Palin Exposes Politics of Climate...

[bodecea]

Might explain why I prefer to live at altitude.

I'm thinking Gulf Coast, Florida area for them.....they'd love it there....Disneyworld.

 

[rightwinger]

Sarah Palin will not be satisfied about global warming until there is not a flake of snow in Alaska. Then she will blame Obama

 

[Sinatra]

Alaska glaciers grew this year, thanks to colder weather

Two hundred years of glacial shrinkage in Alaska, and then came the winter and summer of 2007-2008

Unusually large amounts of winter snow were followed by unusually chill temperatures in June, July and August.

"In mid-June, I was surprised to see snow still at sea level in Prince William Sound," said U.S. Geological Survey glaciologist Bruce Molnia. "On the Juneau Icefield, there was still 20 feet of new snow on the surface of the Taku Glacier in late July. At Bering Glacier, a landslide I am studying, located at about 1,500 feet elevation, did not become snow free until early August.

"In general, the weather this summer was the worst I have seen in at least 20 years."

Never before in the history of a research project dating back to 1946 had the Juneau Icefield witnessed the kind of snow buildup that came this year. It was similar on a lot of other glaciers too...



Alaska glaciers grew this year, thanks to colder weather | McClatchy

 

[code1211]

Palin amuses me. She seems so *thinks of first term which connotes* maverick. Does she not have advisors and those who handle PR? If she does, then she must ignore them. The impression I have is : She speaks much from a position of ignorance.

Her and Cheney both, they have no clue that there are hundreds of video recordings of them saying one thing back then and now another.

She has a lot of nerve opening her huge mouth when Alaska was melting all around her, the moron.

Comparing Cheney to Palin is like comparing Carville to Biden.

 

[Single Dad]

I think it would be an excellent idea for all those who absolutely do not believe in global warming to buy up all the low lying coastal land.

Nobody will have enough money after Obama and his Socialist friends steal our income to hand it out to dumb-assed libturds that just pull down the "D" lever every election. He is bankrupting the USA. Libturds everywhere are giddy about it.

 

[Toronado3800]

Sinatra, if Portage Glacier or Exit Glacier up by Anchorage took a step forward that year from a cold winter it would be the first time in quite awhile. I've seen the tree succession and photo evidence of those. Seems an odd thing to claim if we're economically thrilled about the chances to send ships through the Arctic for the first time.

I've been here. It was pretty cool.

The Medieval Warm Period isn't a secret, neither is the cool period or the probable "Roman" cool period. either. Heck, we could be entering one now.

There is a risky, radical experiment going on by climate liberals. Folks who play loose w/o fear of the repercussions of their actions.

No one doubts what happens when you add greenhouse gasses to an atmosphere. They do what they do and hold in heat. We know that every year humans toss in another 2% to 5% to the CO2 mix. (Seems like it would double it in 20 to 50 years). We wonder how much it will take on a planet wide level. Will you error on the conservative side or take a risk?

I don't know if the glaciers "should be" retreating from the last ice age, staying still, or growing. Wanna hope for the best?

I/we don't know if there is a tipping point or how long the recovery to "normal" is if we do jerk up the environment by heating up the planet.

Question is, do you feel lucky?

 

[Toronado3800]

Nobody will have enough money after Obama and his Socialist friends steal our income to hand it out to dumb-assed libturds that just pull down the "D" lever every election. He is bankrupting the USA. Libturds everywhere are giddy about it.

Did Obama raise your taxes yet this year? Me, Ronald Reagan supporters, and folks who live off credit cards know the short term benefits to deficit (credit card) spending to maintain a standard of living until our GDP takes an upswing.

We've been paying interest on the Reagan deficits for the last 20 years then added the Bush and Bush deficits to it. Only independents and folks who voted for Clinton should be complaining.

 

[Sinatra]

Sinatra, if Portage Glacier or Exit Glacier up by Anchorage took a step forward that year from a cold winter it would be the first time in quite awhile. I've seen the tree succession and photo evidence of those. Seems an odd thing to claim if we're economically thrilled about the chances to send ships through the Arctic for the first time.

I've been here. It was pretty cool.

The Medieval Warm Period isn't a secret, neither is the cool period or the probable "Roman" cool period. either. Heck, we could be entering one now.

There is a risky, radical experiment going on by climate liberals. Folks who play loose w/o fear of the repercussions of their actions.

No one doubts what happens when you add greenhouse gasses to an atmosphere. They do what they do and hold in heat. We know that every year humans toss in another 2% to 5% to the CO2 mix. (Seems like it would double it in 20 to 50 years). We wonder how much it will take on a planet wide level. Will you error on the conservative side or take a risk?

I don't know if the glaciers "should be" retreating from the last ice age, staying still, or growing. Wanna hope for the best?

I/we don't know if there is a tipping point or how long the recovery to "normal" is if we do jerk up the environment by heating up the planet.

Question is, do you feel lucky?

____


Your 2-5% spread is a HUGE gap, showing the uncertainty regarding the entire premise.

Second, such a percentage does not indicate a "doubling" of CO2 over time. If that were the case - what of the other 95-98%? Would that not create a far quicker doubling, tripling, etc? That assertion you attempt to make shows an alarming misunderstanding of the dynamic complexities of the earth's climate - complexities those who spend a lifetime attempting to understand fail to do. (minus those who are mere warmer fanatics of course...)


Also, to assume erring on the side of caution is to embrace an uncertain and agenda driven premise is not caution - it is group-think stupidity that could prove far more dangerous than the perils such group-think intends to save us from.

You appear to of yet lack the knowledge and understanding surrounding this issue - both the science and the politics (the two are deeply intertwined) to be able to construct a sound opinion.

Engage in real study of the issue and this will improve...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Hey, Spinatra, could you perhaps eliminate the oversize picture defense from your ridiculous attempts to weasel out of your foolish assertions proven wrong? The whole layout of the thread gets fucked up.

Grow up, in other words...

 

[Sinatra]

Sinatra, is that today's weather map or an average temperature over this or that period?

If it is just for today it has little to do with global warming or cooling.

Lets say hypothetically the whole world was 2 degrees F warmer. Well, it would be a blustery 22 outside today instead of 20! Wouldn't show up well in daily maps.

Usually don't we put up SOMEONE's map of average yearly temperatures. We can get back to the more interesting discussion concerning if the map was bought to keep big oil companies profitable or if it was part of a conspiracy started in 1985 to collect cap & trade taxes in 2003.

It’s clear that the world was warmer during medieval times. Marked on the map are study after study (all peer-reviewed) from all around the world with results of temperatures from the medieval time compared to today. These use ice cores, stalagmites, sediments, and isotopes. They agree with 6,144 boreholes around the world which found that temperatures were about 0.5°C warmer world wide.


Fraudulent hockey sticks and hidden data « JoNova

_____

You mean the one showing the earth was considerably warmer during the Medieval Warm Period than it is now?

 

[MaggieMae]

Palin amuses me. She seems so *thinks of first term which connotes* maverick. Does she not have advisors and those who handle PR? If she does, then she must ignore them. The impression I have is : She speaks much from a position of ignorance.

Her and Cheney both, they have no clue that there are hundreds of video recordings of them saying one thing back then and now another.

She has a lot of nerve opening her huge mouth when Alaska was melting all around her, the moron.

It's more proof that she is pandering to a certain rightwing market.

Bingo.

 

[Sinatra]

Pander or no, Palin is more in line with the truth regarding climate policy than are the flat earth warmers...

 

[MaggieMae]

BRRRRRRRRR.......

It be chilly here in Michigan. Where the Global Warming Al?

Temperature variations in single years mean squat.

 

[Sinatra]

Sinatra, is that today's weather map or an average temperature over this or that period?

If it is just for today it has little to do with global warming or cooling.

Lets say hypothetically the whole world was 2 degrees F warmer. Well, it would be a blustery 22 outside today instead of 20! Wouldn't show up well in daily maps.

Usually don't we put up SOMEONE's map of average yearly temperatures. We can get back to the more interesting discussion concerning if the map was bought to keep big oil companies profitable or if it was part of a conspiracy started in 1985 to collect cap & trade taxes in 2003.

It’s clear that the world was warmer during medieval times. Marked on the map are study after study (all peer-reviewed) from all around the world with results of temperatures from the medieval time compared to today. These use ice cores, stalagmites, sediments, and isotopes. They agree with 6,144 boreholes around the world which found that temperatures were about 0.5°C warmer world wide.


Fraudulent hockey sticks and hidden data « JoNova

_____

You mean the one showing the earth was considerably warmer during the Medieval Warm Period than it is now?

The truth is there for all to see - the earth was warmer than it is now. It will continue to warm and cool long after we gone-gone-gone.

The flat-earth global warmers are on the wrong side of truth - and history...

 

[MaggieMae]

Care to answer Jay?

Do you approve of manipulating data in order to get the results you want rather than factual results?

It's looking more and more like the release of selected emails is where the 'manipulation' lies.

Friday, Dec 11 2009

Were Russian security services behind the leak of 'Climategate' emails?
By Will Stewart and Martin Delgado
Last updated at 1:29 PM on 06th December 2009

Suspicions were growing last night that Russian security services were behind the leaking of the notorious British ‘Climategate’ emails which threaten to undermine tomorrow’s Copenhagen global warming summit.

An investigation by The Mail on Sunday has discovered that the explosive hacked emails from the University of East Anglia were leaked via a small web server in the formerly closed city of Tomsk in Siberia.

The leaks scandal has left the scientific community in disarray after claims that key climate change data was manipulated in the run-up to the climate change summit of world leaders.

Sergei Kirpotin of Tomsk University warned that the melting of the peat bogs in Siberia is 'an ecological landslide that is probably irreversible and is undoubtedly connected to climactic warming'

The row erupted when hundreds of messages between scientists at the university’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and their colleagues around the world were placed on the internet along with other documents.

The CRU is internationally recognised as one of the most important sources of information on the rise in global temperatures.

Its data is relied on by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UN body which co-ordinates the world response to climate change.

But now the CRU’s findings are under suspicion.

The leaked emails appear to show that CRU director Professor Phil Jones and colleagues attempted to manipulate the figures and hide their raw data from researchers with opposing views.

Prof Jones has stepped aside from his post while claims are investigated that he wanted certain papers excluded from the United Nations’ next major assessment of climate science.

Russia – one of the world’s largest producers and users of oil and gas – has a vested interest in opposing sweeping new agreements to cut emissions, which will be discussed by world leaders in Copenhagen tomorrow.

Russia believes current rules are stacked against it, and has threatened to pull the plug on Copenhagen without concessions to Kremlin concerns.

The Mail on Sunday understands that the hundreds of hacked emails were released to the world via a tiny internet server in a red brick building in a snow-clad street in Tomsk.

The Tomsk office from which emails may have been leaked

The original internet link was quickly removed after the information spread from it like wildfire on to international websites.

A message written in English accompanied the leaked package of emails. It read: ‘We feel that climate science is too important to be kept under wraps.

'We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code and documents. Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it.’

Climate-change sceptics in the West seized on the emails as evidence that the books were being cooked by the global-warming lobby.

Stories highlighting the ‘scandal’ began to appear from November 21, three or four days after the information was first released on to the server. Some of the leaked emails date back to March, 1996.

Tomcity – the server – and Tomline, its parent company, were unavailable for comment yesterday.

The firm offers an internet security business to prevent hacking and bugs and the ‘compromising of confidential information’.

Other divisions of the firm are involved in laying the cable which provides high-speed internet access to companies in the Siberian city.

The server is believed to be used mainly by Tomsk State University, one of the leading academic institutions in Russia, and other scientific institutes.

Computer hackers in Tomsk have been used in the past by the Russian secret service (FSB) to shut websites which promote views disliked by Moscow.

Such arrangements provide the Russian government with plausible deniability while using so-called ‘hacker patriots’ to shut down websites.

In 2002, Tomsk students were said to have launched a ‘denial of service’ attack at the Kavkaz-Tsentr portal, a site whose reports about Chechnya angered Russian officials.

The FSB office in Tomsk put out a special Press release saying that what the students had done was a legitimate ‘expression of their position as citizens, one worthy of respect’.

...
Today, the city, and especially Seversk, remains closely monitored by the FSB, the successor security service to the Soviet-era KGB.

The city’s academic quarter – some of which uses the server that revealed the climate-change scandal – includes a leading world expert on the subject, Professor Sergei Kirpotin, a botanist of Tomsk University.

He was unavailable yesterday and has not commented on the email controversy. {surprise surprise}

Previously, in research with academic Judith Marquand from Oxford University, he warned of the risk of the release of billions of tons of methane gas because of the melting of the Siberian peat bogs, seen as being due to global warming.

Kirpotin described the situation as ‘an ecological landslide that is probably irreversible and is undoubtedly connected to climatic warming’.

...
Emails that rocked climate change campaign leaked from Siberian 'closed city' university built by KGB | Mail Online

 

[MaggieMae]

Of course as soon as I post this, some right-wing nutjob will suggest that NOAA scientists are now in the pocket of the Obama Administration.

Global Warming Frequently Asked Questions

 

[MaggieMae]

Question is, do you feel lucky?

And that is the ultimate scenario which must be dealt with. Do we become proactive (after it's far too late), or do we bite the bullet and try to lessen the known effects, while smultaneously developing alternative energy systems.

December 9, 2009

Going Cheney on Climate
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

In 2006, Ron Suskind published “The One Percent Doctrine,” a book about the U.S. war on terrorists after 9/11. The title was drawn from an assessment by then-Vice President Dick Cheney, who, in the face of concerns that a Pakistani scientist was offering nuclear-weapons expertise to Al Qaeda, reportedly declared: “If there’s a 1% chance that Pakistani scientists are helping Al Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response.” Cheney contended that the U.S. had to confront a very new type of threat: a “low-probability, high-impact event.”

Soon after Suskind’s book came out, the legal scholar Cass Sunstein, who then was at the University of Chicago, pointed out that Mr. Cheney seemed to be endorsing the same “precautionary principle” that also animated environmentalists. Sunstein wrote in his blog: “According to the Precautionary Principle, it is appropriate to respond aggressively to low-probability, high-impact events — such as climate change. Indeed, another vice president — Al Gore — can be understood to be arguing for a precautionary principle for climate change (though he believes that the chance of disaster is well over 1 percent).”

Of course, Mr. Cheney would never accept that analogy. Indeed, many of the same people who defend Mr. Cheney’s One Percent Doctrine on nukes tell us not to worry at all about catastrophic global warming, where the odds are, in fact, a lot higher than 1 percent, if we stick to business as usual. That is unfortunate, because Cheney’s instinct is precisely the right framework with which to think about the climate issue — and this whole “climategate” controversy as well.

“Climategate” was triggered on Nov. 17 when an unidentified person hacked into the e-mails and data files of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, one of the leading climate science centers in the world — and then posted them on the Internet. In a few instances, they revealed some leading climatologists seemingly massaging data to show more global warming and excluding contradictory research.

Frankly, I found it very disappointing to read a leading climate scientist writing that he used a “trick” to “hide” a putative decline in temperatures or was keeping contradictory research from getting a proper hearing. Yes, the climate-denier community, funded by big oil, has published all sorts of bogus science for years — and the world never made a fuss. That, though, is no excuse for serious climatologists not adhering to the highest scientific standards at all times.

That said, be serious: The evidence that our planet, since the Industrial Revolution, has been on a broad warming trend outside the normal variation patterns — with periodic micro-cooling phases — has been documented by a variety of independent research centers.

As this paper just reported: “Despite recent fluctuations in global temperature year to year, which fueled claims of global cooling, a sustained global warming trend shows no signs of ending, according to new analysis by the World Meteorological Organization made public on Tuesday. The decade of the 2000s is very likely the warmest decade in the modern record.”

This is not complicated. We know that our planet is enveloped in a blanket of greenhouse gases that keep the Earth at a comfortable temperature. As we pump more carbon-dioxide and other greenhouse gases into that blanket from cars, buildings, agriculture, forests and industry, more heat gets trapped.

What we don’t know, because the climate system is so complex, is what other factors might over time compensate for that man-driven warming, or how rapidly temperatures might rise, melt more ice and raise sea levels. It’s all a game of odds. We’ve never been here before. We just know two things: one, the CO2 we put into the atmosphere stays there for many years, so it is “irreversible” in real-time (barring some feat of geo-engineering); and two, that CO2 buildup has the potential to unleash “catastrophic” warming.

When I see a problem that has even a 1 percent probability of occurring and is “irreversible” and potentially “catastrophic,” I buy insurance. That is what taking climate change seriously is all about.

If we prepare for climate change by building a clean-power economy, but climate change turns out to be a hoax, what would be the result? Well, during a transition period, we would have higher energy prices. But gradually we would be driving battery-powered electric cars and powering more and more of our homes and factories with wind, solar, nuclear and second-generation biofuels. We would be much less dependent on oil dictators who have drawn a bull’s-eye on our backs; our trade deficit would improve; the dollar would strengthen; and the air we breathe would be cleaner. In short, as a country, we would be stronger, more innovative and more energy independent.

But if we don’t prepare, and climate change turns out to be real, life on this planet could become a living hell. And that’s why I’m for doing the Cheney-thing on climate — preparing for 1 percent.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/opinion/09friedman.html

 

[Sinatra]

Given that American belief in global warming as a proven fact has fallen 11 points in just two years to well below 50%, and that belief that global is simply an unproven theory has risen ten points and the belief that global warming is natural and not man-made has risen 11 points in just two years are all clear indicators of a strong momentum shift away from the flat-earth warmer theory of man-made global warming.

A majority of Americans still wish to see reductions in CO2 emissions - of which I am among them, but appear to indicate doing so both reasonably, and largely independent of some global cadre of nations - although the percentage of those who think the United States should do absolutely nothing to reduce emissions has also risen by nearly ten points from two years ago.

Based upon this CNN poll, it appears clear the majority of Americans side with Palin vs Obama/Gore on this particular issue...


http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/12/07/rel18e.pdf

 

[Sinatra]

Sarah Palin is at it again - speaking with clear conviction on the sham science behind the man-made global warming leap-of-faith religion in a recent column in the Washington Post...

____



Copenhagen's political science

By Sarah Palin
Wednesday, December 9, 2009


With the publication of damaging e-mails from a climate research center in Britain, the radical environmental movement appears to face a tipping point. The revelation of appalling actions by so-called climate change experts allows the American public to finally understand the concerns so many of us have articulated on this issue.

...The e-mails reveal that leading climate "experts" deliberately destroyed records, manipulated data to "hide the decline" in global temperatures, and tried to silence their critics by preventing them from publishing in peer-reviewed journals. What's more, the documents show that there was no real consensus even within the CRU crowd. Some scientists had strong doubts about the accuracy of estimates of temperatures from centuries ago, estimates used to back claims that more recent temperatures are rising at an alarming rate.

...In his inaugural address, President Obama declared his intention to "restore science to its rightful place." But instead of staying home from Copenhagen and sending a message that the United States will not be a party to fraudulent scientific practices, the president has upped the ante. He plans to fly in at the climax of the conference in hopes of sealing a "deal." Whatever deal he gets, it will be no deal for the American people. What Obama really hopes to bring home from Copenhagen is more pressure to pass the Democrats' cap-and-tax proposal. This is a political move. The last thing America needs is misguided legislation that will raise taxes and cost jobs -- particularly when the push for such legislation rests on agenda-driven science.

Without trustworthy science and with so much at stake, Americans should be wary about what comes out of this politicized conference. The president should boycott Copenhagen.
____


Full article here:

washingtonpost.com

Original thread subject for review...

 

[MaggieMae]

The "Midieval warm period" can only be measured by trees existing at the time. Therefore, whether there was "global" warming remains yet another theory, depending on which part of Earth tree samples are taken. Your conclusions, Sinatra, by your stretched out chart, are based on computer-generated conceptual data only since such technology didn't exist that long ago. This article sums up nicely the fact that there remain many unknowns about past warming/frigid cycles, especially that one.

http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/bradley2000b.pdf