I do respect your right to believe in whatever faith you like - that the fact that your religion sentences all "non-believers" to hell, or purgatory, or whatever other downscale afterlife neighborhood, indicates to me that such a belief structure is inherently "wrong" by virtue of the idea that no god of "benevolence" could be that anal-retentive.
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 02/25/2008 @ 12:59pm
But that fact that you think it wrong does not impinge on either of us. If I'm wrong, you are not harmed in any way. If I'm right you made a eternal error. But either way, it was your choice and I made no imposition on you for either choice. If I'm right, your argument is with God and not me, because it's His rule.
But back to your statement on my inflicting on you because I am not willing to let government place arbitrary limits due to competing scientific positions and the manipulation of computer models (and yes I state categorically that they are manipulated, because all modeling is done via manipulation of data).
As I have stated, the market in this country has done remarkably well and certainly not government to bring us all of the technological change we enjoy today.
If the majority of drivers in this country demanded hybrids, most if not all cars produced here would be hybrids. But the fact is that until recently, Prius did not sell well. The fact is that the EVO died from a lack of sales. The fact is that Honda pulled the Hybrid Accord from production last year because it didn't sell.
There are areas where if consumers began making the demand, you could see a dramatic change in our green footprint in this country.
Why for instance do new home builders not automatically build new homes with solar electric capability (especially in sun belt areas)? The biggest hinderance is from 2 parties, the utilities obviously. But even more so, the city and state governments don't want the reduction in Utility tax payments that would result. So you have a partnership with the Utilities and Cities to limit this obvious change that would benefit homeowners and all of us in reducing oil, coal, and natural gas consumption.
Smog levels are at their lowest in more than 30 years.
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.21435/pub_detail.asp
Southern Californians breathed easier this summer.
The 2007 smog season, which ends Oct. 31, is expected to be the mildest in at least 30 years, regional air pollution regulators say.
South Coast Air Quality Management District officials credit unseasonably cool weather in May and June and continued progress in cutting smog-forming emissions from vehicles, industry and other sources.
http://tinyurl.com/3ajjaa
Now you would argue that it is precisely because of government limitations that these improvements occurred. While I would argue that while they had an effect, it is primarily the public demand for that has driven much of this.
And something that is usually left out of the discussion on smog in So Cal is the effect that eliminating backyard trash incinerators had. These incinerators were the largest contributor in the 1950's to smog development in So Cal. I remember them well because burning the trash every morning was one of my chores at home.
So government stepped in and as a result we now have the fiasco of landfills which introduced a completely different set of hazards to the public (ie methane).
I don't deny that there is some role for the government in public safety. Whereas you and many on the evo left believe that government has the primary role. Every time we let government into our lifestyles, it only has some kind of negative outcome.
I'll close by proving this point against one of the usual left arguments about the need for government imposition-seat belts.
There is no doubt that seat belts have saved lives. I don't argue that point. However, by making it a government mandate, car makers simply passed on the expense to consumers. If it was not mandatory, buyers could choose that option and pay for it if they want or don't want it. Competition would still be at play for those choices. But government removed choice and thus that competition.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 02/25/2008 @ 1:32pm
Really? So your view that abortion should be outlawed is NOT based on any religious aspects whatsoever?
Posted by MASK 02/25/2008 @ 1:05pm
Mask.....Mask....Mask.
1. You know that I do not promote the normal anti-abortion position of trying to outlaw abortion. That I believe it must come from a heart change, not a legal change. So as you know, I am not trying to outlaw abortion because of my faith.
That said, it doesn't mean I would be unhappy if our government made that decision.
2. My view on abortion is about preserving life, not diminishing it. Additionally, nearly all abortions come as a result of a choice in behavior, not because of some societal or government imposition. No one (except in the case of rape which is less than 1% of all abortions) is forced to have sex.
When the faith movement led the charge in abolishing slavery, it wasn't deemed a religious imposition except by slave owners. Do you agree with them?
Posted by lvliberty1 at 02/25/2008 @ 1:44pm
"I consider myself to be open-minded about the subject of climate change, but skeptical of climate change solutions."
Posted by GARRETT J 02/25/2008 @ 1:21pm
That's a reasonable position.
But if you really are open-minded, why not cite from scientific sources, instead of a libertarian think-tank?
Posted by drhammer at 02/25/2008 @ 1:45pm
Posted by DRHAMMER 02/25/2008 @ 1:27pm
Fine, take out the one sentence of comment by Mitchell. It has zero to do with the article other than his one comment. He had nothing to do with the research I cited and was not the author of the article.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 02/25/2008 @ 1:45pm
But if you really are open-minded, why not cite from scientific sources, instead of a libertarian think-tank?
Posted by DRHAMMER 02/25/2008 @ 1:45pm
I have on many occasions but I'm not on my computer at the moment. But I'm more than happy to cite the 1000's of scientists from around the world again and again.
BTW, because an article is published on a libertarian site that quotes scientific research, that then makes the scientific research suspect?
So if I quote an article about Obama's views that is republished in a conservative magazine, would that then make Obama's views suspect in your mind? Just curious.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 02/25/2008 @ 1:48pm
That said, it doesn't mean I would be unhappy if our government made that decision.---Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/25/2008 @ 1:44pm
Yeah, knew that...but had to draw out the ABOVE statement to get to my point....
"However, my acceptance of this doctrine does not make any imposition on your ability to live out your life, or your liberty."----Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/25/2008 @ 12:46pm
You contradict yourself.
To stay true to the post of 12:46pm (right above) you would have to OPPOSE any attempt of the Government to outlaw abortion...
but that contradicts the post of 1:44pm, where you say you would "not be unhappy" to see that done.
So, you're giving your tacit consent to the "imposition of your doctrine upon the life or liberty" of others...just as you claim LOC would for his "faith" in global warming and measures he'd see fit to impose to slow or stop it.
Can't LOC now say "I wouldn't be unhappy to see all SUVs banned"?...and you MUST concede no problem with that, or else risk contradicting yourself again?
Posted by Mask at 02/25/2008 @ 2:03pm
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 02/25/2008 @ 12:59pm | ignore this person
i would say such spiritual exclusivity says something telling about the psychology and personality of those who hold such views.
furthermore the ability to accept unprovable assertions and cosmologies sullies one's ability to appresiate what "science" is and is not. its like an inpenetrable cocoon of massive cognitive dissonance.
if he didn't so consistantly support evil and bassackward notions (to the detriment of rational science) i'd be more tolerant of his intelerance and that of his fellows.
but "everything gonna be alright" feels so good...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/25/2008 @ 2:03pm
Posted by MASK 02/25/2008 @ 2:03pm | ignore this person
whenever i see a house with two or three of those glutton/vanitymobiles i admit to having the desire to shove a dead possum up their tailpipes...but with the price of gas going up, a little pacience is all thats needed.
funny how defensive the contard mindset gets and how quickly...you ain't taking MY SUV!!!! just try!!!
well..gee...i WAS planning on comin' on by there with the greenie socialist ministry of taking your hard earned gluttonous crap, but guess your fiery defense of your stuff made me change my mind...
sigh...settle down - there is not now, nor will there be, such an organ of government...unless its so bad you're precious suv is the last thing you are worried about...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/25/2008 @ 2:09pm
TO: J GARRETT
If I'm reading you right, I agree totally that we should be concentrating on progressive, improved technological solutions to live with the problem then, eliminate those sources that caused the problem, rather than "drop back and punt" and keep on punting untill it goes away, which by GW crowd's own admission could be 100 years. By that time the Gore types will have turned us back into a third world agricultural experiment again. We need a "move forward" mentality to combat this: We don't have that right now.
TO: DR HAMMER Cato is not just a "Libertarian Think Tank". A copy of the Study MELTDOWN, a copy of which I hold in my hand right now (we printed it) contains 6 full pages or references, from experts, meteorologists, scientists and climatologists. They are not just political hardheads: Their only flaw, if it is one, is that they refuse to jump on a bandwagon whose passengers can't even correctly predict the number of hurricanes over a 2 year period, let alone tell me whats happening on and above the planet for the next 100 years.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 02/25/2008 @ 2:17pm
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 02/25/2008 @ 2:17pm | ignore this person
cato is a privately owned rightwing propaganda factory which expouses economic satanism.
once the propagandists realized they had to compete with peer reviewed academia they quickly figured out how to lace their pseudoscientific propaganda tracts with plenty of footnotes and references...
a blizzard of such and "look - see all the references??? that makes it legit!!! go ahead, take a weekend or two and check them all! i dare ya!!! their all good - trust me...you don't wanta go check them ALL do you? nah...
like claiming your research is supported by "over 20,000 scientists, many with advanced degrees". really? over 20,000..."many" (10 - 9,999????) with "advanced degrees" (like...a ba with a fellowship at CATO? or a masters in...business admin???)...
"oh look martha! see! these guys tell me what i want to hear and got lots of footnotes and experts!!!! now i feel a lot better. stupid liberals!"
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/25/2008 @ 2:27pm
"After all those years of working "too hard and too long", is this what's important to you?"
Posted by DRHAMMER 02/25/2008 @ 1:08pm
Yes! I'll be retired in 15 years, shouldn't I be able to spend (or save) my money as I see fit?
Posted by ACook at 02/25/2008 @ 2:42pm
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 02/25/2008 @ 2:17pm
Not just a libertarian think-tank? I guess there's more nuance here than I can process.
So in other words, if you're looking for real, peer-reviewed science, the stuff upon which you base your decisions about the planet and your place on it, you're gonna turn to policy wonks?
Posted by drhammer at 02/25/2008 @ 2:45pm
"ACOOK I presume you have no children, or you might be casting about to see what you could do to help their certain plight, even if by a fraction, rather than cleaving to the wasteful & destructive stuff that you have blown your life working for.
Posted by MIKECOPE 02/25/2008 @ 09:18am
Mike, I have 3 sons. My eldest is a marine just like his father. My middle son is a junior in college and my youngest son will be a senior in high school come September. How many children do you have?
Posted by ACook at 02/25/2008 @ 2:52pm
IBBLE, what does "privatly owned" have to do with it? And where did you get all these 20,000 numbers. Not from me. Are you so engrossed with the leftwing agenda and truths that you accept nothing but Govt sponsored "policy" truths, (to use DR's word-and make no mistake-this IS politics-)The amount of power to be gained over the American people by legislating some of the solutions out there now-we have no idea what we are about to do to ourselves taking all this, and the solutions now on the table, as gospel
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 02/25/2008 @ 2:53pm
Economic Satanism?? Ibble you sound like a Taliban Fighter.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 02/25/2008 @ 2:55pm
Fine, take out the one sentence of comment by Mitchell. It has zero to do with the article other than his one comment. He had nothing to do with the research I cited and was not the author of the article."
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/25/2008 @ 1:45pm
So in other words, you're just gonna throw shit at the wall and see what sticks? Maybe you should look a little deeper in your sources, instead of achieving climax when you see someone agree with you in print, and rushing to post it on your favorite troll target.
"So if I quote an article about Obama's views that is republished in a conservative magazine, would that then make Obama's views suspect in your mind? Just curious."
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/25/2008 @ 1:48pm
Close.
(I'm suspicious of anything you post.)
Posted by drhammer at 02/25/2008 @ 3:00pm
If you don't care about polar bears, climate change will have its effect on our species; our future generations of humans. If you don't want to accept that the toxins that humans have spewed into the atmosphere, that are known to destroy our protective ozone layer, have no effect on this process-- you're an apologist and only seek to rationalize irresponsible behavior.
There are micro-level changes that we as individuals can make that collectively yield results. Then there are macro-level changes that we as a society can and absolutely should implement to set standards in the world, and produce the most significant results.
Posted by MATTMAN 02/25/2008 @ 11:06am
Toxins Accumulate in Arctic Peoples, Animals, Study Says
Sharon Guynup
National Geographic Channel
August 27, 2004
For many, the Arctic is synonymous with a pristine, albeit harsh, environment. So it is an unwelcome irony, perhaps, that the region's indigenous peoples and animal predators are reportedly among the most chemically contaminated on Earth.
Various studies in recent decades have found that animals from polar bears to killer whales, not to mention native peoples like the Eskimos, or Inuit, carry unusually high levels of human-made chemicals in their bodies.
Arctic Life Threatened by Toxic Chemicals, Groups Say
These toxins include industrial pollutants like dioxin and PCBs, which gained notoriety during the 1970s, and newer compounds like those now used as flame retardants and stain guards.
The chemicals reach the Arctic borne north by wind and ocean currents. "The chemicals that accumulate in Arctic wildlife and people are coming from us," said Susan Sang, a senior manager and Arctic specialist for the Toronto-based environmental group WWF Canada
Adults Group Results
A cocktail of harmful toxic chemicals has been detected in every person tested in a cross-Canada study of pollution in people.
Environmental Defence tested 11 people from across the country for the presence of 88 chemicals in their blood and urine.
Test Results
60 of 88 chemicals tested for were detected, including 18 heavy metals, five PBDEs, 14 PCBs, one perfluorinated chemical, 10 organochlorine pesticides, five organophosphate insecticide metabolites, and seven VOCs.
Of the 60 chemicals detected:
41 are suspected cancer-causing substances,
53 are chemicals that can cause reproductive disorders and harm the development of children,
27 are chemicals that can disrupt the hormone system, and
21 are chemicals associated with respiratory illnesses.
For more details read our Toxic Nation Report.
Summary:
http://www.toxicnation.ca/toxicnation-studies/pollution-in-adults/ Group-Results
I AM IRONCADMIUMNICKELCOBALTLEADMERCURY MAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/25/2008 @ 3:02pm
ike Petey going "glub, glub" within eyesight of the Nunavut shoreline.
Posted by MASK 02/25/2008 @ 09:24am
dude,
whatever.
most people still think that the ozone hole and global warming are the same thing.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/25/2008 @ 3:04pm
FZ's myopia.
by CAPTAIN CLUSTER BOMB.
i sure hope so.
war for oil.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/25/2008 @ 3:06pm
However, my acceptance of this doctrine does not make any imposition on your ability to live out your life, or your liberty.
But those like LOC do want to impose restrictions and other changes on my life and liberty, whether I agree with them or not.
That is a profound distinction.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/25/2008 @ 12:46pm
that's nonsense.
war for oil.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/25/2008 @ 3:06pm
Posted by GARRETT J 02/25/2008 @ 1:21pm
I've got ninety thousand pounds in my pajamas I've got forty thousand French francs in my fridge I've got lots and lots of lira Now the deutschmark's getting dearer, And my dollar bill could buy the Brooklyn Bridge. There is...
...nothing quite as wonderful as money! There is nothing quite as beautiful as cash! Some people say it's folly, but I'd rather have the lolly, With money you can make a splash!
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/25/2008 @ 3:09pm
Yes! I'll be retired in 15 years, shouldn't I be able to spend (or save) my money as I see fit?
Posted by ACOOK 02/25/2008 @ 2:42pm
yep. buy the new FORDBUILTTOUGH UNDERGROUNDER V-19.
war for oil.
btw i wouldn't bother saving any money.
it will only be worth 20’ on the dollar when you retire.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/25/2008 @ 3:12pm
DR Hammer
I linked to the Cato Institute Study [cato.org] to showcase alternatives in addressing the issue of climate change. The study takes the more dire global warning scenarios as fact and takes an economic look at the best means of dealing with that climate change. It's not climate science, it's economics. If we have truly reached a consensus about climate change science, than economics and policy are just as important- if not more so- in the climate change debate.
Posted by Garrett J at 02/25/2008 @ 3:15pm
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 02/25/2008 @ 2:53pm
the 20,000 number thing came from a site pointed out to me by a skeptic a couple years ago. on the surface it looked pretty legit, even featuring the photo of a real academic who doubts...the 20,000 quote was prominently used on the site. after some checking i found the site was financed by the petroleum industry, most specifically exxon. i am looking for it, but cannot find it yet.
but that sort of halftruthiness is exactly how liars dupe the unwary.
i refer to aynrandist objectivism as a satanic economic philosophy because thats what it is. i use the term satanic...
1. because in fact most satanists, especially the atheistic version as expounded by levay, are largely openly inddebted to ms. rand for their philosophy and rightly so.
randian objectivism, a logical american free market adaptation of nihilism, i would argue, is nothing but another slick, a-moral excuse for powerful wealthy people to act without a consiensce. it is not evil in itself, but enables evil by over exhalting self absorbed moral relativism.
such is not inherently evil, but is all to often adopted by wannabe sociopaths who use it as intellectual scaffolding to excuse wickedness.
"privately owned" has to do this...with...it...
american fascism, or "obverse democratic fascism" is business friendly from the get go - no pretensions at national socialism. those who wish to dominate through satanic philosophical fascism of ms. rand, do so by creating extra-governmental, privately funded institutions such as the CATO institute, in order to propagandize a media they at least half own, in order to subvert democracy - because if democracy means the will of the majority, and such interferes with the hard core randian's satanic urge to become nihilist demigods - fuck democracy!
funny though...with all these self styled randian ubermensch spend on trying to bamboozle everyone...they'd probably get off cheaper by paying some extra taxes...
like the kid who spends hours trying to figure out how to cheat rather than studying for the test...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/25/2008 @ 3:27pm
oops...no number two...lol
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/25/2008 @ 3:28pm
I thought Ayn Rand had a lot to say when I read ATLAS SHRUGGED, although I did consider her atheism her biggest problem. After all, despite their efforts to keep the Church from having any thing to do with policy, even the Founding Fathers understood that it was OK to engage in a free market society yet have a baseline, related to secular law but not dominating, to which everyone subscribed. Rand didn't seem to think this was necessary, but she was corrupt. She also could not forsee some of the issues of today which do require govt help (A LITTLE.. govt help,) although one gets the impression she would have had an answer for anything-intelligent but unswerving type to the nth degree.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 02/25/2008 @ 3:44pm
that's nonsense.
war for oil.
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/25/2008 @ 3:06pm
FZ,
You can repeat a lie a million times and it won't make it any truer.
The war for oil claim is perhaps the most inane and twisted bit of spin by anti-war types in this whole debate.
If Bush had wanted the oil, he could have negotiated with Saddam (who in fact had made the offer) and looked like a hero to many.
But your blind rage level of hatred against anything connected with oil removes your ability to even make intelligent considerations of the evidence.
As I said Frosty, you are becoming more like Unibomber Ted every day. I worry for the good people of Canada.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 02/25/2008 @ 4:01pm
Hey, LVLIB...any answer to my question...
you have any problem with LOC saying "I wouldn't be unhappy if they banned SUVs" and maintain he's still not "imposing his doctrine" on our lives and liberty?!?!?!
Posted by Mask at 02/25/2008 @ 4:09pm
http://www.rightwingnews.com/john/warforoil.php
http://www.rightwingnews.com/john/oil.php
Millions demonstrated against a war in Iraq on February 15, 2003. Thousands more demonstrated on, Sunday, February 16, in San Francisco. A common cry of the protesters is "No blood for oil!". The implication is that the chiefs of the USA seek primarily to control the oil fields in Iraq. The heart of the protest is that such economic motive is morally wrong.
This slogan and thought is most unfortunate. It just doesn't make sense. Oil is indeed involved in this conflict, but it is not the control of Iraqi oil. What good is control? What an economy needs is the consumption of oil, not its control. There is a global market for oil, and it is available at some price, and an economy can get all the oil it wants by paying the market price. Maybe the protesters think the US wants to steal the oil. But that would be politically impossible, as would any long-term control over the oil fields. The whole idea is intellectually empty. These protesters are reflexing rather than thinking.
by Fred E. Foldvary, Senior Editor
http://www.progress.org/archive/fold287.htm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 02/25/2008 @ 4:16pm
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 02/25/2008 @ 3:44pm |
i respect her intellect. i have not read as much rand as i have nietschze (did i spell it right? wow...) but unfortunately i think that many more follow it out of a desire to be elites and unwillingness to address morality without dismissing such notions outright.
she came from the worst of soviet maternalist socialism and was feted by the most powerful american capitalists and seemed to miss out on the other side of capitalism. i just see hard core modern randians often parroting her ideology as a modern version of ricardo's "iron law of wages" - regardless of its legitimacy its an awfully popular non sequiter.
but in fact very few people have actually delved into objectivism beyond an infatuation with her fiction.
look...i'm not poor, but i'm not rich either. i like the money but its not my primary goal in life.
that said, money is indeed much much more than simply money. money is power. if i were a caveman, and had a sharpe, well made spear and a fat auroch carcass, i'd be rich. despite the many layers between cave man and me, ultimately the randian represents to me the moral equivelent of that other caveman who comes along with a few of his well armed buddies and wants to take my auroch carcass...because he can and has the power to do so.
i have seen interviews of the woman and find no hint of compassion. powerful people with no compassion are scary. ultimately if they wrap themselves tightly enough in their self deifying delusions they threaten to take my auroch carcass and all other auroch carcasses and let me starve to death cause they can and i cant stop them.
so i band together with others to oppose them, which they denigrate as "socialism" and get all huffy because i just envy them and want to take "their" toys...
but nobody deserves everything they get and the most selfish and powerful are a menace to all others and randian objectivism just seems to me a highly intellectual justification for oppression.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/25/2008 @ 4:20pm
you have any problem with LOC saying "I wouldn't be unhappy if they banned SUVs" and maintain he's still not "imposing his doctrine" on our lives and liberty?!?!?!
Posted by MASK 02/25/2008 @ 4:09pm
So, actually we have gotten to the heart of your arguments. You equate free speech of opinions as the same as legislation.
So I don't have a problem with LOC citing his opinion at all. Because opinions aren't government restrictions of liberty.
Secondly, let's say the LOC's got their way and SUV's were banned. A lot of Americans would hit the streets in protest and the economy would take a major economic hit. But unless it turned violent, no one would die.
But if somewhere down the road we value children more than we do lifestyle choices and abortion becomes banned, there will be no major economic impact on Americans or the world; no one will have their freedom of economic labor restricted. No one will have their ability to transport families or goods restricted;
But there will be an obvious restriction; According to the pro abortion Guttenmacher institute, more than 40% of those who have an abortion have more than one abortion. That is using abortion as a means of birth control.
So go ahead, keep trying to twist my views to line up with your twisted view of life. I'll take any hits for a less than perfect view if it errs on the side of giving life to innocent children.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 02/25/2008 @ 4:27pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/25/2008 @ 4:27pm
But the belief that it's "killing innocent children" is PART of your doctrine, LVLIB. Unless you're willing to separate your belief in "pro-life" entirely from your religion....if so, then it's simply a matter of scientifically proving it false (a risk I doubt you want to take).
See, you wrote yourself into a corner. You called LOC's "faith" in global warming a "faith" and said he wanted to "impose it"....then when confronted with the fact that YOU TOO have a faith, denied that you "didn't want to impose it" BUT slipped up and said you "wouldn't be unhappy with it BEING imposed".
NOW, you try "Well, his is about the ECONOMY while MINE is about 'innocent children'!"
Problem is...it's still doctrine and faith (your definitions), you simply are saying "Mine's right, his is wrong!" and offer no distinction otherwise.
This is a killer of a debate for you. Right-wing dogma wants the idea of global warming to be "a religion among those lefty tree-huggers" and easily dismissed and feared for authoritarian restriction....
but most of you are also Religious Righties, who ALSO have a religion and though you deny it "wouldn't be unhappy" with IT restricting freedoms JUST AS MUCH as those you are attacking!
So, let's add that LOC can say "I wouldn't be unhappy if they banned SUVs ....because global warming will kill INNOCENT CHILDREN...and I'll take any hits for a less than perfect view if it errs on the side of giving life to innocent children"?????
Posted by Mask at 02/25/2008 @ 4:38pm
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 02/25/2008 @ 4:30pm
the actual percentage of real, phd in relevant discipline style scientists, who think global warming is at least partially a result of man's activities is really 90 - 95%...
really. its accepted by real scientists much in the way that evolution and relativity are. really.
sorry thats a bummer...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/25/2008 @ 4:38pm
But to those who have pointed out how environmentism functions as a religon for athiest Liberals, it sounds like the kind of conspiracy theory the scientologist gripe about.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 02/25/2008 @ 4:30pm
Whom are you referring to, Darin....specifically?
Posted by Mask at 02/25/2008 @ 4:38pm
Posted by ACOOK 02/25/2008 @ 2:42pm | ignore
i got a couple cannisters of sarin gas. interested?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/25/2008 @ 4:43pm
shouldn't I be able to spend (or save) my money as I see fit?
Posted by ACOOK 02/25/2008 @ 2:42pm | ignore this person
not necesarily...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/25/2008 @ 4:46pm
Whom are you referring to, Darin....specifically?
Posted by MASK 02/25/2008 @ 4:38pm |
darin has samantha there to take care of reality. dinkle dinkle dinkle and - poof! comforting solipsist reality!
lucky bastard! lol...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/25/2008 @ 4:49pm
"i got a couple cannisters of sarin gas. interested?"
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/25/2008 @ 4:43pm
Sure, but you have to promise not to ask what I'll use them for, ok?!.... ;-0
Posted by ACook at 02/25/2008 @ 5:08pm
"not necesarily..."
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/25/2008 @ 4:46pm
But why?
Posted by ACook at 02/25/2008 @ 5:08pm
This is a killer of a debate for you. Right-wing dogma wants the idea of global warming to be "a religion among those lefty tree-huggers" and easily dismissed and feared for authoritarian restriction....
but most of you are also Religious Righties, who ALSO have a religion and though you deny it "wouldn't be unhappy" with IT restricting freedoms JUST AS MUCH as those you are attacking!
So, let's add that LOC can say "I wouldn't be unhappy if they banned SUVs ....because global warming will kill INNOCENT CHILDREN...and I'll take any hits for a less than perfect view if it errs on the side of giving life to innocent children"?????
Posted by MASK 02/25/2008 @ 4:38pm
This always gets good when you introduce a logical fallacy especially when it has multiple levels).
1. Right-wing dogma wants the idea of global warming to be "a religion among those lefty tree-huggers" and easily dismissed and feared for authoritarian restriction....
It is religious dogma when it resorts to silencing any science except that which supports it's view.
2. but most of you are also Religious Righties, who ALSO have a religion and though you deny it "wouldn't be unhappy" with IT restricting freedoms JUST AS MUCH as those you are attacking!
Your statement presupposes (and falsely) that if a change came outlawing abortion that thus is a restriction of freedom. So your premise is that being denied the freedom to murder a life restricts the murderers freedom. Because in 100% of cases, the aborted child (or fetus if it makes you happy), will never have the freedom of choice to continue life.
Also, I have no desire on another level to restrict anyone's right and freedom to live and practice their religion or even worse to compel them to agree with mine.
My faith requires that people make that decision based solely on a free will decision. Compulsion would be worthless.
The only way your linkage with LOC works is if there was indisputable evidence that government imposed restrictions would guarantee a continuation of life for all people.
It then becomes a moral imperative. We have a scientific divide on the issue of manmade causation of Global Warming and it's level of effect. Can the enviro left state conclusively:
1. Manmade Causation of GW is a certifiable detriment to our lives.
2. That no other causations can be of equal or near equal importance
3. That failing to take action guarantees a cessation of life to all people
We make a moral imperative on murder because we know that in 100% of instances, the murdered person has been permanently deprived of their right to life and liberty.
In summary, your analogy cannot stand on the merits. There is no conclusive evidence that banning SUV's will save lives that would otherwise die.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 02/25/2008 @ 5:10pm
Especially for Frosty, some good Canadien scientists speak up among others.
Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe "The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists
By Tom Harris
Monday, June 12, 2006
"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?
Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."
But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?
No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.
Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."
This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.
So we have a smaller fraction.
But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."
We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.
Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:
Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"
Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 02/25/2008 @ 5:19pm
Posted by ACOOK 02/25/2008 @ 5:08pm
why? same reason there are restrictions on purchasing anything deemed a danger to public welfare.
again - nobody coming to take your gluttonmobile - til you call them to...
but oil is getting more scarce everyday and the scientific consensus is that man made emmisions are partly to largely responsible for global rise in temps that will have plenty of bad consequences.
perhaps with the development of fuel cell tech, etc, we will soon be able to buy gigantic vanity stoking semi trucks that use little gas and don't pollute. fine.
but the demand on a limitted supply of petrol exacerbated by huge numbers of those obnoxoius, gluttonous rollin king kongmobiles is indeed a matter of legitimate consern for others, beyond the pollution angle, even.
i hear the "but i need it to transport my whole extended family to my family reunion" arguments but i SEE one suv after another whizzin by with...one lonely soccer mom...far more often than a load of soccer playing kids...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/25/2008 @ 5:24pm
Bjorn Lumborg, PhD. Google him.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 02/25/2008 @ 5:02pm |
he's not a climate scientist. he's a statistician...
you know, its like the ostrich people (the rightwing satano-aynrandos who don't want to see things as they are or have a vested financial interest in not doing so) are always finding some halfway coherent doubter out of the thousands of real scientists and shoving him out there to prop up their arguments.
so...if ya are into some real science (statistics? hmmm...) and want to make some real money...and don't care about the hellish future of those who will come after you...
debunk all the rest of the scientists and find yerself with a nice bundle of petrol stock, fame, and a speakin tour that makes every rightwing apologist and ostrich happy and reassured!!!!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/25/2008 @ 5:30pm
But your blind rage level of hatred against anything connected with oil removes your ability to even make intelligent considerations of the evidence.
As I said Frosty, you are becoming more like Unibomber Ted every day. I worry for the good people of Canada.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/25/2008 @ 4:01pm
just baiting YOU.
YOU have become my beast.
However Simon thought of the beast, there rose before his inward sight the picture of a human at once heroic and sick.
i have a car, beast.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/25/2008 @ 5:41pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/25/2008 @ 4:16pm
oil is poison.
we must find a better way.
or, do you like being held by the sensitives by CANADA?!?!?!?!?!?
heheh
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/25/2008 @ 5:45pm
I worry for the good people of Canada.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/25/2008 @ 4:01pm
don't worry.
most are christians.
they will be saved.
not the inuit, though..................
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/25/2008 @ 5:46pm
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 02/25/2008 @ 5:34pm |
stats can get pretty nutty too. easy to fall into fallacious, sometimes solipsist thinking patterns with statistics.
he does seem to be one of the more lucid debunkers i've heard. still not trumping the vast majority of phd's in relevant scientific areas that say we are a major factor in the equation.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/25/2008 @ 5:49pm
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/25/2008 @ 5:19pm
CanadaFreePress Endorses Ignatieff.
'nuff said.
do your parishioners know your are THE BEAST?
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/25/2008 @ 5:49pm
Lefty tree huggers. Listen to Gore
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 02/25/2008 @ 5:20pm
a clichι followed by a reference to a phoney.
next please.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/25/2008 @ 5:51pm
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 02/25/2008 @ 5:34pm
stats are lots of fun.
lets see...is there extraterrestrial life in the universe? either there is or there is not.
50 50 eh? lol...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/25/2008 @ 5:52pm
far more often than a load of soccer playing kids...
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/25/2008 @ 5:24pm
we used to play in the alley.............
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/25/2008 @ 5:53pm