What will it take to force political action on climate change?

"Republicans (other than Senator Lindsay Graham of South Carolina) are dead set against it."

And this is a bad thing?

And Jack, it doesn't matter that all of the worlds leaders accept the propaganda of the IPCC!
The science does NOT support their premise. You can call consensus all day long but the research shows that the predictions of the IPCC, that the temperature of the earth will rise as we increase the atmospheric C02 levels have been debunked.

For more than 20 years the IPCC has been preaching their C02 religion and the converts are not about to be swayed by the facts at this late date!

FACT:

Temp/C02 Larger
For the last ten years the C02 levels continue to rise and the temperature does not!

FACT:
The C02 restrictions proposed will not effect global warming one iota.
Humans produce approx. 1% of the total amount of C02 in the atmosphere reducing that amount by a fraction will have no effect.
It will however restrict our economy making the advancement towards alternative energy slower.

Sorry Richard you and I agree on much but this is not one of them.

"Republicans (other than Senator Lindsay Graham of South Carolina) are dead set against it."

And this is a bad thing?

It's an incredibly bad thing. Because climate change isn't going to wait for the deniers to finally catch up to what scientists have been telling us for three decades. The time to act was yesterday.

For the last ten years the C02 levels continue to rise and the temperature does not!

First off, how many "ten years" do you count from 2002 to 2009, especially since the 2009 data aren't even completely available yet (hint, less than 7, which by most calculators would tell you is 3 years less than 10)? Why is that? Oh yes, you've cherry picked to fake a chart. Gee, that's trustworthy. What does it say that you have to lie to make your point? Perhaps that your point is wrong. Go figure.

Here's a thought. Explain your graph. Yep, I said it. Explain your graph. What does the green line mean? What about the pink and blue zigzaggy lines? How about the two dotted straight lines? What's a temperature anomaly? Which scale goes with which line...you know, there's a scale on the left and a scale on the right...which scale goes with which data? Where are the data from before 2002? What data are you showing (surface air, surface ocean, satellite, surface monitoring station, modeling results, actual measured results, etc.)? How does it compare with all the other models and measured data?

While you're at it, who is the source of the data? Yes, I know you plagiarized it from Icecap, but who is the real source? Okay, so you're going to play dumb again. Fine. Yes, we see that it says it is the Hadley data, but we both know that the Hadley data were manipulated by one of your denialist buddies, so which one was it? How did he manipulate the data? What changes (other than the attempt at cleverness with the date ranges and scales) did he make to the data, and why? For example, why does it say "Hadley" data here but "Monthly" data on Icecap? Can't they decide which name gives them the most propaganda appeal? Where did the CO2 data come from? Oh, you didn't know the CO2 data were cleverly extracted from another source and manipulated in such a way to make it look "dramatic." Shame on you.

Let me know when you're done. Until then, the real scientists have determined beyond any rational doubt that climate change is happening and man's excessive release of CO2 is causing most of the problem. Yep, that's the truth. I know your buddies at the non-scientific free market lobbying groups say otherwise, but hey, they aren't actually scientists, remember. They are free marketeers that saw a danger of someone actually taking responsibility and implementing some policy options that would require their member companies to perhaps stop forcing society (i.e., you and me and the rest of the taxpayers) to pay for the pollution they have been foisting onto all of us for decades. In other words, these free market business lobbyists didn't like the idea of regulations so they invented this whole idea to deny the science. Just like they denied that smoking causes cancer (it does), the ozone hole was caused by CFCs (it was), and just like your buddy S. Fred Singer was wrong that Mars' moon Phobos was hollow (and pretty much everything else he ever sold his opinion on).

Well guess what. Lying doesn't stand the test of scrutiny. Take your contention that temperatures are cooling instead of warming. One problem with that - it isn't true. Nope. Not true at all according to an analysis of the numbers done by several independent statisticians who analyzed without being told what the numbers represented (so they wouldn't be biased).

Saying there’s a downward trend since 1998 is not scientifically legitimate, said David Peterson, a retired Duke University statistics professor and one of those analyzing the numbers.

Identifying a downward trend is a case of “people coming at the data with preconceived notions,” said Peterson.

In fact, “The last 10 years are the warmest 10-year period of the modern record,” said NOAA climate monitoring chief Deke Arndt. “Even if you analyze the trend during that 10 years, the trend is actually positive, which means warming.”

Sucks when there are real facts, don't it.

Sorry, time to stop wasting time on the non-scientific free market deniers. Real scientists overwhelmingly agree that climate change is happening and we're causing it with excess CO2 emissions. If you can't deal with that reality than I guess you don't have to, but the rest of us plan on inhabiting this planet for a while longer and think that keeping it in one piece for our children and grandchildren is worthwhile, despite people like you.

"Oh yes, you've cherry picked to fake a chart."

Got one that is not fake David?

See folks, What David does is to come into discussions like this one and contradicts the information provided...NOT by posting any contradictory information himself but by trying to degrade the poster of the information in hopes of making you believe that the information posted is not valid!
Now one would think that a self professed scientist like David would have at his disposal all sorts of facts and figures that he could use to show that my chart is in fact "fake"...but he doesn't. at least he won't post them!

Now David will retort with......'I have posted fact upon fact in the past and I'm not about to do it again'.

"Explain your graph."

You can't read David? Here let me help, right below the chart is this:
Temp/C02 Larger click on it and the chart will get bigger, then you won't have such a hard time reading it.

See, even now you demonstrate that 1) you don't know what you posted, and 2) you try to deflect from that fact, plus the fact that it is faked. Why is it so hard for you to be honest, even just one teeny weeny little bit?

For example, you try to make it look like my comments are all about being able to "see" the graph due to its size. Gee whiz, if you read real close you will probably figure out that not only is it obvious that I looked at the bigger version of the graph, but also the alternate version on the web site from which you copied it, and some additional research as well. The questions I asked are basic questions that all scientists ask about all data; questions that need to be answered before any interpretation of the graph can even be attempted. So my questions were to get at what you knew about the graph from the free market front group you put so much faith in. Turns out you know nothing. Big surprise there.

In fact, the original blog doesn't explain it either. And that fits the pattern of deception that the denialist like to use. They don't explain a graph, or even where they got the data, they just post something pretty with a statement interpreting it however they feel like interpreting it. And the reader generally follows along with what the blogger says. Which, of course, is what the blogger hopes. Despite the fact that a cadre of statisticians say they are lying about the graph. Go figure.

Here's the issue. The free market lobbying groups like Heartland and its front groups such as the blogger you cited (and the lackeys who lap it all up) all start at the end of the process. They decide that they don't like "cap-and-trade" or "carbon tax" or "electric cars" or some other possible policy remedy being discussed. Oh no, the government might regulate the very industry that makes Heartland's members so much money (in part because the actual costs of pollution, health, and other long term issues are externalized from the company and left to the government and the taxpayer to pay). Heartland doesn't like the possible remedies so, oops, they decide they will fight the remedy by denying there is even a problem to remedy. Despite not being scientists and knowing nothing about climate change (after all, they are a free market business lobbying group), they claim that tens of thousands of peer-reviewed papers by thousands of scientists over several decades of work in every country on the planet "must be wrong" (because they want it to be) and can be simply overturned just because they presented a faked graph without explaining it.

Sorry, science follows the data and the data from all those studies and all those scientists and all those decades led to the overwhelming conclusion that climate change is happening and our CO2 emissions are causing a large part of it.

Science: Followed the data, which led to the scientific consensus.

Heartland: Didn't like the policy cures so decided to deny the science by deception, misrepresentation, and outright lying.

Gee. Who do you think is right?

See what I mean folks,
David the self proclaimed scientist/mind reader doesn't post a chart or figures of his own to show the chart I referenced fake because he doesn't have a chart or figures that will do that.

And as I also predicted.....Not hard as David hasn't changed his dismiss and demean debating style since he started here. He is trying to change the focus on how ignorant I am on the subject. But that's David.

So David how about you prove the chart a "fake"?

And how about Davids consensus argument? He just points to a consensus and says they (the IPCC) have taken all things into consideration in their assessment of the climate.

"Here's the issue."

No David, the issue is that the climate hasn't warmed due to the addition of C02 like the IPCC predicted.
The head of the IPCC admits it, some of the most ardent global warmists admit it, but the faithful, the delusional global warmists (that would be you David) refuse to admit it!

He is trying to change the focus on how ignorant I am on the subject.

At least you admit that you are ignorant. However, being ignorant doesn't excuse your dishonesty.

Bye

"At least you admit that you are ignorant."

If it salves your bruised ego to say so David.

Bye!

Thanks for the charts Jack.

Are you changing your position?
I particularly like the title of your referenced page:

"Global Temperature Charts Suggest Implausibility of UN CO2 Hypothesis"

You do know that Alan Carlin is an economist who doesn't study climate change science, right? (Yes, we all know he "wrote" a critique on it, including the fact that it was ghost written by the free marketers)

Here's one view on Carlin's deception:

But the newly obtained documents show that Dr. Carlin’s highly skeptical views on global warming, which have been known for more than a decade within the small unit where he works, have been repeatedly challenged by scientists inside and outside the E.P.A.; that he holds a doctorate in economics, not in atmospheric science or climatology; that he has never been assigned to work on climate change; and that his comments on the endangerment finding were a product of rushed and at times shoddy scholarship, as he acknowledged Thursday in an interview.

But wait, there's more:

Agency officials and outside experts who reviewed his report as a result of the outcry over the episode have said they found it wanting in a number of ways. It included unverified information from blog posts, they found, quoted selectively from journal articles, failed to acknowledge contradictory information and may have borrowed passages verbatim from the blog of a well-known climate change doubter.

Even Carlin admits that it was shoddy work and wouldn't pass muster in peer-review, which ALL science must first undergo.

“There are numerous problems with it,” he said. “I wouldn’t dream of sending it to a journal in its current form. It is totally unacceptable for that type of thing. But it was either do it in four and a half days or don’t do it. I had to take some shortcuts.”

Here's another viewpoint:

One EPA economist, Alan Carlin, cuts and pastes some disinformation from a denier blog post in order to (falsely) assert that the EPA’s endangerment finding is flawed.


It's rather bizarre that an economist with no experience studying climate is being touted as a source, while all the scientists who do study climate science are dismissed out of hand.

That certainly suggests that the interest is not in informing the science, but in pushing the free market lobbying efforts, n'est-ce pas?

Credibility matters. So does honesty. Try it some time.

Hasn't there been more ice in the Arctic after the summer in 2008 than 2007? And hasn't there been more Ice in the Arctic after the summer in 2009 than 2008?

That actually means that the Ice Pack in the Arctic is growing now, again after the Earth is cooling.

Arctic sea ice extent remains low; 2009 sees third-lowest mark
This is a press release from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), which is part of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at the University of Colorado at Boulder.
Media Relations Contact: Katherine Leitzell, NSIDC: leitzell@nsidc.org or +1 303.492.1497

At the end of the Arctic summer, more ice cover remained this year than during the previous record-setting low years of 2007 and 2008. However, sea ice has not recovered to previous levels. September sea ice extent was the third lowest since the start of satellite records in 1979, and the past five years have seen the five lowest ice extents in the satellite record.

http://nsidc.org/news/press/20091005_minimumpr.html

The third lowest means that the prior two years were lower. Which means that the Ice pack is growing

Dan E. Nov 8, 2009, 10:28am EST
Global sea ice above 30 year average

"The earth is not cooling."

Well maybe not by much but it certainly has NOT been warming for the last 10 years, at least that is what the records show.

BTW,
I found this great video that expresses in a common sense way man's contribution of C02 to the environment.

This Short Video Shows Why Cap and Trade CAN NOT Effect Global Warming! A Must See!

We've already established that your video is a joke. Gee, only a few grains of rice in a million, so golly it must not mean much. What is the dose of aspirin? Here, I'll help you. One aspirin is 325 mg, and one average American male is about 87 kg, so the dose is 3.75 of your ridiculous grains of rice per million. Gee, guess aspirin can't have any impact on pain or heart attack prevention or any of the other things is "allegedly" does, right?

Want another example? How about selenium. Selenium is an essential element, meaning we have to have it for our bodies to work properly. Just like our old friend carbon dioxide that plays an essential role in humans (mostly as a waste product) and in plants (in photosynthesis, though just like animals, plants also respire [aka "breathe"], and thus use oxygen just like animals). So selenium is essential to life. And yet....at just 6 of your silly little red grains of rice selenium is incredibly toxic.

So your fake "trying to be sciencey-sounding" employee of the free market lobbyist Heartland Institute just sounds incredibly incompetent when it comes to science. Do you really think that willfully trying to fool the public with this charade of a video builds credibility in your non-scientific claim? What does it say that pretty much everything presented from the denialist side is done so with deception? That outright lying is the norm? That a free market lobbying firm prepares the script? That the Luntz propaganda memo gets played out over and over again by the non-scientific denialist industry?

Seriously. If you can't present a case without being deceptive or lying, doesn't that suggest you don't have a case?

Meanwhile, the science is clear. And we need to let denialists die out like the dinosaurs. Perhaps in a few billion years we can use them as a hydrocarbon source.

The problem with the so-called science behind global warming, is that it is agendized. It only looks at that which supports the scientists hypothesis, and ignores any contradictory evidence. Until I see a report that factors in the effects of solar flares, and natural cyclical patterns, and answers the contradictions to their claims, I will not buy into it.

"We've already established that your video is a joke."

We did?

When did we do that David?

So how about that question David?

How many degrees has the worlds Carbon reduction plans reduced the planet's temperature David?
How many degrees will the U.S.s Cap and Tax bill reduce the planet's temperature David?

Example of dishonesty:

1) Deny was discussed
2) Attempt to distract to some other point that has already been discussed
3) Rinse and repeat

Pathetic

But you can't tell us how much the planet will not warm when we take man made C02 away?

Yup that's the mark of a real scientist! LOL!
You know that you can not answer the question but rather than be honest and admit that you can't answer it after claiming that it is imperative we reduce C02, you avoid the question.
Kinda makes you statement suspect David, that you really don't know that much about it after all, nothing that I didn't already know!

Honesty David? It would be much better that you announce just when you are speaking on faith and when you are speaking as a scientists that way we can know when to ignore you!

"Want another example?"

Folks! There is a big problem with Davids examples. C02 is not a poison.
What we are talking about here is C02 in the atmosphere in which mans contribution is 15 Parts per million!

See David and global warmists like him would have you believe that those 15 parts per million are what is causing global warming, they want you to ignore the rest of the 385 parts per million (ppm) that exist in the atmosphere.
The want you to believe that to reduce our out put of C02 from 15 ppm to 13 or 12 ppm that that will save the planet from global warming.
Further they want you to ignore the water vapor in the atmosphere (represented by the blue bag in the video) which has a large capability of absorbing heat which makes up between 10,000 to 40,000 ppm of the atmosphere.

No David, the reason you are so upset over the video is that it is so effective in showing how inane your statement is;

"Climate change is real and we need to start reducing CO2 emissions now"

The problem with the so-called science behind global warming, is that it is agendized.

By whom? There are decades of research by thousands of scientists of all political persuasions in dozens of countries with different economic and political systems. So who's "agenda" is being pushed? Oh right. The non-scientific free market groups who could possibly be regulated don't like that idea so they have "agendized" it. Yes, that part is accurate. Meanwhile, scientists keep doing their work and the vast amount of the new data show the problem is getting much worse much faster than earlier thought. That's the science.

It only looks at that which supports the scientists hypothesis, and ignores any contradictory evidence.

That is exactly what the free market supported front groups and affiliated scientists are doing. They ignore tens of thousands of peer reviewed studies and present one doctored graph as "evidence" that all the other science is wrong. They point to the one red ball in a barrel of blue balls and claim it means the blue balls don't exist. Sorry, can't do that. Meanwhile, scientists are looking at ALL of the data, including any legitimate data that skeptics might produce, and all of that data in total overwhelmingly led to the conclusion that is now the scientific consensus.

Until I see a report that factors in the effects of solar flares, and natural cyclical patterns, and answers the contradictions to their claims, I will not buy into it.

You're kidding, right? Solar flares, sunspots, cosmic waves, natural cyclical patterns, influences by cartoon characters, and every other possible influence to the situation HAS been looked at...in depth...by many researchers...in peer-reviewed published papers...and documented extensively. They have looked at everything. Everything. And the data overwhelmingly lead to the conclusion that climate change is happening and that man-made CO2 emissions are the main reason.

Continuing to say that you "won't buy into it" is meaningless in the face of the actual truth uncovered by scientists. That's like saying you don't think Tiger Woods is a good golfer because you suck at golf.

"You're kidding, right?"

Yup they've taken it all into account, but some how their predictions are not even close.
Hmm, maybe they missed something?

"Continuing to say that you "won't buy into it" is meaningless in the face of the actual truth uncovered by scientists."

Yes David, It's the same as continuing to say they have factored in all possibilities even though their predictions are so far off!

The fact that their predictions are so far off means that they missed some thing(s).

If you really want to have a comprehensive change to energy policy that effects climate change, you need to use the "Kitchen Sink" approach. The left ONLY wants to talk about Wind, Solar, and Hydro. It totally ignores Nuclear, which is very clean and much safer now, thanks to technological enhancements, regardless of what the 3-Mile Island fear mongers want you to believe.

2nd, they need to dump Cap-and-Trade. It has failed in every European Country it has been tried in.

3rd, they need improve incentives. For instance, Solar is great. However, home owners should be able to deduct a portion of the cost of the panels from their taxes. Also, there should be a "Surplus Energy Benefit." What this is, is in some cases, homes with solar panels produce more energy than they consume. They should be allowed to sell this energy to the power companies at a rate of 9/10ths of market value. This will do 4 things:
1) It will lower the costs of power companies produce energy.
2) It will increase the number of homes with solar panels.
3) It will increase house values of homes with panels.
4) It will increase tax revenues from the sales of the panels (although this might be offset by the tax rebates to homeowners)

This is a win-win solution, not a beat down the power company solution

Great suggestions Poliwonk,

If you haven't already go sign my petition:
Tell Congress to enact federal private citizen net metering regulations

"The left ONLY wants to talk about Wind, Solar, and Hydro."

Why not talk about wind, solar and hydro? But there are also wave, geothermal, algae ethanol, biomass, and agrichar.



"It totally ignores Nuclear, which is very clean and much safer now...."

Not exactly true.

Nuclear Power: The Safe and Easy Way

Nuclear energy hasn't been ignored. It has been ruled out.

Besides, why would you want nuclear energy when companies like First Solar already are at production capacity, equivalent to a nuclear energy plant annually?

First Solar Produces 1 Gigawatt of Clean Solar Electricity

In other words, solar (and wind) are deployable more cheaply and quicker than nuclear. The only reason nuclear energy is being discussed at all is that special interest constituencies own politicians of both parties. But I doubt nuclear energy is going anywhere.

"...they need to dump Cap-and-Trade. It has failed in every European Country it has been tried in."

Not exactly true, but cap and trade is not the best approach. Sam Carana writes about feebates, which makes alot more sense to me.

"...home owners should be able to deduct a portion of the cost of the panels from their taxes."

That is the case presently, and I think the current energy legislation increases the deduction or credit - at the federal level at least. States differ.

Also, there should be a "Surplus Energy Benefit.

See Dan E.'s reference to "net metering". It is one of the very few things that Dan and I agree on. I would encourage you to sign his petition.

I agree with you poli,
We need a "shotgun" approach to energy production, By utilizing our domestic energy supply when ever we can, we keep money here and our economy stronger!
By keeping our economy strong more people are employed and more people can afford to invest in alternative energy, as well as keeping the manufacturing costs low.

"The left ONLY wants to talk about Wind, Solar, and Hydro."

I think that might be the impression we get from the MSM, there is however a great deal of effort in many different areas of producing alternative energy, supported by all concerned with a cleaner society.

Carbon restriction has been an abject failure in nearly every case.

I asked the question earlier in this thread to which even Gather resident scientist David K. could not respond!

By how much has all of the worlds carbon restriction programs reduced the earths temperature? How much will the planned U.S. cap and trade plan reduce the planet's temperature?
And another pertinent question:
How much global warming will be averted by reducing our C02 atmospheric contribution from 15ppm to 13ppm? Or would you have us move back to the stone age to reduce our contribution to 0ppm?

Carbon restriction is ineffective and a waste of resources. We can much better effect our carbon output by promoting alternative energy than by restricting carbon output.

"See Dan E.'s reference to "net metering". It is one of the very few things that Dan and I agree on. I would encourage you to sign his petition."

Thanks for the shout out Steve, and yes there is much we still disagree on, but there is one other area where I have come to agree with you, one you have preached in the past, and that is residential energy efficiency.

You had claimed that your sources indicated that this was an area that we could save the greatest amount of energy, through conservation, and frankly I thought the claim ridiculous.
Through my more recent research I have come to realize that what you claimed before is most likely correct, it is the area where we can save the greatest amount of energy.
But frankly if I hadn't been trying to disprove your claim I would never have come to this realization.

But I still disagree with you on nearly everything else......So there! LOL!

Thanks for that, Dan. I'm sure we'll continue to disagree on most things, but where we do agree, I'm glad we can both acknowledge it. Hopefully, there will be more of those examples in the future.

Global warming due to consumerism is a farce. The Earth and other planets in the galaxy are heating up from the inside, we are in for major changes.

The sum total of all the data on climate science over many decades, tens of thousands of studies, and thousands of scientists leads to the overwhelming conclusion that you are 100% absolutely wrong.

Of course, they actually study the science.

Science as we know it has become obsolete with the advent of quantum physics. Stay with the old program, fine, it will help you to pass the time.

It's difficult for folks to cope with the time frame of a thousand years let alone a hundred thousand years time frames.

:)

Agendized?


Who has an agenda in all this? the proponents or opponents. Me thinks the latter.

At any rate, I think Europe is way ahead of us. The byproduct of taking it seriously, is of course reduction in dependence on foreign oil and doing things with less waste in general, hence being more productive. After basic education, here is another area where we shall play catch up some day.

The smart companies are already making money on innovative and renewable technologies. We have the technology today to get started. To not do so is a dereliction of our stewardship commitment to our children.

"I think Europe is way ahead of us."

Not to mention China.

"We have the technology today to get started."

First Solar has production capacity of a GW annually, equivalent to an average size nuclear plant.

First Solar Produces 1 Gigawatt of Clean Solar Electricity

That's just one solar company. Others, like Nanosolar, aren't far behind.

Nanosolar Unveils Nanosolar Utility Panelâ„¢ Technology

Nanosolar Completes Panel Factory, Commences Serial Production

"Who has an agenda in all this? the proponents or opponents. Me thinks the latter."

Christos,
Who thought Cap and trade was cool before the rest of us? Enron that's who!

Who is set to be the first carbon trader billionaire? The man who produced the first scaremonger eco-movie an inconvenient truth, Al Gore that's who!

Who had the first cap and trade plan to to redistribute the wealth from the rich countries to poor ones? The U.N. that's who!

There are a lot of reasons to consider Cap and Trade, it's just that climate change is not one of them! They are all Benjamins (money), billions upon billions of Benjamins to be made and moved about!

The GOP ostriches with their heads in the sand on this will someday be running around like chickens with their heads cut off. Their political games are costing this planet dearly. At this point, I really don't care how much it costs. There will be new technology and markets that will grow from it and bad markets that will die.

These are the same people who screamed about the automobile and how it would cost the village blacksmiths dearly. WTF cares? It's the health of the planet and our kids' futures at stake.

"It's the health of the planet and our kids' futures at stake."

Maybe you could write to Rep. Shadegg.

The extra CO2 is created by people.

If there were fewer people around say half as many then there wouldn't be so much pollution.

However the planet is heated and cooled by the sun first and foremost in a 211 year or so cycle at this time. Also as the sun is also warming up slightly every day we on this earth will over the next million of years or so will also generally heat up.

Let’s not forget that the Dinosaurs lived here on Earth for over 250 or more million years, while we humans have been around in civilized sets for 40,000 to 100,000 years, or a very short time.

We humans do well adjusting to climate changes do well in the finding and using energy like Geothermal which is a never ending source, pump water down get steam up turn generators with it. Only problem are small earthquakes, but we’re all used to small earthquakes, therefore not really a problem.