Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

okie

That's a gag from a Woody Allen movie...he's out dancing at a club (not gracefully) in order to try and find a new girl (his wife left him for a woman) and with arms flaying he approaches a buxom blonde and says, "I love you and I want to have your baby." Her response is "Get lost, creep".

Speaking about happy, laughing people:


(Originally in the Denver Post, here from today's Albuquerque Journal, page 11)

It was once explained to me that a 30% chance of rain on any given day results from 10 meterologists getting together in a room and speculating on the weather for the next few days. It three of them think it will rain and seven of them don't, then they announce a 30% chance of rain.
(smiley face is included as guidance for the humor impaired.)

Then I read accounts of scientifically produced models that project rises in temperature, etc. in coming decades due to global warming. But those same models can't take the known weather/climate of 100 years ago and produce conclusions of the the known weather/climate of today.

The logical conclusion, at least to me, is that both meterology and climatology are inexact sciences, and for that reason I think it all bears futher study and watching, but I remain unconvinced that any of them actually know what's going to happen whether we keep emitting greenhouse gasses or slow them down or stop them altogether.

I still advocate an open mind on this.

I'm keeping an open mind, too, Foxfyre, though leaning more heavily to the global warming hypothesis all the time.

By way of mention, I've seen several observations on the inablity to predict climate, while unable to produce an accurate weather forcast a week in advance. It could well be like life insurance companies. They cannot tell you when you are going to die, but if they know your age and lifestyle, they can very accurately forcast the number of deaths within the group.

As an aside: in March 1970, a weather ship in the North Atlantic has some technical difficulties and couldn't broadcast their data.

Our boat was rahter near (that was only a two-days-march at [nearly] full speed), and someone remembered that I got the Navy meterology certificate.

So we became for a couple of days an official auxiliary weather ship.

Everyone who know me and about that told me later, that this was clearly to be seen: never before had the weather forecast been so uncorrect. :wink: (But it really was freezing cold up there, and all the data had to be taken outside, and it took really a long time, and all was done 'by hand' and I wasn't only young but a conscript )

But the insurance industry can use real statistics based on several generations of record keeping to do their calculations too. The AGW group are using fairly short term statistics as a basis for long term projections while the more skeptical group are using long term statistics as a basis to show that accurate projextions aren't produced by the models the AGW group is using.

This does not in any way suggest that global warming isn't happening. Very few scientists I've read are saying that, though there are a few who say even that. So I don't really doubt that global warming is happening. But I am not leaning for or against the AGW theory as I am of the school that thinks global warming and cooling has been happening on any given day on Planet Earth since the big bang.

It is the AGW angle that I think we need to keep an open mind on rather than alter our lifestyles and/or enact major national policy based on what could be quite flawed science. When one of those climatologists is able to produce a model that can take known climate conditions of the past and produce an approximate prediction of the known climate ocnditions of today, then I think we can better trust projections for the next 100 years or so too.

foxfyre said

Absolutely. Further research, and clearly further research is needed, may well demonstrate nicotine to be a vitamin.

A mind can't be too open. Ask yourself this question...can your mind allow the smooth passage of a loaded Exxon tanker, an over-flight of stealth jets fullsome with cluster bombs, and a Mercedes carrying contracted experts in torture who hate Muslims?

Now that's an open mind.

blatham, I think the global warming issue is hardly understood well at all, so I would advise you to have an open mind. And Foxfyre, don't let them beat your better judgements down. And Walter, people in the U.S. are buying smaller cars. Its about price, and gasoline has been priced like gold where you live for alot longer so you drive smaller cars, but we are getting there. Also, you have to remember this is a very big country here, lots of space, things are spread out over larger areas, and lots of agriculture and other industrial needs that require larger vehicles to do the jobs required. Do not underestimate American ingenuity when things begin to crunch in terms of price and shortage.

I think it's more serious than that. Ingenuity will only get you so far (then you walk)

American towns were built on a model of cheap oil and universal auto use. When the autos (and agricultural machinery and transport) get too expensive to run, and there is no other transport infrastructure existing, what then?

That's an American cartoon which I've posted. Published in US-American newspapers, which hardly can be said to have a left-wing bias.

But I agree that citizens living in the gretaest land of the world need bigger cars to do great jobs.

McTag, I don't think this will happen so suddenly that alternative means of doing things will not be in place. There will be a long period of transition, which we are already experiencing. We are already seeing more wind generators, more solar, more homes being built off the grid, perhaps not enough yet to make a huge impact, but I think we will in the future. Relative to vehicles, we are currently seeing increased pressure on car makers to offer more economical vehicles in the U.S., and I think we are seeing the cream rise to the top in terms of which companies will compete in a changing market as it develops.

I guess it boils down to the basic question, do you have faith in the free market or do you want government to step in to solve it alone? Government can help the process along by offering tax incentives, but if you trust the lessons of history, which I do, I think the free market and ingenuity will be what we should have our faith in.

okie said

Science does proceed with an open mind, conclusions or hypotheses being tentative, and with degree of likelihood/certainty that the conclusions are right dependent upon accumulated evidence in support.

Politics and product marketing do not proceed in that manner. "Acme widgets are the best...but maybe you ought to consider alternate products" is an advertisement you won't ever see. Likewise, "Vote Democrat - unless the Republican platform looks better to you."

As a bunch of posts above demonstrate, the energy industries have spent many many millions with the specific intention of derogating any and all scientific findings which support the global warming thesis. Initially, that GW was happening at all. Then, as that PR line became untenable (too much evidence accumulated), they went with "it's real, but not caused by human activity". That morphed (again, out of PR necessity) into "well, maybe we have something to do with all this, but it will be more costly to do anything about it than to limit causes".

The Texas Republican party, in platform statements in the last decade, has declared that GW is junk science. Now, what on earth is a scientific issue doing in the middle of a party platform? They didn't include any mention of, for example, when and how humans moved into the New World. Nothing regarding the scientific questions on black holes or the functions of the pituitary gland.

Now, might one posit some connection between the Texas republican party and oil/energy interests? How about the Bush administration? Any connections to energy industries?

The science on this matter issues from the scientific community. The PR issues from the energy industry and its well-paid agents, and from (mainly) the Republican party and those who attend to Republican-supporting voices (or comparable parties in other countries).

One always ought to keep an open mind. Surely, that is the best way to get close to 'truth'.

And one is a serious fool if one does not also attend to the abuses to truth which accompany monetary and political interests.

Walter

The Simpsons (Matt Groenig cartoon series) had a wonderful episode where a TV ad was promoting a new SUV, the "Canyon Arrow". The theme song was something like...(with typical western-style music)

"It smells like steak
and it's three lanes wide
six big tons of American pride

Canyon Arrow
Canyon Arrow

(visuals of trees and broken deer flying up over the windshield)

Envy won't get you very far Walter. I drive a car that gets over 30 mpg on the highway, but I don't have a problem with a neighbor that drives a three quarter ton deisel truck because he might haul lumber to the construction job. If I drive a gas guzzler 1 mile to work, isn't that better than riding a subway 30 miles to work? I'm not saying you do, but I am simply pointing out that size of vehicle is only one choice out of dozens of economic choices that people make every day. I don't go on cruises 2 or 3 times a year, which is wasteful as well. Al Gore flies all over the world preaching his global warming message, but I would submit he is far more wasteful than I am, so why doesn't he practice what he preaches?

Can you name the truck with four wheel drive,
smells like a steak and seats thirty-five..

Canyonero! Canyonero!

Well, it goes real slow with the hammer down,
It's the country-fried truck endorsed by a clown!

Canyonero! (Yah!) Canyonero!

Canyonero!

12 yards long, 2 lanes wide,
65 tons of American Pride!

Canyonero! Canyonero!

Top of the line in utility sports,
Unexplained fires are a matter for the courts!

Canyonero! Canyonero! (Yah!)

She blinds everybody with her super high beams,
She's a squirrel crushing, deer smacking, driving machine!

Canyonero!-oh woah, Canyonero! (Yah!)

Drive Canyonero!

Woah Canyonero!

Woah!




Canyonero!

Yahh!

Large cars make small people feel good about themselves.

Cycloptichorn

With a few exceptions, neither the Democrats or Republicans at federal or state level are doing much to be "green" themselves. I wonder what lawmakers in Canada and Europe are driving?

Going a Short Way to Make a Point
By Dana Milbank
The Washington Post
Thursday, April 27, 2006; A02

Ladies and gentlemen, start your engines.

Gas prices have gone above $3 a gallon again, and that means it's time for another round of congressional finger-pointing.

"Since George Bush and Dick Cheney took over as president and vice president, gas prices have doubled!" charged Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), standing at an Exxon station on Capitol Hill where regular unleaded hit $3.10. "They are too cozy with the oil industry."

She then hopped in a waiting Chrysler LHS (18 mpg) -- even though her Senate office was only a block away.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) used a Hyundai Elantra to take the one-block journey to and from the gas-station news conference. He posed in front of the fuel prices and gave them a thumbs-down. "Get tough on big oil!" he demanded of the Bush administration.

By comparison, Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) was a model of conservation. She told a staffer idling in a Jetta to leave without her, then ducked into a sushi restaurant for lunch before making the journey back to work.

At about the same time, House Republicans were meeting in the Capitol for their weekly caucus (Topic A: gas). The House driveway was jammed with cars, many idling, including eight Chevrolet Suburbans (14 mpg).

America may be addicted to oil, as President Bush puts it. But America is in the denial phase of this addiction -- as evidenced by the behavior of its lawmakers. They have proposed all kinds of solutions to high gas prices: taxes on oil companies, domestic oil drilling and releasing petroleum reserves. But they ignore the obvious: that Americans drive too much in too-big cars.

Senators were debating a war spending bill yesterday, but the subject invariably turned to gas prices. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) engaged his deputy, Dick Durbin (Ill.), in a riveting colloquy. "Is the senator aware that the L.A. Times headline reads today, 'Bush's Proposals Viewed as a Drop in the Bucket'?"

"I'm aware of that," Durbin replied.

Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) responded with an economics lesson. "Oil is worth what people pay for it," he argued.

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) sounded the alarms. "We are one accident or one terrorist attack away from oil at $100 a barrel!"

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) made a plea for conservation. "We have to move quickly to increase our fuel efficiency," she urged.

But not too quickly. After lunchtime votes, senators emerged from the Capitol for the drive across the street to their offices.

Sen. John Sununu (R-N.H.) hopped in a GMC Yukon (14 mpg). Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) climbed aboard a Nissan Pathfinder (15). Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) stepped into an eight-cylinder Ford Explorer (14). Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) disappeared into a Lincoln Town Car (17). Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) met up with an idling Chrysler minivan (18).

Next came Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), greeted by a Ford Explorer XLT. On the Senate floor Tuesday, Menendez had complained that Bush "remains opposed to higher fuel-efficiency standards."

Also waiting: three Suburbans, a Nissan Armada V8, two Cadillacs and a Lexus. The greenest senator was Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), who was picked up by his hybrid Toyota Prius (60 mpg), at quadruple the fuel efficiency of his Indiana counterpart Evan Bayh (D), who was met by a Dodge Durango V8 (14).

As a political matter, Democrats clearly sense that they have the advantage on the high gas prices, judging from the number of speeches and news conferences. "The cost of Republican corruption when it comes to energy is hitting home very clearly for America's middle class," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) exulted yesterday morning.

Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) introduced an amendment to repeal oil-company tax breaks and distribute $500 tax rebates to consumers. It was quickly ruled out of order.

But Republicans were clearly feeling defensive. "We passed an energy bill last year, last July," House Speaker Dennis Hastert (Ill.) pleaded at a morning news conference. "It changes CAFE [corporate average fuel economy] standards. It changes some of the things that we can do -- I'm sorry, changes not the CAFE standards, but changes some of the supply issues, boutique fuels, all these things."

Only Sen. Mark Dayton (D-Minn.), who can speak freely because he is retiring, was willing to note the disconnect between rhetoric and action. "People say, understandably, 'Solve our energy problems right now, but don't make us do anything differently,' " he said on the Senate floor.

If the politics of gasoline favor Democrats at the moment, the insincerity is universal. A surreptitious look at the cars in the senators-only spots inside and outside the Senate office buildings found an Escort and a Sentra (super-rich Wisconsin Democrat Herb Kohl's spot had a Chevy Lumina), but far more Jaguars, Cadillacs and Lexuses and a fleet of SUVs made by Ford, Honda, BMW and Lexus.

A sampling of senators' and staff cars parked along Delaware Avenue NE found that those displaying Democratic campaign bumper stickers had a somewhat higher average fuel economy (23 mpg) than those displaying GOP stickers (18 mpg). A fuel-efficiency rating could not be found for the 1970s-era Volkswagen "Thing" owned by Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.).

Maybe, lawmakers are starting to learn. When GOP senators had a lunch Tuesday a couple of blocks from the Capitol, many took cars. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) emerged from the lunch looking for his ride when he spied The Washington Post's Shailagh Murray. Reconsidering, he set out on foot. "I need the exercise," he reasoned.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/26/AR2006042602307_pf.html

Whats with the class envy thing here with all the libs? I don't drive a large car, but I don't have a problem with people that do.

If you want to play the envy game, the hollywood libs are probably the biggest wasters on the planet, with the biggest houses, the most cars, and take jetsetting vacations all the time. And whats a bigger waste of energy than production of movies for crying out loud, for what, to make them richer? And they are the ones screaming the loudest about global warming. Same with Al Gore. If he really believed his own movie or whatever it is, he'd go live in a cave.

It's the same old baloney with you all the time, isn't it Okie?

A) Okie sees phenomenon.

B) Okie finds some reason to decry "lib" response to phenomenon.

C) Okie finds some way to throw Hollywood into it, no matter how far fetched.

I know at least one woman with a master's degree, who stays home to raise the three kids, married to a pharmaceutical researcher who makes over a quarter of a million dollars a year, who lives in a suburban development where all the houses are $600,000 and up who refuses to buy an SUV because she finds them wasteful.

I know of other people who are well off who are extremely concerned about global warming, the polar ice caps melting, and all the rest.

It's got nothing to do with "class envy". It has everything to do with the population waking up.

But since the only reason you post here is to find something wrong with the "libs" and Hollywood, your post above shouldn't be a surprise.

Who would have guessed? Okie is a Stalinist!

He must be, for if he were a capitalist he would never waste his time asking why anyone in an industry would want to continue to make money and expand that industry. If Okie were a believer in the free market system, he would unabashedly say, as Lous Ruykeyser was so happy to repeat, that greed is a good thing, since it causes people to hire other people to help them make the money.

If Okie were a believer in the free market, he would NEVER complain about people using their energy "to make them[selves] richer". He would applaud them for doing so!!

This sounds good:





Cooling Sun brings relief to sweltering Earth