PDA

View Full Version : Global warming deaths.


Whatfur
03-02-2010, 09:06 AM
Keefe, please...loosen that tie and climb down off that chair. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1254619/Baby-girl-survives-shot-chest-parents-global-warming-suicide-pact.html)

bjkeefe
03-02-2010, 12:31 PM
Just (http://rightwingnews.com/2010/03/global-warming-alarmism-cult-prompts-murder-suicide/) amazing (http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/parents_attempt_global_warming_murder_suicide_incl uding_their_seven-month-o/) what (http://www.frugal-cafe.com/public_html/frugal-blog/frugal-cafe-blogzone/2010/03/01/madness-parents-global-warming-suicide-murder-pact-baby-girl-survives-baby-boy-parents-die/) all (http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=29272) of (http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/94878/) you (http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/2010/03/baby-girl-survives-after-being-shot-in-parents-global-warming-suicide-pact-.html) wingnuts (http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/201306.php) find (http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com/2010/03/murder-suicide-victims-of-global.html) funny (http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/03/baby-survives-shot-in-chest-after-parents-global-warming-murder-suicide/).

Hive (http://theblogprof.blogspot.com/2010/03/miracle-baby-survives-murder-suicide.html) mind (http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2010/03/manbearpig-insp.html)? What (http://www.lonelyconservative.com/2010/03/01/baby-survives-bullet-wound-after-parents-global-warming-murder-suicide-pact/) hive (http://thedanashow.wordpress.com/2010/03/01/parents-kill-themselves-kids-in-global-warming-suicide-pact-baby-survives/) mind (http://scaredmonkeys.com/2010/03/02/warmicide-global-warming-suicide-pact-baby-survives-3-days-with-bullet-in-chest/)?

Pretty (http://anotherblackconservative.blogspot.com/2010/03/baby-survives-shooting-from-parents.html) pathetic (http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/03/01/daily-mail-uk-global-warming-cultists-murder-toddler-wound-infant-in-suicide-pact/).

Thank goodness someone in the reality-based community is keeping score (http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/28901.html).

bjkeefe
03-02-2010, 01:19 PM
Here is a post from a couple of weeks ago, from John Quiggin at Crooked Timber (http://crookedtimber.org/2010/02/11/climategate-revisited/), that is worth reproducing in full.

Climategate revisited

Now that the main charges of scientific misconduct arising from the hacking of the University of East Anglia email system have been proven false (http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/02/michael-mann-exonerated.html), it’s possible to get a reasonably clear idea of what actually happened here. For once the widely used “X-gate” terminology is appropriate. As with Watergate, the central incident was a “third-rate burglary” conducted as part of a campaign of overt and covert harassment directed against political opponents and rewarded (at least in the short run) with political success.

The core of the campaign is a network of professional lobbyists, rightwing activists and politicians, tame journalists and a handful of scientists (including some at the University of East Anglia itself) who present themselves as independent seekers after truth, but are actually in regular contact to co-ordinate their actions and talking points. The main mechanism of harassment was the misuse of Freedom of Information requests in an effort to disrupt the work of scientists, trap them into failures of compliance, and extract information that could be misrepresented as evidence of scientific misconduct. This is a long-standing tactic in the rightwing War on Science, reflected in such Orwellian pieces of legislation as the US “Data Quality Act”.

The hacking was almost certainly done by someone within the campaign, but in a way that maintained (in Watergate terminology) “plausible deniability” for the principals. Regardless of what they knew (and when they knew it) about the actual theft, the leading figures in the campaign worked together to maximize the impact of the stolen emails, and to co-ordinate the bogus claims of scientific misconduct based on the sinister interpretations placed on such phrases as “trick” and “hide the decline”.

The final group of actors in all this were the mass audience of self-described “sceptics”. With few exceptions (in fact, none of whom I am aware), members of this group have lost their moral bearings sufficiently that they were not worried at all by the crime of dishonesty involved in the hacking attack. Equally importantly, they have lost their intellectual bearings to the point where they did not reflect that the kind of person who would mount such an attack, or seek to benefit from it, would not scruple to deceive a gullible audience as to the content of the material they had stolen. The members of this group swallowed and regurgitated the claims of fraud centred on words like “trick”. By the time the imposture was exposed, they had moved on to the next spurious talking point fed to them by the rightwing spin machine.

To keep all this short and comprehensible, I haven’t given lots of links. Most of the points above are have been on the public record for some time (there’s a timeline here (http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/12/09/climate-gate-timeline/)), but a few have only come to light more recently. These Guardian story brings us up to date (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/09/hacked-emails-police-investigation), and names quite a few of the key players (see also here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/04/climate-change-email-hacking-leaks)). For the role of allegedly independent journalists in all this, see Tim Lambert’s Deltoid (http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/) site (search for “Rosegate” and “Leakegate”).

Update I should have mentioned that much the same team had their first outing in the controversy over the Mann et al “hockey stick” graph. All the same elements were there – supposedly disinterested citizen researchers who were in fact paid rightwing operatives, misuse of accountability procedures, and exceptional gullibility on the part of the “sceptical” mass audience. Details are here (http://deepclimate.org/2010/02/08/steve-mcintyre-and-ross-mckitrick-part-2-barton-wegman/) (h/t John Mashey).

Anyone who is interested would do well to follow the six links in the above. I'll call particular attention to the last one and encourage everyone to look around that site, DeepClimate.org (http://deepclimate.org/), beyond just that one post. An impressive research and documentation effort that thoroughly exposes the dishonesty of the denialists, especially "self-appointed climate science auditor Steve McIntyre and his long-time co-author and promoter, economist Ross McKitrick" (part one (http://deepclimate.org/2010/02/04/steve-mcintyre-and-ross-mckitrick-part-1-in-the-beginning/), part two (http://deepclimate.org/2010/02/08/steve-mcintyre-and-ross-mckitrick-part-2-barton-wegman/)).

Note also that the Guardian link is to one of a special investigative series that they have available. Visit the "Climate Wars (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/series/climate-wars-hacked-emails)" home page for more.

uncle ebeneezer
03-02-2010, 04:09 PM
On a related note, shouldn't this be conclusive proof (http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2010/02/january-was-the-warmest-temperature-in-world-history.php) according to the logic of George Will?

bjkeefe
03-02-2010, 11:34 PM
On a related note, shouldn't this be conclusive proof (http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2010/02/january-was-the-warmest-temperature-in-world-history.php)according to the logic of George Will?

One word: "Freakout-nomics (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/02/freakout-nomics/)."

And once you get your popcorn, click his closing link.

(h/t: @JedLewison (http://twitter.com/jedlewison/status/9895761567))

TwinSwords
03-02-2010, 11:53 PM
[January was the warmest temperature in world history]

I don't see how this can possibly be true, given the size of Al Gore's house.

You libs will believe anything.

TwinSwords
03-02-2010, 11:56 PM
I don't see how this can possibly be true, given the size of Al Gore's house.

You libs will believe anything.

Oh, and some dudes flew in airplanes to Copenhagen.

Q.E.D., mofos.

bjkeefe
03-03-2010, 01:34 AM
Oh, and some dudes flew in airplanes to Copenhagen.

Q.E.D., mofos.

Oh, and you know what else? Two more feet of snow. (http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/918/twofeetofsnow.jpg)

dieter
03-03-2010, 01:39 AM
Here is a scientific and level-headed video series on the issue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo

What is usually missing from the debate is peak oil (and coal) though. Global warming exaggerated, insufficient oil, natural gas and coal (http://www.energybulletin.net/node/29845)

I haven't seen the global warming skeptics raise this issue. Possibly because it means that they won't be able to drive their Hummers anyway for other reasons.
Neither do those who push global warming talk about it. Peak oil renders the need to set up global institutions with jobs and perks for bureaucrats moot. And it undermines the need for celebrities and global warming profiteers with personal carbon footprints like those of small nations to fly all over the world with their private jets on their lecturing tours.

bjkeefe
03-03-2010, 01:53 AM
Here is a scientific and level-headed video series on the issue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo


Thanks. I've recommended vids from potholer54 before (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=150928#post150928), but it made the Baby 'Furbus cry (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=152942#post152942).

What is usually missing from the debate is peak oil (and coal) though. [...]

That one's been pretty well thrashed out (http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Abloggingheads.tv&q=%22peak+oil%22) on this site, too.

==========

[Added] I realized that might sound like I was suggesting you can it. I wasn't. Just saying you might want to look around a bit, and jump in on a thread that's already developed somewhat.

Also, thanks for the vid link. Never hurts to repeat a reference to a good resource.

dieter
03-03-2010, 02:14 AM
What is usually missing from the debate is peak oil (and coal) though. [...]
That one's been pretty well thrashed out (http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Abloggingheads.tv&q=%22peak+oil%22) on this site, too.
What I am saying is that I have never seen a global warming critic bring up the issue of peak oil against global warming proponents. I am talking about important people. Your google search points to a thread in which I introduced this angle on peak oil vs. AGW.

bjkeefe
03-03-2010, 02:33 AM
What I am saying is that I have never seen a global warming critic bring up the issue of peak oil against global warming proponents.

You've lost me. Who criticizes global warming and who is in favor of it again?

I am talking about important people. Your google search points to a thread in which I introduced this angle on peak oil vs. AGW.

Sorry, no memory of that one. But I do remember several other occasions where people here went 'round and 'round on peak oil, is all I was trying to say. (Scroll further through the Google results, maybe?)

I recognize where you're coming from, but I think it's an irrelevant issue to the AGW discussion, in that I see the need to reduce our burning of fossil fuels as considerably more pressing than I do worries about running out of them.

bjkeefe
03-03-2010, 03:47 AM
Here is a post from a couple of weeks ago, from John Quiggins at Crooked Timber (http://crookedtimber.org/2010/02/11/climategate-revisited/), that is worth reproducing in full. [...]

And he posted another one yesterday (http://crookedtimber.org/2010/03/03/lindzen-and-no-statistically-significant-warming-since-1995/) that meets the same standard. This time he focuses on one of the few denialists with actual scientific credentials, Richard Lindzen of MIT (Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen), SourceWatch (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Lindzen)). The first, second, and sixth links he supplies are well worth following.

Anyway, here it is.

Lindzen and “No statistically significant warming since 1995″

I discussed the ‘no statistically significant warming since 1995’ talking point on my blog recently (http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2010/03/01/four-lies-and-an-empty-set/) This talking point has been around the delusionist blogosphere for some time, though with a lower profile than ‘global warming stopped in 1998’, and was put as question to Phil Jones of UEA in a BBC interview. Jones answered honestly, if a bit clumsily, that the data period since 1995 is marginally too short to derive a statistically significant trend, a response which was headlined by the Daily Mail as “Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995?” and became the talking point of the day. As has been widely (http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-vine/why-the-british-press-so-sloppy-climate-issues) noted, confusing not statistically significant’ with ‘not significant; in the ordinary sense indicates either deliberate dishonesty or ignorance of a point covered in excruciating detail in every introductory stats course.

But where did this silliness come from? I’d seen Janet Albrechtsen quote Lord Monckton (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/heated-moments-mar-monckton/story-e6frg6zo-1225821369435) on the point, and it seemed about right for him, an innumerate debating point that would take a fair while to refute, during which time he could move on to the next one.

Imagine my surprise, then, when I discovered the point being made (and apparently originated) by Richard Lindzen of MIT who is (or ought to be) by far the most credible figure on the delusionist side. In a piece published on “Watts Up With That” (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/11/a-note-from-richard-lindzen-on-statistically-significant-warming/) Lindzen says ‘There has been no warming since 1997 and no statistically significant warming since 1995’. Lindzen illustrates this claim with a graph he appears to have made up for the occasion, complete with unexplained error bars (I’ve appended a NASA graph with error bars for annual estimates).

In this piece for Quadrant (http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/07/resisting-climate-hysteria) he gives a variation, saying “has been no statistically significant net global warming for the last fourteen years” and “the fact that warming has ceased for the past fourteen years is acknowledged” . Note the slide from “has been no statistically significant net global warming for the last fourteen years ” to “warming has ceased”, committing the basic newbie error against which all budding stats students are warned.

Lindzen has published a couple of hundred papers in climatology, so I think we can assume he knows that the statement “there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995” means nothing more than “given the variability in the data, we need at least 15 observations to reject the null hypothesis at 95 per cent confidence”, a fact so trite as not to be worth mentioning.

It is sad to see a respected scientist reduced to this kind of thing. And as far as I can tell, all this is simply to avoid admitting that he backed the wrong horse back in 1990, when he bet that he was smarter than the majority of climate scientists who thought humans were (probably) causing global warming. The data since then has supported the majority view, but instead of revising his position, Lindzen has resorted to dishonest statistical trickery.

To quote The Economist, with respect to the Daily Mail

Since I’ve advocated a more explicit use of the word “lie”, I’ll go ahead and follow my own advice: that Daily Mail headline is a lie.

But at least the Daily Mail headline writer could plead ignorance. Lindzen has no such excuse.

Update: More on this from Deep Climate (http://deepclimate.org/2010/03/02/round-and-round-we-go-with-lindzen-motl-and-jones/)

http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/9549/gisstemp.jpg

NASA GISS global mean temperature divergence from 1950-80 baseline

[Note: I've copied and reposted (http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/9549/gisstemp.jpg) his image (http://johnquiggin.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/GISSTemp.jpg) since I don't know if he wants people hot-linking to images on his site.]

Starwatcher162536
03-03-2010, 12:07 PM
It's hard to give an estimate because coal/oil "resources" (Not yet "proven", but expected to be so in the near future from "reasonable expectations" of future extraction technological improvements and projected oil/coal $ increases) is highly dependent on future gov't policy.


Given these basic considerations, we have focused on scenarios in which coal use is phased out except where the CO2 is captured. We find that, with such an assumption, it is possible to keep maximum 21st-century atmospheric CO2 less than 450 ppm, provided that the EIA estimates of oil and gas reserves and reserve growth are not significant underestimates. This limit on CO2 is achieved in our scenarios only if cumulative global emissions from coal between the present and 2050 amount to ~100 Gt C or less. Thus, even if coal reserves are much lower than historically assumed (e.g., NRC, 2007), there is surely enough coal to take the world past 450 ppm CO2 without mitigation efforts such as those described here. On the bright side, our findings indicate that a feasible time scale for reductions can keep CO2 below 450 ppm.


Full report found here (http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0704/0704.2782.pdf)

They estimate that with current resource estimates that a approach that disregards the damage incurred by carbon emissions would result in ~560 ppm atmo concentrations by the year 2100. They are explicitly assuming coal use will be ramped up to compensate for "peak oil" and "peak gas" and that "peak coal" will not occur until late this century. According to the EIA/NRC, there is plenty of coal to do this, I am just unsure of what % of applications that use gas/oil we will be able to switch to coal (surely most of the petrochemical industry will not be able to switch to coal).

They also mention that they are using a "pulse model" which I think means that they are not considering possible system changes resulting from anthropic emissions which could decrease natural carbon sinks

dieter
03-03-2010, 04:30 PM
Full report found here (http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0704/0704.2782.pdf)
Thanks. That was a great read for me.

I roughly believe in model d.). It appears that even this model overestimated oil production. Oil production has been stuck on a plateau since 2005. So that means that we are about 10% below the assumption (for oil) in scenario d.)


I am just unsure of what % of applications that use gas/oil we will be able to switch to coal (surely most of the petrochemical industry will not be able to switch to coal).
I believe that transportation will not switch either (including through electrification).

But there is the question of behavior on top of economic and technological feasibility. Oil prices are the most salient energy prices for individuals and society. We have seen this in 2008. I believe that oil price spikes are going to motivate businesses and individuals to think about efficiency across the board of energy consumption.

Anyway, based on what I have seen so far and my prior beliefs, I have to reject the entire spectrum of IPCC predictions. Global warming is not going to happen.

So how can I use this information to gain a fortune by gambling in the carbon markets? ;-)

bjkeefe
03-03-2010, 05:37 PM
As you may or may not have heard, the blogger known as Jon Swift has died, at all too young an age. Details such as I knew them a few hours ago are here (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2010/03/oh-this-hurts.html).

That post also includes some links to some of my, and others', favorite Swift moments. John Cole (http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/03/03/rip-al-weisel/) adds this, which seems appropriate for this thread: "Science Is Dead (http://jonswift.blogspot.com/2006/08/science-is-dead.html)."

He was a kind and funny man, and he will be sorely missed.

bjkeefe
03-04-2010, 11:24 PM
Highlights from an article in the Financial Times (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9513bee6-27b3-11df-863d-00144feabdc0.html), via LGF (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/35907_Scientific_Review_Shows_Unambiguous_Evidence _of_Global_Warming):

The case for man-made global warming is even stronger than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change maintained in its official assessments, according to the first scientific review published since December’s Copenhagen conference and subsequent attacks on the IPCC’s credibility.

An international research team led by the UK Met Office spent the past year analysing more than 100 recent scientific papers to update the last IPCC assessment, released in 2007.

[...]

“The fingerprint of human influence has been detected in many different aspects of observed climate changes,” said Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring at the Met Office Hadley Centre for Climate Research (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/hadleycentre/). “Natural variability, from the sun, volcanic eruptions or natural cycles, cannot explain recent warming.”

The review, published in the journal Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/123201100/home), found several “fingerprints” of warming that had not been established by the time of the last IPCC assessment but were now unambiguously present.

[...]

The review is based on a forensic comparison of the pattern of changes expected from man-made warming with those that would result from other factors such as changing solar radiation and purely natural variations.

A separate study by Russian and US scientists, published today in the journal Science, shows methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, is escaping from the seafloor of the warming Arctic Ocean more rapidly than has been suspected.

More on that methane study, for example, here (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/05/science/earth/05methane.html).

Starwatcher162536
03-07-2010, 10:15 AM
I recently watched a podcast (Link (http://events.caltech.edu/events/event-4801.html)) where a David Rutledge claimed that mainstream projections about coal resources are overestimated by about 150%. I am not familiar enough with the subject to really analyze if his claims are plausible, but am assuming he can't be that far out there since his podcast is being hosted by calteck theatre.

The main justifications for his claims he shows are that he is using the same method King Hubbard used to accurately predict the peak oil production in the USA, that resource estimates tend to crash shortly after reaching peak production, and that future CO2 atmo concentrations projections are highly sensitive to changes in the estimated coal reserves.

I guess the 10 cent question is, are the two examples he used to justify that resource estimates tend to crash after reaching peak production representative of the world at large, or are they outliers?

A picture is worth a thousand words....

http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/3288/ukcoalreservehistorical.jpg

http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/2654/ipccvspeakcoalguyco2emi.jpg

Starwatcher162536
03-07-2010, 10:22 AM
I forgot to mention that he estimates a 460 CO2 atmo concentration by around 2075, a projection that many would say is still higher then we can afford.

Being a peak coal/gas/coal guy, he is a natural proponent of nuclear and renewables.

Starwatcher162536
03-11-2010, 09:44 PM
I have followed the recent discussions here about Peak Oil and found them most unsatisfying. No one linked to studys or highlighted perceived deficiencies in resource estimates, economic trendlines, or production gaps.

All of the threads [That I saw] were numerous permutations of one side saying that there is nothing to worry about, technological innovation will solve all our ills and the other side saying that we will eventually run out of mineable fossil fuels, but never even attempting to quantify their prediction.

Lots and lots of talking, but little actual information exchange.

TwinSwords
03-11-2010, 10:06 PM
... and the other side saying that we will eventually run out of mineable fossil fuels, but never even attempting to quantify their prediction.

Lots and lots of talking, but little actual information exchange.

Well, now that you've joined the discussion, you can fill in all the missing gaps for us. As soon as you post them, please point me to your quantification of predictions.

BTW: peak oil isn't so much a prediction as it is a mathematical certainty, given certain assumptions, like (a) inability to renew oil resources, and (b) continued growth in consumption of oil resources. I've never been focused on "quantifying the prediction," i.e., answering the impossible to answer question "when will oil resources run out," or "when will peak oil arrive." I've simply tried to point out to people that depletion is inevitable as long as the two premises hold. It's very noncontroversial, and yet people resist it mightily. I've had more success convincing chain smokers that cigarettes cause cancer.

Starwatcher162536
03-13-2010, 03:37 PM
Every single material humans have ever used to get us to where we are today has come from the top 1% of the earth. Merely saying that the earth holds finite resources and that at some undetermined point in the future demand will necessarily outstrip supply is not enough. Maybe that point is 10,000 years from now, maybe that point is 100,000 years from now, maybe that point is 1,000,000 years from now. Clearly one must also show that the peak production [This is the point in time that matters, since this is where wild price fluctuations will probably start] is close enough so we need to start planning for this now, instead of leaving it to our vastly technological superior descendants 1000+ years from now to deal with.

I am going to stick to coal since that is the topic I am most familiar with. I should add that no one thinks oil/gas will last as long as coal, so if I make even a mildly convincing case that coal will peak in the near future, that bodes ill for oil/gas reserves as well.

Details to follow.

AemJeff
03-13-2010, 03:41 PM
Every single material humans have ever used to get us to where we are today has come from the top 1% of the earth. Merely saying that the earth holds finite resources and that at some undetermined point in the future demand will necessarily outstrip supply is not enough. Maybe that point is 10,000 years from now, maybe that point is 100,000 years from now, maybe that point is 1,000,000 years from now. Clearly one must also show that the peak production [This is the point in time that matters, since this is where wild price fluctuations will probably start] is close enough so we need to start planning for this now, instead of leaving it to our vastly technological superior descendants 1000+ years from now to deal with.

I am going to stick to coal since that is the topic I am most familiar with. I should add that no one thinks oil/gas will last as long as coal, so if I make even a mildly convincing case that coal will peak in the near future, that bodes ill for oil/gas reserves as well.

Details to follow.

Clearly, given a finite volume and exponentially increasing needs, the point when demand outstrips supply isn't just some remote, almost abstract problem. It's harder to say if it comes five or fifty years hence, but it seems nearly certain that our current level of growth is unsustainable.

cragger
03-13-2010, 06:38 PM
Given that the Earth's crust averages less than 1% of the radius it's not particularly surprising that we get resources from that fraction. Nor surprising that the oil is there, not down in the mantle or core, what with it being an organic product and all.

If you are interested in predictions about the date of the oil peak, and data regarding production in various areas of the world go to ASPO as a starting point. The Oil Drum is a second potential source, on the front page of which is a current estimate from Kuwaiti researchers that the peak will occur in four years.

Starwatcher162536
03-16-2010, 03:44 AM
I guess the first part is to show that history suggests that technological innovation does not offset our constantly increasing demand for coal and coal's depletion in the Earth. The lines do indeed cross.

A) The most common objection to peak X is that improvements in extraction and detection technology will be able to offset or nearly offset what we use annually, thereby extending the point where lack of supply comes into play far into the distant future. At least for coal, history suggests otherwise. The world's estimated coal reserves have been revised downwards in an almost monotonic way.

From the Energy Watch Group's 2008 Coal Report
http://img686.imageshack.us/img686/4530/ewghistoricalresourceas.jpg

So in the last 30 years the world's estimated coal resource has been revised downwards by around 50%, absent a sudden Cambrian explosion in E&D technology, it is foolhardy to plan society around the assumption that we will begin to discover quantities of coal sufficient to reverse the trend.

For those who choose to fixate on the large resource numbers; The USGS just did a spot check in the Gillette coalfields located within the Powder River Basin (The most prolific coalfield in the US) in order to get an estimate of what % of the resource we can expect to be recoverable.

From the Abstract

Eleven coal beds were evaluated to determine the in-place coal resources. Six of the eleven coal beds were evaluated for reserve potential given current technology, economic factors, and restrictions to mining. These restrictions included the presence of railroads, a Federal interstate highway, cities, a gas plant, and alluvial valley floors. Other restrictions, such as thickness of overburden, thickness of coal beds, and areas of burned coal were also considered. The total original coal resource in the Gillette coalfield for all eleven coal beds assessed, and no restrictions applied, was calculated to be 201 billion short tons. Available coal resources, which are part of the original coal resource that is accessible for potential mine development after subtracting all restrictions, are about 164 billion short tons (81 percent of the original coal resource). Recoverable coal, which is the portion of available coal remaining after subtracting mining and processing losses, was determined for a stripping ratio of 10:1 or less. After mining and processing losses were subtracted, a total of 77 billion short tons of coal were calculated (48 percent of the original coal resource). Coal reserves are the portion of the recoverable coal that can be mined, processed, and marketed at a profit at the time of the economic evaluation. With a discounted cash flow at 8 percent rate of return, the coal reserves estimate for the Gillette coalfield is 10.1 billion short tons of coal (6 percent of the original resource total) for the 6 coal beds evaluated.

Also, from this (http://www.tsl.uu.se/uhdsg/Publications/PCC_Article.pdf) report
http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/3064/depletioncurve.jpg

B) One metric that can be used to quantify the difficulty of extraction is the EROEI (Energy returned over energy invested).

http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/9665/eroeiexplainedviapictur.jpg

If E&D technology improvements are the leading term we would expect to see the EROEI to be increasing. Consumption would over time be shifting to higher rank* coal, efficiency improvements would compensate for having to mine coal that is more dispersed, detection improvements would find new sources of easy coal faster then we deplete the old sources,etc.

If coal depletion is the leading term we would expect to see the EROEI to be decreasing. Once the EROEI falls below one, it's game over for coal.

The EROEI has decreased from around 80 in the 1910's to around 30 at present. I don't have a link atm.

Also
http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/568/ewguscoalproductiondeli.jpg


*Anthracite: 30 MJ/kg Bituminous coal: 18.8–29.3 MJ/kg
Subbituminous coal: 8.3–25 MJ/kg Lignite: 5.5–14.3 MJ/kg. The moisture contend also increases as one moves from Anthracite to Lignite.

Here is a link (http://www.prosefights.org/coal/northantelope/northantelope.htm) which show some pictures that illustrate well why it's hard to improve production rates while simultaneously improving EROEI.

Wow, I have never bothered to much so much effort towards an internet post before. /Sigh, what lonely nights do to a person.

TwinSwords
03-16-2010, 07:01 AM
Extremely interesting. Thanks for putting it all together.

bjkeefe
03-19-2010, 01:14 AM
Montreal Gazette (http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/Wacky+winter+signal+years+come+Climatologist/2663423/story.html), via LGF (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/35979_Record-Shattering_Warm_Winter_Stuns_Canadian_Climate_Scie ntists#rss):

From the balmy Arctic, to the open water of the St. Lawrence and snowless western fields, this winter has been the warmest and driest in Canadian record books.

Environment Canada scientists report that winter 2009/10 was 4 C above normal, making it the warmest since nationwide records were first kept in 1948. It was also the driest winter on the 63-year record, with precipitation 22 per cent below normal nationally, and down 60 per cent in parts of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario.

"It's beyond shocking," David Phillips, a senior climatologist with Environment Canada, told Canwest News Tuesday. Records have been shattered from "coast to coast to coast."

"It is truly a remarkable situation," says Phillips, noting that he's seen nothing like it in his 40 years of weather watching. He also warns that "the winter than wasn't" may have set the stage for potentially "horrific" water shortages, insect infestations and wildfires this summer.

To be clear, some of the reasons given are more to do with transient phenomena. However:

Spring does not officially start until March 20, but Environment Canada classifies winter as December through February and has just finished pulling together data from across the country. The department's report was quietly posted online this week.

It says the long-term record shows Canada's climate has changed, most markedly in the winter, which has warmed 2.5 C over the last 63 years.

"The winter season shows the greatest warming of any season, but all seasons have shown a warming trend since 1948," says the summary. Of the 10 warmest winters, four have occurred within the last decade, and 11 of the last 20 winters are listed among the 20 warmest.

And before we all start with the nyuk, nyuk, what's so bad about Canada getting a little warmer in the winter, this:

The warm, dry winter could spell big trouble this summer. "One of the greatest things about our winter is it kills bugs and diseases and resets the clock for us," says Phillips. Or, it used to. He says many pests are sure to be thriving after this year's warm winter.

SkepticDoc
03-24-2010, 10:33 AM
Nobody is going to drown here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/cif-green/2010/mar/24/india-bangladesh-sea-levels

bjkeefe
04-02-2010, 03:34 PM
Though you'll probably not hear much about it in the MSM, except maybe if the denialists howl about it loud enough (NRO (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTFiZmEyZTFiMGM2N2Y1Njg1Y2FiYzg5NTY5NTNhMDU=) is already calling it a "whitewash") that the NYT or somebody like them will run a lazy-ass "controversies remain" filler piece, this is about the end of it (http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/03/31/climate.change/index.html?hpt=T2) (via (http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/03/31/sadly-al-gore-is-still-fat-so-im-not-sure-anyone-will-care/)):

UK lawmakers take heat off 'Climategate' scientist

London, England (CNN) -- The UK scientist at the center of the "Climategate" controversy over leaked e-mails has been cleared of hiding or manipulating data by a parliamentary committee.

[...]

The Commons report said the leaked emails suggested a "blunt refusal" by Jones to share scientific data but its chairman Phil Willis said there was no evidence that Jones hid or manipulated data to back up his own science.

"The focus on Professor Jones and CRU has been largely misplaced," the report said. "On the accusations relating to Professor Jones's refusal to share raw data and computer codes, the committee considers that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community but that those practices need to change."

Much of the controversy focused on one particular e-mail that Jones sent relating to the preparation of a figure for the WMO Statement on the Status of the Global Climate in 1999. He wrote: "I've just completed 'Mike's Nature trick' of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years ... to hide the decline."

But the Commons committee cleared him of malpractice here too, concluding: "On the much cited phrases in the leaked e-mails -- "trick" and "hiding the decline" -- the committee considers that they were colloquial terms used in private e-mails and the balance of evidence is that they were not part of a systematic attempt to mislead.

"Insofar as the Committee was able to consider accusations of dishonesty against CRU, the Committee considers that there is no case to answer."

From another report, in the Guardian:

The committee's report entitled The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/science_technology/s_t_cru_inquiry.cfm), said the focus on Jones and the CRU in the row about the hacked emails had been "largely misplaced" and that "on accusations relating to freedom of information, we consider that much of the responsibility should lie with UEA, not CRU". In evidence to the inquiry, Jones admitted that he had sent some "awful emails" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/01/phil-jones-climate-science-emails-select-committee-hearing).

"He probably wishes that emails were never invented," said [MP and Committee chair Phil] Willis at a press conference. "But apart from that we do believe that Prof Jones has in many ways been scapegoated as a result of what really was a frustration on his part that people were asking for information purely to undermine his research."

Willis said that while the committee recognised Jones's frustration, this was "no excuse" for not responding properly to FOI requests. "It is important in terms of scientific endeavour that that material is made available," said Willis. He added that the committee accepted that Jones had released all the data that he was able to.

If you're still interested in this story, the whole Guardian article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/31/climate-mails-inquiry-jones-cleared) is pretty comprehensive, and note the link to the full report in the blockquote.

Looks like the truth (http://www.quotesdaddy.com/quote/280702/Winston+Churchill/a-lie-gets-halfway-around-the-world-before-the-truth) finally got its pants on.

Now, 'fur (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=152806#post152806), please...loosen that tie and climb down off that chair.

Starwatcher162536
04-02-2010, 10:20 PM
"The focus on Professor Jones and CRU has been largely misplaced," the report said. "On the accusations relating to Professor Jones's refusal to share raw data and computer codes, the committee considers that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community but that those practices need to change."

At first I took the stand that all raw data (where legally permitting) and code should be made public, but after thinking some, I've had to revise my opinion.

I still believe all "raw data*" should be made public, but code should not be. Making code public will exacerbate errors being propogated among the different working groups.

*Whatever that means

bjkeefe
04-02-2010, 10:40 PM
At first I took the stand that all raw data (where legally permitting) and code should be made public, but after thinking some, I've had to revise my opinion.

I still believe all "raw data*" should be made public, but code should not be. Making code public will exacerbate errors being propogated among the different working groups.

*Whatever that means

In one sense, I'd be okay with the requirement that all data be made public, but then I think this should apply to all data in all scientific fields. Take, for example, medical research, a lot of which is done with at least some public support, either by direct funding or by tax breaks given for R&D. How likely is it that these data are going to be shared?

I also think there is something that applies to raw data as you worry about regarding making code public. It is often the case that data collected by sensors and other automated equipment has to be corrected before it can be further analyzed. I spent quite a few years doing just this -- processing data at a first pass that was known to have artifacts in it from the peculiarities of the system, the way it was encoded, etc. What do you do about people who don't do these steps (or don't know to)?

Further, if you've got people who are determined to fiddle with the data to get a preconceived result, how much of a nuisance is it going to be if they're forever doing this and then running to some bonehead reporter to make a big fuss about some "shocking!" result? Who is going to check their work?

Also, there is the problem of paying to make it accessible. This, as I understand it, lay at the root of at least part of the East Anglia problems -- it takes time and money to make data available. At the very least, it has to be posted on a server somewhere, which means storage, bandwidth, and maintenance costs. Very probably, there will also be a need for some auxiliary documentation that describes how to read or otherwise interpret the data. Should a team that is already struggling to make ends meet to do their real work have to set aside some fraction of their funding to do that? Or should those who want the data have to pay those costs? And if the latter, then you have another layer of cost -- an accountant, at the very least.

Finally, there is a free-rider problem of sorts. Suppose you are part of a team that works for years to push a grant through and collect data, and then someone else takes your data and publishes from it, without having done any of the grunt work to collect it or to secure funding to make its collection possible in the first place?

So, in the ideal sense, yes -- I'm all for data sharing. But there are non-trivial practical considerations that can't just be waved aside.

bjkeefe
04-04-2010, 09:53 AM
Though you'll probably not hear much about it in the MSM, ...

Thank the FSM for Rachel Maddow, at least. And listener (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=157555#post157555).

bjkeefe
04-08-2010, 01:39 PM
Ken Layne (http://wonkette.com/414716/virginia-remembers-slavery-idiot-smokes-in-airplane-lavatory):

Glacier National Park has lost two more of its namesake glaciers. But … it snowed in Washington in February! [Discovery News (http://news.discovery.com/earth/glacier-national-park-warming.html)]

listener
04-08-2010, 03:40 PM
Thank the FSM for Rachel Maddow, at least. And listener (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=157555#post157555).

Thanks for the shout out, Brendan. And once again, you have sent me scurrying to my computer (oh wait, I'm already at my computer) to decode the latest (to me) webspeak abbreviation. "Flying Spaghetti Monster?"

Oh, and speaking of the main topic of that RM segment, here's the latest (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/36204129#36204129) from her on the redoubtable Mr. James O'Keefe and his lovely associate, Miss Giles, of ACORN-deception fame. (Be warned -- it will take 12 minutes of your life to watch it.)

AemJeff
04-08-2010, 03:49 PM
"Flying Spaghetti Monster?"


http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/picture.php?albumid=1&pictureid=16

listener
04-08-2010, 03:59 PM
...

Gotcha. As the Good Book says (Pastafarians 28:3): "And verily, on the 2,458,943,186,924th day, the FSM created Rachel Maddow so that she might be a boon to humankind and shineth her light upon the hypocrites among ye."

bjkeefe
04-08-2010, 04:40 PM
Oh, and speaking of the main topic of that RM segment, here's the latest (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/36204129#36204129) from her on the redoubtable Mr. James O'Keefe and his lovely associate, Miss Giles, of ACORN-deception fame. (Be warned -- it will take 12 minutes of your life to watch it.)

Thanks. A worthwhile 12 minutes.

But saddening. Those two pieces of lying scum and the amplification of Fox News, Andrew Breitbart, and hate radio exacted a heavy cost -- on who knows how many poor people -- and none of them will be held accountable for their lies.

Once again, that old saying is true (http://www.quotesdaddy.com/quote/280702/Winston+Churchill/a-lie-gets-halfway-around-the-world-before-the-truth).

TwinSwords
04-08-2010, 05:15 PM
I'm simply stunned by the quality of the work Rachel Maddow does day in and day out. But I honestly don't know why she's alone in doing these kinds of reports.

Thanks for posting the link, listener.

TwinSwords
04-08-2010, 05:25 PM
And, to be perfectly honest, that Maddow video should be its own thread. There are about 4 of us who read these massive/all encompassing threads, and we're basically just sharing information among ourselves -- the people who least need to see it. Why not a big blaring subject line "ACORN / Fox News Lies Exposed!" that would be visible right on the main forum page?

This video from Maddow is easily as newsworthy as any 25 or 50 of the empty, zero-response threads that JonIrenicus has ever started.

Added: We should also be posting these links in the diavlog forum, where there are exponentially more readers.

listener
04-08-2010, 05:35 PM
Thanks. A worthwhile 12 minutes.

I'm glad you found it so.

But saddening. Those two pieces of lying scum and the amplification of Fox News, Andrew Breitbart, and hate radio exacted a heavy cost -- on who knows how many poor people -- and none of them will be held accountable for their lies.

Once again, that old saying is true (http://www.quotesdaddy.com/quote/280702/Winston+Churchill/a-lie-gets-halfway-around-the-world-before-the-truth).

Don't get me started on Mark Twain (http://www.quotesdaddy.com/quote/1040316/mark-twain/a-lie-can-travel-halfway-around-the-world-while-the). A true iconoclast of deep humanity and wit, and one of my heroes. I know I've been hawking PBS documentaries to of late (well, the one on LBJ anyhow), but the Ken Burns documentary on Twain (http://www.pbs.org/marktwain/) is awesome, especially if you don't know a whole lot about the man's life.

Whatfur
04-15-2010, 03:33 PM
When facts get in the way. (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/162b0c58-47f5-11df-b998-00144feab49a.html)

Whatfur
04-15-2010, 08:11 PM
Painting the fence. (http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/04/climategate_whitewash.html)

Whatfur
04-22-2010, 10:10 PM
40 years and counting. (http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20100422_Earth_Day__40_years_of_imminent_catastrop he.html)

Starwatcher162536
04-23-2010, 01:57 AM
As you can see here (http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl), there was some cooling from around 1940ish to 1970ish. This lead some to start to question if a ice age could be imminent, which then lead to the Bryson and Dittberner (1976) paper, which in short, claimed that particulate matter released from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels would decrease insolation to such an extent that not only would it mitigate any warming from CO2, but it would also cool the Earth. (This is popularly known as Global Dimming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming))

It was later shown that the paper was critically flawed, as it did not account for CO2's residency time in the atmosphere being much longer then the aerosols residency time (CO2 will build up in the atmosphere much more then the aerosols will). Source (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter1.pdf) (Page 6)

Throughout the 1970's, around 10% of papers were pro-cooling, with another 10% making not siding with AGC or AGW (See attached PDF), yet for whatever reason, Times and Newsweek ran with Global Cooling. I personally think it was because it is easier to sensationalize AGC then AGW.

Then again, this is another link you don't actually agree with, but just thought was intersting, right? ...right?

Whatfur
04-23-2010, 08:25 AM
Then again, this is another link you don't actually agree with, but just thought was intersting, right? ...right?

Do you stutter?

There are few articles I agree with entirely. Just posted a speech from Bill Clinton, did I not? But yeah, the primary point was what I was helping push here...i.e. 40 years of getting it wrong. Glad you found something in it to wrap your arms around or pick up and throw at me as the case may be.

graz
04-24-2010, 12:11 AM
40 years and counting. (http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20100422_Earth_Day__40_years_of_imminent_catastrop he.html)

Reading skills required. (http://doghouseriley.blogspot.com/2010/04/whats-that-smell.html)

Whatfur
04-24-2010, 11:31 AM
American Thinker, Brian Sussman (http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/04/earth_day_an_assault_on_man.html)

Whatfur
04-24-2010, 02:17 PM
How now brown cow?
Who knew? Whale poo? (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100423/od_afp/australiaanimalwhalesoffbeat)

Whatfur
04-29-2010, 08:59 AM
Who'da guessed that one had to read past the headlines... (http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/04/the_climategate_investigation.html)

Whatfur
05-23-2010, 10:45 AM
Global Warming? Not so much. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/21/un-biodiversity-economic-report)

Whatfur
05-25-2010, 05:29 PM
Ahhhh...so sad. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/science/earth/25climate.html)

bjkeefe
05-26-2010, 12:33 AM
Ahhhh...so sad. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/science/earth/25climate.html)

I agree. It is sad that the English are starting to fall for the same bullshit as the American wingnuts love to gobble up.

Especially given reality (http://climateprogress.org/2010/05/16/nasa-easily-the-hottest-january-and-hottest-jan-april-in-temperature-record/).

But you keep crowing about your side's disinformation campaigns, 'fur. Fiddle, while the planet burns.

Whatfur
05-26-2010, 06:12 AM
I agree. It is sad that the English are starting to fall for the same bullshit as the American wingnuts love to gobble up.

Especially given reality (http://climateprogress.org/2010/05/16/nasa-easily-the-hottest-january-and-hottest-jan-april-in-temperature-record/).

But you keep crowing about your side's disinformation campaigns, 'fur. Fiddle, while the planet burns.


Actually and obviously, it was "your side's disinformation campaign" that has caused the change... and were you not always blasting those who quoted weather reports as proof. You have kind of lost it, Mr. Keefe.

In any case, before I go back to ignoring you I wanted to welcome you to my blog (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=15). (I knew my alluding to that in the other thread might get you slithering back into view. Ha!!) I did bounce into yours the other day. Pretty quiet place...like 8 comments in 2 months and half of them YOU. I guess it peaked when "Brendan's Mom" was posting there. Peace and love, my friend.

bjkeefe
05-26-2010, 02:14 PM
Actually and obviously, it was "your side's disinformation campaign" that has caused the change... and were you not always blasting those who quoted weather reports as proof. You have kind of lost it, Mr. Keefe.

A year's worth of data, confirming a prior prediction, is not a "weather report," 'fur. Keep up with the standard wingnut DENY DENY DENY noise, though. It's clear you have nothing else in this area.

In any case, before I go back to ignoring you I wanted to welcome you to my blog (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=15).

What's the matter? Clownhall (http://whatfur.blogtownhall.com/default.aspx) banned you from posting?

But thanks for confirming the third-party observation I received via PM a couple of weeks ago:

Life, the Universe etc., has now become Fur's little 1-man insane asylum.

I did bounce into yours the other day.

Sad that someone over 50 has so little to amuse himself that the best he can come up with is lurking on a blog run by someone he hates.

However, ...

I guess it peaked when "Brendan's Mom" was posting there.

... nice that you're finally able to admit, however obliquely, to doing something you lied about earlier. Baby steps, but at least they're in the right direction. Perhaps by the time you're one hundred, you'll actually be able to take responsibility for your own words, even when posted under a pseudonym. Courage, 'fur, courage! (It's more than just fantasizing about beating people up.)

Whatfur
05-26-2010, 03:24 PM
LOL!

kezboard
05-26-2010, 03:29 PM
Fur, why don't you just start a Twitter account?

Whatfur
05-26-2010, 04:17 PM
Fur, why don't you just start a Twitter account?

And that would gain me what?

graz
05-26-2010, 04:26 PM
And that would gain me what?

No. We would gain, because we might be fortunate enough to lose you (the loser).

But it won't happen, because just like your failed blog (http://whatfur.blogtownhall.com/default.aspx), twitter monitors followers. You are not the type to accept that you have little value beyond being a nuisance to a captive audience.

Whatfur
05-26-2010, 04:45 PM
And that would gain me what?

...because I get quite a few hits and figure I provide a public service by providing articles from the other side of the fence in a place where you don't have to go searching for them. Anyone can always choose to ignore them, but as you can see, even those that only look to riducule me...still come to read. Maybe someday their light bulb will go on...of course I am not counting the days.

Whatfur
05-27-2010, 10:49 PM
Ahhhh...so sad. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/science/earth/25climate.html)

Background that makes it even sadder. NYT...straight news. (http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/05/25/now-that-its-over-the-grey-lady-sings/)

bjkeefe
05-28-2010, 04:56 AM
Ahhhh...so sad. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/science/earth/25climate.html)

Since you are so impressed at "scientific truth" as determined by opinion surveys of the general population, I would be interested in hearing your reaction to this section (http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/7990/wingnutsciencebydemocra.png) of the current front page (http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page) of Conservapedia ("The Trustworthy Encyclopedia"):

http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/7990/wingnutsciencebydemocra.png

(If it's not still the featured article by the time you get around to reading this, here's the direct link (http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution) to the whole thing.)

In other words, 'fur, in addition to being a global warming denialist, are you also a creationist? And if not, why not?

bjkeefe
05-31-2010, 06:49 PM
... for those who aren't determined to remain denialists no matter what:

1. Johann Hari: Deniers - apologise for Climategate (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-deniers--apologise-for-climategate-1965395.html)

2. Bradford Plummer: The National Academies Take On Global Warming (http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-vine/75047/the-national-academies-take-global-warming-yet-again)

3. (The source for the above two) The Editors at The Poor Man Institute: Also: fuckin’ magnets – how do they work? (http://thepoorman.net/2010/05/19/also-fuckin-magnets-how-do-they-work/)

bjkeefe
06-06-2010, 05:06 AM
And he posted another one yesterday (http://crookedtimber.org/2010/03/03/lindzen-and-no-statistically-significant-warming-since-1995/) that meets the same standard. This time he focuses on one of the few denialists with actual scientific credentials, Richard Lindzen of MIT (Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen), SourceWatch (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Lindzen)). The first, second, and sixth links he supplies are well worth following. [...]

As a side note, another of the big-name denialists (besides Lindzen) was mentioned in the bit I quoted in the last post:

[...]

But where did this silliness come from? I’d seen Janet Albrechtsen quote Lord Monckton (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/heated-moments-mar-monckton/story-e6frg6zo-1225821369435) on the point, and it seemed about right for him, an innumerate debating point that would take a fair while to refute, during which time he could move on to the next one.

[...]

I'm pretty sure (http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Abloggingheads.tv&q=Monkton+OR+Monckton) Monckton has been referred to as an authority by one or more of our resident denialists elsewhere on this site, so I thought I'd pass along a more recent post regarding him (emph. added):

Monckton dissected

Christopher Monckton, that pompous know-nothing who professes to be an expert on climate change and doesn't believe in it, gave a talk here in Minnesota last fall, at a little Christian college called Bethel University (which curiously has a biology department that manages to never once mention evolution in its curriculum (http://cas.bethel.edu/catalog/acadprog/dept/biology.html), just to give you an idea of what it's like). That talk infuriated a professor at another Christian university — but one that doesn't try to hide away from the evidence — who has put together a rebuttal of Monckton's claims (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/jun/03/monckton-us-climate-change-talk-denial). Would you believe that essentally all of the studies Monckton cited as supporting his claims about the nonexistence of global warming actually said the exact opposite? It was so bad it's impressive — it's as if you don't have to actually read and understand research papers if you've convinced yourself that they say what you want them to say.

John Abraham has put together a thorough presentation on the follies of Monckton (http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/). Good stuff!

[source (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/06/monckton_dissected.php)]

bjkeefe
06-10-2010, 07:47 PM
Once upon a time on this site, certain of the commenters attempted to justify their AGW "skepticism" by referring to something known as the Oregon Petition (e.g. (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=138620&highlight=oregon#post138620)).

On that note, he clumsily segued, let us turn to the sure-fire cure that is Michael Bérubé (http://crookedtimber.org/2010/06/07/advanced-agnotology/). Here he is, reacting to some group calling itself the National Association of Scholars, who in addition to their tireless work combating the ravages of Librul Bias!!!1! on college campuses, has joined in with the global warming denialist crowd in seeking to harass atmospheric scientists by tying them up in red tape and nuisance "investigations:"

I have four responses to this. First and foremost, public accountability in matters of science is crucial. Somewhere in that pile of grant applications, letters, and emails, surely, is “smoking gun” proof of Michael Mann’s wrongdoing; indeed, I suspect that Attorney General Cuccinelli is looking for, and will find, the legendary “bwah hah hah” diary entry in which Mann writes, “Today! Today is the day that I will perform the ‘trick’ that hides the decline! And then the entire planet will kneel before Zod as I institute ‘cap and trade’ socialism around the world.” There is also a rumor that the files contain a valuable photograph of Mann and colleague Phil Jones rubbing their hands together in glee, as well as a LOLcat captioned, “IM IN UR NATUR / HIDIN TEH DECLINE.” Finally, and most importantly, if the files turn out to weigh the same as a duck, they must be made of wood, and I’m sure you can all draw the obvious conclusion from that. So yes, the public needs to know.

Also, his remark about bow-tied twerp Tucker Carlson KC Johnson (cf. (http://www.google.com/images?q=KC%20Johnson&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi)), a little later on in the post, is a masterpiece of subtlety.

For a more extensive look at agnotology, be sure to follow Michael's links (repeated here (http://crookedtimber.org/2010/05/03/the-oregon-petition-a-case-study-in-agnotology/), here (http://crookedtimber.org/2010/05/05/agnotology-followup/), and here (http://crookedtimber.org/2010/05/08/ignorance-is-strength/)) to John Quiggin's three posts, which start with the Oregon Petition and then move on to take a more general look at this phenomenon. (Agnotology is the new epistemic closure!) Well worth the time of anyone who wonders how the far right manages to sustain its pride in its willful ignorance.

bjkeefe
06-20-2010, 06:21 PM
[...]

For a more extensive look at agnotology, be sure to follow Michael's links (repeated here (http://crookedtimber.org/2010/05/03/the-oregon-petition-a-case-study-in-agnotology/), here (http://crookedtimber.org/2010/05/05/agnotology-followup/), and here (http://crookedtimber.org/2010/05/08/ignorance-is-strength/)) to John Quiggin's three posts, which start with the Oregon Petition and then move on to take a more general look at this phenomenon. (Agnotology is the new epistemic closure!) Well worth the time of anyone who wonders how the far right manages to sustain its pride in its willful ignorance.

More on this from Thers (http://whiskeyfire.typepad.com/whiskey_fire/2010/05/id-hear-the-talking-through-the-wall-1.html), who agrees that agnotology is preferable to epistemic closure, though not as good as "episeptic cloacture," but ends up arguing:

... on the whole I rather more dearly prefer the Bourdieuian idea of allodoxia ...

Whatfur
06-21-2010, 08:37 AM
More global warming deaths caused by tropical storms...in Alberta. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/science/alberta-scientists-discover-largest-bed-of-dinosaur-bones/article1608423/)

bjkeefe
06-21-2010, 03:15 PM
More global warming deaths caused by tropical storms...in Alberta. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/science/alberta-scientists-discover-largest-bed-of-dinosaur-bones/article1608423/)

Are you saying that in addition to being an AGW denialist, you also don't believe in the theory of plate tectonics?

Whatfur
06-21-2010, 05:53 PM
Are you saying that in addition to being an AGW denialist, you also don't believe in the theory of plate tectonics?

Talk about non-sequiturs.

bjkeefe
06-21-2010, 05:54 PM
Talk about non-sequiturs.

Talk about them if you like, but I'm pretty sure that flew over no one else's head.

Whatfur
06-21-2010, 05:56 PM
Talk about them if you like, but I'm pretty sure that flew over no one else's head.

I would then be interested in your explanation.

bjkeefe
06-21-2010, 06:34 PM
I would then be interested in your explanation.

I think it would be a useful exercise for you to think about it for a while.

Whatfur
06-21-2010, 06:47 PM
I think it would be a useful exercise for you to think about it for a while.

I actually wanted you to tell everyone how the fact that the North American plate have been moving south since that time would be a factor in your equation.

bjkeefe
06-21-2010, 11:00 PM
I actually wanted you to tell everyone how the fact that the North American plate have been moving south since that time would be a factor in your equation.

Well, we don't always get what we want, do we?

Think about it some more.

Whatfur
06-21-2010, 11:39 PM
Well, we don't always get what we want, do we?

Think about it some more.

Whatever Doogie.

bjkeefe
06-21-2010, 11:55 PM
Whatever Doogie.

Since you appear to be saying you would rather not think, I will say that I am saddened but unsurprised.

Whatfur
06-24-2010, 10:39 PM
Jim Manzi...

"In fact, it is the uncertainties in our understanding that are the most compelling driver of rational action. And a massive carbon tax or a cap-and-trade rationing system would likely cost more than the damages it would prevent. Either would be an impractical, panicky reaction that would be both more expensive and less effective than targeted technology development in the event that we ever have to confront the actual danger"

There is something for everyone in this. (http://www.tnr.com/blog/critics/75757/why-the-decision-tackle-climate-change-isn%E2%80%99t-simple-al-gore-says?page=0,0)

bjkeefe
06-24-2010, 11:00 PM
Jim Manzi...

"In fact, it is the uncertainties in our understanding that are the most compelling driver of rational action. And a massive carbon tax or a cap-and-trade rationing system would likely cost more than the damages it would prevent. Either would be an impractical, panicky reaction that would be both more expensive and less effective than targeted technology development in the event that we ever have to confront the actual danger"

There is something for everyone in this. (http://www.tnr.com/blog/critics/75757/why-the-decision-tackle-climate-change-isn%E2%80%99t-simple-al-gore-says?page=0,0)

Two points: First, if we could get to the point where denial of AGW was widely considered a lunatic fringe view, maybe there would be fewer alarmists at the other extreme, and we could have some more sensible discussions about what steps we should take. Here is an example link (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_062907/content/01125114.guest.html) from Manzi to show how far we have to go in this department. As long as a big part of one side of the political spectrum views this only as a political battle to be won or lost, we're going to get (and need) counterweights.

As far as I can tell, we can and should start reducing the dumping of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere now -- as part of the solution -- and it is irresponsible to take Manzi's position, which is essentially "don't worry, new technology will be come along, and that will be sufficient." I think some sort of price incentive to reduce greenhouse gases will both help spur the development of new technology and will be a positive step in and of itself; e.g., to encourage conservation. This price incentive need not be "massive," as Manzi false-dichotomy-ishly says, at least not to start. We could, for example, ratchet it up over the course of years, to give people time to adjust. (And adopt new technology, as part of that adjustment.)

I also don't think we should have any more confidence in hundred-year economic forecasts than we do in long-term climate forecasts; in fact, I have considerably less. (Who can say what the impact of Manzi's new technologies might produce, just to name one huge area of uncertainty?) It should also be noted that even if Manzi's extrapolations are more or less true, he's glossing over the reality that these costs will not be distributed evenly. There are some people who are going to be well and truly fucked if the planet warms up, even if it's only by three or four degrees Celsius.

To his credit, Manzi does acknowledge some of these uncertainties. And all in all, this was a useful read. Thanks.

Second, a bonus from clicking your link was being made aware of TNR's new "In-House Critic Blog (http://www.tnr.com/blog/critics/75762/the-house-critics-keeping-tnr-honest)." Sounds like a good idea, and I hope they add to the stable of contributors.

bjkeefe
06-25-2010, 06:10 PM
Second, a bonus from clicking your link was being made aware of TNR's new "In-House Critic Blog (http://www.tnr.com/blog/critics/75762/the-house-critics-keeping-tnr-honest)." Sounds like a good idea, and I hope they add to the stable of contributors.

Matt Yglesias (http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/06/debating-debate/) appears to be less enamored of this idea.

bjkeefe
06-25-2010, 10:42 PM
Sean Carroll tweets (http://twitter.com/seanmcarroll/status/17055547167):

Props to Sharon Begley (@newsweek (http://twitter.com/newsweek)) for setting record straight on Climategate http://bit.ly/dmAivZ (via @pzmyers (http://twitter.com/pzmyers))

That bit.ly link, expanded, is here (http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-gaggle/2010/06/25/newspapers-retract-climategate-claims-but-damage-still-done.html), if you're nervous about clicking on such things. It begins as follows.

Newspapers Retract 'Climategate' Claims, but Damage Still Done

A lie can get halfway around the world while the truth is still putting its boots on, as Mark Twain (http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/23633.html) said (or “before the truth gets a chance to put its pants on,” in Winston Churchill’s (http://www.quotedb.com/quotes/1350) version), and nowhere has that been more true than in "climategate." In that highly orchestrated, manufactured scandal, e-mails hacked from computers at the University of East Anglia’s climate-research group (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/) were spread around the Web by activists who deny that human activity is altering the world’s climate in a dangerous way, and spun so as to suggest that the scientists had been lying, cheating, and generally cooking the books.

But not only did British investigators clear (http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/oxburgh) the East Anglia scientist at the center of it all, Phil Jones, of scientific impropriety and dishonesty in April, an investigation at Penn State cleared (http://www.research.psu.edu/orp/Findings_Mann_Inquiry.pdf) PSU climatologist Michael Mann (http://www.meteo.psu.edu/%7Emann/Mann/index.html) of “falsifying or suppressing data, intending to delete or conceal e-mails and information, and misusing privileged or confidential information” in February. In perhaps the biggest backpedaling, The Sunday Times of London, which led the media pack in charging that IPCC reports were full of egregious (and probably intentional) errors, retracted its central claim—namely, that the IPCC statement that up to 40 percent of the Amazonian rainforest could be vulnerable to climate change was “unsubstantiated.” The Times also admitted that it had totally twisted the remarks of one forest expert to make it sound as if he agreed that the IPCC had screwed up, when he said no such thing.

It’s worth quoting the retraction at some length:

The rest (http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-gaggle/2010/06/25/newspapers-retract-climategate-claims-but-damage-still-done.html).

All together now ... THIS PROVES THE MEDIA IS LIBERALLY BIASED!!!1!

bjkeefe
06-26-2010, 01:20 AM
Maybe!

NOAA: May Global Temperature is Warmest on Record
Spring and January-May also post record breaking temps

June 15, 2010

The combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the warmest on record for May, March-May (Northern Hemisphere spring-Southern Hemisphere autumn), and the period January-May according to NOAA. Worldwide average land surface temperature for May and March-May was the warmest on record while the global ocean surface temperatures for both May and March-May were second warmest on record, behind 1998.

The rest (http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100615_globalstats.html) (via (http://twitter.com/ClimateDebate/status/16965709551)).

bjkeefe
07-07-2010, 11:51 AM
'fur (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=152806#post152806): "please...loosen that tie and climb down off that chair." Everything's gonna be all right (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/08/science/earth/08climate.html).

British Panel Clears Climate Scientists
By JUSTIN GILLIS
Published: July 7, 2010

A British panel issued a sweeping exoneration on Wednesday of scientists caught up in the controversy known as Climategate, saying it found no evidence that they had manipulated their research to support preconceived ideas about global warming.

The researcher at the center of the controversy, a leading climatologist named Phil Jones, was immediately reinstated to a job resembling his old one at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia. That unit, often referred to by its initials, has played a leading role in efforts to understand the earth’s past climate.

Embarrassing e-mail messages sent by Dr. Jones and other scientists were stolen in November and posted to the Internet, leading to a deluge of accusations from climate change skeptics as well as admissions from some of the scientists that they had been guilty of poor behavior.

But were they, as the skeptics charged, guilty of scientific misconduct?

“On the specific allegations made against the behavior of C.R.U. scientists, we find that their rigor and honesty as scientists are not in doubt,” said the new review (http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf), led by Muir Russell, a leading British civil servant and educator.

The Russell panel also found little reason to question the advice the scientists had given to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations body that produces a major review of the science of global warming every few years. The new report said that “we did not find any evidence of behavior that might undermine the conclusions of the I.P.C.C. assessments.”

The review was the fifth to come to essentially the same conclusion about the e-mail messages sent by Dr. Jones and other scientists, though it was the most comprehensive and eagerly awaited of the investigations. Last week the second of two reviews at Pennsylvania State University (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/02/science/earth/02climate.html) exonerated Michael Mann (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/michael-mann/), a scientist there who had also been a focus of the controversy.

(previously (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=168175#post168175))

uncle ebeneezer
07-07-2010, 11:59 AM
Boy. Stealing emails and then spewing them into the webo-sphere, (out of context) to try and prove insane conspiracy theories seems to be quite the past-time for some, these days.

Whatfur
07-08-2010, 04:14 PM
Boy. Stealing emails and then spewing them into the webo-sphere, (out of context) to try and prove insane conspiracy theories seems to be quite the past-time for some, these days.

Fortunately or unfortunately, Dr. Jones being cleared of supposed wrongdoing and given a new job by those who wish the issue to just disappear will not provide any new credibility for the CRW, EA, U.N, the IPCC or any combination thereof.

handle
07-08-2010, 07:50 PM
Fortunately or unfortunately, Dr. Jones being cleared of supposed wrongdoing and given a new job by those who wish the issue to just disappear will not provide any new credibility for the CRW, EA, U.N, the IPCC or any combination thereof.

The towers were brought down by super-thermite you morons! You just paint it on the steel supports and when the time comes, poof!

Whatfur
07-08-2010, 10:34 PM
Fortunately or unfortunately, Dr. Jones being cleared of supposed wrongdoing and given a new job by those who wish the issue to just disappear will not provide any new credibility for the CRW, EA, U.N, the IPCC or any combination thereof.

I should add for those too lazy and to check that this "investigation" was pretty much the university investigating itself and did so with a stacked deck. As I alluded however, it doesn't matter...the goose has been cooked.

bjkeefe
07-09-2010, 01:26 AM
Shorter (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=168848#post168848) TSOF (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=168894#post168894):

It's just a flesh wound!!!1!

[Added] Alternate shorter TSOF:

Climategate is not settled until Levi Johnston (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=168627#post168627) says it's settled!!!1!

Whatfur
07-09-2010, 07:45 AM
Shorter (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=168848#post168848) TSOF (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=168894#post168894):



[Added] Alternate shorter TSOF:

Shorter Queef: I was embarrassed by the Levi bitch slap I received.

Longer Fur. (http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2010/07/07/wonderful-news-on-climate-change/)

bjkeefe
07-09-2010, 11:34 AM
I was embarrassed by the Levi bitch slap I received.

I am aware of that, yes. But don't feel too bad. You're not the only wingnut to think of things only in terms of how they make St. Sarah look. Just try to grow out of it, even if the price is banishment by John Hawkins and Erick the RedFace.

Longer Fur. (http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2010/07/07/wonderful-news-on-climate-change/)

So you're outing yourself, and claiming to be Dafydd ab Hugh (http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Asadlyno.com++Dafydd+ab+Hugh)? Ooooo-kay.

I had imagined you as fatter, and with less hair, somehow.

http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/Dafydd%2520ab%2520Hugh.jpg (http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/2635.html)

AemJeff
07-09-2010, 12:04 PM
...
So you're outing yourself, and claiming to be Dafydd ab Hugh (http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Asadlyno.com++Dafydd+ab+Hugh)? Ooooo-kay.

I had imagined you as fatter, and with less hair, somehow.

http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/Dafydd%2520ab%2520Hugh.jpg (http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/2635.html)

The single premise of that article is "no wingnuts on the panel" and the explicit assumption that that invalidates the panel's conclusions. It's not even good enough to bother with a rebuttal.

bjkeefe
07-09-2010, 12:41 PM
The single premise of that article is "no wingnuts on the panel" and the explicit assumption that that invalidates the panel's conclusions. It's not even good enough to bother with a rebuttal.

That's exactly right. And it applies more generally to the entire bunch trying to keep "Climategate" alive. That's why I compared 'fur to MP's Black Knight.

Whatfur
07-09-2010, 12:53 PM
The single premise of that article is "no wingnuts on the panel" and the explicit assumption that that invalidates the panel's conclusions. It's not even good enough to bother with a rebuttal.


Oh yeah thats right, everyone who is not riding at the front of the green bus is a "wingnut". Seeing as ethics was the question here and not necessarily GW denial, they certainly could have selected a couple intellectually honest representatives who were less obviously in the tank. Might have actually added some credibility if the decision was the same.

So Jeff, whose habit is to complain about everyone elses lack of arguments, once again offers none after inventing a hyperbolic and narrow premise to paint yellow.

...and no Queef, sorry not Dafydd...he is just shorter than I. I was adding his link as follow-up to a point I had already provided here while utilizing your insult as the opening...you know kind of like Jeffy did.

AemJeff
07-09-2010, 01:07 PM
Oh yeah thats right, everyone who is not riding at the front of the green bus is a "wingnut". Seeing as ethics was the question here and not necessarily GW denial or not, they certainly could have selected a couple intellectually honest representatives who were less obviously in the tank.

So Jeff, whose habit is to complain about everyone elses lack of arguments, once again offers none after inventing a false and narrow premise to paint yellow.

...and no Queef, sorry not Dafydd...he is just shorter than I. I was adding his link as follow-up to a point I had already provided here while utilizing your insult as the opening...you know kind of like Jeffy did.

You should have complained about my grammar. It would have been a stronger claim.

You should read enough to understand what the word "science" means before you comment on on topics like this. I'm well aware that you think you know what it means, and I'm sure you'll complain about getting that message from me; but, you don't understand the nature of the claims you're trying to refute, nor do you understand what's actually in the data that you don't like, and most fundamentally: you only acknowledge as authorities people who reinforce your preexisting biases - and in the case of arguments against the probability of global warming, those "authorities" base their opinions on the results of a provably corrupt process. (And I've provided ample documentation of that fact on more than one occasion, right here.) I know the "you don't know what you're talking about" card has been played against you, more than once. (There's a reason for that.) I know you're resentful of that. But, just trying to get back at somebody really isn't sufficient basis for merely parroting such a claim. Man up, and show us your arguments.

Whatfur
07-09-2010, 01:46 PM
... Man up, and show us your arguments.

First a refusal to provide an argument and then a demand for one. Go figure. Also, feel free to direct me to these beat downs you write of instead of just inventing them here. You know I do like to reminisce.

AemJeff
07-09-2010, 02:04 PM
First a refusal to provide an argument and then a demand for one. Go figure. Also, feel free to direct me to these beat downs you write of instead of just inventing them here. You know I do like to reminisce.

Again with the assertions.

http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=151021#poststop

In fact that whole thread's a good place to look.

Whatfur
07-09-2010, 02:29 PM
Again with the assertions.

http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=151021#poststop

In fact that whole thread's a good place to look.

Ummm....what assertions? Ha! Did you go back 5 months to find a post where you thought you WERE the smartest guy in the room? Too funny.

I asked for arguments not your cover letter.

bjkeefe
07-09-2010, 02:32 PM
Ummm....what assertions? Ha! Did you go back 5 months to find a post where you thought you WERE the smartest guy in the room? Too funny.

I asked for arguments not your cover letter.

Why waste your time, Jeff? It's obvious TSOF is not interested in being honest here. He's just looking to babble his usual stream of fourth-grade trash talk, because he's got nothing else to offer.

handle
07-09-2010, 02:35 PM
I should add for those too lazy and to check that this "investigation" was pretty much the university investigating itself and did so with a stacked deck. As I alluded however, it doesn't matter...the goose has been cooked.
See what I mean? There is no reasoning with the conspiracy zealots on either side of the ideological fence.
You empirically prove, beyond an inkling of a logical doubt that there was no thermite at ground zero, and suddenly, it becomes super thermite that was used.
Wackyfur, predictably comes up with the completely unsupportable notion that although there is guilt by association in the "climategate" investigation, there is no innocence by association, and in spite of the obvious absurdity of this concept, he vigorously defends it, by just as predictably impugning the credibility of those who removed the guilt.
Then he implies that the whole thing is meaningless, and the guilt has already been proven.
I would elaborate further, but I am scheduled for an important meeting with Barney Franks dining room table. After which, will vigorously pound my head against a brick wall....A revoir!

Whatfur
07-09-2010, 02:38 PM
Why waste your time, Jeff? It's obvious TSOF is not interested in being honest here. He's just looking to babble his usual stream of fourth-grade trash talk, because he's got nothing else to offer.

"...and off they walked, into the sunset, head on shoulder, hand in hand"

bjkeefe
07-09-2010, 02:43 PM
"...and off they walked, into the sunset, head on shoulder, hand in hand"

... leaving TSOF stewing alone, in an impotent rage that others could only laugh at.

handle
07-09-2010, 02:43 PM
"...and off they walked, into the sunset, head on shoulder, hand in hand"

I get! They're GAY! <snicker> YOU GUYS ARE GAAAAY HA HA HA!

Whatfur
07-09-2010, 02:55 PM
I get! They're GAY! <snicker> YOU GUYS ARE GAAAAY HA HA HA!

OMG, don't make the American Beauty mistake even if only wrong by half. These are just two caring men sharing their lack of arguments while yes consoling eachother in a manly way...umm as they both run away... in a way, as manly as possible.

handle
07-09-2010, 03:04 PM
OMG, don't make the American Beauty mistake even if only wrong by half. These are just two caring men sharing their lack of arguments while yes consoling eachother in a manly way...umm as they both run away... in a way, as manly as possible.

Ya know ya got 'im when he does the "spin" move.....

AemJeff
07-09-2010, 03:18 PM
Ya know ya got 'im when he does the "spin" move.....

It's actually kind of funny, the way he declares victory in every single post - regardless of what anybody's actually said. Maybe we've been missing the point. I'm, beginning to think that he really doesn't care about winning these arguments. Rather, he sees himself as a virtual graffiti artist -- tagging the Internet.

Whatfur RULZZZZ!

Whatfur
07-09-2010, 03:24 PM
It's actually kind of funny, the way he declares victory in every single post - regardless of what anybody's actually said. Maybe we've been missing the point. I'm, begining to think that he really doesn't care about winning these arguments. Rather, he sees himself as a virtual graffiti artist -- tagging the Internet.


"Dude" there is no victory in you forfeiting nor have I declared one.

bjkeefe
07-09-2010, 03:31 PM
"Dude" there is no victory in you forfeiting nor have I declared one.

It is comical how he is self-refuting in practically every single post, even within a single sentence.

handle
07-09-2010, 03:35 PM
It's actually kind of funny, the way he declares victory in every single post - regardless of what anybody's actually said. Maybe we've been missing the point. I'm, beginning to think that he really doesn't care about winning these arguments. Rather, he sees himself as a virtual graffiti artist -- tagging the Internet.


Remember when he quoted his Mom advising him when he was just a weefur:
"Don't be conceited, be convincing"?
I think he is overcompensating for his failure on both counts, which means he's become a conservative conman.

bjkeefe
07-09-2010, 03:39 PM
Rather, he sees himself as a virtual graffiti artist -- tagging the Internet.

That's a polite way of putting it. I was thinking more of an ill-tempered dog, pooping where he knows he's not supposed to, because he has no other way to resolve his sad mental state.

I suppose I could be thinking this just because of how much times he spends talking about SHIT ON YOU'R SHOOZ!!!1!

Whatfur
07-09-2010, 03:45 PM
Remember when he quoted his Mom advising him when he was just a weefur:
"Don't be conceited, be convincing"?
I think he is overcompensating for his failure on both counts, which means he's become a conservative conman.

Yikes. Not sure if it is funny, flattering, or frightening that you would hang onto that for 8 months...hoping for just the right moment to use it. I'll choose funny. Ha!

[Thats my troll]

handle
07-09-2010, 03:50 PM
Yikes. Not sure if it is funny, flattering, or frightening that you would hang onto that for 8 months...hoping for just the right moment to use it. I'll choose funny. Ha!

[Thats my troll]

Glad ya liked it! Shit that devorced from reality sticks in my head... it's a curse you know... maybe they will come up with a medication that relives the symptoms of bullshit allergy sufferers... Pseudofedupdren?

Added: comedy gold is timeless!

bjkeefe
07-09-2010, 03:54 PM
Glad ya liked it! Shit that devorced from reality sticks in my head... [...]

Added: comedy gold is timeless!

I know exactly what you mean. How long ago was it that TSOF was fantasizing about getting me into a cage match so that he could show me his mad UFC skillz? Nonetheless, I think about that, and LOL, all the time.

Of course, his poorly concealed frustration in every exchange since helps keep the memory fresh.

handle
07-09-2010, 03:58 PM
I know exactly what you mean. How long ago was it that TSOF was fantasizing about getting me into a cage match so that he could show me his mad UFC skillz? Nonetheless, I think about that, and LOL, all the time.

Of course, his poorly concealed frustration in every exchange since helps keep the memory fresh.

Ahhh good times indeed.... how 'bout when he thought you hacked his computer using your super spambuster powers 'cause he picked up some malware probably from one of his obscure nutjob sites? I even tried to help him out, but he wisely ignored advise from the enemy!

bjkeefe
07-09-2010, 04:04 PM
Ahhh good times indeed.... how 'bout when he thought you hacked his computer using your super spambuster powers 'cause he picked up some malware probably from one of his obscure nutjob sites? I even tried to help him out, but he wisely ignored advise from the enemy!

LOL! Yes, that was priceless.

Whatfur
07-12-2010, 04:24 PM
AC for Africa!! (http://orangepunch.ocregister.com/2010/07/09/global-warmings-self-parody/30299/)

(read the first comment to for a fresh reminder of the EA BS.

Whatfur
07-12-2010, 04:28 PM
Shorter Queef: I was embarrassed by the Levi bitch slap I received.

Longer Fur. (http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2010/07/07/wonderful-news-on-climate-change/)


WSJ Jumps into the wingnuttery. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704075604575356611173414140.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop)


Fur, once again ahead of the pack.

bjkeefe
07-12-2010, 05:39 PM
WSJ Jumps into the wingnuttery. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704075604575356611173414140.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop)


Fur, once again ahead of the pack.

No, sadly, once again you are way behind. They didn't just jump in -- the WSJ opinion section has been the hub of Wingnuttia for at least a couple of decades now.

graz
07-12-2010, 05:40 PM
Fur, once again ahead of the pack.

No... you've got it exactly backwards... you follow the pack... on a souped-up golf-cart... right?:

More like follow the leader... (http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=3690291&id=301204760764)

Whatfur
07-13-2010, 04:58 PM
You won't like it. (http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/07/12/the-big-green-lie-exposed/#)

bjkeefe
07-13-2010, 05:14 PM
You won't like it. (http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/07/12/the-big-green-lie-exposed/#)

Shorter Walter Russell Mead:

Climategate has killed the Green Movement once and for a... uh, what's that? ... uh ... erm ... uh ... NEVER MIND that Climategate turned out to be six pounds of bogus in a five-pound bag! Its utter falsity is Central To My Point™: the Green Movement is dead dying not at all well not, at this moment, at the peak of perfection! Victory! Chappaquiddick! Ted Kennedy!

handle
07-13-2010, 05:37 PM
Shorter Walter Russell Mead:

Notice how linkdumpfur just put it out there, but allows himself an out on the blog's assertion that GW is real, but the movement will be devastated if the problem is solved by anything but cap and trade.
Well I for one am not like you conspiratorial nitpicky-hippies! I just want the problem solved!
The prohibition analogy is the best part... there are soo many parallels between individual freedoms and regulations on corporations.
Cripes! I forgot... the supreme court thinks they are exactly the same... fuck us.

nikkibong
07-13-2010, 05:41 PM
Joseph Lawler writes a post (http://spectator.org/blog/2010/07/09/in-defense-of-jim-manzi-and-tn)defending Jim Manzi and his (rarely updated) blog at TNR.

A hilarious commenter there who refers to himself as "Jim Manzi," chimes in with the following:

Jim Manzi| 7.10.10 @ 5:57PM

Global warming is going to kill us all, but cap and trade costs too darn much.

Yeah, my opinion on global warming seems a bit schizophrenic, but anybody who doesn't agree with me is a wingnut.

Pretty much Manzi in a nutshell, innit?

AemJeff
07-13-2010, 05:54 PM
Joseph Lawler writes a post (http://spectator.org/blog/2010/07/09/in-defense-of-jim-manzi-and-tn)defending Jim Manzi and his (rarely updated) blog at TNR.

A hilarious commenter there who refers to himself as "Jim Manzi," chimes in with the following:

Jim Manzi| 7.10.10 @ 5:57PM


Pretty much Manzi in a nutshell, innit?

Manzi's not that easily parodied. He doesn't think the benefits of most of the proposals aimed at mitigating AGW outweigh their costs. That's a perfectly rational position to hold.

handle
07-13-2010, 06:00 PM
Well I for one am not like you conspiratorial nitpicky-hippies! I just want the problem solved!

Sorry, forgot greenie-commie socialist-nazis. Won't happen again.

Starwatcher162536
07-13-2010, 07:52 PM
Sorry, forgot greenie-commie socialist-nazis. Won't happen again.

Speaking of "Commie-Environmentalists", how did conflating communism and environmentalism become common? Even a cursory look at the history of both the United States and the U.S.S.R shows that the United States has had and continues to have far more stringent environmental safeguards then the U.S.S.R ever had.

I dunno, it just seems to me environmentalism should if anything, be associated with capitalism instead of communism.

Starwatcher162536
07-13-2010, 07:54 PM
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100120/full/463284a.html

handle
07-13-2010, 08:46 PM
Speaking of "Commie-Environmentalists", how did conflating communism and environmentalism become common? Even a cursory look at the history of both the United States and the U.S.S.R shows that the United States has had and continues to have far more stringent environmental safeguards then the U.S.S.R ever had.

I dunno, it just seems to me environmentalism should if anything, be associated with capitalism instead of communism.

Probably because it interferes with the free market:
Free to pollute
Free to run ads that deny it
Free to "self regulate"
Free to leave behind a mess
Free from prosecution
Free to keep all the money you made being free

Whatfur
07-13-2010, 09:05 PM
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100120/full/463284a.html

Great article...almost even keeled while the ballast was still a bit weighted in the expected direction.

Lots of uncertainty out there.

AemJeff
07-13-2010, 09:20 PM
...

Lots of uncertainty out there.

That much is true. The emphasis here can be summed up from the article:
...as in any active field of inquiry...

bjkeefe
07-13-2010, 10:43 PM
Manzi's not that easily parodied. He doesn't think the benefits of most of the proposals aimed at mitigating AGW outweigh their costs. That's a perfectly rational position to hold.

Agreed. But Fake Jim Manzi's comment was still pretty funny.

[Added] Also funny, from nb's original link:

[Environmental blogger Joseph] Romm also accuses TNR of having "proudly hired Manzi to un-fact-check their articles" ...

bjkeefe
07-13-2010, 10:55 PM
Great article...almost even keeled while the ballast was still a bit weighted in the expected direction.

Lots of uncertainty out there.

For those who aren't immediately inclined to click over (http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100120/full/463284a.html), here's a bit worth quoting, in light of 'fur's misrepresentation and the ongoing efforts of him and other denialists:

A fuller reading of the e-mails from CRU in Norwich, UK, does show a sobering amount of rude behaviour and verbal faux pas, but nothing that challenges the scientific consensus of climate change.

As is this:

Such holes do not undermine the fundamental conclusion that humans are warming the climate, which is based on the extreme rate of the twentieth-century temperature changes and the inability of climate models to simulate such warming without including the role of greenhouse-gas pollution. The uncertainties do, however, hamper efforts to plan for the future. And unlike the myths regularly trotted out by climate-change denialists (see 'Enduring climate myths (http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100120/full/463284a/box/1.html)'), some of the outstanding problems may mean that future changes could be worse than currently projected.

And here I add some emph:

Researchers say it is difficult to talk openly about holes in understanding. "Of course there are gaps in our knowledge about Earth's climate system and its components, and yes, nothing has been made clear enough to the public," says Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeller at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and one of the moderators and contributors to the influential RealClimate blog. "But this climate of suspicion we're working in is insane. It's really drowning our ability to soberly communicate gaps in our science when some people cry 'fraud' and 'misconduct' for the slightest reasons."

And don't miss the closing line of the article (http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100120/full/463284a.html), which I truly encourage everyone to read.

Great link, Starwatcher. Thanks.

Whatfur
07-14-2010, 12:09 PM
Great article...almost even keeled while the ballast was still a bit weighted in the expected direction.

Lots of uncertainty out there.

In spite of someone misrepresenting misrepresentation while adding lead to the ballast, it was still a great article.

handle
07-14-2010, 01:26 PM
In spite of someone misrepresenting misrepresentation while adding lead to the ballast, it was still a great article.

Captain hillbillycoloquialism, in spite of having boasted the ability to weather the roughest seas, now drifted rudderless. Unable to engage the enemy, his once formidable vessel had been reduced to circling back in its own wake.

bjkeefe
07-15-2010, 09:16 AM
Often, the question is asked, "Eh, what's a couple of degrees?"

Here's one answer (http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/15/then-and-now-the-vanishing-glaciers/):

Then and Now: The Retreating Glaciers

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/07/14/science/glacier/glacier-blogSpan.jpg

In 1921, George Mallory, a British mountaineer, took a black-and-white photograph of Mount Everest. The photo, now legendary, shows the world’s highest peak in the distance and an S-shaped river of ice running toward the foreground: the Rongbuk glacier.

Three years ago, David Breashears, a mountaineer, photographer and filmmaker, returned to the very spot where Mr. Mallory stood to take the photograph and updated the vista. The change is sobering.

Rather than ancient snow pack, only an empty rock-strewn riverbed remains: the glacier has lost 320 vertical feet of ice mass in the intervening years in what researchers describe as a striking effect of global warming. (Roll your cursor over the images to get a sharper sense of the contrast here (http://sites.asiasociety.org/riversofice/comparative-photography).)

On Tuesday, Asia Society opened an exhibition (http://sites.asiasociety.org/riversofice/) in Manhattan of a series of photographs by Mr. Breashears, who reshot many famous mountaineer photographs from earlier decades to illustrate just how swiftly the changes in the Earth’s atmosphere are taking a toll on glaciers. Glaciers play a crucial role in providing fresh water to Asian populations.

“The snow and ice stored within the magnificent arc of high-altitude glaciers in the Greater Himalaya are crucial sources of seasonal water for almost every major river system of Asia,” the society says in materials promoting the exhibition. “If current melt rates continue, these glaciers will be unable to maintain mass balance, ultimately disrupting the water supply to hundreds of millions of people downstream.”

The show runs through Aug. 15. Here’s a video in which Mr. Breashears describes his glacier research and photography.

See post (http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/15/then-and-now-the-vanishing-glaciers/) for vid, obvs.

cragger
07-15-2010, 09:11 PM
Even if things were warming up, which they aren't -

By DAVID NOWAK, Associated Press Writer David Nowak, Associated Press Writer – Thu Jul 15, 4:32 pm ET

Worldwide, the average temperature in June was 61.1 degrees F (16.2 C) — 1.22 degrees F (0.68 C) warmer than average for the month of June, said the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Washington. This year has had the warmest average temperature for the January-June period on record — 57.5 F (12.2 C).

well, if it was happening it wouldn't matter anyways -

Russia's worst droughts in a century have destroyed almost 10 million hectares (25 million acres) of crops in central and European areas. ... Germany's Potato Industry Union, meanwhile, says it expects losses of 30 percent in this year's harvest. ... The Chamber of Agriculture of the Czech Republic estimates the grain harvest could by down by 10 percent compared with 2009. ...

because only a dupe of the Great Democrat Global Warming Hoax could think that droughts and heat waves are related to climate or some kind of hand-wavey crap like that.

Whatfur
07-15-2010, 09:19 PM
"In Texas they call it" weather.

handle
07-16-2010, 02:38 PM
"In Texas they call it" weather.

Jeez, Buzzfur...I am so embarrassed for you I feel the need to defend this post:

For those of you unfamiliar with furspeak, he is butchering one of his favorite GWB quotes beyond all comprehension.
In defense of the fact that he obviously considered this wildly clever at the time, he was probably getting toward the bottom of a short case.

Don't say I never went to bat for you.

Whatfur
07-20-2010, 01:48 PM
In Peru they call it tiempo. (http://en.trend.az/regions/world/ocountries/1723309.html)

AemJeff
07-20-2010, 01:59 PM
In Peru they call it tiempo. (http://en.trend.az/regions/world/ocountries/1723309.html)

Hey, cool! It's cold in the winter time! Who'da thunk!?

Whatfur
07-20-2010, 02:06 PM
Hey, cool! It's cold in the winter time! Who'da thunk!?

Guess you should tell cragger then that its warm in summer time! Doh!

bjkeefe
07-28-2010, 06:48 PM
State of the Climate: Hottest Decade on Record

The past decade was the hottest ever recorded, part of an unequivocal pattern of warming dating back 50 years, a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration report declared on Wednesday.

The annual “State of the Climate” report drew on the findings more than 300 climate scientists in 48 countries who measured 10 separate planet-wide features, including air temperatures, sea temperatures, humidity, Arctic sea ice, glaciers and spring snow cover in the Northern hemisphere.

“The records come from many institutions worldwide,” Dr. Jane Lubchenco, the agency’s administrator, said in a statement. “They use data collected from diverse sources, including satellites, weather balloons, weather stations, ships, buoys and field surveys.

“These independently produced lines of evidence all point to the same conclusion: our planet is warming,” she said.

The findings do not include data from 2010, which is on pace to exceed the highest annual average global temperature ever recorded, NOAA said.

The rest. (http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/state-of-the-climate-hottest-decade-ever/)

cragger
07-28-2010, 07:45 PM
But, but, but .... its cold someplace!

Dave Brashears looks at himalayan glaciers in the time since Mallory's expeditions there in the 1920s and finds both a retreat in length and the loss of some 350 feet or more in ice thickness:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enJ9F8WKXVU

These glaciers act as what he calls a natural water tower, storing water from snowfall and releasing it throughout the year. Loss of the glacial storage means the water is released faster in the spring, in more of a flood-drought annual cycle for major asian river systems.

bjkeefe
07-28-2010, 10:01 PM
But, but, but .... its cold someplace!

Dave Brashears looks at himalayan glaciers in the time since Mallory's expeditions there in the 1920s and finds both a retreat in length and the loss of some 350 feet or more in ice thickness:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enJ9F8WKXVU

These glaciers act as what he calls a natural water tower, storing water from snowfall and releasing it throughout the year. Loss of the glacial storage means the water is released faster in the spring, in more of a flood-drought annual cycle for major asian river systems.

Thanks for the link, cragger.

For anyone else, new to this thread, see also (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=169946#post169946).

cragger
07-28-2010, 10:39 PM
Erp. Yep, if I'd re-read the thread, or could remember stuff previously posted .....

I was just doing some reading about the recent state of climbing on Everest - remember books, those old-fashioned pagey things? - and did a bit of Youtube poking around since Breashears was on the hill during the '96 disaster and ran into that clip.

bjkeefe
07-28-2010, 11:09 PM
Erp. Yep, if I'd re-read the thread, or could remember stuff previously posted .....

Oh good lord no. Whaddya wanna be, like me?

No. Trust me. You don't. #advicethatishardtoevaluateforworthiness

I was just doing some reading about the recent state of climbing on Everest - remember books, those old-fashioned pagey things? - and did a bit of Youtube poking around since Breashears was on the hill during the '96 disaster and ran into that clip.

I read Krakauer's book when it came out and immediately got permanently depressed about Everest. Odd that Breashears's name does not ring a bell.

If I could only remember stuff previou ...

;^)

P.S. Sometimes Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Breashears) makes me impatient. (Were we talking about Wikipedia? Yes. Somewhere, recently, in another thread. And by "we," I think I mean Starwatcher. Anyway.) And it's not so much the reliability as the readability.

CASE. IN. POINT.

He was married to fellow adventurer Veronique Choa in the late 1980's. They have since divorced, and Breashears calls Boston his home when not climbing.

Someone should set him- or herself on fire for that.

(bjk+9)

bjkeefe
07-30-2010, 11:10 PM
[...]

'fur, please...loosen that tie and climb down off that chair. (http://content.cartoonbox.slate.com/?feature=74f6885488459e66d9fed0d3f7cefb88)

http://content.cartoonbox.slate.com/?feature=74f6885488459e66d9fed0d3f7cefb88

(via (http://wonkette.com/417021/nation-of-hobos-and-demons))

listener
07-30-2010, 11:23 PM
He was married to fellow adventurer Veronique Choa in the late 1980's. They have since divorced, and Breashears calls Boston his home when not climbing.


Someone should set him- or herself on fire for that.



I don't know what you're talking about. The passage is perfectly clear. It explains why Brashears does so much climbing -- to escape his uncontrollable compulsion to constantly sing the Standells' "Dirty Water" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqKHqWaTv9g) when involved in any activity other than climbing.

bjkeefe
08-05-2010, 11:53 PM
Yep. This time (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/world/europe/06russia.html), 'fur's subject line is not hyperbolic.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/08/06/world/06russia_337-span/Russia-articleLarge.jpg
Natalia Kolesnikova/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
Russians fought a fire near the village of Golovanovo, in the Ryazan region of Russia on Thursday. More Photos » (http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2010/08/05/world/20100806_RUSSIAFIRE.html)
____________________

MOSCOW — Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin on Thursday banned all exports of grain after millions of acres of Russian wheat withered in a severe drought, driving up prices around the world and pushing them to their highest level in two years in the United States.

The move was the latest of several abrupt interventions in the Russian economy by Mr. Putin, who called the ban necessary to curb rising food prices in the country. Russia is suffering from the worst heat wave since record-keeping began here more than 130 years ago.

All together now ... "Just another weather report!!!1!"

(h/t: Josh Fruhlinger (http://wonkette.com/417213/417213))

Whatfur
08-06-2010, 02:32 PM
Yep.

All together now ... "Just another weather report!!!1!"



Just another weather report. (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-03/argentina-colder-than-antarctica-spurs-record-power-imports-shuts-plants.html) [added !!!1!]

bjkeefe
08-06-2010, 08:44 PM
Just another weather report. (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-03/argentina-colder-than-antarctica-spurs-record-power-imports-shuts-plants.html) [added !!!1!]

The thing you and the rest of the wingnut denialists never have the honesty to admit is this: AGW predictions include bouts of more severely cold weather events as well. This was pointed out to you when you were fapping about snowstorms in China, if I'm not mistaken.

This is also why the problem is more accurately referred to as Anthropogenic Climate Change, as opposed to AGW.

Sorry that it's not a straight, noise-free, uniform, linear phenomenon, so that people of your ilk can have some faint hope of comprehending it, but that's life outside of your echo chambers.

AemJeff
08-06-2010, 09:27 PM
The thing you and the rest of the wingnut denialists never have the honesty to admit is this: AGW predictions include bouts of more severely cold weather events as well. This was pointed out to you when you were fapping about snowstorms in China, if I'm not mistaken.

This is also why the problem is more accurately referred to as Anthropogenic Climate Change, as opposed to AGW.

Sorry that it's not a straight, noise-free, uniform, linear phenomenon, so that people of your ilk can have some faint hope of comprehending it, but that's life outside of your echo chambers.

Or, put another way - if your best argument is that it's cold somewhere, then you didn't have anything to say.

Whatfur
08-06-2010, 09:32 PM
Or, put another way - if your best argument is that it's cold somewhere, then you didn't have anything to say.

And we would not expect you to put it any other way.

bjkeefe
08-06-2010, 09:34 PM
And we would not expect you to put it any other way.

And we expected that your response would be of zero content.

P.S. I do like how you've copied my technique of saying "we." Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, as has been observed.

Who besides Lyle, chiwhi, and badhat do you presume you're speaking for, though?

Whatfur
08-06-2010, 10:05 PM
And we expected that your response would be of zero content.

P.S. I do like how you've copied my technique of saying "we." Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, as has been observed.

Who besides Lyle, chiwhi, and badhat do you presume you're speaking for, though?

Self-flattery is more the case. Arrogant much?

But to answer your question, pretty much everyone who considers themselves honest and has watched Jeff insert his pomposity here for years.

AemJeff
08-06-2010, 10:06 PM
Self-flattery is more the case. Arrogant much?

But to answer your question, pretty much everyone who considers themselves honest and has watched Jeff insert his pomposity here for years.

He who is without sin...

bjkeefe
08-06-2010, 10:20 PM
... much?

I note that you copied that, too. Thanks!

bjkeefe
08-08-2010, 03:09 AM
B'head Andrew Revkin reports (http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/07/vast-ice-island-breaks-free-of-greenland-glacier/):

Vast Ice ‘Island’ Breaks Free of Greenland Glacier

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/08/08/opinion/08dotearthglacier/08dotearthglacier-blogSpan.jpg
An enormous iceberg, really an ice “island,” broke away from Greenland’s Petermann Glacier this week.


Hey, I know! Maybe we can pack the hole with ice from Argentina (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=173960#post173960)! Okay, maybe not.

Greenland has for years been shedding ice faster than the rate at which accumulating snow adds to the overall bulk of its ice sheet. The calving of an enormous ice “island” (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/2010/08/massive_iceberg_breaks_off_gre.html) from the Petermann Glacier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petermann%20Glacier) several days ago created a photogenic “moment” in a long-term process.

Jason E. Box, a glacier and climate researcher at Ohio State University (http://bprc.osu.edu/~jbox/) who forwarded the image above (it was generated by the Canadian Ice Center), sent these reactions before heading into the field:

Petermann is a sleeping giant that is slowly awakening. Removing flow resistance leads to flow acceleration…. The coincidence of this area loss and a 30 square kilometer loss in 2008 with abnormal warmth this year, the setting of increasing sea surface temperatures and sea ice decline are all part of a climate warming pattern.

Questions about the eventual contribution to rising sea levels (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbMkurETxjU) from Greenland’s eroding ice mass (and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet down south) remain hard to answer. I’ve put out a query to a batch of glaciologists for more thoughts and will update this post when they reply.

This next pic is from that first blockquoted link (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/2010/08/massive_iceberg_breaks_off_gre.html), which is well worth clicking (note 90° rotation and outward zoom):

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/images/greenland-map_petermann-2.png


Jason Box's home page (http://bprc.osu.edu/~jbox) and Twitter feed (http://twitter.com/climate_ice) are also worth a look. From one (http://twitter.com/climate_ice/status/17255774590) of his tweets, this (http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png) illustration of the phenomenon on a larger scale:

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png

bjkeefe
08-09-2010, 01:13 AM
Just another weather report. (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-03/argentina-colder-than-antarctica-spurs-record-power-imports-shuts-plants.html) [added !!!1!]

The thing you and the rest of the wingnut denialists never have the honesty to admit is this: AGW predictions include bouts of more severely cold weather events as well. This was pointed out to you when you were fapping about snowstorms in China, if I'm not mistaken.

This is also why the problem is more accurately referred to as Anthropogenic Climate Change, as opposed to AGW.

Sorry that it's not a straight, noise-free, uniform, linear phenomenon, so that people of your ilk can have some faint hope of comprehending it, but that's life outside of your echo chambers.

Here's a more graphic illustration of the "significance" of cold weather in Argentina as it relates to AGW:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/assets_c/2010/08/jan_jun_2010_temp_anomalies-thumb-452x283-23259.gif
Temperature anomalies (degrees Celsius) for January to June 2010. Red dots indicate warmer-than-average conditions, and blue dots indicate areas that were colder than average. Credit: NCDC/NESDIS/NOAA.

The above from Andrew Freedman's post "Hot weather records falling left and right (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/2010/08/hot_weather_records_falling_le.html)." Yes, some of this post is "just weather reports." But the relevant text is there, partway down the page:

Despite cooler-than-average conditions in parts of the Southern Hemisphere, thus far 2010 ranks as the warmest year on record on a global basis, with the warmest March, April, May and June ever recorded. Furthermore, high-temperature records have occurred twice as often as low-temperature records in the U.S. during the past 10 years, according to a study (http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2009/maxmin.jsp) published last year.

As Masters [Jeff Masters of Weather Underground, linked (http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1559) earlier in the post --bjk] noted, "Of the 229 countries with extreme coldest temperature records, 14 of these records have occurred in the past ten years (6% of all countries). There have been five times as many (74) extreme hottest temperature records in the past ten years (33% of all countries)" as extreme coldest temperature records.

(Hat tip: DougJ, who draws the only reasonable conclusion (http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/08/03/al-gore-is-fat-2/).)

cragger
08-09-2010, 12:08 PM
This is also why the problem is more accurately referred to as Anthropogenic Climate Change, as opposed to AGW.

This renaming of AGW seems more like a tactical device that attempts to defuse some of the silly denialism than a more accurate description of the ongoing process. That is, it encompasses some of the results of AGW, and is analagous to describing a disease in terms of its symptoms rather than its root cause. As the material in your post indicates, the system overall is warming. It is this added energy that tends to drive various events to be more extreme, even to the existance of spot occurances of intense cold. But what's in a name?


Nice graphic showing geographic distribution of above and below average temps recently, but of course the real crux is the increasing global average. Good stuff in general, and perhaps useful if you think your interlocutor is intellectually challenged by the meaning of things like:

Worldwide, the average temperature ... This year has had the warmest average temperature for the January-June period on record ...

However, the "isn't so 'cause it's cold someplace" replies indicate instead a consistent and contemptable intellectual dishonesty that is beneath response.

Whatfur
08-09-2010, 12:14 PM
This renaming of AGW seems more like a tactical device that attempts to defuse some of the silly denialism than a more accurate description of the ongoing process. That is, it encompasses some of the results of AGW, and is analagous to describing a disease in terms of its symptoms rather than its root cause. As the material in your post indicates, the system overall is warming. It is this added energy that tends to drive various events to be more extreme, even to the existance of spot occurances of intense cold. But what's in a name?


Nice graphic showing geographic distribution of above and below average temps recently, but of course the real crux is the increasing global average. Good stuff in general, and perhaps useful if you think your interlocutor is intellectually challenged by the meaning of things like:



However, the "isn't so 'cause it's cold someplace" replies indicate instead a consistent and contemptable intellectual dishonesty that is beneath response.

So some weather reports are more applicable than others? The real crux has very little to do with a summer, or a year, or a year of summers.

Ocean
08-09-2010, 12:17 PM
This renaming of AGW seems more like a tactical device that attempts to defuse some of the silly denialism than a more accurate description of the ongoing process. That is, it encompasses some of the results of AGW, and is analagous to describing a disease in terms of its symptoms rather than its root cause. As the material in your post indicates, the system overall is warming. It is this added energy that tends to drive various events to be more extreme, even to the existance of spot occurances of intense cold. But what's in a name?

Nice graphic showing geographic distribution of above and below average temps recently, but of course the real crux is the increasing global average. Good stuff in general, and perhaps useful if you think your interlocutor is intellectually challenged by the meaning of things like:



However, the "isn't so 'cause it's cold someplace" replies indicate instead a consistent and contemptable intellectual dishonesty that is beneath response.

I agree with the above. The problem is what to do about the "contemptable intellectual dishonesty" representative's persistence in posting inaccurate, misinterpreted articles. Ignore him? Correct him with minimal citations? Repeatedly reposting some standard counterargument?

I would certainly avoid re-engaging in long discussions.

bjkeefe
08-09-2010, 04:29 PM
This renaming of AGW seems more like a tactical device that attempts to defuse some of the silly denialism than a more accurate description of the ongoing process. That is, it encompasses some of the results of AGW, and is analagous to describing a disease in terms of its symptoms rather than its root cause. As the material in your post indicates, the system overall is warming. It is this added energy that tends to drive various events to be more extreme, even to the existance of spot occurances of intense cold. But what's in a name?

That's a very good point. I'll have to remember it. I have stuck with AGW (vs ACC) for two, less pride-worthy, reasons: (1) ACC is more of an overloaded TLA (http://catb.org/jargon/html/T/TLA.html) than is AGW, and (2) I dislike letting the lunatic right dictate what terms we should be embarrassed to use.

Nice graphic showing geographic distribution of above and below average temps recently, but of course the real crux is the increasing global average. Good stuff in general, and perhaps useful if you think your interlocutor is intellectually challenged by the meaning of things like:

Worldwide, the average temperature ... This year has had the warmest average temperature for the January-June period on record ...

However, the "isn't so 'cause it's cold someplace" replies indicate instead a consistent and contemptable intellectual dishonesty that is beneath response.

I quite agreed about the contemptibility. Nonetheless, and also @Ocean (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=174295#post174295), it is a sad fact of life that Intellectual Dishonesty works all too often in swaying public opinion on serious matters of policy, so even if I do not persuade the ID (hey, another overloaded acronym!) proponents themselves, I feel it is useful to keep pushing back against them, for the sake of those who may only be reading along.

bjkeefe
08-10-2010, 03:49 PM
Sorry, John H. Richardson (http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/conservatism-ultimate-test-080610). I had to steal the whole thing.

Global Warming vs. the Invisible Hand
August 6, 2010 at 6:54PM

You can measure the honesty of conservatives by their attitudes to global warming. The basic "invisible hand" idea underlying conservative thought is that markets are too complicated for governments to control, so it's better to let capitalism sort things out via supply and demand. This idea is valid maybe 90 percent of the time.

But we don't trust the markets to defend our country. We don't trust them to run nuclear power plants without supervision. We don't trust them to provide us with political leaders. We don't even trust them to provide adequate safety mechanisms in cars, having seen them fight even something as obvious and inexpensive as seat belts.

And global warming really is the ultimate problem for the invisible hand, because markets can't anticipate something that could happen 20 or 30 years from now.

So there are only two possibilities. Since the overwhelming majority of the world's scientists say that global warming is real and caused by humans and could have devastating consequences, conservatives can either ignore the majority scientific consensus or admit that this is a problem that only the government can solve.

"Ignore" seems to be the winning option. According to the last polls (http://ecopolitology.org/2009/12/15/68-of-republicans-not-at-all-concerned-about-climate-change/) I could find, nearly 75 percent of Republicans in and out of Congress choose not to believe in global warming.

This is why Republicans can't be trusted with the keys to the car of government. Seventy-five percent of them look at a blue sky and say it looks green, and never seem to consider that calling blue green fits a little too perfectly with their economic and political beliefs. This is called being out of touch with reality. A more dramatic example could not be found.

But you're not one of those Republicans, so you're eager to test your assumptions by considering the evidence. So check out this important new piece (http://www.tomdispatch.com/archive/175281/) by Bill McKibben, one of America's most valuable citizens. It starts like this:

Try to fit these facts together:

* According (http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/29/headlines/2000_2009_marked_warmest_decade_on_record) to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the planet has just come through the warmest decade, the warmest 12 months, the warmest six months, and the warmest April, May, and June on record.

* A "staggering" new study (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=phytoplankton-population) from Canadian researchers has shown that warmer seawater has reduced phytoplankton, the base of the marine food chain, by 40 percent since 1950.

* Nine nations (http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1546) have so far set their all-time temperature records in 2010, including Russia (111 degrees), Niger (118), Sudan (121), Saudi Arabia and Iraq (126 apiece), and Pakistan, which also set the new all-time Asia record (http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1498&tstamp=) in May: a hair under 130 degrees. I can turn my oven to 130 degrees.

* And then, in late July, the U.S. Senate decided to do exactly nothing about climate change. They didn't do less than they could have -- they did nothing, preserving a perfect two-decade bipartisan record of no action. Senate majority leader Harry Reid decided not even to schedule a vote on legislation that would have capped carbon emissions.

(Finished reading? Now click here (http://www.350.org/) to join McKibben's group of global-warming activists.)

cragger
08-11-2010, 03:09 PM
Regarding economics, an under-regulated "free market" encourages externalization of costs, even to operating in a highly inefficient manner in which total costs are increased, as in matters relating to energy. For example, suppose you can produce a good or service for 90 units of cost and sell it for, say 95 units to make a profit of 5 units. I am incentivized to come up with a way of producing that same good or service for 85 units of costs internal to the relevant transactions of production and sale, even if this involves 20 or 30 units of external costs to be borne by those outside the transactions. I can then price that good or service at say 93 units, both underpricing you and driving you out of competition while making a higher profit. This is how our system works, with the pollution costs including greenhouse gasses externalized as well as vast military costs for dominating energy producing regions externalized through taxation. Of course any attempts to push internal costs back into the relevant market transactions so that market mechanisms could work toward minimizing overall costs are met with the endless whining about commies and socialism by those profiting from the current state, their corrupt lackeys, and tribalist boneheads.

bjkeefe
08-11-2010, 03:24 PM
Regarding economics, an under-regulated "free market" encourages externalization of costs, even to operating in a highly inefficient manner in which total costs are increased, as in matters relating to energy. For example, suppose you can produce a good or service for 90 units of cost and sell it for, say 95 units to make a profit of 5 units. I am incentivized to come up with a way of producing that same good or service for 85 units of costs internal to the relevant transactions of production and sale, even if this involves 20 or 30 units of external costs to be borne by those outside the transactions. I can then price that good or service at say 93 units, both underpricing you and driving you out of competition while making a higher profit. This is how our system works, with the pollution costs including greenhouse gasses externalized as well as vast military costs for dominating energy producing regions externalized through taxation. Of course any attempts to push internal costs back into the relevant market transactions so that market mechanisms could work toward minimizing overall costs are met with the endless whining about commies and socialism by those profiting from the current state, their corrupt lackeys, and tribalist boneheads.

Quite right.

And there are other ways in which the beloved Free Market has trouble dealing with the problem of AGW: it's awfully hard for individuals to see any benefit to doing things that would, if everyone did them, help mitigate the problem. Some people will do it for personal satisfaction or whatever, but generally, most people won't, as long as they perceive that "why should I do this when no one else is?"

cragger
08-11-2010, 04:00 PM
Yes, one could endlessly adress this crap. For example we most recently have:

So some weather reports are more applicable than others? The real crux has very little to do with a summer, or a year, or a year of summers.

which begins with some rhetorical dishonesty in attempting to dismiss the vast accumulation of climate data as "weather reports", and continues to dishonestly imply that noting the warming indicated in all this data is an attempt to assign more importance to some "weather reports" than others, when that in fact is exactly what Whatfur is trying to do in dishonestly implying that the fact that it's cold someplace somehow trumps the overall data and the rising average of the complete data set. It then continues by dishonestly implying that noting the significance of this ever-increasing data is somehow just about "a summer or a year" as though this was simply one abnormally hot year that has occurred during a long period with otherwise unremarkable temperatures, ignoring the decades of temperature data included in the overall thread, the data about glacial and ice cap melt-offs, the body of known science associated with the study of these events over decades, and so on. That's a lot of dishonesty to pack into a little 28 word post.

I suppose I just don't have the inclination to spend my life repeatedly pointing out this somewhat pathetic bullshit. Which may be part of what such folks count on, so I am aware of your point on trying to clean up after them lest they infect others.

bjkeefe
08-11-2010, 04:55 PM
[...]

I suppose I just don't have the inclination to spend my life repeatedly pointing out this somewhat pathetic bullshit. Which may be part of what such folks count on, so I am aware of your point on trying to clean up after them lest they infect others.

Indeed that is the strategy at the top of the denialist food chain -- just keep parroting the same old tropes, because it takes more effort to speak honestly about these matters, and because those who tend to be smart enough to grasp what the data are telling us are made impatient or fatigued at having to go over and over it.

There's another problem, too. Due to the efforts of Exxon and its think-tank funding, the issue has been cast, for no good reason except that it served the interests of Big Oil and a few others, into left vs right, us vs them terms. Thus, another thing that one has to deal with is the kneejerk tribalism, some of which is on display in these threads: if Liberal Academics are saying it, it must be wrong, because you know They hate America's freedoms, etc.

You shouldn't feel bad about not always being up to the task of rebutting, though. As long as all of us do our bit, I think we'll be all right.

TwinSwords
08-11-2010, 04:58 PM
Regarding economics, an under-regulated "free market" encourages externalization of costs, even to operating in a highly inefficient manner in which total costs are increased, as in matters relating to energy. For example, suppose you can produce a good or service for 90 units of cost and sell it for, say 95 units to make a profit of 5 units. I am incentivized to come up with a way of producing that same good or service for 85 units of costs internal to the relevant transactions of production and sale, even if this involves 20 or 30 units of external costs to be borne by those outside the transactions. I can then price that good or service at say 93 units, both underpricing you and driving you out of competition while making a higher profit. This is how our system works, with the pollution costs including greenhouse gasses externalized as well as vast military costs for dominating energy producing regions externalized through taxation. Of course any attempts to push internal costs back into the relevant market transactions so that market mechanisms could work toward minimizing overall costs are met with the endless whining about commies and socialism by those profiting from the current state, their corrupt lackeys, and tribalist boneheads.

Very well said, despite the sobering conclusion (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ie3NinwlX6A).

TwinSwords
08-11-2010, 05:00 PM
You shouldn't feel bad about not always being up to the task of rebutting, though. As long as all of us do our bit, I think we'll be all right.

I have no idea how you maintain your optimism.

bjkeefe
08-11-2010, 05:07 PM
I have no idea how you maintain your optimism.

By looking at where we were a decade, and two decades, ago. Sure, it could be a lot better, but it could also be a lot worse. I also take comfort in the positive trends I see in much of the rest of the world. We're not yet at the point where a majority is ready for the action we should take, in this country or worldwide, but we're getting there. Many, probably most, people are at least open to some first steps. And meanwhile, the out-and-out denialists have largely been pushed out of the Overton Window -- they are seen by everyone except wingnuts as the cranks that they are. The responsible denialist position, if that's not too much of an oxymoron, is now basically at "we can't afford to implement these mitigating efforts." But at least they are admitting, yes, there probably is a problem, and yes, humans probably have something to do with it.

TwinSwords
08-11-2010, 05:09 PM
By looking at where we were a decade, and two decades, ago. Sure, it could be a lot better, but it could also be a lot worse. I also take comfort in the positive trends I see in much of the rest of the world. We're not yet at the point where a majority is ready for the action we should take, in this country or worldwide, but we're getting there. Many, probably most, people are at least open to some first steps. And meanwhile, the out-and-out denialists have largely been pushed out of the Overton Window -- they are seen by everyone except wingnuts as the cranks that they are. The responsible denialist position, if that's not too much of an oxymoron, is now basically at "we can't afford to implement these mitigating efforts." But at least they are admitting, yes, there probably is a problem, and yes, humans probably have something to do with it.

Oh, sorry. I didn't realize you were talking specifically about climate change. I thought your optimism was more general, meant to apply to a broader set of political challenges.

bjkeefe
08-11-2010, 05:27 PM
Oh, sorry. I didn't realize you were talking specifically about climate change. I thought your optimism was more general, meant to apply to a broader set of political challenges.

Hmmm. I suppose my mood is more subject to fluctuation when considering the broad sweep, yes. But I guess that more often than not, my frequent pose of cynicism notwithstanding, I think in the long run we'll be all right, as long as enough of us keep pushing in the right directions.

TwinSwords
08-11-2010, 05:29 PM
Hmmm. I suppose my mood is more subject to fluctuation when considering the broad sweep, yes. But I guess that more often than not, my frequent pose of cynicism notwithstanding, I think in the long run we'll be all right, as long as enough of us keep pushing in the right directions.

I think the human race, in the main, will be alright. But America? Not very confident. Don't see any reason to be. 2008 was a fluke, a brief, shining moment that has been quickly eclipsed by the wingnut/corporate/media complex. They've got the country by the throat and aren't going to let go.

bjkeefe
08-11-2010, 05:39 PM
I think the human race, in the main, will be alright. But America? Not very confident. Don't see any reason to be. 2008 was a fluke, a brief, shining moment that has been quickly eclipsed by the wingnut/corporate/media complex. They've got the country by the throat and aren't going to let go.

That may well be true. But I don't think, even in my most optimistic moments, that the trend has ever been monotonically positive, nor do I think we'll soon get to a point where we can declare victory once and for all. I think it's more like N steps forward, M steps back, with N > M, and that's merely encouragement to keep up the good fight, that's all.

bjkeefe
08-12-2010, 12:54 AM
By looking at where we were a decade, and two decades, ago. Sure, it could be a lot better, but it could also be a lot worse. I also take comfort in the positive trends I see in much of the rest of the world. We're not yet at the point where a majority is ready for the action we should take, in this country or worldwide, but we're getting there. Many, probably most, people are at least open to some first steps. And meanwhile, the out-and-out denialists have largely been pushed out of the Overton Window -- they are seen by everyone except wingnuts as the cranks that they are. The responsible denialist position, if that's not too much of an oxymoron, is now basically at "we can't afford to implement these mitigating efforts." But at least they are admitting, yes, there probably is a problem, and yes, humans probably have something to do with it.

Here's a good illustration of why I'm hopeful about the long run. You would not have seen an article in the Daily Mail saying this (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1301713/The-crack-roof-world-Yes-global-warming-real--deeply-worrying.html), just a few years ago:

I have long been something of a climate-change sceptic, but my views in recent years have shifted. For me, the most convincing evidence that something worrying is going on lies right here in the Arctic.

It's worth having a look even if you're tired of reading about this issue -- gorgeous prose and pictures (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1301713/The-crack-roof-world-Yes-global-warming-real--deeply-worrying.html).

For the more hard-core, a related blog post on Climate Progress (http://climateprogress.org/2010/08/11/daily-mail-%E2%80%9Cglobal-warming-is-real-and-deeply-worrying%E2%80%9D/), commenting on the article, and talking about the author -- Michael Hanlon -- and his evolving views. Also, more signs of hope, in a more general sense, in the last paragraph of that post:

The Mail’s shift in editorial line today follows similar moves by the Washington Post (http://climateprogress.org/2010/08/02/washington-post-on-the-truth-about-global-warming/) last week and the Canadian conservative National Post (http://climateprogress.org/2010/07/17/national-post-global-warming-deniers-conservative/#more-29999) newspaper. In turn these followed a series of independent reports (http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/07/new-reports-into-so-called-climategate-all-exonerate-the-scientists/) exonerating the scientists at the centre of manufactured controversy over so-called ‘climategate,’ and a series of retractions (http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/07/climate-so-called-%E2%80%98scandals%E2%80%99-why-it%E2%80%99s-a-storm-in-a-teacup-and-why-it%E2%80%99s-the-media-who-should-be-apologising/) of the articles that formed the basis of that media controversy.

That "National Post" link is a must.

(h/ts: @climatesafety (http://twitter.com/climatesafety/status/20806086587) and @skepticscience (http://twitter.com/skepticscience/status/20919992217), both RTed by @ClimateDebate (http://twitter.com/ClimateDebate))

P.S. Great background image at that middle tweet-link.

Starwatcher162536
08-12-2010, 01:26 AM
I'm sure in twenty years conservatives will be clamoring that it has always been the conservative position to advocate for vigorous environmental protections, and unlike those pesky liberals, they are the true environmentalists. History repeats itself.

bjkeefe
08-12-2010, 01:54 AM
I'm sure in twenty years conservatives will be clamoring that it has always been the conservative position to advocate for vigorous environmental protections, and unlike those pesky liberals, they are the true environmentalists. History repeats itself.

LOL! A cynic after my own heart.

If you read that "National Post" link mentioned in the previous post (repeated (http://climateprogress.org/2010/07/17/national-post-global-warming-deniers-conservative/)), I think you may be onto something.

Meantime, here's another sign of hope (although I think John Cole (http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aballoon-juice.com+%22peak+wingnut%22) would offer a finger-wag of caution: "Peak readership for anti-science blogs? (http://climateprogress.org/2010/06/23/blacklist-peak-readership-for-denier-blogs/)"

cragger
08-12-2010, 11:42 AM
Regarding the hardcore AGW denialists though not restricted to this particular issue, I think many of these people are difficult to virtually impossible to reach. An essentially similar psychological cast was well described by William Shirer, discussing his tenure overseas in the 1930s in his classic Rise and Fall of the Third Reich:

... how difficult is to escape the dread consequences of ... calculated and incessant propaganda. Often ... I would meet with the most outlandish assertions from seemingly educated and intelligent persons. It was obvious that they were parroting some piece of nonsense they had heard on the radio or read in the newspapers. Sometimes one was tempted to say as much, but on such occasions one was met with such a stare of incredulity, such a shock of silence, as if one had blasphemed the Almighty, that one realized how useless it was even to try to make contact with a mind which had become warped and for whom the facts of life had become what Hitler and Goebbels, with their cynical disregard for truth, said they were.

For many people, tribe trumps truth.

Whatfur
08-12-2010, 11:51 AM
Regarding the hardcore AGW denialists though not restricted to this particular issue, I think many of these people are difficult to virtually impossible to reach. An essentially similar psychological cast was well described by William Shirer, discussing his tenure overseas in the 1930s in his classic Rise and Fall of the Third Reich:



For many people, tribe trumps truth.

Is not the tribe here those who lay their cards down yelling Gin when they are short a card or two, but cast those that point it out out of the room while quickly picking the cards up and shuffling the deck?

There are still unanswered questions. One does not have to be a hardcore AGW denialist or portrayed as one to want them answered before ludicrous, experimental, or unproven solutions are partaken.

graz
08-12-2010, 12:03 PM
Is not the tribe here those who lay their cards down yelling Gin when they are short a card or two, but cast those that point it out out of the room while quickly picking the cards up and shuffling the deck?

Vinagrette, ranch or thousand island.

There are still unanswered questions. One does not have to be a hardcore AGW denialist or portrayed as one to want them answered before ludicrous, experimental, or unproven solutions are partaken.
This is conservative boilerplate: Do nothing, offer no alternative, impugn motive. Lather, rinse, repeat.

bjkeefe
08-12-2010, 12:13 PM
Regarding the hardcore AGW denialists though not restricted to this particular issue, I think many of these people are difficult to virtually impossible to reach. An essentially similar psychological cast was well described by William Shirer, discussing his tenure overseas in the 1930s in his classic Rise and Fall of the Third Reich:

... how difficult is to escape the dread consequences of ... calculated and incessant propaganda. Often ... I would meet with the most outlandish assertions from seemingly educated and intelligent persons. It was obvious that they were parroting some piece of nonsense they had heard on the radio or read in the newspapers. Sometimes one was tempted to say as much, but on such occasions one was met with such a stare of incredulity, such a shock of silence, as if one had blasphemed the Almighty, that one realized how useless it was even to try to make contact with a mind which had become warped and for whom the facts of life had become what Hitler and Goebbels, with their cynical disregard for truth, said they were.

For many people, tribe trumps truth.

Yes, sadly that is true. And what's worse, political consultants know this all too well. And that is how an problem that should have been debated purely on scientific terms instead once again became twisted (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2), in the minds of far too many conservatives, into yet another battle of RealAmericans against Liberal Academics and Other America Haters.

bjkeefe
08-12-2010, 12:19 PM
Vinagrette, ranch or thousand island.


This is conservative boilerplate: Do nothing, offer no alternative, impugn motive. Lather, rinse, repeat.

True enough. But still, I count this ...

There are still unanswered questions. One does not have to be a hardcore AGW denialist or portrayed as one to want them answered before ludicrous, experimental, or unproven solutions are partaken.

... as confirmation of this:

[...] And meanwhile, the out-and-out denialists have largely been pushed out of the Overton Window -- they are seen by everyone except wingnuts as the cranks that they are. The responsible denialist position, if that's not too much of an oxymoron, is now basically at "we can't afford to implement these mitigating efforts." But at least they are admitting, yes, there probably is a problem, and yes, humans probably have something to do with it.

Baby steps.

Starwatcher162536
08-12-2010, 04:02 PM
I kind of doubt it will simulate contemporary environmental policy cause and effect much better then the latest Civilization game simulates contemporary regional politics, but it could still be pretty awesome.


http://www.fateoftheworld.net/reviews.html

bjkeefe
08-16-2010, 02:42 PM
You know that sort of global warming denialist who, when unable to remain comfortable with outright denialistm, retreats to a position of "Hey, what would be so bad about a slightly warmer planet?"

Russia has long played a reluctant, and sometimes obstructionist, role in global negotiations over limiting climate change, perhaps in part because it expected economic benefits from the warming of its vast Siberian hinterland.

But the extreme heat wave, and accompanying drought and wildfires, in normally cool central Russia seems to be prompting a shift in thinking.

“Everyone is talking about climate change now,” President Dmitri A. Medvedev told the Russian Security Council (http://eng.kremlin.ru/transcripts/724) this month. “Unfortunately, what is happening now in our central regions is evidence of this global climate change, because we have never in our history faced such weather conditions in the past.”

The above from a very good article in the NYT, about picking out the signal of climate change from the noise of weather fluctuations: "In Weather Chaos, a Case for Global Warming (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/15/science/earth/15climate.html?pagewanted=all)." The gist: not every extreme event can, in and of itself, be confidently attributed to anthropogenic global warming, but there is an ever-stronger statistical argument that the increased frequency of such events, plus the lopsidedness of them (twice as many high temperature records set as low, for example), shows that human activity is having a measurable effect on the planet. And generally, not in a good way.

(previously (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=174958#post174958))

cragger
08-16-2010, 04:53 PM
I think Russia's intransigence has been driven mostly by the fact that they are very dependant economically on exports of fossil fuels.

Starwatcher162536
08-21-2010, 01:16 PM
Isn't most of Russia's fossil fuels methane? I would think a world wide acceptance of Kyoto like treaties causing nations like the USA and China to phase out their worst offenders (Coal plants) would be a significant boon to Russia.

cragger
08-22-2010, 12:35 AM
Russia exports both oil (number 2 exporter after the Saudis) and natural gas. Both give off CO2 when burned.

Starwatcher162536
08-23-2010, 10:13 PM
The modern baseload gas turbine is reported to have 40-60% less CO2 emissions then the typical modernized coal power plant. The reductions are even more if the gas plant is replacing older facilities. Nations like the USA and China reducing their coal use means more natural gas exports for Russia, seems obvious enough, as long as one is willing to get one's head out of the sand and stop pretending renewables are going to actually be able to displace coal.

As for oil, it has to many useful properties for me to believe we are not going to use every drop we can get our hands on. CO2 levels in the atmo fall far to slowly for it to matter much climatically if we burn 90% of our remaining available oil in the next 50ish years or if we can extend that point a generation or two by not burning the stuff for transportation. Geo-engineering is probably still going to be a fantasy.

It might even be better to just let people burn whatever they want to burn, so we can go ahead and adjust to a warmer world before a dozen other looming environmental degradations rear their head. Divide and conquer and all that.

cragger
08-24-2010, 12:07 PM
Yes, burning natural gas produces less CO2 per BTU than some other fossil fuels. And some forms of cancer are "better" than others. But to the starting question here of why Russia might oppose CO2 targets for economic reasons, again, Russia is the world's second leading exporter of oil as well as an exporter of natural gas and again, both produce CO2. For Russia to favor some regime that reduces CO2 could hurt them regarding exports of both. I wouldn't assume that they could make more money by substituting natural gas exports for oil. To make that assumption one assumes that they have sufficient excess capacity to produce and export the gas and simply can't find a market for it now, as well as assuming various things about the relative profitability of the two, and to assume that a CO2 control regime that aims to hit a target atmospheric concentration couldn't affect burning natural gas as well. Russia is making money now, and in my view doesn't want to stop.

As to renewables ever replacing fossil fuels, I think those with heads in the sand are the ones who fail to understand the meaning of the term non-renewable. If it ain't renewable, it will run out, period. And long before we are "out", the supply will be reduced enough that we will be on the downside of the production curve and unable to produce the levels required for operation of our modern industrialized world.

I suspect that you are correct and that we will burn every drop of oil, cubic foot of gas, and ton of coal we can get our greedy little hands on. Its pathetic, stupid, and sad, but there you are. As for the idea that we'll just adapt to a hotter world without oil and natural gas once we've burned it all, that ground has been trod enough that I don't have much interest in covering it again at the moment.

Starwatcher162536
08-24-2010, 09:46 PM
I find it highly doubtful oil consumption will ever drop over the long-term for any reason other then depletion. I just cannot envision us leaving any significant amounts of oil in the ground, but we may hit the longshot of leaving vast quantities of lignite in the ground. Well, I don't know what else to say, I think Russia's oil exports are not endangered by the globe taking AGW seriously, you do. I think methane is the most likely stopgap replacing coal in large swaths of the world and buying time until someone figures out how to make things like cheaper grid level batteries and polysilicon, you don't. /shrug.


And long before we are "out", the supply will be reduced enough that we will be on the downside of the production curve and unable to produce the levels required for operation of our modern industrialized world.

...and yes, all fossil fuels will need to be replaced, on the outside, within a few generations with renewables because of depletion and ease of access issues. One thing I have never understood though is why peak production is so often assumed to take place at roughly half of the ultimate production. I don't see why this is has to be true, or even why it has to be likely true.


As for the idea that we'll just adapt to a hotter world without oil and natural gas once we've burned it all, that ground has been trod enough that I don't have much interest in covering it again at the moment.

Well, we will adjust. It's not like AGW is, or ever will be (well, okay, at least not in human timeframes), an extinction level threat. For the record; I believe adjusting to a warmer world will probably be a whole lot more painful then adjusting to a CO2 steady state society. That being said, if we are not going to adjust to a CO2 steady state society until depletion forces us to, isn't it better we use up all our fossil fuels as quickly as possible so we get to figure out how we are going to live in this very climatically different world when we have 7 billion instead of 11 billion people? If someone if going to shake the table my Jenga tower is on, I would rather that person do it early on before I have taken many blocks out.

look
08-25-2010, 12:37 AM
I find it highly doubtful oil consumption will ever drop over the long-term for any reason other then depletion. I just cannot envision us leaving any significant amounts of oil in the ground, but we may hit the longshot of leaving vast quantities of lignite in the ground. Well, I don't know what else to say, I think Russia's oil exports are not endangered by the globe taking AGW seriously, you do. I think methane is the most likely stopgap replacing coal in large swaths of the world and buying time until someone figures out how to make things like cheaper grid level batteries and polysilicon, you don't. /shrug.



...and yes, all fossil fuels will need to be replaced, on the outside, within a few generations with renewables because of depletion and ease of access issues. One thing I have never understood though is why peak production is so often assumed to take place at roughly half of the ultimate production. I don't see why this is has to be true, or even why it has to be likely true.



Well, we will adjust. It's not like AGW is, or ever will be (well, okay, at least not in human timeframes), an extinction level threat. For the record; I believe adjusting to a warmer world will probably be a whole lot more painful then adjusting to a CO2 steady state society. That being said, if we are not going to adjust to a CO2 steady state society until depletion forces us to, isn't it better we use up all our fossil fuels as quickly as possible so we get to figure out how we are going to live in this very climatically different world when we have 7 billion instead of 11 billion people? If someone if going to shake the table my Jenga tower is on, I would rather that person do it early on before I have taken many blocks out.Agreed.

cragger
08-25-2010, 12:03 PM
Well, I don't know what else to say, I think Russia's oil exports are not endangered by the globe taking AGW seriously, you do. I think methane is the most likely stopgap replacing coal in large swaths of the world and buying time until someone figures out how to make things like cheaper grid level batteries and polysilicon, you don't. /shrug.
You would do better considering what I said than trying to tell me what I think, since your attempts to do so are both wrong. To return yet again to the question of the Russian position to date on a treaty limiting CO2 emission, which was the point under discussion, I don't pretend to know exactly what a final treaty would specify or exactly how the various nations would start their attempts to meet emission targets. Since part of current emissions are due to burning oil and gas, it seems likely that in at least the "short" term, there would be a reduction of same, impacting Russian sales. I find it very likely and consistent with business behavior everywhere that Russia has a major economic incentive to find that they are making money now under current conditions and that they would not want to change those conditions and endanger that income.

I have no idea where you came up with your claim about my thinking regarding energy storage or polysilicon prices. There have been discussions of both issues elsewhere on these forums that might partially illuminate this question should you be interested in perusing them.

One thing I have never understood though is why peak production is so often assumed to take place at roughly half of the ultimate production. I don't see why this is has to be true, or even why it has to be likely true.
An explanation of the mechanisms is beyond the scope of this post. This is an observed phenomenon describing the output of individual fields - see the Alaskan north slope production which had peaked within 20 years of initial development and fallen more than 50% ten years later - regions, and national outputs including US domestic production. If you are interested there is a lot of information available on the web. Try ASPO as a starting point.

Well, we will adjust. It's not like AGW is, or ever will be (well, okay, at least not in human timeframes), an extinction level threat. For the record; I believe adjusting to a warmer world will probably be a whole lot more painful then adjusting to a CO2 steady state society. That being said, if we are not going to adjust to a CO2 steady state society until depletion forces us to, isn't it better we use up all our fossil fuels as quickly as possible so we get to figure out how we are going to live in this very climatically different world when we have 7 billion instead of 11 billion people? If someone if going to shake the table my Jenga tower is on, I would rather that person do it early on before I have taken many blocks out.

With no idea whether you mean individual life or species existance by "human timeframes", I agree that AGW is unlikely to lead directly to human extinction, though it is always possible that we will do that ourselves through conflict as the adjustment occurs. The dinosaurs adjusted to environmental change after all, and the birds and cockroaches remain. Hopefully we will do a bit better.

As I said before, I suspect that you are largely right as to what many societies will do, as opposed to what I think we should do. Your Jenga analogy is wrong. The time to start transitioning off the fossil fuels that have powered the last century or so is while there is still fuel to use in implementing the changes. It is foolish to drive until the tank is empty and find yourself stranded in the middle of the desert looking for altermatives, above and beyond the climate impacts. Furthermore, oil and natura gas are the base feedstocks of the chemical industry that produces everything from plastics to the pesticides and fertilizers necessary for the industrialized farming that feeds us today. In the long run, burning them for energy is an exceedingly stupid misuse that people will come to regret rather bitterly once it is too late.

AemJeff
08-27-2010, 09:42 AM
It is interesting to note who is apologizing to whom.

Another Global Warming Controversy!!!1! ... uh, no ... make that ... Another Apology (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2010/08/another-global-warming-controversy1-uh.html)

A Newspaper Apologizes to United Nations’ Climate Chief

Last December, Britain’s Sunday Telegraph newspaper published a 2,000-word article accusing Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, of potential financial conflicts of interest.

On Sunday, The Telegraph made an abrupt about-face, pulling the story from its Web site and apologizing to Dr. Pachauri. [...]

The Telegraph apologized for creating the false impression that Dr. Pachauri had been earning millions of dollars from his consulting work, allegations that climate change skeptics seized upon to question the integrity of the United Nations climate panel he leads. The original story was broadcast around the world, and is still available widely on the Internet.

But there's more (of course):


Rajendra Pachauri innocent of financial misdealings but smears will continue (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/aug/26/rajendra-pachauri-financial-relationships)

In December, the Sunday Telegraph carried a long and prominent feature written by Christopher Booker and Richard North, titled: Questions over business deals of UN climate change guru Dr Rajendra Pachauri.

The subtitle alleged that Pachauri has been "making a fortune from his links with 'carbon trading' companies". The article maintained that the money made by Pachauri while working for other organisations "must run into millions of dollars".

It described his outside interests as "highly lucrative commercial jobs". It proposed that these payments caused a "conflict of interest" with his IPCC role. It also complained that we don't know "how much we all pay him" as chairman of the IPCC.

The story (which has subsequently been removed from the Sunday Telegraph's website) immediately travelled around the world. It was reproduced on hundreds of blogs. The allegations it contained were widely aired in the media and generally believed. For a while, no discussion of climate change or the IPCC appeared complete without reference to Pachauri's "dodgy" business dealings and alleged conflicts of interest.

Whatfur
08-31-2010, 03:53 PM
Ya think? (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/31/world/31nations.html?_r=2&hp)

handle
08-31-2010, 04:14 PM
Ya think? (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/31/world/31nations.html?_r=2&hp)


Conspiracyfur is coming around! From his link:
"Although there is widespread scientific consensus that human activity is heating the planet, critics used the mistakes — which emerged at the same time as the unauthorized release of hundreds of e-mails from a climate research center in Britain — to question all the science involved. The e-mails opened prominent climate scientists to charges that they had manipulated some data. Numerous investigations have largely cleared the scientists."

cragger
08-31-2010, 07:02 PM
Bjorn Lomborg changes his tune:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100831/sc_yblog_upshot/noted-anti-global-warming-scientist-reverses-course

Lomborg's essential argument was: Yes, global warming is real and human behavior is the main reason for it, but the world has far more important things to worry about.

Oh, how times have changed.

In a book to be published this year, Lomborg calls global warming "undoubtedly one of the chief concerns facing the world today" and calls for the world's governments to invest tens of billions of dollars annually to fight climate change.

Whatfur
08-31-2010, 08:32 PM
"Largely cleared" by investigation by their mothers, others not so much. (http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/196642)


[added] more on the same (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/7972077/Flawed-science.html).

handle
09-01-2010, 03:33 PM
"Largely cleared" by investigation by their mothers, others not so much. (http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/196642)


[added] more on the same (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/7972077/Flawed-science.html).

Talk about hyperbole... Go read the headlines and bolded statements, and compare to the body of the piece.
Why, it's as if this incessant linker of slanted crapola is pushing an agenda.. does this have anything to do with checks signed by oil companies?

Whatfur
09-07-2010, 08:42 PM
A little adjustment. (http://sg.news.yahoo.com/afp/20100908/tts-climate-warming-science-ice-c1b2fc3.html)

Whatfur
09-12-2010, 09:04 PM
Who cares? (http://www.newsweek.com/2010/09/12/george-will-earth-doesn-t-care-what-is-done-to-it.html?from=rss)

graz
09-12-2010, 09:15 PM
Who cares? (http://www.newsweek.com/2010/09/12/george-will-earth-doesn-t-care-what-is-done-to-it.html?from=rss)
From your link:
For example: The world’s total precipitation in a year is about one meter—“the height of a golden retriever.” About 200 meters—the height of the Hoover Dam—have fallen on earth since the Industrial Revolution. Since the Ice Age ended, enough rain has fallen to fill all the oceans four times; since the dinosaurs died, rainfall has been sufficient to fill the oceans 20,000 times. Yet the amount of water on earth probably hasn’t changed significantly over geologic time.

... I just read somewhere concerning the current election that a month is a light year ...

Using the hard science is sure to win converts to your team.

Starwatcher162536
10-08-2010, 02:14 PM
Here (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7017) is a video I recently came across over at the oil drum. I don't like this guy, and do not want to get bogged down defending him, so don't bother. He does have one provocative statement though; Every year we use 400 years worth of energy gathered by photosynthesis via our burning of oil.

Starwatcher162536
10-08-2010, 02:19 PM
WUWT has an interesting survey here (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/25/where-consensus-fails/). Watts analysis is trash and the survey needs to be taken with a grain of salt since it used a convenience sample. Still; It's interesting.

bjkeefe
03-08-2011, 01:06 PM
[...]

The problem, he said, is not that the world is running out of oil. He estimated that while the world has produced one trillion barrels of oil, two trillion more remain in the ground. Meanwhile surplus oil production capacity is three billion to four million barrels a day.

Here (http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/08/a-dark-warning-on-global-oil-demand/), "he" is "John B. Hess, chairman and chief executive of the Hess Corporation."

His other statements have to be taken with a grain of salt, I think, since it's plain that despite the above, he's warning about increasing demand because "he wants more drilling, including in the Gulf of Mexico." But the bit about supposedly running out of oil is worth noting, considering the source, I thought.

cragger
03-10-2011, 10:04 PM
with error likely to be on the side of greater rise, per latest JPL study. Via Matt Y:

http://climateprogress.org/2011/03/10/jpl-greenland-antarctica-ice-sheet-mass-loss-accelerating-sea-level-rise-1-foot-by-2050/

Ocean
03-10-2011, 10:33 PM
with error likely to be on the side of greater rise, per latest JPL study. Via Matt Y:

http://climateprogress.org/2011/03/10/jpl-greenland-antarctica-ice-sheet-mass-loss-accelerating-sea-level-rise-1-foot-by-2050/

Boy, this is bringing memories of one of the first big time discussions I had in this forum, incoherence and all.

graz
03-10-2011, 10:41 PM
Boy, this is bringing memories of one of the first big time discussions I had in this forum, incoherence and all.

Better a flashback than a flash flood ... although in time ... that New Jersey property of yours may become beachfront.

bjkeefe
03-10-2011, 10:47 PM
with error likely to be on the side of greater rise, per latest JPL study. Via Matt Y:

http://climateprogress.org/2011/03/10/jpl-greenland-antarctica-ice-sheet-mass-loss-accelerating-sea-level-rise-1-foot-by-2050/

Thanks for the link.

A key element, from the first blockquote in that post: "... much sooner than model forecasts have predicted."

Those who like to call themselves skeptics about AGW, who like to rail about the uncertainty of the predictive computer models, ought to take this moment to realize that the uncertainty -- which I will of course acknowledge -- works both ways.

It is also good to remind ourselves that consensus reports, such as those coming from the IPCC, tend to present conservative predictions, due to the very nature of consensus.

Starwatcher162536
03-10-2011, 11:17 PM
What would be really useful is if someone out there had a little Java program out there showing a map with a little slider representing sea level rise and have this dynamically shown by changes in the coastline. Bonus points if it were to also show the # of displaced people this would cause. It's hard for me to visualize the importance of a few feet of sea level rise on the coastline.

AemJeff
03-10-2011, 11:20 PM
What would be really useful is if someone out there had a little Java program out there showing a map with a little slider representing sea level rise and have this dynamically shown by changes in the coastline. Bonus points if it were to also show the # of displaced people this would cause. It's hard for me to visualize the importance of a few feet of sea level rise on the coastline.

Imagine Florida as an archipelago.

bjkeefe
03-11-2011, 12:57 AM
What would be really useful is if someone out there had a little Java program out there showing a map with a little slider representing sea level rise and have this dynamically shown by changes in the coastline. Bonus points if it were to also show the # of displaced people this would cause. It's hard for me to visualize the importance of a few feet of sea level rise on the coastline.

Does it have to be that application-specific? If not, here are some videos (http://cegis.usgs.gov/sea_level_rise.html). For example: us-coasts.wmv (http://cegis.usgs.gov/video/1Km/us-coasts.wmv).

More here (http://www.google.com/search?q=animation+rising+sea+levels+).

If interactive is a must, this (http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=43.3251,-101.6015&z=13&m=7) looks like a place to start, especially if you're familiar with Google Maps. I zoomed in on the NYC area. Pretty instructive.

And of course, more here (http://www.google.com/search?q=interactive+rising+sea+levels).

If it's Java you must have, perhaps here (http://merkel.zoneo.net/Topo/Applet/). More here (http://www.google.com/search?q=java+rising+sea+levels).

Perhaps you will report back if you come across something that is especially helpful.

Ocean
03-11-2011, 07:29 AM
Better a flashback than a flash flood ... although in time ... that New Jersey property of yours may become beachfront.

Oceanview, my friend.

Ocean
03-11-2011, 07:53 AM
Perhaps you will report back if you come across something that is especially helpful.

This is not exactly what you were expecting, but it's especially helpful to me to report that at the 30m sea rise level, my town would be above water, and my house would be in the center of an island 10-15 miles wide and 25-40 miles long (eyeballed distances).

Should I include this information if I decide to sell my home?

Ocean
03-11-2011, 08:06 AM
Tragic good timing for this topic. (http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/11/video-of-the-earthquake-and-tsunami-in-japan/?hp)

OOPS!

(Official Oceanrise Paranoid Society)

bjkeefe
03-11-2011, 11:21 AM
This is not exactly what you were expecting, but it's especially helpful to me to report that at the 30m sea rise level, my town would be above water, and my house would be in the center of an island 10-15 miles wide and 25-40 miles long (eyeballed distances).

Should I include this information if I decide to sell my home?

I think real estate disclosure laws require you to.

On the upside, the coming island paradise may enhance the value of the house in some people's eyes.

;)

handle
03-11-2011, 02:56 PM
Tragic good timing for this topic. (http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/11/video-of-the-earthquake-and-tsunami-in-japan/?hp)

OOPS!

(Official Oceanrise Paranoid Society)

Oh, it's all about you isn't it?

Ocean
03-11-2011, 04:00 PM
On the upside, the coming island paradise may enhance the value of the house in some people's eyes.

;)

Yes, that's exactly what I was thinking about. It will be like owning a villa in the Caribbean, climate changes and all.

Ocean
03-11-2011, 04:01 PM
Oh, it's all about you isn't it?

;)