Climate Change May Flip 40% of Earth’s Major Ecosystems

Good article Clarke thanks for sharing. We just had a couple of inches of rain in S NH last night a year ago it was snow. Fall was one of the warmest here on record.

Interesting.. because I posted a Report that NASA is saying that Global Warming is due to Sun Flare activity. There are some 30,000 scientists that are now wanting to sue Al Gore for his false claims and several Scientists have come forward to debate Al Gore concerning Global Warming and he has refused and or flat out ignored these reputable scientists.
Sounds like a bunch of hype to gain finances for the Government through taxes and to promote Al Gores investments in Green Companies.
See my post... the proof is there that Global Warming is a non issue.

We all should have a go at suing that charlatan, he has grown rich on the back of his lies and has conned most of the world.

Here are just some of the reputable people that have refuted what this snake oils man salesman has sold. And what they have to say on what the charlatan has wrote and said,
Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, University of Auckland, New Zealand: "I can assure Mr. Gore that no one from the South Pacific islands have fled to New Zealand because of rising seas. In fact, if Gore consults the data, he will see it shows sea level falling in some parts of the Pacific."
Dr. Nils-Axel M–rner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden: "We find no alarming sea level rise going on, in the Maldives, Tovalu, Venice, the Persian Gulf and even satellite altimetry if applied properly.
Dr. Paul Reiter, Professor - Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France, comments on Gore's belief that Nairobi and Harare were founded just above the mosquito line to avoid malaria and how the mosquitoes are now moving to higher altitudes: "Gore is completely wrong here - malaria has been documented at an altitude 2500 m - Nairobi and Harare are at altitudes of about 1500 m. The new altitudes of malaria are lower than those recorded 100 years ago.Ý None of the "30 so called new diseases" Gore references are attributable to global warming, none."
Dr. Mitchell Taylor, Manager, Wildlife Research Section, Department of Environment, Igloolik, Nunavut, Canada: "Our information is that 7 of 13 populations of polar bears in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago (more than half the world's estimated total) are either stable, or increasing …. Of the three that appear to be declining, only one has been shown to be affected by climate change.No one can say with certainty that climate change has not affected these other populations, but it is also true that we have no information to suggest that it has."

Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada: "Mr. Gore suggests that Greenland melt area increased considerably between 1992 and 2005. But 1992 was exceptionally cold in Greenland and the melt area of ice sheet was exceptionally low due to the cooling caused by volcanic dust emitted from Mt. Pinatubo. If, instead of 1992, Gore had chosen for comparison the year 1991, one in which the melt area was 1% higher than in 2005, he would have to conclude that the ice sheet melt area is shrinking and that perhaps a new ice age is just around the corner."

Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, California: "The oceans are now heading into one of their periodic phases of cooling. … Modest changes in temperature are not about to wipe them [coral] out. Neither will increased carbon dioxide, which is a fundamental chemical building block that allows coral reefs to exist at all."
Dr. R. M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia: "Both the Antarctic and Greenland ice caps are thickening. The temperature at the South Pole has declined by more than 1 degree C since 1950. And the area of sea-ice around the continent has increased over the last 20 years.

Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, formerly advisor to the World Meteorological Organization/climatology research scientist at University of Exeter, U.K.: "From data published by the Canadian Ice Service there has been no precipitous drop off in the amount or thickness of the ice cap since 1970 when reliable over-all coverage became available for the Canadian Arctic.

Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, British Colombia, Canada comments on Gore's belief that the Mountain Pine Beetle (MPB) is an "invasive exotic species" that has become a plague due to fewer days of frost: "The MPB is a species native to this part of North America and is always present. The MPB epidemic started as comparatively small outbreaks and through forest management inaction got completely out of hand."

Yeah - I've seen your "lists" before. Many of them are frauds themselves, listing scientists, who have no knowledge of being included - and who have demanded that their names be removed.

I'd like you to link one of these lists, which is scientific - and has been published in a scientific journal.

Steve I've seen your lists as well, loaded questions that don't pass the smell test.

Steve please point out the frauds from the post above. Remember in Science you only need one person to prove a theory wrong. And even if 10% of the 30,000 are plants or frauds (which they are not) that leaves 26,000 Scientific minds that do not buy into the AGW theory.

The biggest frauds are the WWF, Greenpeace and EDF members who have infiltrated the IPCC.

The surveys, bill, I've referred to are scientifically valid and published in scientific journals. I realize your disdain for science, and that's why you refer to "lists", originating with the "oregon institute for science and medicine", debunked any number of times. But climate cynics, such as yourself, keep up the dittoheading regarding it, with one purpose in mind, which is also well known and well documented - to creat doubt in the public mind re: the overwhelming scientific opinion that we are facing increasingly threats from the impacts of clmate change, which we are causing. Now - what possesses you to put at risk the well-being of every future generation, betting as you do, against the scientific positions of every major scientific organization in the world?

"...WWF, Greenpeace and EDF members who have infiltrated the IPCC."

You forgot a few....

Joint Science Academies‘ Statement: Climate Change Adaptation and the Transition to a Low Carbon Society

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)

American Geophysical Union (AGU)

American Medical Association (AMA)

American Meteorological Society (AMS)

Royal Society (UK)

National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, National Research Council: Understanding and Responding to Climate Change

European Science Foundation

Geological Society of America

International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics

American Society for Microbiology

The Society of American Foresters

American Astronomical Society

American Chemical Society

American Institute of Physics

American Physical Society

American Statistical Association

European Geosciences Union (EGU)

Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences

Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

American Institute of Biological Sciences

Royal Meteorological Society

World Meteorological Organization

American Society for Microbiology Society of Biology

NASA

Department of Energy

...to name a few.

(Laughs!) The Climate has changed, is changing, and will always change...deal with it.

"...deal with it."

Yes. Deal with it. That's exactly what would happen if the fossil fuel interests and their dupes would stop preventing just that.

Has nothing to do with fossil fuels.. see my post Steve and get informed.. Global Warming Explained! Nasa Say's: " Sun Flares Activity "

"Nasa Say's: " Sun Flares Activity"

NASA: Global Climate Change

You do mean NASA - the National Aeronautics and Space Administration - don't you?

The study is based upon the IPCC model estimation of a 2-4 degree C rise in the planets temperature by the year 2100, TP suggests that that number is a conservative despite the fact that the IPCC models have not been able to predict even today's environmental conditions.

The changes the study suggests are possible if we begin warming at the rates which were common prior to 1998 but if we continue to follow the warming trend of the last 15 years our planet will reach an approximated 1.27 temperature rise.
17 years of satellite data indicates a decelerating warming trend.

Thanks Dan you have taken the words right out of my mouth I was just about to comment on the IPCC . All I will say now is only that if anyone takes the IPCC seriously anymore I would suggest they go and see some kind of head doctor because as we have seen for months on end that the very core of the IPCC is run by green activists with their own green agendas. And to quite brutal about the IPCC it should be now disbanded and its chairpersons investigated for fraud and manipulation of the facts, along with any person who has manipulated data and sent it to them. Enough is enough they have conned the world long enough

It is good to see others are now seeing through the veil of lies, deception and deceit. However.. no matter how much evidence we show refuting global warming there are those who will continue in denial..

The climate warmaggedon group is so done.

Everyone is waking up to the deceit.

We should move on.... whats next? lol
~M

Mandatory bike helmets...oh, wait, we've already got that..

Uuuuhh...no Fries with her Happy Meal, but an on-demand abortion without Parental consent...oh, wait, we've already got that...

I think we're good.

"Everyone is waking up to the deceit."

Except all the major scientific organizations in the world, that is.

MJ, Isn't that sad, the range of bs we deal with for putting our govt in the hands of liberals. Until we take the schools back, it will get worse. Your comment is right on the absurdity we have now.

New year resolutions for the climate scientists that Steve is on about

I will admit that warming has been much slower than we expected
I will admit that recent sea level rise is nothing unusual or threatening
I will admit that our forecasts of declining snow cover were wrong
I will admit that Arctic temperatures are cyclical, and that we have no idea what will happen to Arctic ice over the next 50 years
I will admit that our forecasts of Antarctic warming have been a total failure.
I will admit that Polar Bear populations are not threatened
I will admit that climate models have demonstrated no skill, and are nothing more than research projects
I will admit there was a Medieval Warm Period
I will admit that that there was a Little Ice Age
I will stop pretending that we don’t have climate records prior to 1970
I will admit that the surface temperature record has been manipulated and is contaminated by UHI
I will stop making up data where none exists
I will honestly face skeptics in open debate.
I will quit trying to stop skeptics from being published
I will admit that glaciers have been disappearing for hundreds or thousands of years
I will stop telling people that the climate is getting more extreme, without producing any evidence
I will admit that hurricanes are on the decline
I will admit that severe tornadoes are on the decline
I will admit that droughts were much worse in the past
I will admit that efforts to shut down power plants have potentially very serious consequences for the future
I will pay for my own tickets to tropical climate boondoggles like Cancun, rather than improperly using taxpayer money for political activism
I will admit that there is no missing heat
I will admit that temperatures have been cooling for at least the last decade
I will publish the raw data and not lose it.
I will not change measurement systems when the data becomes unfavorable to my pre-determined conclusions – and then blame my junk science on CO2.
I will not fabricate phony upwards adjustments when the data becomes unfavorable to my predetermined conclusions


http://www.real-science.com/new-years-resolutions-climate-scientists

I will not Blame Fox News the tea party the Koch brothers or Big oil for Science that does not support the AGW theory!!!!

Here's a couple of New Year's resolutions for climate cynics, like the ones commenting on this post:

I will no longer put all future generations at risk, by opposing political action to address a global climate problem, about which every major scientific organization on the planet is warning us.

I will no longer try to influence public opinions by echoing the PR campaign of doubt, promoted by the koch brothers, exxon, bp and the other fossil fuel interests.

http://www.real-science.com/about-me

From your link:
"Bachelor of Science from a party school in Arizona"
"Masters In Electrical Engineering from the Haaavaaaad Of The South"

"Real Science"? I see....

Try this one......

"A lie told often enough becomes the truth."
Vladimir Lenin

Yeah - looks like you read the Luntz memo.

Steve you didn't answer my question. Who in Grahams post is a fraud or how are they wrong?

Second I have pointed out several times how your survey's in scientific journals are made up of loaded questions. Even I would come out in the 97% not very scientific.

I also find it hard to believe that anyone can still believe in this every Scientific organization rant, considering the many times people have pointed out the many people who have spoken out about their organization. Tell me Steve did they have a vote? What percentage of these organizations believe in the AGW theory?

As for putting all future generations at risk. It's you and the green lobby who is putting future generations at risk by stifling growth through regulations and creating government debt trying to fix mother nature.

"Who in Grahams post is a fraud or how are they wrong?"

Do your own search, bill. It is well documented.

"I have pointed out several times how your survey's in scientific journals are made up of loaded questions."

Really? Do link your post - I'd like to see that.

"Tell me Steve did they have a vote? What percentage of these organizations believe in the AGW theory?"

You already discount scientific surveys. Now you discount scientific organization. So - in your view, there really is no such thing as science - unless, that is, it is "real-science" blogs, and the like.

"As for putting all future generations at risk. It's you and the green lobby who is putting future generations at risk by stifling growth through regulations and creating government debt trying to fix mother nature."

And now we get to the real issue, bill, which is your political ideology. It is one thing to debate whether conservative or liberal policies are best to address climate change (btw, cap and trade was originally a conservative idea), but masking political arguments with anti-scientific BS is insanity. If and when you (and your political cousins) come to your senses, maybe we can honestly debate the best approach to dealing with this problem.

"Do your own search, bill. It is well documented."

"Really? Do link your post - I'd like to see that"

So you ask for what you are not willing to provide?

"And now we get to the real issue,"

Doesn't matter Steve, bill is correct restrict the economy and restrict the people's ability to invest in the more expensive renewable energy sources and conservation products.
As a result of this economic down turn we see Germany one of the leaders in "Green" energy on the planet dramatically reducing the amount of money being spent to subsidies renewable's, hundreds formerly employed in the renewable installation field are being laid off.

BTW It's was NOT conservatives who tried to force Cap and Trade on us and then tried to backdoor carbon restrictions through the EPA when we the people told him that we were not interested.

"So you ask for what you are not willing to provide?"

Sure thing, Dan. Maybe you'd like to help bill's search. I've linked that stuff for you a number of times.

"...bill is correct restrict the economy and restrict the people's ability to invest in the more expensive renewable energy sources and conservation products."

Well, Dan, at least you're in the right arena for an honest debate with that comment. But you gotta end the fossil subsidies, first. Then we'll see what kinds of energy production, distribution, and use is more expensive. I have quoted Lovins many times, as you well know:

"I don’t think very many progressive politicians understand that what we most need in energy policy is a dose of conservative economic principles, that is we ought to let always to save or produce energy, compete fairly at honest prices regardless of which kind they are – savings or supply, what technology they use, where they are, how big they are or who owns them. Let’s see who’s not in favor of that. Who’s not in favor of that will be all the free marketeers in outward appearance, but actually they are corporate socialists in free-marketeers’ clothing. It is very curious to me that many who profess to be political conservatives are the biggest subsidizers of their favorite technologies and the most opposed to real competition. Conversely, many liberals try to subsidize their favorite technologies as much as the other technologies are getting subsidized. Why are we paying so much of our energy bill through our tax bill? Let’s pay it at the pump or at the meter so we know how much it costs. Then we’ll know how much is enough."

That sounds ok to me, Dan, as a compromise. How about you and bill?

Yes, Char...if this nonsense continues much longer (which it will), I'm afraid we've had it.

"As a result of this economic down turn we see Germany one of the leaders in 'Green' energy on the planet dramatically reducing the amount of money being spent to subsidies renewable's, hundreds formerly employed in the renewable installation field are being laid off."

Gosh, Dan - you sure about that? Sure you're not just wishful thinking?

"It's was NOT conservatives who tried to force Cap and Trade on us and then tried to backdoor carbon restrictions through the EPA when we the people told him that we were not interested."

Actually, Dan, cap and trade began to be worked out as far back as the Reagan administration, and it was first used in the Bush I administration to deal with acid rain. Maybe, you'll argue that Reagan and Bush I weren't "conservatives", but that's the history of cap and trade, at any rate.

Btw, it was neoconservatives that forced a $trillion, illegal war on us in Iraq. And if Iran moves to shut down the Strait of Hormuz, as it is threatening, we may be in a whole new war - you know - "to protect our vital national interests in the region."

Steve here is a cut and paste from one of your surveys.

1. When compared with pre-1800s
levels,
do you think that mean global temperatures
have generally risen, fallen, or
remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant
contributing factor in changing
mean global temperatures?

Question 1 thought would be 100% risen!
Question 2 would also be a yes but there's no questions defining how much and what might be the causes ie C02 UHI or land use. Is it catastrophic? What is significant?

So you ask the correct questions you will get the response your looking for. Unlike you Steve I look at the facts then make a decision. That's Science

Now Steve you discount the Oregon petition you can go here to find out the truth about how many asked to have their signatures removed. As usual you get your info from some green lobby website and take it as gospel.

The anti science group is Michael Mann and the team who have yet to publish the algorithms and computer programs used to create the famous hockey stick.
Anti Science is blocking people from publishing in journals who don't buy into the AGW theory. Anti Science is having activists control the IPCC.

You run around saying big oil is out to stop alternative energy sources. Can you explain this ?

So Steve since Chevron used 0 tax dollars maybe we should be following the oil companies lead and let business take care of the innovation. That's if you're truly concerned about future generations.

"Steve here is a cut and paste from one of your surveys."

Correction, bill. They weren't my surveys. They were conducted by climate scientists and published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and by the American Geophysical Union. I think scientists know what science is. Are you as scientist? I thought not.

"So you ask the correct questions you will get the response your looking for."

And if you "cut and paste" the right "cherries", you get the right spin.

"Unlike you Steve I look at the facts then make a decision. That's Science"

I repeat: I think scientists know what science is. Are you as scientist? I thought not.

"Now Steve you discount the Oregon petition you can go here to find out the truth about how many asked to have their signatures removed."

The Oregon Petition. Have fun.....

"As usual you get your info from some green lobby website and take it as gospel."

The site you linked is what exactly?

"The anti science group is Michael Mann and the team who have yet to publish the algorithms and computer programs used to create the famous hockey stick."

More climategate conspiracy theories? Michael Mann has been cleared by all investigations in which these phoney charges were made.

"Anti Science is blocking people from publishing in journals who don't buy into the AGW theory. Anti Science is having activists control the IPCC."

I'm sure.... And the anti-scientists control all of the other major scientific organizations throughout the world. Yes, yes, they are all politically motivated to achieve one world government. The real "scientists" are trying to warn us from the "free-market think tanks" like Heartland, or from simple, little blogs like "real-science", whose owner has a masters degree!!

"Can you explain this ?"

Sure. BP had also changed it's name from British Petroleum to Beyond Petroleum. They had all "green" looking emblems, etc., before they poisoned the Gulf of Mexico. Now they have ads running re: how they've restored everything. And did you know that Exxon is in the algae-ethanol business? I don't know if they're "greenwashing" or hedging their bets. But I know the fossil industries contribute heavily to republicans, and I know republicans vote consistently to maintain fossil subsidies, and more often than not against subsidies for renewables.

"...maybe we should be following the oil companies lead and let business take care of the innovation."

Yes, yes.... Back to your political agenda - corporatism. No thanks. I'm all for business and government working together, but someone has to set the direction - and corporations ain't gonna do that by themselves. I linked, however, a statement by Amory Lovins above. Review it. He's certainly not a corporatist. He's not anti-corporation, either. He's made some since in-roads into Ford and WalMart. He's apparently more "free-market" than most "conservatives".

"Gosh, Dan - you sure about that?"

Yah Steve, I'm sure about that!

Considering the fact that your reference doesn't counter what I posted what was the point?

"Solar Manufacturers Expect Tough Times for 2012"

"German Solar Firms Eclipsed by Chinese Rivals"

"That sounds ok to me, Dan, as a compromise. How about you and bill?"

I doubt the sincerity of you agreeing with that statement Steve.

At face value it would mean ending subsidies for renewable energy sources.

"Actually, Dan, cap and trade began to be worked out as far back as the Reagan administration".

O.K. Steve,
Since this is the second time you have delved into territory that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand....I'll post this to make sure that everybody knows what we are talking about!

Cap and Trade As it applies to carbon output.

"Btw, it was neoconservatives that forced a $trillion, illegal war on us in Iraq."

*SIGH*
One more time!
The Democrats ratified all of those things including authorizing going to war, they also agreed to all of the spending that was associated to the war on terror.
So if we are going to honestly affix blame it has to be across the board, with Congress too.

"Considering the fact that your reference doesn't counter what I posted what was the point?"

Conflicting reports, Dan. One day it's optimistic - another, not so much. Depends on when and what you read, even on renewable energy websites.

"I doubt the sincerity of you agreeing with that statement Steve.//At face value it would mean ending subsidies for renewable energy sources."

It would also mean ending the much larger subsidies for fossils, Dan. I think Lovins knows what he's talking about, and I'd be willing to trust his judgement. But like he says, it's the corporate socialists, who wouldn't go along with it.

"Cap and Trade As it applies to carbon output."

Either way, Dan, cap and trade worked (relatively speaking) re: acid rain, which republicans supported. There are better options than that, e.g., cap and dividend, for carbon emissions - but we never really get to that debate, because cynics simply deny there is a problem in the first place - as they did with acid rain, asbestos, tobacco, and the ozone hole. This is just another example in a long line.

"The Democrats ratified all of those things including authorizing going to war, they also agreed to all of the spending that was associated to the war on terror.//So if we are going to honestly affix blame it has to be across the board, with Congress too."

Fair enough, Dan. And those democrats lost to Obama in 2008. But you will be unable to credibly deny that the Iraq war happened at the initiation of the neocons and the w. administration. Yep - dumocrats went along - but it was w.'s (aka cheney's) war.

But back to the Lovins statement. You agree? It's worth the compromise to me. But it's gotta include the fossils, as well - including the military support for keeping the oil lanes open.

"But back to the Lovins statement. You agree?"

See you are already invoking caveats....I knew you were NOT serious.

"It would also mean ending the much larger subsidies for fossils,"

Well I don't have the faith in what Lovins knows that you do.

"Renewable Energy Subsidies Are 49 Times Greater Than Those For Fossil Fuel"
"The study found that in 2009, estimated tax revenue losses for the energy sector totaled $19.9 billion. Of the $19.9 billion, renewable energy received $15.4 billion in tax breaks, while fossil fuels received $2.5 billion. Another $2 billion worth of tax breaks went toward conservation, efficiency, alternative vehicles, and other energy-related tax incentives. Alcohol fuels and biofuels received the largest share of tax breaks in 2009, consisting of estimated tax revenue losses of $12.5 billion. Over half of this amount was for black liquor qualifying for a tax credit as an alternate fuel mixture—a tax credit that was discontinued after 2009. Black liquor is a fuel obtained from digesters in the process of chemically pulping wood that is burned in a recovery furnace to extract certain basic chemicals."

Me thinks you'll be coming up with a few more caveats after reading that statement.

"Fair enough, Dan. And those democrats lost to Obama in 2008."

Sounds good but give me a list of Democrats who supported the war on terror and the associated spending that were defeated by Obama.......Oh wait a minute....What did Obama do that changed anything in the way we were addressing the war on terror or the monies spent in fighting it?

"Either way, Dan, cap and trade worked"

Show me the science shows us that reducing man produced C02 by the suggested amounts (whatever they may be) will have the desired effect of reducing global warming.
In the 70s we had conclusive evidence that the large industrial complex concentrated in the North East was having a negative effect on the environment, we do not have anything close to such conclusive evidence when we look at C02.
Even so the emission regulations enacted at that time were voluntary.

"See you are already invoking caveats....I knew you were NOT serious"

No caveats, Dan. Just making sure we understand the role of gubmint in fossil industries. I doubt even you're going to deny the role of oil in our mideast entanglements. Those wars don't come cheap.

"Well I don't have the faith in what Lovins knows that you do."

I know, but that's really not the issue. He's calling for an end to gubmint involvement in energy production, distribution and deployment. I'd think real "free marketeers" would be all in favor of that. Guess not....

"Renewable Energy Subsidies Are 49 Times Greater Than Those For Fossil Fuel"

Fossil Fuel Subsidies Six Times More Than Renewable Energy

"Me thinks you'll be coming up with a few more caveats after reading that statement."

So you want gubmint in the middle of our energy production and distribution? Either you want a free market or you don't.

"Sounds good but give me a list of Democrats...."

It was a republican administration, and dumocrats went along waaaaay too much.

"What did Obama do that changed anything in the way we were addressing the war on terror or the monies spent in fighting it?"

You're kidding.... Any videos from bin Laden lately? How many troops are left in Iraq? It's beside the point, anyway. You're either for or against using our military as a security service for the oil industry. If the oil industry needs security services in the mideast, let them hire blackwater and charge consumers for that "cost of doing business". I don't want to continue paying taxes "to protect our vital national interests in the region."

"Show me the science shows us that reducing man produced C02 by the suggested amounts (whatever they may be) will have the desired effect of reducing global warming."

It won't matter, Dan, if I link NAS sources like THIS or THIS, you're going to continue to deny there's any problem associated with fossil fuels.

"In the 70s we had conclusive evidence that the large industrial complex concentrated in the North East was having a negative effect on the environment, we do not have anything close to such conclusive evidence when we look at C02."

Ain't hindsight wonderful? But at the time, the same jokers, who are now questioning everything re: climate science, were then questioning everything re: acid rain - and they were denying and delaying any policy decisions to deal with it. It's the same scenario today. It's been the same scenario with tobacco, asbestos, and the ozone hole. Today, every major scientific organization in the world is warning us about this, and the recommendations are that we decrease carbon emissions asap. And we see the same campaign of "manufactured doubt" as we have seen re: these other issues for decades. When you decide to stop playing these games, then we can get serious about whatever policy decisions might actually have an effect. But the question is about policy (politics) - not science. The science is there - and has been for some time.

"Even so the emission regulations enacted at that time were voluntary."

Policy decisions are a matter of politics. That is the real climate change debate. Stop denying the problem so we can get on to debating real solutions.

"No caveats, Dan."
No problems Steve as I already posted your original offer was disingenuous in the least considering the new conditions...I guess we can classify it as a bait and switch.

"You're kidding"

Nope! Obama kept everything status quot didn't change a thing kept the same. All of those things that you progressives were flailing around about GW when he was in office Obama continued.

"Can you explain this ?"

See above. But maybe you'd like to comment on THIS or THIS.

"I already posted your original offer was disingenuous in the least considering the new conditions...I guess we can classify it as a bait and switch."

Translation: You're unwilling to stop using the American military as the security service for the multinational oil corporations, along with ending all other forms of fossil subsidies and tax breaks. You're unwilling to simply "let the markets decide". Thanks, Dan.

"Obama kept everything status quot didn't change a thing kept the same. All of those things that you progressives were flailing around about GW when he was in office Obama continued."

Nice spin, Dan, but Osama is gone and there's no troops in Iraq. And he's beginning to wind down Afghanistan, much to the chagrin of neocons, who are making much noise about it. But you're simple refusal to acknowledge that it was the bush administration, which set us on this absurd course, is not surprising. It's how you roll. Btw, if you look at my comment and post history, you're going to have a hard time making me out to be an ardent Obama supporter. But he sure ain't no w.

"Translation:"

""I don’t think very many progressive politicians understand that what we most need in energy policy is a dose of conservative economic principles, that is we ought to let always to save or produce energy, compete fairly at honest prices regardless of which kind they are – savings or supply, what technology they use, where they are, how big they are or who owns them. Let’s see who’s not in favor of that. Who’s not in favor of that will be all the free marketeers in outward appearance, but actually they are corporate socialists in free-marketeers’ clothing. It is very curious to me that many who profess to be political conservatives are the biggest subsidizers of their favorite technologies and the most opposed to real competition. Conversely, many liberals try to subsidize their favorite technologies as much as the other technologies are getting subsidized. Why are we paying so much of our energy bill through our tax bill? Let’s pay it at the pump or at the meter so we know how much it costs. Then we’ll know how much is enough."

That sounds ok to me, Dan, as a compromise. How about you and bill? "

My response;

"I doubt the sincerity of you agreeing with that statement Steve."

I was correct Steve.

I won't bother to comment on anything else...you are coming from a position of unusual deception today Steve.

"I was correct Steve."

Only in your own mind, Dan.

"...you are coming from a position of unusual deception today Steve."

A weak excuse for ignoring a major fact that the government spends hundreds of billions to secure oil fields in the mideast, which apparently you are OK with. You know, as well as I do, that if citizens were having to pay for relative political stability in the mideast when they bought gas, the oil industry would be belly-up in very little time. Lovins' statement includes this brief quote: "Why are we paying so much of our energy bill through our tax bill? Let’s pay it at the pump or at the meter so we know how much it costs." The only dishonesty here is your attempt to deny the fact that our military interventions in the mideast are motivated by our dependency on oil. Not even George P. Shultz denies that:

"Crude prices are rising, uncertainty about developments in the Middle East roils markets and, well, as Ronald Reagan might say, 'Here we go again.'

Once more we face the vulnerability of our oil supply to political disturbances. Three times in the past thirty years (1973, 1978, and 1990) oil price spikes caused by Middle East crises helped throw the U.S. economy into recession. Coincident disruption in Venezuela and Russia adds to unease, let alone prices, in 2004. And the surging economies of China and India are contributing significantly to demand. But the problem far transcends economics and involves our national security. How many more times must we be hit on the head by a two-by-four before we do something decisive about this acute problem?"

"I won't bother to comment on anything else..."

Translation: You have no comment worth making. You're unwilling to make the compromise, because you know it would end your own allegiance to fossils. As Lovins says, "It is very curious to me that many who profess to be political conservatives are the biggest subsidizers of their favorite technologies and the most opposed to real competition."

So, Dan, whenever you make an argument appealing to "free market conservative principles", I will be reminding you of this discussion. So thanks, Dan, for (at least) that.

No Steve,
You are being dishonest. Obama didn't change a thing in how we waged the war on terror, the Democrats who signed onto the war on terror and the funding for it are still in office, and you don't care if your responses are not truthful.

"You are being dishonest."

The only thing that's dishonest here, Dan, is your distraction from the issue. It is now clear that you support use of the American military for advancing the interests of multinational oil corporations.

"Obama didn't change a thing in how we waged the war on terror...."

There's plenty of things I have been critical of Obama on, Dan, and anyone, who wants to review my posts and comments pages can clearly see that. However, you sound like a far-left liberal, when you claim that Obama is just extending w.'s approach to the war on terror. And if you want to keep squawking about "dishonesty," you need to look in the mirror. You do not acknowledge that bin Laden is dead, or that the Iraq war is over - that Afghanistan is winding down, or that the approach to Libya was entirely different. In fact, w. republicans have been ridiculously critical of Obama's decisions, irrespective of the success he's demonstrated.

Now here is my approach to the war on terror: end our addiction to oil. Then we have no interest in the mideast. Hell - even your great "free market" guru, Ron Paul, agrees with me on that - but not Dan!!! No - Dan doesn't believe in "free markets", despite his rhetoric. He's a corporate socialist, particularly when it comes to multinational oil companies.

well gollie, but if the Earth cools down like if there are no sunspots for 50 or so years, what then?

Feeling the heat: Climate change and biodiversity loss

Yah well that's what happens when the climate changes.
It's just that when we see 17 years of satellite data indicating a decelerating warming trend. despite we humans continuing to pump greater and greater amounts of C02 into the atmosphere, pretty much tells us that it ain't us driving global warming.

I read that article Steve. If, as I believe, we are going through a polar shift than this would seem to be what the earth does. Species that can migrate do. Those that can't adapt cease to exist. Earth has done this many times, with or without us.

Dan. I keep having to remind you that c3headlines is not a scientific publication. It is a blog. So why do you keep referring to it?

Char. What you believe does not fit with what all the major scientific oganizations in the world think - based on decades of research and evidence across several lines of study. Sorry.

"Earth has done this many times...",

Not in the time frame that we are now seeing.

"...with or without us."

"without us" is a pertinent issue - don't you thinK?

Yes it's pertinent, that's why I said it. It has done it before. Between added underwater volcanic activity heating the ice from below, and the oceans in general,changing the currents, influencing the weather, etc, why try to make the warming the product of CO2 when it is easily outgassing as a product of warming? I have repeatedly posted the graphs showing that the warming is related to the sun cycles, and the CO2. Level follows that. That has been clear for a decade, but they fudged the data to fit their bought and paid for conclusion. You can bah all you want, I believe that.

No. They didn't "fudge the data". Every investigation that looked at that charge has said there's nothing to it. Even the one fox news said would be the "final word".

It's not a matter of "bah" from me. It's a matter that every scientific organziation in the world is warning us. You insist on your "belief" at the risk of your grandchildren's well-being.

"Yes it's pertinent, that's why I said it. It has done it before."

So..., you're saying that "without us" is ok with you?

I'm saying we are fleas. If it did it, before we were industrialized, why should we be surprised it does it again? We are fleas, along for the ride.

"If it did it, before we were industrialized, why should we be surprised it does it again?"

When climate changed before we were industrialized, it did it over thousands of years. Climate is changing now over decades. That is the problem with adaptation, which this article points to.

At any rate, your "fleas" comment is very interesting. I hope you won't mind if I quote you on that.

Get ready... it is inevitable that Our Species Will go Extinct .. yes.. we are Fleas in the big scheme of the Universe. The Earth Will recover after we are gone. But our demise will be more than likely a Meteor or Super Volcano.. not this made up bull crap Al Gore theory..
30.000 scientists refute and have challenged him to debate. He runs like a puppy with its tail tucked between its legs.
See my post and argue with what is being said.. {By Scientists}

"...it is inevitable that Our Species Will go Extinct .. "

Yeah, the sun will burn us up in a few billion years. No need to commit mass suicide in the meantime by burning ourselves up.

"But our demise will be more than likely a Meteor or Super Volcano.. not this made up bull crap Al Gore theory.."

Speaking of Al Gore, his book, Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis, is excellent. You and your phony "30.000" scientists should read it. Btw, Gore doesn't debate representatives from the Heartland Institute, because he doesn't waste time with idiots. Btw2 - it ain't Gore's theory.

"See my post and argue with what is being said.. {By Scientists}"

See my post regarding the scientific consensus.

We will not be here in a few billion years.. the Earths resources will deplete before then. Over consumption due to population explosion. There are other forms of mass extinction than what I mentioned, such as plague, famine, etc. etc.
Global Warming.. no, doesn't exist.. all made up like the Big Global Freeze that was to occur by 1991 predicted by {Scientists} in the 1970's..
Course maybe you do not remember that?
New Ice Age 1991.. uh ... yeah.. OK.. ; ).

"Global Warming.. no, doesn't exist.. all made up like the Big Global Freeze that was to occur by 1991 predicted by {Scientists} in the 1970's.."

This is why Gore doesn't "debate" cynics. It's a waste of time.

"...all made up like the Big Global Freeze that was to occur by 1991 predicted by {Scientists} in the 1970's..//Course maybe you do not remember that?"

No matter how many times the "global cooling" myth is debunked, cynics keep repeating it.

"New Ice Age 1991.. uh ... yeah.. OK.. ; ) "

Yeah... OK... winkwink...

Btw, here's what the U.S. National Academy of Sciences was saying in 1979: "A plethora of studies from diverse sources indicates a consensus that climate changes will result from man's combustion of fossil fuels and changes in land use."