You’re getting quite well known!
—-
We are. Without the help of you and Brian D and DavidONE and all the rest of the cyber-village that makes this possible, this would be nowhere. Thanks to all of you
Mike

We do have most of the required technology to start deployment now. The biggest impact we can have is simple energy efficiency plans, which can be as simple as insulating buildings and programming the place to turn off the lights after hours. The basic power generation systems are already available, but aren’t being deployed. Plug-in hybrid cars, which get >150 MPG and could easily make up over 70% of all consumer vehicles in the United States without making a single change to the US power generation/distribution infrastructure, are nearly ready and just need policy support for aggressive deployment.

Also, I should note that green tech is continuing to attract investors, despite the recession. It’s still growing. And a large component of Obama’s stimulus is likely to go to deploying green tech and efficiency measures, since these do in fact create exactly the jobs he promotes.

What’s needed now isn’t research (although that’s important). We don’t need a breakthrough. We need deployment.

AGW has been turned political and economic because we presently have no alternative technologies that can replace fossil fuels easily unless we commit to a lot of research and provide a good strategy globally. The lobbyists are not too happy either and want to continue obtaining supplements of millions tp provide coal, gas and oil to us all. The denialists in the main are sponsored by these copanies, it has been well documented especially in the USA where disinformation is a way of life for the right.

Science is not liked in the USA by the right, it pisses them off except for the arms race and putting satellites in space etc.

But the USA voted for Obama and hence the tide might tuen in time.

Using the same link, you will also find this statement, “Early records also have a substantial uncertainty driven by systematic concerns over the accuracy of sea surface temperature measurements” .They are referring to the dataset SINCE 1850 not prior to 1850. (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT3_accepted.pdf)

On a last note, I’ve never denied the variations in temperature only source (not manmade).
—-

Myth: Instrumental Record is Not Reliable
Humans Causing Climate Change
Mike

The teacher asked the class “does anyone know when the dinosaurs died?”. Little Johnny raises his hand and says “I know, it was 65 million and ten years ago.” The teacher asks how he came up with that answer and Johnny says “Well, our book says it was 65 million years ago, and it’s a ten year old book.” A very precise answer, but not any more accurate than simply saying it was 65 million years ago.

I suppose if you wanted to question dinosaur evolution, then those 10 years would somehow be made to seem more important that the 65 million.
—-

I like it!
Mike

The wiki link further backs my opinion by stating, that the accuracy of early year data is questionable.

Thank you for providing a source to back my previous statements.
—-

I notice that you neither provided a link nor indication of what constituted the early years … turns out the quoted statement, which requires verification, refers to pre-1850.
So we do have an accurate data base since then (actually far more, but at least for instrumental); and you would explain the warming that has been occurring … how?
Please please please do not invoke any of the nonsense that has already been debunked.
Mike

goantigreen.com
—-

Spamming your website get’s the link killed … only those with relevant, intelligent contributions (for or against) get to promote their sites.
Mike

The more disturbing point about this isn’t the early temperature record (which is corroborated through other sources such as borehole analysis). What’s truly disturbing is that you act all high-and-mighty about scientific accuracy without even having the presence of mind to do a quick Internet search to answer your question. Not knowing something isn’t the same as that something being unknown.

How many global temperature monitoring stations were there in 1878? How about 1900? I know, these are foolish questions. But how foolish is it to quote temperatures from 1878. I would agree we have fairly accurate readings from the last 30 years, beyond that the readings are misleading at best. Now ask yourself if 30 years is a large enough sampling to make a factual statement about global warming?
—-

I’ll ask a simpler one, why do you launch into these sorts of irrelevant questions without doing a minimal amount of self-education about the subject?
Mike

As I asked in other threads, why did these libertarians/conservatives decide to attack the science rather than accept the science and develop a small-government solution to the problem?

I suspect that climate issues only seem “liberal” because you’ll find precious few conservative/libertarian solutions being presented.

(On a side note, James Hansen is a self-described “middle of the road conservative” and is on record for saying he would have voted McCain in ’04 if he was running. I don’t think you can say that he’s ideologically motivated when he suggests things like cap-and-dividend as a part of the solution.)

As for nuclear power, I haven’t been involved in those debates. All of my research into the field shows that it’s just too expensive and slow, not to mention unduly centralized (i.e. a welcoming terror target). It holds roughly a fifth of the US electricity market after decades of use and STILL requires government handouts to remain competitive. You find folk who know much more about business than I, such as Warren Buffet, pulling the plug on nuclear projects after sinking millions in feasability studies. You find construction timelines being on the order of ten years before it begins producing a single kilowatt, which is too long to have a serious impact on climate issues (although I haven’t looked into the carbon footprint of concrete-heavy nuclear plant construction).

LONG before you begin getting into the traditional environmentalist concerns on nuclear power (notably safety and waste disposal), it falls into the “not satisfactory” category. I agree it will be part of the solution, but it isn’t the magic bullet the conservatives seem to think it is. (On a side note, was I the only one laughing when the party that developed “Freedom Fries” started asking why America couldn’t be more like France as soon as nuclear power came up?)

P.S. why is it always the liberals that find the need to insult those that disagree with their thinking? How many calm rational “deniers” refused audience on the benefits of nuclear power? How many angry liberals attaced those that in 1989 correctly argued the fallacy of AIDS being a major epidemic that would wipe out the earth?
—-

[1] Inaccurate image … don’t think mango groves, think Darfur … have fun “dealing”.

[2] How many Deniers don’t read the links?

Or cite ridiculous examples of problems that resources were used to try and combat and hence did not turn out to be as bad as they could have been, like acid rain and AIDS? Why not cite WWII? All that hoopla about Germany, and look … they didn’t conquer the world, obviously bogus liberal hysteria, right?
Mike

M

Damn all Global Warming Believers.
—-

Sorry, WordPress must have deleted the links you provided to substantiate your claim – I am afraid we need them because a thorough search of the inter-net produces nothing to support you. All we can come up with a tonne of evidence that you are absurdly wrong.
Could you post those links again please?
Mike

Two nominations: The Montreal Protocol and the Acid Rain Program.

The Montreal Protocol was not only a successful international environmental agreement, but it has been called “the single most successful international agreement to date” (Kofi Annan’s words). It also has some fun denialist tactics associated with it — for instance, our good friend S. Fred Singer wrote vehemently against the impact of CFCs on the ozone layer and published his magnum opus on the subject in 1995. Look up the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for that year.

Although the Acid Rain Program isn’t international, it’s significant here because it was the model for carbon cap-and-trade. Note that the biggest failures so far of the European system are where it deviated from the Acid Rain Program’s model (i.e. it gave away too many permits for free).

With the exception of some wise words from Kazi and Dazzer, the above posts deny the climate science and repetitively challenge what can and has been shown to be crap.

I say the ‘posts deny’, but of course, I mean the people writing them. Why not call a spade a spade? The behaviour of denying is attached to the person doing it.

While I appreciate that the term ‘denier’ has been associated with a denial of the Holocaust, that is not its only meaning and is not even its general meaning.

The term ‘denier’ is descriptive of anyone who is in serious denial about a serious problem, and it suggests negative effects i.e., the person has caused or will cause serious harm to others (and often to themselves). Harm can be by commission or omission. One can see why it might be unpleasant to be described this way. Nonetheless, abuses of all sorts are often denied, and these abusers are deniers.

For example, pedophiles are almost always ‘deniers’ of their crimes against children. I am not, of course, suggesting a comparison between climate change deniers and pedophiles. However, both fail to take responsibility and talk about how everyone else is lying. Actually, they often feel they are the victims of something.

Those who deny human-caused climate change may simply not understand the science or the implications of climate change.

However, more often than not, those who are being called ‘deniers’ are rather oviously part of the industry status quo. Among these are the individuals who spend a lot of time promoting anti-green, free-market rhetoric. They are paranoid and they sound like they have guns.

In contrast, the balanced, current, thoughtfully reviewed climate science information regularly provided here is helpful to building an informed, confident citizenry.

I wonder if GreenFyre or a guest could talk about examples from history that show some successes of the environmental movement. Otherwise, we can’t see the possibilities for change.

Our current situation exists only because we created it. That means we can change it, but we have to have a vision of what should replace the existing economic spectacle of mindless usurpation and consumption. Of course, the societies oppressed by our colonial consumption habits will bring it down for us, if we can’t change. Some are already miles ahead of us and have the structures in place for change.

But thank you to the deniers for highlighting all this.

Each one teach one.
—-

This comment deserves to be a blog post on it’s own.
Mike