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

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

As of December 20, 2007, over 400 prominent scientists--not a minority of those scientists who have published their views on global warming--from more than two dozen countries have voiced significant objections to major aspects of the alleged UN IPCC "consensus" on man-made global warming.

Thank you. I'm glad to know that my computer seems to be a good working order. I didn't think I had said any of that stuff, but it never helps to have confirmation. You never know when RG might decide to play a practical joke and make what I type look entirely different to Parados. (And I hope I didn't just give RG a scathingly nefarious idea there.)

parados - You've fallen for one of Fox's oldest traps. You see, you aren't allowed to make conclusions about her views. No matter what.

Her inability to post any scientific support for her view, and the lack of any desire to comply with such a reasonable request could never be translated as a lack of respect for science or educated debate.

You're just not allowed to pin her down or hold her accountable.

Remember? She's not a scientist. She therefore can't present any of the science-that-the-articles-she-wants-others-to-read-is-supposed-to-be-based-off-of because she's not a scientist! I'm not a History Teacher, which means I can't ever be asked to provide a source to support my claims about any given topic of history, right?

T
K
O

Hey, guys, fox, okie, ican, looks like you lost another big one, defecting to the ranks of the consensus, which remains alive and well and in the vast majority, as we keep telling you and as the numbers prove. The Defense Department's going green, and we don't mean olive drab and khaki, and they're saving big bucks doing it. Alternative energy already represents about 10% of their energy use and is going up, including wind, solar, and geothermal, AND THEIR PAYBACK TIME FOR CONVERTING IS AS LITTLE AS NINE MONTHS ON SOME PROJECTS, and down goes their carbon footprint. And you know what that means, don't you, ican? The greener the government gets, the less they tax you illegally <snork, snork> . The greener they get, the less they violate the Constitution. If you're true to your principles, ican, you've gotta get behind this all the way. And it's acceptacnce of the truth of global warming that's doing it. Oh, the irony.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2009/05/03/going_green_becomes_a_matter_of_national_security/

Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research. A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes. Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research, said: "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures.
==============================================
Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on. No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming.html

And just so you don't even need to click the link to read the aritcle, here it is:

FORT IRWIN, Calif. - Inside a futuristic-looking dome that rises from the sandy wasteland of the high Mojave Desert, soldiers in plywood cubicles work at computers powered by solar panels and a towering wind turbine.

Plug-in cars shuttle the troops across the vast expanses here at Fort Irwin in San Bernardino County. At night, tents lined with insulating foam provide a cool retreat at the end of a 100-degree day.

The desert base, which houses the Army's premier training center for troops headed to Iraq and Afghanistan, has become a testing ground and showcase for green initiatives that officials estimate could save the services millions, trim their heavy environmental "bootprint," and even save lives in the war zones, where fuel convoys are frequent targets.

The Defense Department is the single largest energy consumer in the United States. Last year it bought nearly 4 billion gallons of jet fuel, 220 million gallons of diesel, and 73 million gallons of gasoline, said Brian Lally, deputy undersecretary of defense for installations and environment.

American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are using more fuel each day than in any other war in US history. When oil prices spiked last summer, the Defense Department's energy tab shot up from about $13 billion per year in 2006 and 2007 to $20 billion in 2008. The Army alone had to make up a half-billion-dollar shortfall in its energy budget, said Keith Eastin, assistant secretary of the Army for installations and environment.

"That was, I think, a grand wake-up call that we somehow had to get a handle on what is loosely called energy security," Eastin said.

Defense officials now consider reducing consumption and embracing energy alternatives to be national security imperatives. At Fort Irwin, commanders are experimenting with ways to power the desert training area - which replicates austere combat conditions - using wind, solar and organic waste-to-fuel technologies.

When Brigadier General Dana Pittard took command of Fort Irwin in 2007, he was stunned by the cost of housing troops in tents powered by generators, as they often are in Iraq and Afghanistan. A brigade of about 4,000 to 5,000 troops was spending about $3 million to rent the tents and keep the air conditioners humming during a month-long rotation, Pittard said. By building tents covered with two to three inches of insulating foam and a solar-reflective coating, they reduced the generator requirements by 45 percent to 75 percent. The technique is now being used at some larger bases in the war zones.

An estimated $22-million investment to replace all the rented tents at Fort Irwin with insulated, semi-permanent ones would pay for itself within nine months and could save the Army $100 million over five years, said Eric Gardner, a logistics management specialist at the base.

By reducing generator use, Fort Irwin also expects to cut carbon emissions by 35 million pounds each year - the equivalent of taking 3,500 vehicles off the road, Gardner said. This year, for the first time, the facility did not need a waiver allowing it to exceed California's emissions standards in the training area, Pittard said.

Some kinks still have to be worked out as the base increases its use of alternative energy. Although there is plenty of sunshine in the desert to keep solar systems running through the day, the military needs ways to store that energy for nighttime use. And although there is plenty of wind, the Air Force has expressed concern that turbines could interfere with radar systems.

Even so, Pittard, who left Fort Irwin in March to become deputy chief of staff of the Training and Doctrine Command Headquarters at Fort Monroe in Virginia, is convinced that within five years it will be possible to take Fort Irwin off the electric grid. The nearby Naval Air Weapons Station-China Lake, also in the Mojave Desert, already is powered completely by geothermal energy generated by hot water below the surface.

Producers and advocates of green technologies are taking note. The Defense Department derives 9.8 percent of its power from alternative sources and is looking to expand use of wind, solar, thermal, and nuclear energy. Some believe that the military has the potential to become a catalyst, helping to turn more expensive power sources into financially viable alternatives to coal and petroleum.

"If the military were to go green, I think that this really could achieve some environmental goals, for a very simple reason: the military is so big," said Matthew Kahn, an environmental economist at the University of California Los Angeles' Institute of the Environment.

Although that remains to be seen, Kahn noted that it would not be the first time the military has had a transforming effect on technology. Cellphones, global positioning systems, and the Internet have their roots in the military.

Military officials concede that changing an institutional culture that until recently was far from green has sometimes been an uphill battle. But at a time of shrinking defense budgets, they say, commanders are finding that making their facilities more energy-efficient and generating some of their own power can yield significant cost savings.

Gotta hand it to Deckland. In one post he "proves" that the earth is simultaneously getting much hotter and much colder. Way to go, Deckie. Suffer from cognitive dissonance much, do you?

So you completely missed the irony huh Monterey-Jack ?
Why am I not surprised ?

Missed a bit of the discussion, have you, Deckland? Think two words, LA NINA. It's weather, buddy, that's caused the decline in temp in 2007-8. Happens all the time, and things just go back up when it ends (just as temps spike during el Ninos). Read something other than the denialist blogs and you'd have a better idea of what's actually going on.

It's interesting that you would quote Solanki when the Planck Institute says this

http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressReleases/2004/pressRelease20040802/


Gosh.. that article is on Solanki's work..



It seems if you want to use Solanki as your source you should tell us what his work really says. Solar activity does NOT explain the recent global warming.

So, when ican posts Solanki as being a denier, let me just link you to his own homepage.
http://www.mps.mpg.de/homes/solanki/

From your previous post:


That is precisely the problem that I see. The educated, affluent, and culturally sophisicated are the world's most environmentally conscious and conscientious people. But you do not see greatly expanding populations among the educated, affluent, and culturally sophisticated. In fact, birth rates have slowed to the point that this group is barely sustaining itself and in fact may be declining.

Nevertheless the global population is exploding and we can assume that this is mostly among the world's most oppressed, poor, and uneducated peoples who have little concern for the environment, diversity of the rain forests, preservaton of endangered species, etc. Do we really want to encourage more and more such oppressed, poor, and uneducated people?

If we culturally sophisticated types persist in this insane push to eliminate fossil fuels, we will eliminate the ability of those 'other' people to exploit their own natural resources as we have already done, and we therefore doom them to more generations of crushing poverty where they will subsist and produce more and more poor people.

I think we should be pushing as hard as we can to find environmentally friendly ways to use all possible energy sources including petroleum, natural gas, and coal and should be trying to increase energy resources. And we should be encouraging those poor people to exploit their natural resources so that they can become educated, more affluent, and more culturally sophisticated. When they do, they will demand a clean and beautiful environment just as we do. They will appreciate the diversity of the rain forests and preservation of species just as we do. And they will reduce their birth rates just as we have.

And THAT will ultimately be the kindest single thing that we can do for our planet.

And that, dear fox, is precisely what the people who realize that global warming is an anthropogenic problem are trying to do. Notice your "environmentally friendly"? I ask you. Who are the people who are looking for environmentally friendly, sustainable, and alternative energy technolog y, and for that matter, clean technology for fossil fuels? Those who realize the science makes it clear that anthropogenic global warming is real. It's the deniers who have their heads in the sand and just say drill, drill, drill, no problem, who are the problem.

No they aren't trying to do that. They are trying to prevent people from exploiting more of the natural resources that helped us become the educated, affluent, culturally sophisticated people that we are. I think you should read what I read again.

It does require giving up the notion that humans have any significant ability to affect climate and/or we must be willing to accept a short term effect in favor of long term goals. But that would violate the holy grail of the environmental religionists so it will be a hard sell.

And, fox, would you care to comment on the article I posted, which shows that the American military is now concerned with reducing its carbon footprint (i.e. implicitly accepting the reality of anthropogenic global warming), and utilizing
alternative and renewable energy technology and at the same time is SAVING LOTS AND LOTS OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS?

Fox, your ideological blinders are showing.

And you think yours aren't I suppose.

I don't care if the military reduces its carbon footprint though I am not at all convinced that it is necessary due to climate change. So stuff like that is moderately interesting but what is there to discuss? It certainly is not proof to me that they will make one whit's difference in what the global mean temperatures will be in the next year or next hundred years.

I am not an AGW religionist. I haven't drunk that kool-ade because I don't think the religionists have made anywhere near as compelling a case for AGW as the skeptics have made a case for other factors involved in whatever climate change happens.

Can you see no problem in a continuing exploding global population of uneducated, poor, and culturally unsophisticated people? Can you see no merit in reversing that trend? And can you see no possibility that the intense pressure to reduce or eliminate fossil fuels might make it much more difficult to reverse that trend?

Fox, what you are is an anti-anthropogenic-global-warming religionist. You see everything only through an ideological prism and belief system, which is impervious to evidence, fact, logic, and scientific research. If you insist on using the term "religionist", YOU are one. It fits your side of the "debate" far more than the other side.

Can you show anything I've ever said re climate change that would confirm your opinion about me? Or did you drink an extra big dose of whatever potion leftwingers drink that makes them spew unsupportable but mean spirited nonsense today?