Skip to main content

A cool January has elicited gleeful celebration among conservatives still caught in the grip of climate change denial. A good illustration can be found in the blog section of a site called Daily Tech:

Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming
... All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

But the NASA GISS site referenced above says nothing of the sort about 2007:

The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis.

A near record warm year and a dramatically colder one, what the heck? Well, January '08 was cooler than average, that much is true. But somewhere along the way in the D-tech diary, 'one month' was replaced with 'twelve month long drop' and 'past year.' That screw up was then compounded by the diarist erroneously proclaiming it ‘erases a century of global warming.’

A popular refrain in the mostly glowing comment section that follows is 'it’s the sun!' I doubt many of those pointing to the sun bothered to ask an astronomer; but I asked a Bad Astronomer who said:

Over the whole sunspot cycle, at most, this would raise the temperature of the Earth on average by 0.2 degrees Celsius, and we are measuring increases much larger than that (not to mention the trend just keeps going up, and doesn't rise and fall with the sunspot cycle). People who try to tie global warming to the Sun have very little evidence, and what they do have does not come close to explaining the rise in temperature we see on Earth.

There are dozens of observatories on earth and in space scrutinizing solar output at every wavelength. There are thousands of scientists all over the world who spend their entire professional lives examining that data. When someone comes along and asks "How come you smart scientists never thought of the sun?" as if they’ve hit on a novel explanation for climate change, the response from the scientific community is little more than laughter.

This may be old hat for regulars, but we have a lot of new eyeballs around, so it's useful to review the point I brought up yesterday: This stuff gets pinged around the Internet gaining a life of its own until it gets mainstreamed. That D-tech post has already been linked by loads of wingnut sites including Drudge. From there it quickly found its way into my email box along with indignant demands from conservatives that I post The Truth. Which incidentally, I just did, even though it's probably not The Truth they wanted to hear.

Odds are it's only a matter of time before we hear a talking head solemnly asking how 'climate change alarmists explain the record drop in global temperatures over the past year.' Apply that same procedure to any right-wing zombie lie you choose, and you get a feel for why they're so hard to kill.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:18 AM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  If Global Warming wasn't so serious (13+ / 0-)

    this might be funny.

    I hope someone is compiling a list of all these claims and the people and organizations who repeat them without scrutiny, so that when the shit hits the fan we can know exactly it was who wanted us to keep our heads firmly planted in the sand.

    Proud member of the Cult of Issues and Substance!

    by Fabian on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:23:05 AM PST

    •  Well, there was a temperature drop in Jan. (10+ / 0-)

      The northern hemisphere winter has been exceptionally cold in south central Asia. It's not the solar minimum we are in that is causing it. Global warming hasn't gone away, either. What's causing it?

      La Nina.

      Much colder water than normal has been upwelling in the eastern and central equatorial Pacific ocean for the last 6 months or so. It's called La Nina. A strong El Nino - warmer water than normal in the equatorial  Pacific - warms the atmosphere, causing warm winters= in the northern hemisphere. La Nina does the opposite. It has caused a cold winter.

      "It's the planet, stupid."

      by FishOutofWater on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:11:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not everywhere though (5+ / 0-)

        We've been having a warmer then normal winter here in NJ, as well as much of the NE US. So China is having a colder then normal winter but not everyone else. The wingnuts see snow and think "see they were wrong!" Idiots.

        "It's better to die on your feet then live on your knees" E. Zapata

        by Blutodog on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:54:51 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  exactly, a snowy winter is no argument (0+ / 0-)

          Just this morning a local radio host was interviewing some nutty politician and talking about the 'imaginary global warming' since there's been a lot of snow this winter... So laughable.

        •  Same here (0+ / 0-)

          Here in Zürich, Switzerland we have had one fall of snow the whole winter, all of less than 1 inch during the night. By this time of year, we should have had two or three, and at least one that lasted the greater part of 24 hours.

          My assistant told me on Monday that she had already seen the first summer visitor (bird) in her garden over the weekend. They usually turn up around Easter, not over a month earlier!

          The Prince of Peace has been usurped by the God of War.

          by Spoc42 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:54:16 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Daffodils (0+ / 0-)

            I have daffodils and croucus starting bloom in the warmer corners of my yard. More often then not this happens since 2000. Maybe not proof of warming but we have noticed a shift in the seasons. Fall comes later and last longer and spring arrives earlier.

            "It's better to die on your feet then live on your knees" E. Zapata

            by Blutodog on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:35:28 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  A cold winter in some places... (8+ / 0-)

        and a warm winter in others. However, in general you're absolutely correct. The net effect is to cool the globe. Anyone who is really interested in the nitty-gritty details of how La Nina affects the weather (in the US) should wander on over to the climate prediction center. Doesn't tell you what's going on elsewhere in the world, i.e. S.E. Asia, but it's very illuminating. You find out that a La Nina event also means less water for N. Georgia. I guess praying on the steps of the capital just isn't going to solve that problem.

        You can tie that in with the observation that global warming has expanded the tropical troposphere with a predicted (and observable) consequence of decreased precipitation in places like the entire Southern US. As Florida, Texas and the southwest dry up, I guess the conservative response is going to be "It's just normal variation!". Great argument. The Ice ages are "normal variation", but not particularly compatible with life as we know it.

      •  Right, La Niña. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        buckhorn okie, oibme

        La Niña causes colder and wetter weather in the Pacific Northwest and across Canada.  

        But it likewise produces drier and warmer weather from southern California across the southwest and into Texas.  Here in Texas, this winter is in the top ten warmest winters since records began in the 1890's.

  •  I already got this very e-mail from my dad (16+ / 0-)

    who would scream bloody murder about using anecdotal evidence and not statistics or trends if someone, say, describes violence against women as a serious problem and cites a story about a specific person/people.

    He's not even a Republican, nor is he ignorant.  He just uses evidence as he wants to use it to make whatever point he wants to make.  It's maddening.

    •  Yeah (7+ / 0-)

      I got it from a couple of good buddies in Texas. They just can't let go of that tired old myth no matter how carefully I explain it to them.

      Read UTI, your free thought forum

      by DarkSyde on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:31:02 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The King of cherry pickers? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      buckhorn okie, sawgrass727, Owllwoman

      Fortunately, no one in my family has that affliction.

      Proud member of the Cult of Issues and Substance!

      by Fabian on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:34:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  kismet, please feel free to use . . . (10+ / 0-)

      . . . my analogy below ("As if we checked . . ."), if you think it'll do any good.

      See, the thing I still don't get is that so-called "Conservatives" are supposed to err on the side of caution, not "roll the dice" and hope for the best, or ignore a raft of evidence that overwhelmingly argues on one side of a point and enthusiastically embrace an "outlier" statistic as "proof" that said raft of evidence is bogus.  

      I'm weary of people (on both sides of the aisle) using the word "Conservative", when they (we, whomever) mean, crazy, radical, wiggy, head-in-the-sand, irrational, emotion-based policies and positions.


      I shall never misuse Rex Kwon Do.

      by BenGoshi on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:37:58 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  They're not "skeptics" either. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        buckhorn okie, Fabian, oibme, phonegery

        They're just deniers.  If they were truly skeptics (as they often portray themselves) they wouldn't be buying so desperately into whatever flimsy scap of counter-evidence they can find.

        Moderation is fine -- but only in moderation.

        by ajbrown on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:18:14 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Call Them "Relics" (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BenGoshi, buckhorn okie, Spoc42, carver

        They worship St Ronnie, the oldest man to ever sleep through the White House. They've picked John "Get Off My Lawn" McCain to carry their Conservative standard. Their favorite part of "the good old days" is the old part.

        These people are "Conservatives" because they err on the side of an imaginary past. The ones their parents lied about to cover up how they really got their land by murdering tribal Americans and enslaving African Americans. The ones their parents lied about to cover up how they fled to America because they got kicked out of their home country, through their family embraced alternately fascism or socialism (and sometimes each in its turn).

        All you have to do is see that these "Conservatives" hate conservation, preferring instead to "recreate" by cutting down trees and tearing around in SUVs and powerboats, even removing mountaintops to feed their energy greed. Anyone who demands oil drilling in national parks is not "Conservative" except in the orwellian sense.

        The chief crazy, radical, wiggy, head-in-the-sand, irrationa, emotion-based dysfunction they have is denial. They're in denial of so much of their own regrettable personal, family and national history that denial is their way of life. And it works: they get handout after handout, measured easily in Welfare State rates (Red states all get more Federal handouts, Blue states all foot the bill). And then they blow it, creating nothing but debt, death and destruction for all our heavy efforts.

        They're not really "Conservatives", they're Relics. Relics of a time that White men (and the women and other Stockholm Syndromers who love to fear them) could say and do whatever they wanted, because our new, bountiful country could support their vast waste and abuse. Well, they had so much power up until the Civil Rights Revolution finally cut them out of a little of it that they used up the bounty they used to float their Ship of Fools on. But there's enough denial to go around, so their unbroken lies still keep enough people acting like the "good old days" (in their minds) that they still get to steal more than they can carry.

        "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

        by DocGonzo on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:24:20 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Interesting thing: Reagan did amnesty for (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          buckhorn okie, DocGonzo

          . . . illegal aliens.  

          They, the onservatives Whatevers, never really embrace that part of Reagan.  And, doty and narrow-minded and war-mongering and oligarchial as he was, Reagan was kind of a "sweet ol' fellow" -- point being that the current crop of Hate Radio Misanthropes who have no other schtik other than spewing vileness and hate and crudeness are not exactly embracing Reagan's "Aw, schucks, I like everybody" attitude.  That's fine with me, actually:  I want the world to hear 24/7 what they really feel.


          I shall never misuse Rex Kwon Do.

          by BenGoshi on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:38:39 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Cherrypicking the Reagan Revolution (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Well, (pun intended ;), Reagan was a brand, not a person. He was the way the corporocrats exploited America's hunger for "down home" people, while handing their country to the loftiest elites. So I expect Republicans to cherrypick Reagan's career for whatever will play best when he gets floated out again. Especially when he's used to mask their latest evildoings.

            The prime example is Reagan the "fiscal conservative" who "got government off our backs" by "cuting big government. The same Reagan who quadrupled the size of the government (largely in extra waste) all in unrecoverable debt, invaded people's homes to meddle in their personal drugs and pornography consumption and wage covert wars against America's interests (like human rights and stability) but allied with our enemies (from Iran through the Saud family to Binladen's Qaeda). I don't hear that hard, dark underbelly from the peddlers of the folksy Reagan legacy. But then, Reagan was alternately teflon and scapegoat, a scriptreader between naps.

            If Reagan didn't exist, it would have been necessary to invent him. So they did, and they continue to do whenever it occurs to them.

            "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

            by DocGonzo on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:54:05 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  they're "conservative"... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BenGoshi, shelle

        in the sense of being afraid of, or uncomfortable with, change. Anything that makes them have to alter their perceptions, or their lifestyle.

        And since most "conservatives" have a lifestyle that involves behavior that is damaging to our environment, most "conservatives" HATE conservation. "We won't run out of oil, so I'm not giving up my big-ass truck." "There will always be landfill space, and it's never going to be anywhere near me, so I'm not going to recycle anything or reduce or re-use."

        "And I AIN'T gonna give up my lawn pesticides, either!"


        -8.25, -6.26 Pardon our dust, sig line under renovation in order to serve you better.

        by snookybeh on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:28:17 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You could cut the irony with a chain saw... (0+ / 0-)

          . . . like an old growth redwood, to wit:  "'conservatives' HATE conservation".

          Well and aptly put.


          I shall never misuse Rex Kwon Do.

          by BenGoshi on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:55:21 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  My dad ... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      buckhorn okie, sawgrass727, Fabian

      ... sends me sh*t like that too.

      Except that he is a wingnut.

      What's more maddening is that he was, even is, a trained engineer.

    •  If it's maddening (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      buckhorn okie

      call him on his hypocrisy and his superstition.  

      I know, I know, it's easy for me to say.

    •  Even if (0+ / 0-)

      Global warming wasn't a problem the idea that we should still go on happily using up the amount of fuel we do is insane from any economic, political, or military view.

  •  mass consumption periphery logic = bad science (6+ / 0-)

    "sounds good to me " is not a nobel science award catagory.

    have we hit bottom yet?

    by eddienic on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:29:22 AM PST

  •  Debate? (7+ / 0-)

    How can those who have examined the science of global warming and believe it to be true --- how can these people of science-based reasoning ever expect to win an arguement with a people whose grasp of science disputes evolution?

    It's more than just Kool-Aid.

    by nemski on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:31:09 AM PST

    •  Maybe the solution is to ban anyone who cannot (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Glic, buckhorn okie, Spoc42, phonegery, carver

      pass a basic science test from owning a computer. The degeneration of the quality of information on the Web seems to track the price of computers, in general. When a computer cost $2500, it seems the people who were pubishing stuff on the Web were generally serious people with a background in the subject.
      Since computers can now be had for $399, it seems the science blogs are jammed and clogged with periodic infestations of various denialists and Luddites. There is a certain irony in those who use technology to give them a soapbox from which to condemn science.  

      •  You're being way too generous. (4+ / 0-)

        Why not just ban them from technology all together?  Any benefits of civilization dervied from scientific endeavour should be removed from their grasp.  They can go live in the bad lands of S. Dakota, warm themselves around a sod fire in the winter and root around for grubs in the spring. Life expectancy should drop to the mid-30's and maybe we could be rid of them in a few generations.  It's called natural selection...

    •  Nothing can be done with the ignorant (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      buckhorn okie

      We have to continue to fight for climate change. As far as the general public, we can educate them with movies and entertainment to try to convince them of the devastating effect of climate change. We are doing an excellent job with young people through cirriculums. No one should be able to receive a dime of funding, public or private, unless they recognize the truth of climate change. We have successfully accomplished that with public funding, no one claiming to be a scientist receives any public funding unless the embrace the truth. of course, with private funding, much of that comes from environmental destroying industries so we should just continue to depend upon our many friends in the media to discount any "research" that does not recognize climate change by calling it what it is, bought and paid for.

    •  There is no debate, (4+ / 0-)

      just as there is no debate about biological evolution.  These people with their emails want us to join in their pretense that there is a debate, but we should probably just point out that things have moved on, that the scientific consensus is absolutely that our actions are heating the global climate, and we need to be talking about solutions not sunspots.

      Moderation is fine -- but only in moderation.

      by ajbrown on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:14:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Tell them that gravity is a scientific theory too (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        buckhorn okie, Spoc42
        then keep rolling with it. Yeah, the thinning ozone layer was a UN concocted conspiracy, their children's asthma and allergies is not from air pollution and their kids need to adapt and change. The cigarette companies are right, smoking does not cause cancers because George Burns smoked. This should all be delivered with a mocking, sarcastic tone and a shit-eating grin.

        Regarding the Rule of Law, I can be considered a single issue voter.

        by James Kresnik on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:52:56 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  As if we checked our tires before an 800 mi. trip (10+ / 0-)

    . . . and all of them were worn-down to the steel belts, bald and dangerous.  But, then, we struck-out on our journey and went the first mile without having a catastrophic, tragedy-making blow-out . . . whoopee!  Everything's O.K., now!  Let's just put the peddle to the metal and not stop for the next 799 miles!  No problem!


    I shall never misuse Rex Kwon Do.

    by BenGoshi on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:31:14 AM PST

  •  hard to kill. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Glic, buckhorn okie, Fabian, GMFORD

    Like cockroaches.

    "You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity"

    by newfie on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:31:56 AM PST

  •  Web is frustrating these days (14+ / 0-)

    In the good old days of a few years ago, I could plug relevent terms into a search engine and with a little refining and tweaking, could pull up a good many references on almost any topic from peer reviewed journals and/or professional journals and/or university produced materials (which overlap somewhat).

    Recently, I tried to pull up some information on cortical atrophy and hypoxia and found that many of the sites had blocks on them whereby the reader has to purchase the article or be a member of the sponsoring organization.
    (another topic for another day is the blockade of results of federally funded research from the public by researchers and institutions; public funding should mean public access in a perfect world)
    Even more disturbing was the proliferation of pseudo-science sites such as the AIDs denialists or the evolution denialists. Many are by laymen or people simply with an opinion on the given topic.

    With the number of valid sites disappearing behind the editorial and publisher curtain and the number of spurious sites compounded with the general misunderstanding of complex issues by the general press, it is becoming increasingly hard to find valid up to date information on any number of topics.

    Talking to a parent whose highschooler was working on a termpaper about the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, she lamented that he had done his paper but had taken off on a conspiracy angle which has made the rounds of the Web and ended up with a D. Her lament was the kid at that age did not know how to evaluate the quality of various sources and to separate the wheat from the chaff.
    In that respect, the kid is at least as advanced as many of his elders.    

    •  My favorite info literacy quote: (5+ / 0-)

      Malcolm Parks, an Internet researcher at the University of Washington in Seattle, says that most teens use the computer to send e-mail or instant messages, visit chat rooms or fan Web sites, do homework or download songs. For the most part, he says, "I worry more about poor quality of information online, and students' lack of skills for evaluating information, than I worry about frequently discussed evils like pornography."

      Leland, J., et al. "The Secret Life of Teens."  Newsweek, 05/10/99, Vol. 133, Issue 19.

      "War is not the answer, for only love can conquer hate." - Marvin Gaye

      by JBL55 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:59:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  To put this in terms these clowns can understand, (7+ / 0-)

    this is like saying that if Wofford wins one game, call your bookie and bet the house on them for the NCAAs.

    Short-term reversals of long-term trends mean nothing.

    I don't give them Hell. I just tell the truth about them and they think it's Hell. -- Harry Truman

    by jazzyndn on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:34:15 AM PST

  •  too scary to comprehend (8+ / 0-)

    The problem is that people want so desperately not to believe in Global Warming because that would be a repudiation of our lifestyle and would require a radical paradigm shift for most (myself included, though to a lesser extent) to a degree that will require true thought, action, and reflection. This is not what JQ Public has been taught to do, so any 'evidence' that points to this being wrong will be grasped at and held on to for dear life.

    Global Warming is super scary to most, more so if you are unable to imagine life with less stuff - gasp!

    Ignorance is natural. Stupidity takes commitment. --Solomon Short

    by potty p on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:34:26 AM PST

    •  We are already seeing paradigm shifts (5+ / 0-)

      News reports this morning reports that wheat has hit $10/bushel, a historical level, due to crop failure and many farmers switching from wheat to corn for biofuels.
      This shift to corn cannot be a good thing since only the corn kernel is used and the rest of the stalk, husk and cob are discarded.
      Add to this that corn requires more water and nitrogen than wheat and is a much more fickle crop and we are sowing the seeds of worldwide famine.

      What would make too much sense for anyone to do is to switch to a crop, a grass other than corn, that is used 100% for fuel manufacture and which could thrive on marginal less arable soils.

      •  it has always been my question (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        buckhorn okie, dewley notid

        why can't we find a better alternative fuel source other than using corn - a major food staple that already serves an important enough purpose without adding more pressure on it. The wastefulness of this source seems par for the course, doesn't it, which goes a ways towards explaining why it has been adopted - easy, mostly painless, makes ya feel good, and requires  no true change.

        Ignorance is natural. Stupidity takes commitment. --Solomon Short

        by potty p on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:58:48 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Switch grass? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        buckhorn okie, dewley notid

        I have been looking into the possibility of growing switch grass.  More fuel from an acre of switch grass than corn and it takes less water and it grows back.

        -7.50, -7.74 --I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Thomas Jefferson

        by GMFORD on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:00:10 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  but (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          buckhorn okie, GMFORD

          does it taste good with butter?

          Ignorance is natural. Stupidity takes commitment. --Solomon Short

          by potty p on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:01:50 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  That has been my thought but there are (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          potty p, buckhorn okie, Spoc42, GMFORD

          also some perennials that grow like bamboo and provide the same benefit. The problem is that the corn producing states have a lock on biofuel production and they are not about to change a profitable formula.
          (an example of the failure of the ag policy of the feds was given to me recently; it seems that at least 25% of all corn produced in the Midwest has to be shipped through Chicago to guarantee them sufficient business and to make sure some other city does not take their transportation business away    

  •  Cool January? (4+ / 0-)

    It didn't snow once the whole month here. In fact, we haven't had a long cold snowy winter for like five years here. The last few years, we got all our snow out of like two big snowstorms and the rest of the winter has been like Fall without the leaves.

    •  Well (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      buckhorn okie, Marcus Graly

      best I can tell, it was a cool Jan globally, certainly in the northern hemisphere anyway despite localized hot and cold spots. But it wasn't that unusual. I believe it was something like the tenth coolest in the last forty years. If you go back and look at individual months selectively and extrapolate that to a global trend, it's easy to show that the oceans will soon freeze over, or boil away.

      Read UTI, your free thought forum

      by DarkSyde on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:38:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Global warming is a misnomer (13+ / 0-)

    Global atmospheric energy increase is probably a better term (although less catchy).

    Warming or cooling could be a symptom-- what's really happening is that we're adding more energy to the engine that is driving weather patterns.

    The result is larger swings and more chaotic weather. It can (maybe often will) include higher temperatures but can also result in many other high-energy weather events: tornadic activity, hurricanes, and, yes, more polar cold air masses penetrating further south than normal.

    So, no, one month or even one year of warm temperatures does not erase the underlying global changes.

    •  I tend to think of it as Global Climate Chaos (8+ / 0-)

      for exactly the reasons you describe.  Agriculture depends on predictable climate.  If climates become less and less predictable, food production could plummet.  An early freeze, a late frost, a drought - none of these are significant by themselves.  Once, twice, how many times before they do become significant?  If a farm has too many crop failures, the farm could fail and put hundreds of acres out of production.  One farm?  One hundred farms?

      What then?

      Proud member of the Cult of Issues and Substance!

      by Fabian on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:47:37 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Climate Chaos (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        buckhorn okie, Fabian, phonegery, forgore

        is a bit easier to say that atmospheric energy increase. I wonder if that will have any impact on its adoptability.

        Ignorance is natural. Stupidity takes commitment. --Solomon Short

        by potty p on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:01:09 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Planting zones (5+ / 0-)

        I've lost the link but I read that the planting zones have had to be redrawn numerous times in the last 10 years.

        Climate change deniers can argue all they want but plants just refuse to listen.  They thrive where conditions are right and wither where they are not.  Farmers realize that the climate is changing.

        -7.50, -7.74 --I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Thomas Jefferson

        by GMFORD on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:09:14 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It sure is: (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          buckhorn okie, Fabian, phonegery, GMFORD

          I've been growing cold hardy species of Palms in my yard for 8 yrs. now in So. NJ coastal. Our zone was listed as 6a in the 80's its now listed as 7a. The ocean along our area has warmed an average of almost 2 full degrees in winter. Doesn't seem like much but its rapidly changing the plant and animal life in the region.

          "It's better to die on your feet then live on your knees" E. Zapata

          by Blutodog on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:59:14 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Yep many crops such as fruits and grasses (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          buckhorn okie, Fabian, GMFORD

          take so many chilling hours in order to produce. The most common example is probably pomes. If apples do not receive sufficient hours of cold each year, they do not produce. The Israelis produced several varieties which take fewer chilling hours but they still require some 300-400 hours.

          •  Some of the orchard crops (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            buckhorn okie, GMFORD

            are extremely sensitive to frost and freezes, whether too much or too little.  Or even one freeze at precisely the wrong time.  Citrus orchards can take some cold, but too much and trees will have to be cut down and replanted meaning years of lost production.

            A savvy farmer should always have a Plan B and a Plan C and a plan D.   Soybeans have always been a favorite fallback field crop because they have a shorter season than corn or other crops.  Where I lived, it was usually a too wet spring which delayed planting.

            Proud member of the Cult of Issues and Substance!

            by Fabian on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:11:25 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  add the destructive storms (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        buckhorn okie

        Another challenge with crops, more frequent and more violent storms.

    •  Plus (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      buckhorn okie, phonegery

      People seem to have a problem when they cannot be given all the answers. Some of the climate models show that the gulf stream will stop flowing. If that is true then nothern Europe will become colder, more like Canada. So a that part of the earth will get much colder. Climate is a chaotic system so while we can set limits on what can happen, it is impossible to predict exactly what will happen. What we know for sure is that large and fast changes in climte is not good for humans.

    •  I call it... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      buckhorn okie, Fabian, phonegery

      speed wobble. The climate seems to me to be like the front end of a motorcycle I used to have that had blown fork seals. It's not that it's pulling to the left or the right, it's that it's oscillating dangerously between the two, and resonating.

    •  IMO the term Global Climate Change... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      buckhorn okie more descriptive.  Some areas will warm, some will cool, more ppt. in some areas, less in others.  Not all regions will experience warming trends and may, in fact, become much cooler.
      Calling it Global warming brings out the deniers every time there is a cold snap.  Making their assumptions about global climate based on their local experience and observations, has little or no validity.  

      The only shame in ignorance is taking pride in it. - 8.25 / -5.64

      by carver on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:47:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  disgusting, as usual (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    buckhorn okie, phonegery

    I'm flat-out losing faith in intelligent discourse and scientific debate in the USA, and this is a perfect example.
    This lie will be repeated and echoed around the world until it becomes 'truth.' When the waters are lapping at our doorsteps, the folks uphill will be quoting this crapola.

    I'm not a Democrat, I'm a liberal. Democrats go to meetings.

    by willie horton on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:35:50 AM PST

  •  Favorite quote in re public vs. science (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    buckhorn okie, dewley notid

    The greatest shortcoming of the human race is man's inability to understand the exponential function.
    ---Albert A. Bartlett

    "The revolution will not be televised, it will be distributed freely over the Internet via P2P filesharing." -- Rich Kulawiec (nod to GSH)

    by RiderOnTheStorm on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:35:58 AM PST

  •  Many people have a concept of Earth, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    buckhorn okie

    throw in the Bible, and their beliefs are threatened so anyone who comes along and supports their concept,gives them comfort. It takes time to change beliefs. We don't have time, and these people feeding them, need to be tamped down quickly. Easier said than done.

    "Though the Mills of the Gods grind slowly,Yet they grind exceeding small."

    by Owllwoman on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:36:14 AM PST

    •  Their SUVs are threatened (5+ / 0-)

      Americans may not be willing to fight for freedom but we will defend our right to drive the largest SUV possible. People are in denial because we are already seeing the erosion of the quality of life for many people.
      WWII marked the beginning of the dominance of the middle class in the US. The end of the GWB tenure may mark its death. Economists are now disputing this as they argue that big screen tvs and computers and other consumer items are cheaper and have more bells and whistles than 20 years ago so the middle class is prospering (William Kristol takes this point of view)
      As Dani Rodrik and others have pointed out, big screen tvs make lousy sandwiches and it is the price of housing and even bread and potatos that speak to the condition of the middle class.
      In terms of basic human needs, the middle class is on life support.    

  •  Wow, that's horrible. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    buckhorn okie, DarkSyde, Fabian

    I go to that site for tech news sometimes, they've always had somewhat sketchy journalistic integrity.

  •  I'm convinced that (5+ / 0-)

    automobile exhaust is an abundant source of Vitamins A and E and I'm spreading the word...

  •  Well, we all know for a fact (6+ / 0-)

    that every trend is an uninterrupted line, with no variation of any sort. And also that a month makes a trend.

    How can we argue with such logic?

    I interviewed a paleo-anthropologist at the American Museum of Natural History once. He specialized in studying non-inhabited sites (really, just undisturbed surface areas in the Midweat) for evidence of ancient human passage. (He'd find pollen that had been carried, remains of food and fire--really remarkable work.)

    Anyway, he said that he and his co-workers had come up with evidence of a drought that had lasted for 500 years across a large swathe of the country several thousand years ago. I gasped at that idea (500 years?!) and he said something like, "It's human habit to think that everything important about the Earth happened and will happen in your own living memory. But that's not how the Earth thinks."

    When I see arguments like the one DS quoted above, I'm confirmed in my belief that, as a species, we're determined to destroy ourselves.

  •  Stupid or greedy -- take your pick. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    buckhorn okie, Catatonia
  •  Drudge has it? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shelle, buckhorn okie

    The "Clinton camp" must have leaked it to him.

    So I see only tatters of clearness through a pervading obscurity - Annie Dillard -6.88, -5.33

    by illinifan17 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:39:58 AM PST

  •  Let's say climate change isn't caused (5+ / 0-)

    by fossil fuels.  (Just for the sake of argument.)

    In a sense it doesn't matter.

    There are still 1001 other compelling reasons for us to find a cure to our fossil fuel addiction.  From geopolitics to economics to plain old air pollution.

  •  Opps (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    buckhorn okie

    Looks like calling them full of BS went a long ways towards pissing them off.  Good I hate it when people cherry pick data and make sweeping comments on loose data.  Also looks like I can't spell lol opps... not an English major....

  •  Weather vs. climate (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    buckhorn okie, DarkSyde, phonegery

    I see this kind of reasoning from people on both sides. The climate is NOT how cold or hot it is for a short period. A day, week, month or even a year of weather does not make a climate. After a hot spell, sometimes I hear, "It’s so hot, darn that climat4e change. I always caution them not to say that, because as soon as we get a cold stretch the deniers will say, "See, you are wrong."

    Remember, climate determines the AVERAGE weather. Climate  and weather are related but not the same thing. You will still get hot and cold times. Just last year here in Florida, May was MUCH cooler than average, but that did not negate the rest of a much warmer year, overall.

    •  This is how opponents find strawmen (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      buckhorn okie

      They get the local weatherman to discuss global warming. The problem is that the people who understand the phenomenon are not always very good at breaking complex subjects into comprehensible bits and the people who don't understand global warming take a few sentences and then build their own construct.
      After all we still have Rush proclaiming that GW isn't happening because the polar caps on Mars are melting. (this is where he now goes for vacation?)

  •  wait a minute (4+ / 0-)

    lemme get this straight... are these folks making a huge case over the data from approximately one month?  One month equals one year?   Holy crap.  Can they pick a different month and say the exact opposite?  Jebus.

    I'll be honest, I haven't been following wingnut scientific opinion closely since... well, I never really have.  Which is why I'm grateful for people like yourself who have trudged through it all.

    But I haven't fully encompassed exactly what is the current "proof" that there's nothing to see here re: warming trends.

    The people who will pick one tiny bit of data and say "see!  This proves everything I was saying" should not be allowed to discuss science.  They just shouldn't.  Because they have no idea how science (or statistics, or logical reasoning, or honest assessment of information, or thinking) works.

    But, as you point out, they have access to crayons and paper on their Internets so they, unfortunately, pollute the world with their noxious gases of abject wrongness.

  •  global cooling has replaced global warming (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Blutodog, buckhorn okie

    Wow, Hillary is right, saying it doesn't make it so.  

    Real change takes time and effort; and Obama.

    This time it's personal.

    by apostrophe on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:48:17 AM PST

  •  What is the deal with science? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    buckhorn okie, phonegery

    What has science ever done besides come up with falsifiable theories? Scientists should seriously consider learning the internet. In just a few years the internet has totally replaced science as a source for facts and knowledge. Do scientists even know about the internet? What has science ever done for us that the internet hasn't done better? Scientists probably have theory about where the internet came from, but that doesn't mean they know why it's right all the time.

    Case closed.

    When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist. -- Dom Hélder Câmara (1909-1999)

    by hoipolloi on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:51:14 AM PST

    •  Internet magnifies pre-existing predilections (5+ / 0-)

      I have a friend who is an anthopologist/folklorist.  

      Back when Internet email started to be adopted by the general public and became a vehicle for forwarding rumors, conspiracy emails, and similar bogus messages, my friend revealed something interesting.  

      She was bemused. She explained how many false messages propagated by Internet email were repetitions of long-standing rumors and folk tales that dated back for generations.  She made her comment a long time ago (15 years I think) and I expect there's a lots of published research on this topic by now.

      The Internet mirrors the best--and the worst--of our society's common beliefs.  

      We're in a culture that increasingly holds that science is just another belief. - Alan Alda

      by sawgrass727 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:01:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Eh, don't try to reason with them, just give them (6+ / 0-)

    a tax cut for doing the right things (efficiency and renewables).  They don't care what you ask them to do, as long as there's a tax cut attached.

    Now, go spread some peace, love and understanding. Use force if necessary. - Phil N DeBlanc

    by lineatus on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:52:14 AM PST

    •  The corollary is: that's why increasing taxes on (4+ / 0-)

      excess consumption or emissions doesn't fly with that crowd.  They don't see that they could save by modifying their behavior, rather, they see it as increasing taxes and them's fightin' words to that crowd.

      Now, go spread some peace, love and understanding. Use force if necessary. - Phil N DeBlanc

      by lineatus on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:54:30 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Screw the tax cuts! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      buckhorn okie

      I didn't really mean that.  Tax cuts as incentives will never go away because they make such good talking points although I doubt their effectiveness.

      But effective change will take more than tax cuts.  Any time you ask people to spend money on something, you are also asking them NOT to spend money on something else.  There are millions of businesses and billions of ads that want you to spend money on something else.  A mere tax cut hardly has a chance against that.

      Proud member of the Cult of Issues and Substance!

      by Fabian on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:57:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  There they go, thinking again (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    buckhorn okie, Fabian

    There are dozens of observatories on earth and in space scrutinizing solar output at every wavelength. There are thousands of scientists all over the world who spend their entire professional lives examining that data.

    Trying to confuse 'em with the facts, eh?  Doggone reality-based scientists!

    When someone comes along and asks "How come you smart scientists never thought of the sun?" as if they’ve hit on a novel explanation for climate change, the response from the scientific community is little more than laughter.

    Although I'm sure they'd rather be laughing at a Marx Brothers movie ...

    Thanks for this heads-up.  I'm sure some form of it will be arriving in my in-box any day now, and forewarned is forearmed.

    "War is not the answer, for only love can conquer hate." - Marvin Gaye

    by JBL55 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:53:07 AM PST

  •  global warming is caused by stupidity (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Blutodog, buckhorn okie

    Fewer Republicans, less global warming. :)

    This time it's personal.

    by apostrophe on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:53:37 AM PST

  •  So why don't progressives (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    buckhorn okie, forgore

    email this story around?  I'd be glad to send to my friends and family w/permission from the author.

    •  probably because the ones who need to read it (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      shelle, buckhorn okie, sawgrass727

      are the very ones who will not read it. One of my relations delights in mailing around various emails about the sins of MLK or the latest outrages of Sharpton or Farrakhan or the last gaffe committed by Teddy Kennedy but if I send back news reports on the latest GOP indictment or even about dog fight promoters being prosecuted, he claims to have not gotten the email or else that it was unreadable.

  •  It's the mercury ... (7+ / 0-)

    As we all know, mercury is bad for you. When I was growing up, my best friend's dad kept a mason jar full of mercury in his basement (something to do with the home manufacture of bullets for his Constitutionally protected firearm) and, of course, we got into it. The mercury, that is, because, like so many things that are dangerous, it's fun to play with.

    Anyway, I have noticed that the old mercury thermometer that hangs from the back window of my house consistently reports a LOWER temperature than does a digital thermometer nearby. It is ALSO lower than that reported by my newspaper, local TV station, the Internet, or other liberal news outlet!

    So -- the evidence is, that there is no global warming, because if we all used mercury thermometers, which we would if only there had not been advances in technology, the temperature outside would be reported as several degrees lower and the polar ice caps would not be melting, and I understand that the videos of that were actually staged in a frozen food department of a Bayonne, N.J. meat market.

    So there! And I blame this whole post on the fact that I played with mercury as a child!

  •  At least you are getting emails (5+ / 0-)

    from the wingers demanding you post the truth.  To me, that means they look to you as an authority and need you to validate their fantasies so they can fully believe in them.  I'm OK with the wingnuts considering you an expert.

    It's amazing what people will do to others in the name of themselves.

    by ABlueKansas on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:04:15 AM PST

  •  Global Warming is only the symptom (4+ / 0-)

    wish people would start talking about ecological collapse in the popular news. Global warming still sounds like something nice and friendly.

    •  Infrastructure failure is another reason (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      buckhorn okie, dewley notid

      The blackout this week is a result of most of the electrical infrastructure being from 20 to 40 years old and at the end of its useful life. However, the money to repair and rebuild has been spent on Iraq and the incentives to change to a more green economy is also cash poor.

      McCain may be right. The US will bleed fiscally for the next century covering the cost of GWB's adventure.  

  •  Thanks (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sawgrass727, SarekOfVulcan

    Some of us fight misperceptions on regional/local blogs. It's always good to know what's up. Saves time.

  •  +200(Sunny Side) Celcius -160(Night Side)Celcius (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    buckhorn okie

    In orbit.

    In any region close to the Earth, the temperature can vary from about - 160ºC to over 200ºC, based on Table 11 - 43 "Typical Operating Temperature Ranges for Selected Spacecraft Components," from "Space Mission Analysis and Design," Wertz and Larson (eds) Kluwer 1999, ISBN 1884883108.  They devote an entire chapter to the subject, and it's a non-trivial exercise to come up with any sort of answer.

    If it were the sun it would be the same temp on both sides of the earth in orbit.

    Be careful what you shoot at, most things in here don't react well to bullets-Sean Connery .... Captain Marko Ramius -Hunt For Red October

    by JML9999 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:32:02 AM PST

  •  a COOL January???? not where I live (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Blutodog, buckhorn okie, oibme

    the talk around these parts is 'where is winter'

    hasnt been a week that has gone by this (supposed) winter when the temp didn't reach the 50-60 degree mark...  I am NOT supposed to have opened windows in mid January,  I am NOT supposed to still be wearing my fall overcoat instead of my heavy winter coat, my legwarmers havent been out of the drawer YET this season and those new gloves and that mohair scarf I got for the holidays are still unused.

    I remember real winters where there was snow on the ground from late January until SPRING...last week was only the second time we even had measurable snowfall and the first time was in early december and it was measured by fractions...

    so I am hard pressed to accept the reports about how January has been 'cooler' so global warming is fake.


    by KnotIookin on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:34:07 AM PST

  •  Kim Stanley Robinson (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Blutodog, buckhorn okie, Fabian

    I'm halfway through 'Fifty Degrees Below', the second in Kim Stanley Robinson's excellent trilogy, that starts with 'Forty Signs of Rain' and ends with 'Sixty Days And Counting'.

    It's a superb near-future look at global warming and the scientists trying to fix it. It's basically what 'The Day After Tomorrow' should have been - scientifically accurate with good characters and a realistic time frame. Instead of the hyperbolic destruction of Roland Emmerich's apocalypse fetish film, these books look at how we can deal with these crises as they occur

    The relatively slow pace of the ongoing climate changes in the book really impresses me and after a reasonably slow start in book 1, halfway through that book it picks up the pace and really digs its claws into you. Highly recommended to anyone remotely interested in a real depiction of our 21st Century.

    follow my world without oil!

    by darrkespur on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:34:38 AM PST

  •  Great minds... (4+ / 0-)

    I found that same link on a conservative's blog, and had the exact same reaction you did: I went to the NASA GISS site and looked it up.

    What kind of idiot is that blogger? He should have just mentioned the other three sites, which I might not have bothered to fact-c heck. :-)

  •  Here's a book that ... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    buckhorn okie, Catatonia

    ... puts a lot in perspective:

  •  Unless it put the ice back on the glaciers... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    buckhorn okie, DarkSyde

    I dont see how a cold snap could REVERSE a century of global warming ;)

    Seriously though, these people are retards, but frankly I condemn the mainstream media far more, because they're the ones, the next time there's a story on global warming, who will give these asshats their 30 seconds in the interests of "fair and balanced" reporting, even if there is zero scientific credibility to their claims.

    •  Well (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      buckhorn okie

      of course it can't. I'm at work and can't dwell on this, but just thinking about it, and even assuming that the Jan low is used for the entire year of 2008, I think it will affect a one hundred average by about 1% of that year's variance from the previous trailing 100 year mean. So, 0.5 dgrees of change in one year would have affect the 100 year average by 0.50/100 or .0050 degrees. Yes? Can someone check my math?

      Read UTI, your free thought forum

      by DarkSyde on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:14:03 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  we have a denier (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    buckhorn okie

    in our midst. Check out his/her last 2 diaries and the comments. Seems he's been reading about this oh-so-cold winter somewhere.

    Dewey, you fool! Your decimal system has played right into my hands!

    by Glacial Erratic on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:22:33 AM PST

  •  Call Them Liars (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    buckhorn okie

    Odds are it's only a matter of time before we hear a talking head solemnly asking how 'climate change alarmists explain the record drop in global temperatures over the past year.' Apply that same procedure to any right-wing zombie lie you choose, and you get a feel for why they're so hard to kill.

    OK, let them ask. Answer with "It's easy to explain: you're a liar".

    Zero tolerance for lying "Conservative" zombies. Those people are working to destroy the planet by making you look like a lying fool. Why not return the favor at supersonic speed, and destroy their fake little world with the truth to save the real world?

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:43:45 AM PST

  •  My fireplace really warms up my living room (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    buckhorn okie, Fabian

    but I know that the heat in the rest of the house is being sucked up and out through the chimney.  It's hard to convince some people that a fireplace makes a house colder when they are warming up in front of the fire.  

    Why do they hate our freedom?

    by Shesk on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:49:59 AM PST

  •  Occam's Razor Applies (0+ / 0-)

    I am no Global Warming expert, but I think a new body of thought is emerging that says sun spot activity is responsible, particularly since ice caps on Mars are melting.

    And it makes sense to me.  One one had, we have human emission of Carbon Dioxide (which is only about 9% of all carbon dioxide emited) to blame.  

    On the other hand, we have a gigantic gaseous ball, 1,000,000 times the size of earth located 100M miles away.  Now, I might be crazy, but just maybe the heat doesn't radiate from that ball perfectly consistently.

    Now, that doesn't mean I am opposed to sensible environmental regulation.  Clearly emitting polutants into the atmosphere isn't a good thing.  But, I am not for seriously impacting our economic development, or the econimic development of the third world on something that is probably 99% due to causes far beyond the control of humans.

    •  Our "economic development" will be impacted (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      buckhorn okie, Fabian

      There are finite resources on this big blue marble, and we keep using them up as though they're infinite.  Our "economic development" as it is currently modeled requires more and more and more consumption of those ever-shrinking resources by more and more people.

      We can either back off, quit breeding like crazed rabbits, quit destroying the air, land, and oceans in our quest to convince ourselves that we're Masters of the Universe (what a laugh THAT is!), or we can keep on this collison course with our own extinction.  It's pretty simple, really.

      If the Earth really were your mother, she would grab you with one rocky hand and hold you under water until you no longer bubbled. -- Kathleen Dean Moore

      by Catatonia on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:09:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, (0+ / 0-)

        Birth Rates in the west are only at sustainment levels, or even below sustainment levels.  Europe is breeding itself out of existence.

        Where folks are breeding like crazed rabbits is in the Muslim world.  Feel better?

        •  Oh, gee, yeah, now I feel better (0+ / 0-)

          Because the effects of famine, desertification, increases in global temperature, depletion of aquifers, destruction of the rain forest, acidification of the oceans, and so on and so on, ad infinitum, really give two shits about whether a human is a lily-white Westerner or not.

          Thank FMS that humans, out of all the other beings on the planet, are exempt from that whole population/resources equation.  That's a real load off my mind.

          If the Earth really were your mother, she would grab you with one rocky hand and hold you under water until you no longer bubbled. -- Kathleen Dean Moore

          by Catatonia on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:20:55 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  You're not crazy (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      buckhorn okie, phonegery

      You're simply wrong. The sun is the most studied star in the universe and that's a mad understatement. The idea that solar astronomers and climate scientists have somehow 'missed' the impact of sun spots on climate or a mighty surge in solar output, and need to be pointed in the right direction by skeptical laymen, is frankly beyond ludicrous. It's somewhere between hysterically and tragically funny and a hair short of a backhanded insult.

      Our economic development wasn't impacted by the invention of the automobile, but there were winners and losers. What we're seeing now regarding enegry policy is the probable losers pretending that they ARE the economy and the winners don't count.

      Read UTI, your free thought forum

      by DarkSyde on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:11:29 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh My God (0+ / 0-)

        "Our economic development wasn't impacted by the invention of the automobile".  Oh really?  The ability to transport goods and people quickly and with greater flexibility than the railroads had no impact?  Would you care to restate that?

        As to your original post, interesting that your astronomer buddy used Celcius, and said the estimate was .2 degrees. Conveted to Fahrenheight, that works out to about .4 degrees F.  Since the estimates for global warming is around .7 F, then that means that we are down to .3 degrees - max - that man may be responsible for.  

        Look, I am all for better technology. I think we need to build more nuke, solar and wind energy plants.  We need our government to sponsor a huge contest looking for an engine that will produce 250HP at 40MPG.  We need to build better and more convenient mass transit.  I'd love to take the train to work every day instead of my Grand Cherokee.  But, scrapping billions and billions of dollars in existing capital equipment to reinvest it in similar alternatives isn't a prudent use of resources.

        •  Gosh (0+ / 0-)

          I meant that it didn't negatively affect our economic development. Was it really that hard to infer?

          I think you're lying Headhuntr. Here's a chance to convince me otherwise. Show me the original research or a reputable site linking that data that indicates the quote material above on solar astronomy is wrong and that changes in 'the giant ball of gas' is responsible for the climate change?

          Read UTI, your free thought forum

          by DarkSyde on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:27:55 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Changing the rules (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            I am not saying it was wrong.  I specifically stated that the .2 degrees celcius may be correct.

            What I said was that .2 degrees celcius translates into .4 Farenheight, which is more than half of the .7 degrees in earth temp rise we have seen over the past century.

            Hardly insignificant.

            I am away until later, if you respond, I will respond in a couple of hours.

            •  Maybe (0+ / 0-)

              maybe in your excitement to chat here you're making an honest mistake, but the estimate of sun spot activity was cyclic. The author then stated and I quoted that we do not see a periodic rise and fall in global temperatures over the past 50 years, rather the trend is up, which is a strong argument against sun spot cycles as the sole or primary driver of observed climate change. Does that clear it up for you?

              Read UTI, your free thought forum

              by DarkSyde on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:51:08 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Not really (0+ / 0-)

                50 years is a nano second to the earth.  The next maximization of sunspot cycle length isn't scheduled until the early 2020s.  The entire 50 year cycle you cite has happend within the one of the 85-yearish cycles of ever increasing sunspot activity until the spots cycle lengthen (the last one started in 1940).  

                Oh, your .2 degrees celcius your friend told you, we might not be clear on that.  I think the .2 is the % of increase in energy expended by the sun during a peak sunspot cycle.  I don't know if that neatly correlates into a .2 degree increase in earth temperatures.  

                Anyway, the earth has regularly warmed up and cooled down.  I see no reason to believe that this isn't a normal cycle of heating-cooling.  Again, I am all for reasonable measures to protect the environment.  I just find the hysteria on this issue to be laughable.  Everything that varies from a normal day gets chalked up to "global warming" or the even hazier "climate change" (isn't that just another term for "the weather"?)  Remember, once Greenland really was green.

            •  Phil Plait (Bad Astronomer) was wrong, not .2 deg (0+ / 0-)

              I have argued this so many times. In fact, I'm thinking of posting a diary that refutes all of the global warming "points" I've heard to-date.

              "Solar cycles led to a small increase of 0.07% in brightness over the last 30 years. This effect is far too small to contribute significantly to global warming."

              # ^ National Center for Atmospheric Research (2006-09-14). "Changes in Solar Brightness Too Weak to Explain Global Warming". Press release. Retrieved on 2007-07-13.

              Remember that we get virtually ALL of our heat from the sun. Sure, a change of .07% brightness may make it seem like "wow, that's the SUN we're talking about. .07% is going to be like, adding TRILLIONS OF TRILLIONS of watts of energy" but thermodynamics says that simply isnt the case. The maximum amount of energy-to-heat is represented by the equation Q = c * M * T.

              C is the specific heat of all elements and atoms on the earths surface, M is the mass of the earth, and    T is the temperature. With respect to time, this equation reads as...

              dq/dt = dc/dt * dm/dt * dT/dt
              C and m stay constant with respect to time (the specific heat doesnt change, nor does the mass, so we are left with Watts (Joules/time) = c * m * T/t

              So if the sun's energy output increases by 1/100th, then...

              Q =  c * m * T/t
              Q/1000 = c * m * T/(1000*t)
              Therefore Q + Q/1000 = c * m * T/t + c * n * T/(1000*t)

              Solving for T, the new temperature as a result of the sun's energy becomes T + T/1000.

              This means that the sun increasing in output by .07% only accounts for 1/1000th (or less) of the current warming.

              Furthermore, sunspots are cyclical, and we have currently undergone the hottest years on record during solar minimums.

              •  Wow (0+ / 0-)

                That is pretty amazing.

                You wrote a academic appearing post, yet totally missed these two facts:

                1.  The hottest years on record are still from the 1930s
                1.  The sunspots emit the most heat when their cycles are shorter and less heat when their cycles are longer.  

                "Intuitively one may assume the that total solar irradiance would decrease as the number of (optically dark) sunspots increased. However direct satellite measurements of irradiance have shown just the opposite to be the case. This means that more sunspots deliver more energy to the atmosphere, so that global temperatures should rise."


                •  You seem to be misled, misunderstanding (0+ / 0-)


                  Image right: The five warmest years since the late 1880s, according to NASA scientists, are in descending order 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2006. Credit: NASA


                  So you are straight forward wrong on number 1.

                  Number 2... We are in a solar minimum for the past 6 or 7 years, meaning LESS sunspots, so shouldnt we have experienced cooling if the bulk of the change in heat on earth came from sunspots? We have not. We've seen some of the hottest years on record instead.

                  Furthermore, sunspots are cyclical, almost perfectly predictable when maximums and minimums occur. Every 12 years, we change from a solar maximum to a solar minimum. This means that the heat should have been going up and down and up and down. This simply has not been the case.

                  Lastly, I showed you why increases of .07% cannot attribute, thermodynamically, to the current change in earths temperature. Instead, it must be attributed to an increased ability to hold temperature that has been streaming towards earth. Research going back to Tyndall shows exactly why even a small amount (in the ppms) of CO2 can cause such an effect.

                  •  Ha Ha (0+ / 0-)

                    You must be living under a rock...that has been corrected...I am not surprised you missed it if you get the bulk of your news from DK:


                    So, you are actually straight up wrong on this.

                    And yes, sunspots are cyclical, but they occur within a larger 85 year cycle.  We are still in an active one that isn't supposed to end until the early '20s.

                    •  Wow. You are SO wrong. You only use US temps (0+ / 0-)

                      within the united states. Your correction only uses US temperatures, not global temperature averages.

                      Dont believe me? Listen to NASA THEMSELVES:


                      "NASA's Goddard Institute said the temperature revisions "were so insignificant as to have no impact on the overall global-warming trend." That article also quoted David Parker of Britain's Met Office, which monitors temperatures in Britain. He said, "The figures have slight significance for U.S. temperatures, but the U.S. only covers 2 percent of the world's surface, so there is very little significance globally.""

                      Furthermore, GLOBALLY, the hottest years HAVE been the ones in the late 90s and 2000s. See this chart:

                      source: NASA GISS

                      [strong] So you, my friend, are still misled and peddling misinformation [/strong]

                      As far as sunspot cycles, we are in a minimum, yet globally have had the maximum temperatures.


                      You can even look at their charts of solar irradiance and sunspot cycles. We are at the minimum of that 80 year cycle as well (or heading to it).

                      So yeah, wrong again.

                      •  Here is a good article for you (0+ / 0-)


                        And this video (previously posted by asdf:

                        And here is an intersting study on solar activty-temperature correlation:

                        And a chart for you:

                        Bottom Line:  It is crazy to bet trillions of dollars and significant quality of life issues on:

                        1.  A gaseous ball 100M miles a way and a million times the size of earth emiting heat at a constant level.
                        1.  That folks in 1900 had that temperature thing all figured out when they were still shitting in outhouses.
                        1.  That the rise in temperatures is inconsistent with a planet that has had considerable and violent climate change way before humans were even around.  Remember, Greenland WAS once green.  The only thing on this earth that is consitent IS climate change.

                        Again, I AM NOT advocating that we don't try to make any changes, I do, and listed those above in a response to Dark Syde.  But those changes should, in many instances, occur during the normal flow of doing business.  

      •  asdf (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Even a blind nut find a squirrel sometimes

        by buzzsaw on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:44:51 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  This stuff will work, unfortunately (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DarkSyde, Fabian

    My local newspaper features a "Talk back" section wherein the public can call in and leave a message about what's on their mind.  It gets printed, grammar, syntax, and vocabulary errors and all.
    Two choice ones of late:

    "Data shows that 2007 was not the warmest year on record.  If the global warming hoax was true, every year would HAVE to have warmer than the last.  Since 2007 was not the warmest, I hope people can finally accept that it's a left-wing lie."

    and this gem:

    "So biologists say that we as a species are evolving faster than ever before.  That's pretty funny since we never evolved ONE INCH to begin with."

    These are the types that need to be persuaded to actually pay attention to their environment and the sustainability of their lifestyles.  Man, I don't think I have the energy today...

    •  Wow (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      that's depressing.

      Read UTI, your free thought forum

      by DarkSyde on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:05:41 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Global warming and evolution = left-wing plot (0+ / 0-)

      I read stuff like that, and feel that we might as well just accept the fact that the human species is an experiment gone horribly awry.

      Truth be known, we're probably part of some cosmic bloopers special.

      If the Earth really were your mother, she would grab you with one rocky hand and hold you under water until you no longer bubbled. -- Kathleen Dean Moore

      by Catatonia on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:14:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Looks like my Global Warming denier (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    coworker will be emailing me with this nonsense.
    Thanks for the warning. Sheesh, the nonsense they the fact that Antarctica has ice in the Winter even though the Arctic is melting is their "proof" that there is no such thing as Global Warming! They really don't understand the concept at all.

    All I want is....Impeachment followed by Imprisonment!

    by Temmoku on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:09:04 AM PST

  •  methinks you misunderstood (0+ / 0-)

    But the NASA GISS site referenced above says nothing of the sort about 2007:

    A near record warm year and a dramatically colder one, what the heck? Well, January '08 was cooler than average, that much is true. But somewhere along the way in the D-tech diary, 'one month' was replaced with 'twelve month long drop' and 'past year.'

    While the average temp in 2007 was a high one, it also seems to be true that the 1/2007-1/2008 difference in temperature shows the largest drop when comparing to the same month of the prior year.

    the GISS evaluated the average temp, the blog was looking at the movement compared to the previous year.

    Even a blind nut find a squirrel sometimes

    by buzzsaw on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:26:37 AM PST

  •  I'm in NC. I had the cheapest (0+ / 0-)

    electric bill for Jan.-Feb. this year that I have ever had in 14 years living here.  There were days I could have put the A/C on, though I didn't.  It was great financially, but I dread to think what it portends.

    The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all - JFK- 5/18/63-Vanderbilt Univ.

    by oibme on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:48:59 AM PST

  •  Eh. We're screwed. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The exciting end of the world race:

    In lane number 1, Climate change that may or may not kill us all or may make things slightly better in some places and worse in others.

    In lane number 2, the end of the Mayan Calendar in 2012.

    In lane number 3, the dreaded meteor that could impact Earth and kill us all in 2029.

    In lane number 4, the sun dragging the Earth into a decaying orbit after it expands in a billion years.

    In lane number 5, Galactus.

  •  The deniers commenting on that site... (0+ / 0-)

    ...scare the hell out of me.  It's like the anti-science inquisition over there.

  •  re: deniers = antiscience? (0+ / 0-)

    It really is disturbing how vehemently opposed some people are to many modern scientific endeavors.  You want to shake them and tell them that the only reason I can hear their illogical arguments is via technology initially developed by SCIENTISTS.  The series of tubes that carries the pictures of them with their heads in the sand to my computer should be all the proof they need to accept that it's useless for someone who lacks necessary knowledge or understanding of a situation to voice their opinions louder than the ones who know what they're talking about! "Should" being the operative word, of course...

    I am a grad student in Montana researching the whole global warming issue.  I can't talk about my research almost at all without someone boisterously calling it a hoax.  Blegh.

  •  Something to remember (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Being hostile to the possibility of differing interpretations of observable evidence can be just as much of an 'anti-science' mindset as the jingoistic fallacies promoted by the talk radio crowd.

    And determining the most effective response (or whether there should even be a response at all) is only partially a 'science' question. It is also an economics question, a political question, and a personal question.

    •  I (0+ / 0-)

      agree. And I've been in contact with Mike Asher, the writer of the piece I critiqued above and so far I've been happy to find he's a class act. It's still in the dream stages, but he and I may look at teaming up for a post about other factors that affect climate outside of GHGs.

      Read UTI, your free thought forum

      by DarkSyde on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:54:42 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Global Warming: The Left's Blindspot (0+ / 0-)

    It's funny how folks here can recognize so easily the fear tactics of the phony Global War on Terror perpetrated by the neocons, but when it comes to Global Warming they are totally blinded.

    It's the same fear mongering that targets the individual, in other words "you with your carbon footprint, you're the problem!"

    I seriously cannot understand why this is such a huge blindspot for the left. It's so obviously a different side of the same coin that we see so clearly with GWOT.

    What else do you need? Just look at how these 'kind-hearted liberals' openly talk about decreasing the population, limiting childbirths and taxing the rest of those unlucky souls all in the name of saving the planet?

    Stop following the leader and think for yourself.

    Habeas Corpus R.I.P. 1215-2006.

    by posse comitatus on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:43:18 AM PST

  •  Global Climate Update (0+ / 0-)

    I read and see all the stuff that is happening all over the planet.
    Yea, the AntArctic did have a colder than ever year this past year... so?
    The rest of the earth practically fried!
    Where were you in the record 7 year drought of Australia?
    Where were you when the weather service proposed adding a whole new category 6 to Hurricanes?
    Also, James Lovelock, who seems to have a longer handled understanding of this than anybody, promotes the "system theory" of the earth as does Dr. Peter Russel, author of "the Global Brain."
    While you may doubt and question some of their positions, one seems perfectly applicable: The Earth is behaving like a single living organism that is doing it's best to maintain a mean "body temperature". Right now, I'd say She has a fever. That means chills and sweats and hot flashes.
    For those who really want to keep up to date on the Extreme Global Climate changes, you can keep up with my new show:
    Global Climate Update, here, beginning with "Global Warming 101."  It's a Flash heavy site at the moment, but Soon these updates  will have their own site.
    One point I will make soon is that the earth is NOT just a quiet ball of dirt and water floating in space. SHe is a raging inferno with a blazing fire as hot as or hotter than the sun in her center and volcanoes ringed around the middle.  SHould we really be heating Her up???
    If some of you think the Book of Revelations was bad,   geophysicists  make those predictions look like unimaginative amateurs!

    " ROCK" Obama/Clinton in 2008!!

    by Fireshadow on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:00:42 PM PST

  •  Same strategy as evolution deniers (0+ / 0-)

      Global warming deniers tend to use the same strategy that evolution deniers use to win their arguments.  First they learn a series of arguments about the subject, usually in the form of "If evolution/global warming is true then why is it that ...."
    In some cases the faulty logic will be immediately.  Others will require a little more thought to determine where the logic breaks down.  Others will be based on false data and made-up facts.  These will require familiarity with the real facts to refute.  Others will address issues that the typical layman is not familiar with, and so would require some research to determine the fault in the argument.

    The denier proceeds to recite these arguments until they find one you can't answer.  If they have 35 such arguments in their repertoire and you can only refute the first 33, you lose.  The full set of 35 arguments then becomes available for the next victim.

    It doesn't matter that the deniers have no understanding of the technical issues involved in their arguments; they only have to recite them.  If you can't refute every one, they win.  (And even if you can refute them, they probably won't understand your argument).

    P.S.  I realize that there are some global warming skeptics that are scientifically literate.  They are not the ones I refer to here.  They tend to make
    arguments with a basis in science, and understand the arguments they are making, rather than just presenting a list of arguments passed on to them for you to refute.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site