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

Not in the mood to search the site Walter. If you know where the perinent document(s) are, you can surely link them.

I linked a fairly recent article citing what Milloy has said about it.

Well, and I'm not in the mood to post those documents. D'accord? :wink:

being a bit of a news-junkie , i watch a fair amount of CNN , MSNBC and PBS - in addition to other news-channels .
it's been my experience that these networks bring a fair number of persons on their programs - from the far right to the far left - last time i watched ; after all the thrive on controversy or people would stop watching .
of course they all "have something to say" or they wouldn't be on the program .
just because they appear on a program does not say anything about their qualifications imo .
hbg

Thank you. We can conclude, therefore, that Milloy appearing on Fox News is not an event disqualifying him as a scientist. Nor does not appearing on Fox News qualify anybody as a scientist. It's an enormous red herring to bring it up as if it was significant.

I only mentioned the information re numerous media outlets who have invited Milloy's comments to show that he himself is an equal opportunity contributor and can't be considered to be a shill for any in particular.

Here, for your amusement & edification is the "2006 Best of" from the Climate Change website:

http://realclimate.org/

2006 Year in review
A lighthearted look at the climate science goings-on over the last year:

Best highlight of the gap between the 'two cultures':
Justice Scalia: 'Troposphere, whatever. I told you before I'm not a scientist. That's why I don't want to have to deal with global warming' .

Least effective muzzling of government climate scientist by a junior public affairs political appointee:
George Deutsch met his match in Jim Hansen.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/01/hansen-in-the-new-york-times/

Most puzzling finding that has yet to be replicated:
Methane from plants
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/01/scientists-baffled/

Worst reported story and least effectual follow-up press release:
Methane from plants
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-01/m-gw-011806.php

Best (err... only) climate science documentary on public release:
An Inconvenient Truth.

Most worn out contrarian cliche:
Medieval English vineyards.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/english-vineyards-again/

Previously prominent contrarian cliche curiously not being used any more:
"The satellites show cooling"

Most bizarre new contrarian claim:
"Global warming stopped in 1998".
By the same logic, it also stopped in 1973, 1983, and 1990 (only it didn't).
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif
(didn't we see this posted here earlier??)


Most ironic complaint about 'un-balanced' climate coverage on CNN:
Pat Michaels (the most interviewed commentator by a factor of two) complaining that he doesn't get enough exposure.
http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/environment/archives/105470.asp?source=rss

Most dizzying turn-around of a climate skeptic:
Fred Singer "global warming is not happening" (1998,2000, 2002, 2005)
to global warming is "unstoppable" (2006)
from: http://naturalscience.com/ns/letters/ns_let06.html
to: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st279/st279b.html


Best popular book on the climate change:
Elizabeth Kolbert's "Field Notes from a Catastrophe"
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/my-review-of-books/

Least unexpected observations:
(Joint winners) 2006 near-record minima in Arctic sea ice extent, near-record maxima in Northern Hemisphere temperatures, resumed increase in ocean heat content, record increases in CO2 emissions

Best resource for future climate model analyses:
PCMDI database of IPCC AR4 simulations. The gift that will keep on giving.

Best actual good news:
Methane concentrations appear to have stabilised. Maybe they can even be coaxed downward....

Biggest increase in uncertainty as a function of more research:
Anything to do with aerosols.

Least apologetic excuse for getting a climate story wrong:
Newsweek explains its 1975 'The Cooling World' story.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15391426/site/newsweek/

Most promising newcomer on the contrarian comedy circuit:
Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/cuckoo-science/

Least accurate attempted insinuation about RealClimate by a congressional staffer:
'There's so much money': Marc Morano (Senate EPW outgoing majority committee staff, 5:30 into the mp3 file)
http://www.desmogblog.com/audio/morano-vs-revkin-blakemore-and-fagin

Boldest impractical policy idea:
Geo-engineering

Boldest practical policy idea:
Creation of a National Climate Service, which could more effecitvely provide useful climate information to policymakers.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0609090103v1?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=miles&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

Most revealing insight into the disinformation industry (fiction):
Thank you for smoking
http://www.foxsearchlight.com/thankyouforsmoking/

Most revealing insight into the disinformation industry (non-fiction) and year's best self-parody:
'CO2 is life'
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/thank-you-for-emitting/

piffka :
you really know how to take the fun out of things !
anyone reading the references might get the idea that we do have to deal with climate change and its consequences .
i think its so much simpler to ignore facts that don't fit my ideas and live happily ... ever after ... oops ! may be not 'ever after' .
grrr !
hbg

Thanks, Hamburger. I appreciate your comments. To paraphase the description of a much better person:




Despite those who describe Global Warming Worriers like me as scare-mongers who 'specially love to scare themselves with doomsday scenarios, I have every hope that we will manage to overcome even this (come hell or high-water).

"(come hell or high-water). "

that's the spirit !
(how come i haven't heard president bush use that phrase )
hbg

Financial Times FT.comWORLD
US & CanadaCloseWhite House denies climate change U-turn
By Caroline Daniel in Washington

Published: January 16 2007 18:18 | Last updated: January 16 2007 18:18

The White House on Tuesday denied it was planning a U-turn on its climate change policy by embracing a system of formal caps on greenhouse emissions, despite rising pressure from European governments to change its stance.

Although energy security will be a key theme in President George W. Bush's State of the Union address next week, the White House issued an unusually public rebuttal of rumours about its climate change policy. Tony Snow, White House spokesman, said: "I want to walk you back from the whole carbon cap story...The carbon cap stuff is not accurate. It's wrong."

International pressure for Mr Bush to consider reducing US emissions via a form of "cap and trade" system like that in force in the European Union has intensified. The issue has been raised in the last two weeks by Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, and José Manuel Barroso, European Commission president. Tony Blair, the British premier, has also been persistent in lobbying the president.

The Bush administration has consistently stressed technological solutions, rather than formal treaties such as the Kyoto accord. Mr Snow said: "What the president has talked about all along is the importance of innovation," adding there was a need to focus on change "consistent with economic growth".

After meeting Ms Merkel, Mr Bush said he would focus on "technological developments that will enable us to be good stewards of the environment, and enable us to become less dependent on oil and hydrocarbons from parts of the world that may not like us".

The president is also under pressure at home. Last Friday six US senators - including two presidential hopefuls for 2008, the Republican John McCain and the Democrat Barack Obama - presented a cap and trade proposal to force industries, such as electricity utilities, to cut by 2050 greenhouse gas emissions to one third of the levels of 2000.

White House officials remain privately sceptical about a British report produced in October by Sir Nicholas Stern on the economics of climate change, suggesting it would be wrong to make big decisions based on what some officials dismiss as "popular science". Mr Stern is due to testify next month before a Senate committee that will address emissions legislation.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007

Well today on the radio, I heard proof positive that there is global warming.

In 1988 (I think they said), 85% of California's fruit crop was wiped out by freezing weather.

This week 75% of California's fruit crop has been damaged or destroyed by freezing weather.

Since the freeze damage is 10% less now than it was then, that is proof positive that the climate is warming.

President Bush IS hell or high water.

Yes, and we had the warmest December and warmest January since reords were made.

It's about climate change - this thread isn't about (generally) some local temperatures.

Walter. It was a joke. J - O - K - E. It was meant to be amusing. Nobody took it seriously. It was intended to be funny. Sheesh

Not only that, I'm frozen in for the 4th straight day. I wish the climate would hurry up and get warmer, already.

Here is something interesting.

Here is somebody that has done something worthwhile, some credible thinking and analysis. Libs and global warmers, before you make a judgement, do yourself a favor and read this and study all graphs before you make a judgement and you will come out a little more informed. This is a presentation prepared as part of the AAPG's (American Association of Petroleum Geologists) study of global warming. This power point presentation is not by an oil company, but by independent scientists interested in the science of climate from a geologically historical perspective. The science of geology brings a crucial and necessary perspective to the subject, without which it will not be properly understood, and the AAPG is one of the most important and probably most pertinent worldwide geological organizations in existence.

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/docs/gerhardppt.ppt

... from a "forward-looking policy group advancing center-right principles in today's fast-paced news and information age. We work with grassroots activists throughout the country to protect private property rights, secure our national security, and promote sensible public policies critical to our country's liberty." (quoting from thewir website)


source: sourcewatch

Walter, do yourself a favor and get past where the document is currently accessed or posted. The study was done by geologists and much of the work was done at the Kansas Geological Survey, hardly a partisan organization, but funded by the state of Kansas. In other words, read the report, with graphs, then if you wish to refute the science with better science, be my guest, but in the meantime don't waste peoples time with your partisan accusations.

Sorry, but who are you to give my orders on what to do on this site?

What is your problem, Walter? You are the only one that mentioned the word, "orders." I simply posted a report and suggested you read it, as it has pertinent information to the subject. If you don't care to be informed, then don't read it. I am not going to beg you to take your precious time to read it.

No wonder the subject is so partisan. People can't get past politics to look at the science of it. Apparently, does that include even you, Walter.

This thread was created by blatham and runs on A2K.

You're here a member like I'm.
If I waste your time, you can easily find something different.

And to be honest, I don't care at all about how and where you waste your time.