Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« This week in media boo boos | Main | Righthinker »

Friday, February 09, 2007

An inconvenient snowfall

One has to wonder what the hardy folks in upper state New York must be thinking about Richard Branson's new $25-million  C02-reduction prize, which he announced in relatively balmy London. Something tells me that, after digging out from under more than six feet of snow, the last thing the New Yorkers would want to do would be to curse the skies for trapping too much heat.

Posted by Terry O'Neill on February 9, 2007 in Science | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d83517998c69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference An inconvenient snowfall:

Comments

this week is university of toronto's Israel Apartheid Week.

http://arab.sa.utoronto.ca/news06.htm

Posted by: pix | 2007-02-09 8:54:51 AM


LOL! Stephen Colbert did a hilarious parody of thinking earlier this week tht is just like your comment here. Yeah, one or two day's weather *proves* that there are no long-term general weather patterns that show that the planet is getting dangerously warmer. He went so far as to not just deny the existence of global warming, but the existence of a climate. "There's no climate, John, only weather." It's funny stuff, except that there are wingnuts who actually think this way.

I said it before and will say it again: To normal people, global warming denial is as reasonable as holocaust denial.

Posted by: Mark Logan | 2007-02-09 8:57:19 AM


What an outrageous thing to say Mark Logan. Typical of your ilk to compare the incomparable.

TAKE THAT BACK! SHAME ON YOU!
You need help like a few more of your ilk with the thought process of a turnip.

Posted by: Liz J | 2007-02-09 9:10:00 AM


Right... Cold weather means nothing but the preceding warm weather is all the proof for global warming you need.

CBC radio: "call in and tell us about global warming in your back yard"
Caller: "it's so warm I didn't have to wear a coat"

Posted by: MIke S | 2007-02-09 9:12:50 AM


the last comment by Liz demonstrates the ad hominem attacks that so frequently characterise the lack of ral argument from the right. When someone makes a point they don't like, the first thing they do is to attack the person.

I thought conservatives were supposed to protect people's free speech. How are such stupid comments doing that?

disgusted

Posted by: Pi | 2007-02-09 9:15:50 AM


It's pretty ridiculous to compare people who are not convinced global warming is man-made (like myself) with people who deny the Holocaust ever happened (like Iran's dangerous President).

Let's have a tolerant, respectful debate without rhetoric.

Almost everyone agrees that the earth is getting warmer. However, the scientific theory attributing this to man-made CO2 emissions is still just a theory, mostly based on computer model estimations, some of which have proven to be fundamentally flawed (ex. - the "hockey stick" model).

It's very possible that this current warming trend is yet another natural variation in the earth's temperature cycles.

Before we take radical action, let's be forthright about the fact that the "man-made" portion of global warming is far from certain.

Posted by: Joel | 2007-02-09 9:24:06 AM


Pi,

hang around here a bit more and you realize that there aren't any conservatives here. All the WS has are "conservatives" and "Liberaitarians", nothing more nothing less.

As far as Climate Change goes (can we please lose Global Warming to describe it?) the six feet of snow may be nothing if it does happen to the fullest, there seems to be a real risk in the "Atlantic Heatpump" to die, and then you will have much colder winters not only in NYC but also in London and Europe in general (aka an ice age).

The warming will not be uniform, the effects will be different in any given part of the world. But hey, as Pippi Longstocking was always singing: "I make the world as I like it to be" and that pretty much sums up the majority of the WS readers, regardless of what label they attach to themselves.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-02-09 9:31:13 AM


Mike S: Just because the callers into the CBC (and, so it would seem, CBC radio hosts themselves) are dumb enough to think that a few odd days of warm weather is "proof" on any global climate trends does not mean that the holocaust deniers -- OOPS! --- I mean, climate change deniers ... are not any less loopy for using recent snowfalls as "proof" it is not happening.

Joel: You call for "tolerant, respectful debate" about climate change, but what is there to debate? Ahmadinejad called for tolerant, respectful debate about whether the holocaust happened claiming that some people sincerely believe it didn't. But he's a nut who denies plain fact and, as you rightly say, dangerous. People who deny climate change are just as nutty, just as much in denial of plain fact, and in some ways ever MORE dangerous since they would both prevent us from doing something about a current serious problem and would even act to make it worse.

So the global warming deniers are not quite like holocaust deniers. They are more like holocaust deniers in 1944 who would have us support the continuation of the Nazi government because it's good for our economy and harmful to the economy not to do so.

Posted by: Mark Logan | 2007-02-09 10:51:20 AM


How'd that global cooling work out Mark Logan? Or the 'fact' we'd run out of oil by 1990, and natural gas by 1995 and other natural resources by 2000. Or the 'fact' that there'd be a massive shortage of food by now that there'd be millions starving to death in the USA. Global warming is one more environmental scare used to extort money from the west to give to China, Russia and other nations. After all if CO2 emmissions are so bad why are China, India and Russia and the rest of Asia allowed to increase exponentially their output but Canada is supposed to decrease ours. If this is a global problem why is only the west responsible for 'fixing' it.

Posted by: Mark C | 2007-02-09 11:57:09 AM


Holocaust deniers pretty much fall into two groups - the ones that know better and the ones who have been misinformed by these people. Ahmadinejad isn't a nut. He has serious plans to rewrite history with the holocaust not there. The misinformed under him aren't nuts, just operating with the info supplied to them. I have never actually seen the crematoriums, camps or showers. Never been to Europe. Happened before I was born. But I don't deny that it happened.

I would think your analogy of holocaust/global warming (climate change, whatever you want to call it these days) is closer to describing you. Ahmadinejad trots out a bunch of experts, just like the econuts trot out climatologists (meteoroligists/weathermen whatever you want to call them). A bunch of lemmings that can't bother to think for themselves go along with the hallowed experts (the same experts who can't tell me the weather tomorrow but are sure of a ten, fifty year projection.)

Sort of like Communism. Marx was an economist. And the things he said were backed up by other economists. ECONOMISTS! These people study economics. How could they be wrong?

Just remember your whole theory rests on the predictions of weathermen. Meteorologist never caught on with the public (What? You study meteors?haha) But Climatologist, now there's somebody that knows stuff.

Posted by: johnn | 2007-02-09 12:04:59 PM


So the first person that can get scientists to vote Global Warming away will get 25 million bucks, cool.

Posted by: Philanthropist | 2007-02-09 12:26:01 PM


Mark Logan,
Your comments prove the need for debate. Firstly, we need to nail down the terms of climate change. While I do not think that any reasonable person would argue that climate change is not happening, I do think that most reasonable people would like some proof that the climate change is anthropogenic. And I don't think that categorizing those individuals as "deniers" is offensive because it is an inaccurate statement of their position.
The geological record shows that the planet has, fo hundreds of millions of years, gone through repeated heating and cooling cycles. Do we blame those on man?
Mars and Venus are going through heating cycles right now. Do we blame those on man?
The current computer models, which still have not accurately predicted past behavior, are the basis for predicting future climate change scenarios. Given that they can't accurately predict what will happen in 50 years when data from 1950 is fed in, why do we see so many people believing that they can tell us what the planet will be like 50 years from now?
In fact, the latest IPCC policy summary scales back several of the potential changes compared to the previous version.
The continual use of the term "denier", and the fact that you have now invoked the Nazi's would seem to mean that have, under Godwin's Law, lost the argument.

Posted by: Another Sean | 2007-02-09 1:02:21 PM


Don't you hate it when you get an extra "don't"?
The last sentence in the first paragraph should read:
And I think that categorizing those individuals as "deniers" is offensive because it is an inaccurate statement of their position.

Posted by: Another Sean | 2007-02-09 1:05:16 PM


Normaly I get my knickers in a serious twist whenever someone compares holocaust with anything but genocide, but Mark Logan has compared one type of denial with another. So, there is something that he has said that is of substance.

Comparing weather with Holocaust would be rediculous. PETA compaired Holocaust with chicken factories, in a campaign called "Holocaust on your plate". It was insincere and disproportionately insensitive on all levels.

But, denial and denial? You could compare human denial that cigarettes cause cancer, with denial that drinking every day will lead one to become an alcoholic, to even the denial that they who call the suicide bombers, are not terrorists and completely lacking in righteousness and morality.

People who appreciate being right and doing the right things in life, still, have denial on some level.

You see these people who are so absorbed with climate, and saving the forests, that they will spike trees, and causes chain saw accidents, that kills and maims workers. These so-called activists, smoke pot, cigarettes, make camp fires, drive old polluting vehicles, and take more flights around the world, to peace conferences or whatever, than the avergae person. The capita CO2 foorprint of each of them is huge in comparison to the effects of a few clear cuts, and yet they are in total denial that they in any way are part of the problem, just like everyone else.

In relation to Mr. Colbert, you have to keep in mind that he does satire. I highly doubt, that if you put it to him, that he would really do something that would threaten the lives of his family and loved ones. Especially Stephen Jr. You recall. That little eagle....

Still, back to the issue of climate change, the real issue at stake is the health and well being of our entire nation. How do we produce the same or more, while decreasing the production of C02? If we produce less, with primary secondary etc... we will hurt people. We will go into economic ruin, and everyone will suffer, Our ability to support ourselves, and provide for our families, will be impeded, therefore as denial is comparable to denial, so in the question of the reduction in C02 production comparable to the possible negative effects, including health and well being of our nation, on our entire population. These is a huge correlation between income and health, therefore destroy the income earning ability of a large segment of the nation, and you will hurt people. There are already too many children in Canada, living in poverty. Who wants to add more? The solution therefore, as only a conservative could consider, is how do you reduce C02 production without destroying the economy.

Giving hard cash to some undeserving despotic nation, while sounding good in the head of a socialist (who probably has relatives over there who might benefit) will lead to less money for social causes in Canada, and more sufferring here, without reducing C02 emmissions whatsoever.

So, if we are going to talk about denial, in terms of denial of climate change, then it is by far more interesting, to also discuss the disgusting denial that these Kyoto folks experience. There is absolutely no way that anyone could possibly convince me, that giving money to a despotic nation, could possibly reduce C02 production. If anything, by taking money out of our economy, more people will suffer, and we will delay a made in Canada solution.

And lastly, it also makes more sense to compare climat denial and holocaust denial in Iran, than it does in Canada. So, does anyone want to buy C02 credits, and pay Iran money? 'Cause that is what Kyoto means. Do the polluting, and when you have gone oopsies, pay off another nation to shut-up-about it! Sounds like a corruption made on a global scale. And, I wish these stupid demonstrators would sit down, read the Kyoto protocol and wake up! It is NOT a solution!

Posted by: Lady | 2007-02-09 1:33:13 PM


What I think few people understand is that selling the "global warming" hysteria, it means huge bucks for a few. Of course the chicken little crowd have not a clue that they are being duped and worked for the benefit of these few. They prefer science fiction to science.

Will reason, common sense and truth prevail? It does not look likely especially with MSM providing free advertisements with their so-called news.

Posted by: Alain | 2007-02-09 2:09:35 PM


Global Warming... If it's true then the polar ice caps melt and I get a beach at my front door and the temperature gets turned up to a nice 35 degrees. If it's not true then we remain status quo and I get to drive my big ass truck around for the next 20 years. Either way I really do not give a rip.

Posted by: Redneck Ryder | 2007-02-09 2:56:46 PM


I'm inclined to think people are not getting wiser. Rather the contrary. Many believe in evolution while it is only an unproven theory. A whole crowd is ready to do anything to save the animals (seals).

A large crowd keeps whining about protecting life while they promote euthanasia and abortion (killing babies in their mother's womb).

We know the earth has been going through many temperature cycles. No one has yet proven that man had anything to do with those variations.

Posted by: Rémi Houle | 2007-02-09 3:33:13 PM


> A large crowd keeps whining about protecting life while they
> promote euthanasia and abortion (killing babies in their mother's
> womb).

Most people promote the right for women to have the option, not actually going out and encouraging people to have abortions. That only happens in right wing propaganda movies.

If this place truly would be about freedom and liberitarinism you would know that.

Now, let me get out of the echo chamber again, dont' want to interrupt too long.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-02-09 5:29:50 PM


Snowrunner,
"... there seems to be a real risk in the "Atlantic Heatpump" to die, ..."

http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/spm22-01.pdf (the horses mouth)

"The current projections using climate models do not exhibit a complete shut-down of the thermohaline circulation by 2100. Beyond 2100, the thermohaline circulation could completely, and possibly irreversibly, shut-down in either
hemisphere if the change in radiative forcing is large enough and applied long enough."

That's quite a speculative exercise they've got going here. What could possibly be scaring them?

"Most models show weakening of the ocean thermohaline circulation which leads to a reduction of the heat transport into high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere."

Oh, I see now. Models. Unproven models. Incomplete models. Models of non-linear, highly chaotic systems.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-02-09 7:14:26 PM


Mark Logan
"People who deny climate change are just as nutty, just as much in denial of plain fact, and in some ways ever MORE dangerous since they would both prevent us from doing something about a current serious problem and would even act to make it worse."

I'm prepared to debate you on the merits of the science. I promise you a strictly scientific examination without snarky remarks or attacks on my part.I may not change your mind and you may not change my mind but I hope in the end I can persuade you that I am not nutty but highly informed and rational. I don't claim complete knowledge or understanding of all the issues but I am willing and able to learn.

Additionally, I state up front that I have never received any money from any energy corporation or right wing think tank nor big Tobacco lawyers.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-02-09 7:26:26 PM


How well I remember the early 70's when the great minds of the time warned us of the impending ice age.Then there was the hole in the ozone layer that was to doom us all. Then the next great pandemic was on its way.Then bird flu would wipe us out.Every year something new and exiting.Great entertainment.

Posted by: peterj | 2007-02-09 10:30:48 PM


fart is the biggest cause of global warming. Fart contains methane gas, the most potent greenhouse gas there is. So next time when you go out, wear a plastic bag on your butt.

Posted by: pic | 2007-02-10 1:35:46 AM


What has constantly bothered me about this "debate" is that the climate change supporters refuse to believe that their science would be criticized.

I'm not a scientists so I'm in no position to debate the methodologies or conclusions. Let us assume it is a problem that requires attention and a solution.

I am a taxpayer and someone who can judge solutions for myself. Given that, Kyoto is the biggest scam of all time. How they can say that support for global warming automatically means support for Kyoto is beyond me. If global warming must be fought, then Kyoto must be rejected and replaced with a workable plan. Anything less is suicide. After all - the Libs and Dippers gave Ontario's auto industry an exemption = how good can Kyoto be if the largest voting block will be spared?

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-02-10 2:25:58 AM


I won't waste my breath discussing the science involved here.Here's why...

I have noticed,as with most topics of importance to this country,that any serious attempts to debate facts and ideas get immediately swamped under a sea of rhetoric and partisan sniping.I'm not just bitching about the blogosphere's inhabitants consistently reducing themselves to the lowest common denominator.I'm also referring to the tone of the media/political forum.Look at our current(or not)debates on our health care woes for an example.These two scaremongering terms alone..."two-tier"and"American-style"...have effectively stifled any honest progress for years.I see the same rhetorical games at play here.

We are now warned that manmade global warming is an imminent threat.Meanwhile,the childish war between the LPC and the CPC on who has done less about global warming has dominated the national stage.As with our beloved health care system,all talk and no action is what we tolerate from our politicians.The left in particular seem to ask no questions of their own leaders' actions if they are"soothed"first with nice,feel-good words.Especially when their myopic media constantly reenforces these messages.

Personally,I have tried to keep an open mind on global warming,but as of yet am unconvinced.

On much reflection,I have realized that my skepticism is based as much on the messengers as the message.The exact same groups who I have learned not to trust are the same ones demanding I believe.The NDP,LPC,MSM...all are complicit in fogging the real facts in rhetoric and partisan manuevering.The CPC meanwhile,has done NOTHING to expose them.Instead,choosing to play the exact same f*cking game.Where is a clear,concise explanation to the country on why Kyoto itself is a feel-good,currently unattainable fraud?Now,more than ever,we need some honesty from our leaders.For chrisakes,Harper...you're touted as a principaled man with great communication skills...DEMONSTRATE THEM!

Also,if we are to act,where is some honest discussion on how we reduce greenhouse gasses..I'm not talking the current BS floating around.Has anyone else noticed the bizarre fixation on SUVs and oil companies by talking heads?What about 5,000 sq.ft.houses...vacation travel...livestock...traffic congestion...manufacturing...fireworks displays...lawnmowers...air travel...etc,etc,etc.I don't believe for a second that the average Canadian is willing to make the sacrifices needed to meet Kyotoish numbers.

We have been told by certain leftist groups for years to reduce our consumerism and share our resources with those less fortunate around the globe.

Manmade global warming and the ensuing Kyoto Protocol sure were damned convenient for their cause...n'est pas?

Posted by: Canadian Observer | 2007-02-10 11:30:11 AM


CO,
Yup. Er, what you said!

However, I am sincere. I would be happy to debate the science to Mark et al. As I said, I won't convince them but I may learn something in the process and they may figure out I'm not some stumped tooth, knuckle dragging, holocaust denier who just happens to hold a degree in computer science and 2 advanced degrees in different branches of physics with over 20 years experience including dealing with such picayune topics as computer modelling, CO2, remote sensing, solar activity, and planetary geophysics.

In other words, I bow to no alleged consensus just because they say,

"there, there, just trust us".

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-02-10 11:50:53 AM


CO:

People make daily choices for their own reasons.

What I don't like is the smug attitude by some climate change Chicken Littles as proof of their own superiority.

Bottom-line, whatever side you're own, use your own life as an example. That's the only way it will ultimately work.

Global warming of 1.25 degrees over the next 100 years? Who knows for sure?

Is it really worth all this effort and expense for a one degree difference? Makes no sense to me.

Posted by: Set you free | 2007-02-10 12:38:01 PM


h2o273kk9,

I noticed before that you are a troll. You are craving for "debate", while not being interested in the substance. (Add to this, that you are not good at it; your comprehension and reasoning suffer under the craving for a cheap shot; that makes you a poor opponent in a debate.)

I think the propositions in favour of change of human behaviour re global climate are numerous and detailed enough to discuss them without debating a *poster*. I wonder if you have an *opinion or position* or you are only *against other opinions* (true to your being a troll).

If you can't start on your own, here are some basic issues:

- do you dispute, that there IS a global warming in progress? If yes, on what do you base your opinion?

- do you dispute, that human activities *contribute* to this process? Based on what?

Posted by: Cato | 2007-02-10 1:39:38 PM


h2o,

The problem with these forums,IMO,is that it is far too easy for someone to imagine you as a"stump toothed,knuckle dragging holocaust denier"than admit they may need to reassess their own beliefs.It is simply human nature in an anonymous and confrontational atmosphere such as political blogs,and why I have never witnessed a'conversion'on any thread......seen lots of name-calling though.

I note your claimed credentials on this topic though.You may then understand my disappointment with the scientific community.Since I was a kid,I admired scientists and was naive enough to believe that scientists were the ONLY people in the world who DEMANDED proof before accepting any theory as FACT.I have since learned,of course,that scientists are as self-serving and partisan as any other humans.

The problem as I see it is that we are now facing a religious movement more than a scientific one.

BTW,looks like someone took you up on your challenge

syf,

I have one question for you...

What Canadian political party do us manmade global warming deniers now support to stop this wasting of billions?

Posted by: Canadian Observer | 2007-02-10 2:02:51 PM


CO:

Well, the Conservative Party at least has stated it will not send Canadian taxpayers' money oversease to buy carbon credits under the Kyoto wealth-transfer scheme based on mainly about CO2.

While the other parties confuse CO2 with air quality, it seems there is no confusion within the Conservative Party on that issue. The Clean Air Act goes beyond Kyoto, which to me is a goofy deal.

I'm sure nobody is against a clean environment, but that has nothing to do with Kyoto, a colossal waste of time.
]

Posted by: Set you free | 2007-02-10 2:08:52 PM


Cato,
"- do you dispute, that there IS a global warming in progress? If yes, on what do you base your opinion?"

Probably! There are discrepancies between the surface record and satellite measurements. The surface record also suffers from uncertainties due to incomplete records and inconsistent coverage. For example, the number of monitoring sites has decreased over the last few decades. How can we be sure that those sites that have disappeared aren't the ones in areas where temperature has not increased or indeed decreased? Additionally, it has been suggested that the remaining sites suffer from the HEI (heat island effect). So, while there is a generally agreed upon increase of 0.6C in the last 100+ years, it is by no means a certainty.

"- do you dispute, that human activities *contribute* to this process? Based on what?"

Of course, human activities contribute to this process. However, when humans contribute less than 3% of the total spewed C02 in any given year combined with a large NATURAL variance, the human contribution is easily overwhelmed by mother nature. Add to this many factors. Factors such as the obvious that water vapour dwarfs C02 in both quantity of contribution and its ability to absorb thermal radiation (ie. ~9 nm ).

Additionally, the current level of CO2 is mostly saturated. In other words, barring additional energy inserted into the system, there just isn't much left at the appropriate absorption bands to be trapped by the additional C02. Remaining contributions will logarithmically affect temperature.

However, if you increase injected energy and combine with increase CO2 you will get a larger increased temperature. Solar activity fits nicely here.

However, it is by no means certain that mankinds' miniscule contribution is what is leading to the increase in CO2. There exists plenty of evidence to show greater quantities of CO2 in the past where this followed the increase in temperature. Increased temperature may have led to the increase in CO2.

How's that for a start? I can get into details of molecular transitions if you would like or solar cycles.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-02-10 2:48:36 PM


syf,

Good answer!

Actually,I was trying to make the point that there is now NO party that represents the views of those questioning that this fortunetelling is proper science.

Now...just imagine the tax-sucking vortex the CPC is about to open up...in the hands of a liberal government.

God help us all...

Posted by: Canadian Observer | 2007-02-10 2:54:49 PM


CO,
"I note your claimed credentials on this topic though.You may then understand my disappointment with the scientific community.Since I was a kid,I admired scientists and was naive enough to believe that scientists were the ONLY people in the world who DEMANDED proof before accepting any theory as FACT.I have since learned,of course,that scientists are as self-serving and partisan as any other humans."

Too true. And now the beloved astronaut core is taking its own drubbing.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-02-10 4:21:41 PM


h2o273kk9,

1. re global warming (or not warming): your "probably" is less than reassuring. Anything you questioned can be the turned into the opposite as well: the temperature at "disappeared" sites may be higher than at others, and they may suffer from "cool island" effect.

In other words: you introduces new speculations, without eliminating existing ones.

2. Humans' contribution:

a. the 3% is a speculation

b. what is much more important: *it is increasing and cumulating*

c. you have a strange concept of "miniscule".
3% is 3% more than 0%. If the question is "balance", then 0.1% can be too much.

d. you mention "injecting energy, combined with increased CO2" as a fiction, attributable only to sun activities, ignoring human activities.

e. the reference to past events (long-term changes) is even less reassuring. I can compare it to the attitude of a pedestrian, who crossed the road at the zebra, when a car was approaching with high speed. The inscript on the coffin might read "He had the right of way".

Posted by: Cato | 2007-02-10 5:23:23 PM


Cato,
" the temperature at "disappeared" sites may be higher than at others, and they may suffer from "cool island" effect."

True.

"In other words: you introduces new speculations, without eliminating existing ones."

True again. And you have implicitly acknowledged the plausibility of either scenario and eliminated neither.

"a. the 3% is a speculation"

Actually, it is part of a range. I have seen cited human contributions of 9Gton/yr (on realclimate.org) out of natural contributions of 150Gton/yr cited by the IPCC for an upper limit of 6%

"b. what is much more important: *it is increasing and cumulating*"

True. But why?

"c. you have a strange concept of "miniscule".
3% is 3% more than 0%. If the question is "balance", then 0.1% can be too much. "

This is speculation. We both acknowledge climate CHANGE. Balance, by definition of change, does not exist? All systems I have ever worked with also have TOLERANCES and HYSTERISIS that throttle change.

"d. you mention "injecting energy, combined with increased CO2" as a fiction, attributable only to sun activities, ignoring human activities."

Actually, I never used the word "only". I said it fit nicely. We BOTH acknowledge that there is currently extra CO2. I am inserting the arguement that there exists more solar energy on the order of 1369 W/m2 versus a lower value of approximately 1364 W/m2 decades ago. (Admittedly, I cannot confirm values at this point.)

"e. the reference to past events (long-term changes) is even less reassuring. I can compare it to the attitude of a pedestrian, who crossed the road at the zebra, when a car was approaching with high speed. The inscript on the coffin might read "He had the right of way"."

Huh?


Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-02-10 6:20:57 PM


Yes, huh.

I think we can agree, that the issue is by far not clear-cut. Hysteria rules on both sides.

Where we differ is, if the uncertainty is reason enough to do something, or if we should remain seated and watch the performance until it is late.

Posted by: Cato | 2007-02-10 7:16:40 PM


Cato,

The "Huh?" referred to your last comment. I couldn't understand it. Please rephrase.

"I think we can agree, that the issue is by far not clear-cut. Hysteria rules on both sides."

Not clear cut? I agree. Hysteria rules on both sides. No. Only on the side that is wrong.

"Where we differ is, if the uncertainty is reason enough to do something, or if we should remain seated and watch the performance until it is late"

Your synopsis is leading. If there is nothing to watch then the performance will not be too late.

Do you have a specific question or rebuttal? I am only to happy to continue discussing the science.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-02-10 7:53:55 PM


Cato,
Explain please the hysteria coming out of the side that just wants to be heard, fair and square. Don't mistake the sound of frustration with that of hysteria. Al Gore admitted he exagerated in his movie just to make his point. Good reason to refuse debate with anyone, no? Suzuki's the same. He won't take the challange of debating any climatologist with an opposing view. If they are so convinced the evidence is "indisputable", they should be jumping at the offer. So I'm interested in who said what on the other side that sounded hysterical.

Posted by: Bruce | 2007-02-10 9:49:58 PM


There is lots of good info about climatic fluctuations, but the real reason is because fighting global warming means more taxes, spending and regulation. For government the best part is that it will be decades before we can expect results, if there are any. If any one wanted to do some reading instead of headline skimming, they could make their own decisions. For example read some reports from the High Altitude Research Stations Jungfraujoch and Gornergrat. They must be right wing holocaust deniers or madmen because they couldn't help noticing that the glaciers up there are much larger than they were in Roman times. Those Romans must have been driving a lot of SUV's to make that happen.

Posted by: David | 2007-02-12 5:59:36 PM


The lag caused by bureaucratic momentum would be cold comfort when regulations finally kicked in.

Stock markets respond to government fiat not finely tuned measurements of government action.
Even if the economic effects of implementation were delayed, investment would seek surer footing and the economic effect of that would be immediate.

Posted by: Speller | 2007-02-12 6:19:19 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.