According to the oil and gas industry and the pundits they fund, this isn’t happening
January through June was the warmest first half of any year in the continental United States since records began in 1895, U.S. government scientists reported Friday.
The average January-June temperature was 51.8 degrees Fahrenheit 3.4 degrees above the 20th century average, according to preliminary data reported by scientists at the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.
UPDATE: In order to be fair and balanced… a comedian. Stay tuned for Gallagher’s take on NAFTA.
Damn facts always getting in the way of peoples opinion!
Speaking of environmental alarmism, we’ve only had one tropical storm this year. 17 were predicted and the season is already 1/4 over. I wonder if Worldwatch either believes now that global warming does not exist or rather that they were patently wrong to assert a correlation between frequency and global warming. Or maybe the pig is on the ladder changing the quote.
Dugger
Those caribou must not be passing enough methane.
You’re a dumbass, JWG. Have you ever read anything about this? Global warming causes weather patterns to change, not just an across the board increase. Global warming may actually mean that in some areas, temperatures actually drop. And I’ll tell you what, I’m not going to pretend to be able to understand it. Might have something to do with it being extrodinarily complex. I know you probably think complexity is something that only comes from god and beyond your little human brain, but there ya go. Anyway, I challenge you to find ONE PEER REVIEWED study….just ONE! saying global warming doesn’t exist, to counter the hundreds if not thousands saying it does and is caused by humans. For fucks sake, even the NAS, commissioned by Bush to study this under his rules, said that it exists and is a human caused problem. Why is it so hard for you to accept the opinions of experts on this?
But its ok…you just go ahead and listen to comedians and pundits and ignore the actual scientists…I know that there is nothing that can make something so mundane as reason actually enter into your brain.
Good grief…it was a joke. You’re the dumbass. I’m probably better read than you on global warming (how many time have you read and understood the IPCC report?). I’ve taught science and technology classes for more than a decade. I’ve posted repeatedly that “global climate change” exists and that “global warming” is a poor phrase, although accurate as a global average. Get your panties out of their wad and calm down, Francis.
I have a pretty good understanding of the science behind it, thank you very much.
Typical liberal response.
What’s actually funny about this accurate statement is that Oliver never posts data about cooler temperatures to point to global climate change. It’s part of the alarmist nature to only repeat information about warmer temperatures. Another example is to cry “global warming” during a bad hurricane season. Where are the Chicken Littles when we have a minimal tornado season?
I don’t about you, q w, but I never was too quick to accept things I don’t understand on faith.
“What they’re saying doesn’t pass the common sense test, but they are wearing glasses and pocket protectors, so, gosh, that’s pretty convincing.”
“Overall, our committee believes that Dr. Mann s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.”
“A social network analysis revealed that the small community of paleoclimate researchers appear to review each other s work, and reuse many of the same data sets, which calls into question the independence of peer-review and temperature reconstructions.”
“…apparently no independent statistical expertise was sought or used.
http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006_Wegman_fact_sheet.pdf
Left-wing chicken littles distort the actual science? Oliver, why do you only report record warm temperatures? Global climate change has a lot of effects. Oh…is it because a warm average is more sensational? Typical chicken little.
Right wing wackos dispute science? News at 11.
No, what they said was that the extreme comments (like we are are warmer now than in the past 1000 years) were unsupported by the current data. They also said that mankind contributes to warming, not that it is caused by humans. Would you care to tell me what percentage of the warming is caused by humans? Is it 100%? 75%? 50%? 10%? What’s the consensus?
See, that’s why I jump into these discussions. People like you take the actual data and distort it to the most extreme. When I challenge that extremist view, “true believers” assume that I must be some sort of anti-science stereotype they carry around in their supposedly liberal minds. In reality, I just point out what we actually know at the current time rather than scream about unsubstantiated hypotheticals.
Frank, do you mean like the Bible?
My stance on the issue is that it doesn’t matter if global warming is real or not, since the measures that need to be taken to curtail it also help alleviate a bunch of other problems. Global Warming is only one of many reasons to do things like raise emission standards and invest more in research for alternative and/or renewable fuels.
What they re saying doesn t pass the common sense test, but they are wearing glasses and pocket protectors, so, gosh, that s pretty convincing.
Yeah! Nevermind the fact that they’ve spent decades researching and studying global climate patterns. Those know-nothing know-it-all egghead scientist are no match for the “common sense” might of the great and wise Average Joe 6-Pack!
“find ONE PEER REVIEWED study” -
In 2003, Ross McKitrick and Steven McIntyre published an article in a peer-reviewed journal showing that Mann’s methodology could produce hockey sticks from even random, trendless data.
“a temperature index that decreases slightly between the early 15th century and early 20th century and then increases dramatically up to 1980 is primarily an artefact of poor data handling, obsolete data and incorrect calculation of principal components.”
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mscp/ene/2003/00000014/00000006/art00002
z adura Jul 14th, 2006 at 5:09 pm
Frank, do you mean like the Bible?
Yes. Would you believe the Bible just because some priests, ministers and rabbis, put on a slide show?
Let me see…
A group of religous clerics gets together and puts on a Bible road show centered around slides that, I assume, are meant to prove the unprovable, that the universe is under the metaphysical thumb of a divine being = Al Gore putting on a slide show based around scientific evidence gathered from thousands of scientists that has been accumulated over many decades and has been repeatedly peer reviewed and updated according to the latest findings.
Yeah, good comparison there.
The thing about Global Warming often is not what does the data say this very moment (i.e. Yippie! We got off easy this year with fewer than predicted tropical storms! Let’s take the Hummer out for a joy ride!), but rather where is it trending over time. The evidence is building, not eroding, that humans are creating a catastrophic change in the environment.
More specifically, for Dugger, most climatologists will tell you that it is not necessarily that the number of storms will increase, but that the intensity of those storms, on average, will be higher. However, this year the forcast was for higher than normal activity, though very likely less than last year. The real period to watch for is late July through October, the peak months when the majority of storms occur.
JWG, the level of contribution by human activity could be less than 1%. How much force is needed to knock over a house of cards? A light breeze or a tornado? The point is to start backing away from the cliff, not debate how hard we are pressing down on the accelerator. As for why articles often emphsize data pointing to warming rather than cooling trends, the answer is fairly obvious. Much of the debate has centered around the concept that, on average, CO2 makes the planet hotter. Many skeptics have offered as proof the fact that in some areas temperatures have, in fact dropped, leading to the false impression that climate change is all about warmer temperaures everywhere all the time. This distorted and misleading viewpoint recently emerged in an exchange between Joe Scarborough and John Stossel.
This Ross McKitrick and Steven McIntyre? Good one.
Discovery of Global Warming
Gore is using the most extreme predictions which are NOT supported by peer review and are certainly not supported by the latest findings. It is alarmism and he admits it. He wants to scare people into action even if it takes exaggeration to do it.
Bill and zython….
No one I know is agaisnt lowering emissions. This country is one of the cleanest industrialized countries in the world.
My complaint is the constant crying of “wolf!”, followed by screaming that we all need to drive hybrids and use wind energy (well, except for Kerry and kennedy who don’t like their views disturbed).
Go to india, indonesia etc, and see the level of emissions they have. You really want to scream at someone, go scream at the third world…but remember, you are telling people that they can’t help feed their families and people sometimes get a little touchy when you start putting their families welfare in danger
Actually, JWG, Gore’s science has been checked out.
The Al Gore quote:
So what Gore said was not that it is okay to lie, but rather that there should be an emphasis on pushing the facts fo the situation into the public sphere as often as possible to motivate the public to open up to possible solutions. In other words, he says we have to talk about it a lot and point out just how much trouble we could be facing. That’s quite a bit different than saying it’s okay to lie (or overstate) the problem.
“This country is one of the cleanest industrialized countries in the world.”
Pedro, you really should keep the stuff that you make up in your head to yourself. You’ll sound like less of an idiot:
“. You really want to scream at someone, go scream at the third world& ”
Wait for it, Pedro. You’ve got another 12 years before that’s actually true. Here’s a link I got from Jay Tea way back when we all first learned that he couldn’t read a chart. :
Hmmmm, developing countries are expected to suprass industrialized countries in 2018. I guess that means that industrialized countries are winning right now. But gee, how could we account for the slowing of CO2 emissions in the industrialized world? I wonder if it has anything to do with the Kyoto Protocols which, you know, the US hasn’t signed because it’s “unfair.”
Is it really? The argument, by the way, that Kyoto places unfair restrictions on developed countries while allowing developing countries to continue on their present course is also a mininterpretation of what Kyoto sets in place. Kyoto allows for a link between the reduction in the rate of emissions in developing countries to a reduction in costs for the developped countries:
http://www.ciel.org/Climate/devcountrycommit.html
Kyoto put mandatory limits on those economies that are better able to develop and adapt cleaner technologies while offering incentives to countries that are not able to afford the same technologies. That is to say there is an incentive for both sides to move in the same direction: The developed countries can reduce the costs of their reduction efforts by earning credits for helping the developing countries reduce their rate of increase. It may not be fair to make the developping countries participation volunary but its the fairest way to get them to the table and engaged in the process before their emissions grow too significantly.
Just how much do these dumbasses hate their avowed political opponents that they keep up this INSANE denial?
Just how much of a dumbass do you have to be to argue that we should keep burning more and more resources as the ice melts?
We should be argueing about how much our activities are affecting the planet and what we can do to slow it down, or even if we can even reverse it.
The planet will survive without us, it’s us that have to be careful with it.
I guess it’s just the last vestiges of denial thrashing about before a begrudging acceptance. Fuck it. I’m not wasting any more energy giving some ignorant troll something to congratulate himself on as he links to some ignoramus that shills for an energy lobby. That’s another thing. Don’t these energy interests want a nice planet left for their kids? It’s fucking insane.
No one I know is agaisnt lowering emissions.
I don’t give a rat’s ass about what everyone you know (translation: your mother) says. The federal government is, and that’s what really matters.
This country is one of the cleanest industrialized countries in the world.
And then you go on to compare it to third world countries that can’t reasonably afford to increase emission standards. Try comparing it to first world countries next time.
However, knowing you, you’d just say “The U.S. is the cleanest first world country in the world” and then link to a video of a monkey peeing in its own mouth as “proof”.
Quick Quiz: Did greenhouse gas emissions increase or decrease every year of Clinton/Gore? Why did Al Gore hate the environment?
Give me a break. A huge 19 scientists said it was mostly accurate. I would agree (except with the guy who says he “could find no error”). There are serious exaggerations that will only increase the chicken little effect. For example, Gore makes a huge deal out of rising sea levels telling us that in a hundred years will will see a 20 foot rise and 100 million refuges. Unfortunately for Gore, the scientific consensus according to the IPCC is that the rise will be somewhere between 3 inches to 3 feet. That’s QUITE a difference from 20 feet with a 100 million “refugees”.
Another “problem” taken out of context is the poor polar bear without an ice sheet. Polar bears have had to deal without arctic ice sheets in previous millennia. They adapt (remember the whole evolution thing?). The land based ice sheets are not predicted to melt for over 1000 years based on current predictions (according to the IPCC).
Gore also overstates the consensus between hurricanes and global warming. I was happy to see your linked cite confirms this.
Finally (for this post…but there are more), Gore tries to link the spread of diseases to global warming. There is no consensus about this claim at all. Yet Gore begins his movie saying that nothing in his movie is controversial in the scientific community. How many scientists are supporting the notion that reversing global warming is important in disease control?
I never made this claim. Not once. Not ever.
I claimed he often uses the most extreme predictions that are far outside of scientific consensus, but they are surrounded by other facts that are more accurate in order to provide cover. But what do people remember? The alarmist propaganda. We have a bunch of Chicken Littles.
Quick Quiz: Did greenhouse gas emissions increase or decrease every year of Clinton/Gore?
A: How the hell would I remember? I didn’t even care about politics until I was in highschool, and that wasn’t until Bush II was in office.
Why did Al Gore hate the environment?
Quick Quiz II (Electric Boogaloo): What power did Gore, as VP, have over emission standards?
Hint: It was none.
Funny…Cheney had to fight a lawsuit against Congress over his role in determining energy policy. I guess Gore was a wimpy VP during his 8 years if he couldn’t even push for a policy he claims is leading to our destruction…”100 million refugees!” Let’s make that man president so he can try again!
P.S. Greenhouse emissions increased every year in the US during the earth-hating Clinton/Gore years.
Frank_D Jul 14th, 2006 at 7:42 pm
z adura Jul 14th, 2006 at 5:09 pm
Frank, do you mean like the Bible?
Yes. Would you believe the Bible just because some priests, ministers and rabbis, put on a slide show?
So why is it wrong that people express discontent when the Bush administration tries to baffle with bullshit?
Uh, oh, I tried to be civil and now JWG is getting selective with his facts.
What the IPCC actually said:
So it’s not like the sea levels won’t keep rising, it’s more like there’s a question of how long it will take. Also keep in mind that many islands and low lying coastal areas will be submerged by a sea level rise of less than a foot (and you think New Orleans looks bad now).
Read up on the problems with predicting deglaciation.
And that’s why Gore pushes the notion that we need to prepare for the worst and hope for the best, not ignore the worst and barely acknowledge the best.
Though I wasn’t necessarily talking about JWG when I said that Gore never said it was okay to lie about the dangers of climate change (though that is a prominent theme with clowns like Scarborough and Stossel, among many others), I do have an issue with JWG’s selective quotation.
What JWG quoted:
and what I wrote:
When rightwing pundits did the Gore dance back in 2000 they loved to push the meme that he was dishonest and nuts. Now we see a push to paint the same picture to discredit Gore and by extension, Global Warming. I clearly stated that Gore’s intent was to get people to sit up and pay attention by making it clear just how bad things could get, and that that constituted neither lying nor “overstating” the issues.
Now lets see how JWG paints Gore:
In short, Gore admits to exaggerating, but in fact Gore admits no such thing. His presentation may concentrate on the most severe predictions, but that dosn’t qualify as alarmism, nor does it render his conclusions unsupported by most scientists (most of whom acknowledge that since they cannot say with certainty how bad things will get, that there is no discounting the worst case scenario). But hey, just because JWG says that he’s an alarmist unsupported by most scientists and that the Left is full of “Chicken Littles” doesn’t mean he said Gore’s a liar. Whew, glad that got cleared up.
But let’s slam shut the door on some more of this nonsense. Here’s JWG trying to deny a potentially catastrophic link between disease outbreaks and climate change.
Wrong.
If you want to read what the truly unhinged sound like, try Newsbusters. Definitely read the comments. Truly insane stuff.
At least JWG’s opinions, even if I vehemently disagree, don’t seem borderline psychotic.
Dude, that’s 2100…one hundred years from now…just what Gore said. Gore’s “science” is much more severe than the scientific consensus. I don’t know how you can argue that he is not “overstating” the effects.
Then what does? 100 million refugees isn’t alarming? Extending the scientific consensus from 3 feet (maximum) to 20 feet isn’t alarming?
You didn’t address my question: “How many scientists are supporting the notion that reversing global warming is important in disease control?” Improved public health measures and vaccines are how we will control disease, NOT by curbing our greenhouse emissions. Or do you and Gore think this wasn’t a problem until global warming? Oh, wait…I get it…diseases are scary…let’s lump it in with global warming!
Seriously, Zython…you’re not even making sense.
Uh, no…Translation: Gore said by 2100 the sea level will have risen by 20 feet and we’ll have 100 million refugees, but the scientific consensus is that sea level will have risen somewhere between 3 inches and 3 feet by 2100. In other words, “by the end of this century” and “2100″ and “one hundred years from now” all mean the same thing. I don’t even know what argument you’re think you’re replying to.
Look it up and apologize.
Um, where did I say ANYTHING remotely like this? Again, what argument are you reading? The point was in response to criticisms that Bush isn’t lowering emissions. Well, no kidding. No one does. Gore didn’t even try when he had the chance. But now he’s a great critic.
Christ…again, what argument are you paying attention to? You claim a VP has no power to influence the environment, so I prove you wrong. You can’t possibly be this stupid…it’s an act, right?
Good grief, you’re not even making responses to the actual debate. It’s like you’re a little kid spinning around in circles. And you’re proud of this?
Dude, that s 2100& one hundred years from now&
Translation: Who the hell cares what happens then? Screw our decendents, we’ll all be dead by then!
P.S. Greenhouse emissions increased every year in the US during the earth-hating Clinton/Gore years.
That’s the best you’ve got? Assuming you are telling the truth (which is doubtful), the best defense you have is “They didn’t manage to lower greenhouse emissions, so we should just give up”? That’s sad. Oh, but I’m sure Bush & the Pub congress lowering emission standards is going to do wonders for the environment!
Funny& Cheney had to fight a lawsuit against Congress over his role in determining energy policy.
Because Cheney’s “Energy Commission” was such a great success in protecting the enviornment! [/sarcasm]
Zython: 40, Frank_D, Dugger, mrpedro, JWG: 0
Like shooting monkeys in a barrel.
Thats right zython….don’t forget…
All animals are equal, just some are more equal than others…..
That leftist truism served Stalin well, so by all means, have “flexible” standards….
Ok, fine. I apologize for my comments, please let me try again.
Granted, the emmissions of greenhouse gasses is going to increase over time. There will be more cars on the road, Businesses that create these gasses as by-products will grow larger. We may not be able to decrease the rate of emmissions, but we can decrease the rate at which this rate increases. However, the present executive and legeslative branches aren’t doing anything to curtail this growth.
Better? I realize now that I shouldn’t hold you to the same standard I hold Frank_D, Dugger, mrpedro, & Save_Ferris. I will admit this was a gross error on my part.
Thats right zython& .don t forget&
All animals are equal, just some are more equal than others& ..
What the hell are you drawing that from? The fact that I was wrong in holding JWG to the same standard I hold you because he’s not a moron? I’ll be happy to hold you to a higher standard when you stop being stupid. It’s that simple.
“That leftist truism served Stalin well, so by all means, have flexible standards& .”
Jesus, pedro, you wrote something totally, completely one hundred percent wrong to advance policy in total opposition to scientific fact — This country is one of the cleanest industrialized countries in the world. — and you have the nerve to suggest someone else here is using Stalinist tactics? Simply unbelievable.
“I realize now that I shouldn t hold you to the same standard I hold Frank_D, Dugger, mrpedro, & Save_Ferris. I will admit this was a gross error on my part. ”
Yes,Zython, but in this case JWG has been sharp and I for one think you should consider upgrading him to exalted Dugger/Frank/Pedro/Farris status.
Don’t flatter yourself Dugger. Unlike the rest of you, JWG isn’t an idiotic sociopath. Seriously, beating you 4 in debate is so easy, it’s kinda sad.
Z
Idiotic?
Now this is idiotic:
“My stance on the issue is that it doesn t matter if global warming is real or not, since the measures that need to be taken to curtail it also help alleviate a bunch of other problems.”
Costs of the Kyoto Protocol
Gas prices go up 35%.
Electricity costs go up from 20% to 86%.
US GNP drops a whopping 4%.
Natural gas prices rise dramatically.
This from the Clinton Admin.
US Senate votes 99-0 to reject Kyoto.
Yet it doesn’t matter if global warming is real, because we should do this stuff anyway. Did you really mean that?
Dugger
Z
“Also, I didn t see you deny the sociopath part. Jus sayin . ”
Well, why would I. Nothing wrong with being a sociopath, right?
And I take it you too wouldn’t recommend Kyoto if those numbers are correct. But
I’m too lazy/busy to get you the reference (I’d have to find it again). I Googled ‘Kyoto cost’ and found it.
Dugger
Yet it doesn t matter if global warming is real, because we should do this stuff anyway. Did you really mean that?
My point was not doing the stuff just for the thrill of it. The pollutants that (may or may not, just to play devils advocate) cause global warming are the direct cause of several other problems, which include, but not limited to, o-zone depletion and poisoning the air and water.
Also, as an example of the standard I hold you at, I’m going to have to ask for a link to those statistics before I even believe you.
Gas prices go up 35%.
We seem to be doing a good enough job of that without the Kyoto Protocol (don’t tell me you didn’t see this one coming).
Also, I didn’t see you deny the sociopath part. Jus sayin’.
Z
OK
And I believe the numbers are generally correct, but they are projections – SWAGs. Some are more pessimistic.
Dugger
And I take it you too wouldn t recommend Kyoto if those numbers are correct.
If, hypothetically, those number ARE correct, then I would be a tad wary of the accord, but my stance on emission standards would stay the same. Although it seems the numbers probably tell the cumulative total of what every country that accepted the accord is paying, so I’m going to take those numbers with a grain of salt.
zython, I wouldn’t trust those numbers as far as you could throw them.
Dugger is “too lazy” to post the links, and my try to find the page that justified Duggers numbers yielded mostly pages from impartial sources such as Worldnutdaily and Competitive Enterprise Institute.
It’s funny, Dugger was “too lazy” to post a link, which requires one copy and paste, but not too lazy to post 4 anti-kyoto talking points. Little suspicious.
Wouldn’t bother me a bit factcheck (or Z) if you assumed Kyoto was a good idea for this country. But I assume your denial is not so intense that you at least don’t wonder why every stinking member of the US senate voted against it. Every one of them.
Dugger
So I am to assume that Dugger doesn’t have an impartial source for his talking points. Thought so.