Take Me Back Tuesday: GLOBAL WARMING CORRAL

[bigwater]

i love it too..

hammers number one fan?

hammer

[Hammer]

Thanks Wildfowler...Like I said before, a friend of Lowell's is a friend of mine.

As for MSDAWG870s comment, given that I have pointed out to the naysayers that their position stands in opposition to the Republican majority US Supreme Court, the Republican majority US Senate, the United Nations, 16 states, hundreds of large corporations, many of them electric utilities whom have nothing to gain and much to lose by acknowledging GHG induced GW, and most importantly, common sense, and yet they continue to offer tripe comments based on fear of change and other emotions rather than science and logic, there just seems to be no point in continuing this discussion with them.

Besides, whether they like it or not, due to the science as interpreted by the Supreme Court, GHG emissions will soon be regulated in the US. The Naysayers can spin it anyway they want to just like the DDT naysayers, the Mercury naysayers, the Tobacco naysayers, the SOX and NOX naysayers (Acid Rain) but the facts are the facts and society owes a debt of gratitude to the individuals and organizations whom have persevered against the status quo in forcing these and other issues.

I would like to come full circle on this thread by directing readers to http://www.madduck.org for an article about "hunter opportunity" since a related discussion was the origin of this thread. Regardless of ducks I kill, I dont see nearly as many duck in the South Delta as I used to see and when they do show up, they dont stick around as long. GW is part of the reason as is AHM- the season is too long and the bag limit is too large. You will find that the very same guys that naysay GHG induced GW also naysay this concept. I'll leave it to you to draw your own conclusions as to why.

[Wildfowler]

I dont see nearly as many duck in the South Delta as I used to see and when they do show up, they dont stick around as long. GW is part of the reason as is AHM- the season is too long and the bag limit is too large. You will find that the very same guys that naysay GHG induced GW also naysay this concept. I'll leave it to you to draw your own conclusions as to why.

I personally think what you are witnessing is due primarily to the change in the landscape with all the WRP tree plantations in that part of the state. I'm all for landowners rights to do whatever they want with their land, but collectively, (in my opinion) WRP is not good for ducks around here.

Planting trees on an individual parcel of land doesn't do anything to restore the flood plain to what it used to be. A lot of duck food has been replaced with trees that may or may not ever see standing water with any regularity.

[Hammer]

I agree that is one aspect of the situation as is the loss of oak habitat in Panther Swamp, increased efficiency of crop harvesting equipment resulting in less waste grain, hunting pressure in terms of season lengths, bag limits and spinners, refuge policies, changing flyways due to global warming and other factors. This is where the thread started. It was actually my response to some greenhorn's request for help in "getting us a later season" as though that were somehow justified because he had a bad duck season and "ducks were everywhere in February".

I stand by everythign I have said on the GW thread and the preceding thread that spawned it. We need season frameworks and bag limits that reflect reality, err on the side of the resource and arent predestined to provide the 60 day, 6 limit answer every year regardless of waterfowl reproduction. One of the purposes of this thread was to show that the same guys that are naysayers on GW are also naysayers on responsible waterfowl management. In other words, they are consumption oriented as a personality trait and adhere to science only to the extent that it helps them rationalize/justify their consumption.

That my friends, brings us full circle.

[Hammer]

Associated Press
EPA Revives California Emissions Rule
By SAMANTHA YOUNG 04.04.07, 8:27 AM ET

California can move forward with its efforts to set the nation's first standards to cut tailpipe emissions from cars, light trucks and sport utility vehicles, the Environmental Protection Agency said.

The state has been seeking an exemption from the federal Clean Air Act since 2005 to set emissions standards in hopes of reducing greenhouse gases.

The EPA had refused, arguing that the authority to set fuel economy standards belonged only to the U.S. Department of Transportation. The Supreme Court, however, eliminated that argument on Monday, ruling that the EPA has the authority to establish vehicle emissions standards because the Court found that carbon dioxide is a pollutant.

That 5-4 ruling could also affect an auto industry lawsuit seeking to block the state's proposed regulations.

The California regulations were designed in 2002 to reduce the emissions from cars and light trucks by 25 percent and from SUVs by 18 percent starting in 2009.

"We've reviewed the issues within the waiver request," EPA spokeswoman Jennifer Wood said Tuesday. "We're moving forward to the next steps of the process."

The agency next will schedule a public comment period and public hearing.

California has special authority under the federal Clean Air Act to set its own vehicle emissions standards because it began regulating air pollution before the federal government did in the 1970s. Ten other states have adopted California's standards, and Maryland is considering doing so, but they have to wait to implement them until the EPA grants California a waiver.

"It's clear EPA has to consider California's waiver request now," said Sean Hecht, executive director of the environmental law center at the University of California, Los Angeles. "That doesn't mean it's a foregone conclusion with respect to the waiver request."

Monday's court ruling prompted movement Tuesday in a separate lawsuit brought by the auto industry to prevent California from moving forward with its regulations if it receives the waiver.

The California Air Resources Board, along with several environmental groups, officially notified U.S. District Judge Anthony Ishii of the Supreme Court's decision. In January, he placed the lawsuit on hold pending a decision by the court.

It's unclear what the next step will be in the case, which is being heard in federal court in Fresno. But both sides said the Supreme Court's decision favors their argument.

"The case will affect all of the pending litigation that California has with both the auto companies and Midwestern energy companies," California Attorney General Jerry Brown said in an interview Monday with The Associated Press.

The Natural Resources Defense Council intends to ask the judge to dismiss the case in light of the Supreme Court's ruling, spokesman Craig Noble said.

Raymond Ludwiszewski, an attorney representing the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, interpreted the ruling by the Supreme Court as a directive that greenhouse gas regulations should be crafted at the federal level.

"I think the Supreme Court ruling makes it clear that the court viewed global warming as an issue that should be dealt with nationally and not at the state level," Ludwiszewski said Tuesday.

California's attempt to cut tailpipe emissions is a key component of the state's broader effort to reduce greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2020. The auto regulations could help the state reach about 17 percent of its target, Air Resources Board spokeswoman Gennet Paauwe said.

The state also has sued the six largest automakers in an attempt to collect millions of dollars it expects to spend on repairing the damage from floods, wildfires and other natural disasters that are expected to intensify as temperatures rise.

California is the world's 12th largest producer of greenhouse gases.

The auto industry also has sued Vermont, which is seeking to implement California's tailpipe regulations. That trial is scheduled to begin next week.

[mudsucker]

Iwent to Cancun for 4 days once. Is that beyond da curtian of magnolias?

Oh, I didn't see any magnolias on the Great Wall of China either but they sure use the heck out of coal oil for heat and it causes a smog to form over Bejing. Why not preach this gosple to them?

[Hammer]

I assure you that countries and companies all over the world are in discussion with the Chinese about this issue but are you seriously suggesting that the US judge our environmental policy by Chinese standards? Fact is that the US cannot only reduce our own emissions but we and the rest of the world can also suck CO2 out of the air and store it underground, convert it to trees and plants, etc such that if the Chinese dont get on the ball we and the rest of the world may have to do this for them...It may be a matter of survival...Incidentally, GHG emissions from fossil fuels are the #1 cause of GW...Deforestation is #2...

MEMO TO NAYSAYERS: There is nothign wrong with being wrong except when you wont admit it after the overwhelming preponderance of the facts shows you were wrong...For example, everybody thought the Earth was flat until Galileo proved them wrong...Nothing "wrong" with the old thinking except it was incorrect and only if you hung onto it after the facts were revealed...Ditto Einstein and e= mc2...Nobody believed it at first but he proved it and if you continued to accept his theory, you were a bleeping idiot...

Go ahead- set yourself free- admit you were off base on GHG induced GW as evidenced by all of the things I have noted above...Doesnt mean you have to eat tofu, vote Democratic or anything else except admit WE- AS A SPECIES- have a problem and accept that the solution to this very real problem is going to cost you money and some lifestyle adjustments...Letting go of your denial is the first step in getting well...

REPEAT AFTER ME:

I ADMIT THAT I AM POWERLESS OVER MY DENIAL OF GHG INDUCED GW

I ADMIT THAT I DONT LIKE AL GORE AND THE LIBERAL AGENDA I ASSOCIATE WITH HIM AND I ADOPTED AN EMOTIONAL RESPONSE TO A MATTER OF SCIENCE AND REASON

I ADMIT THAT I AM A VICTIM OF THE POLITICAL SHELL GAME BETWEEN THE DEMOGOGS AND REPUKES VIA WHICH THEY MANIPULATE MY UNDERLYING EMOTIONAL RESPONSES AS A DISTRACTION TECHNIQUE INSURING THAT WE HAVE GOVERNMENT OF THE MONEY, BY THE MONEY AND FOR THE MONEY ACCELERATING THE INEVITABLE BALKANIZATION OF THE UNITED STATES.

Dont you feel better?

[MSDawg870]

Just because you believe that GW is real doesn't mean that I or anyone else that hasn't been brainwashed is wrong. There are just as many scientists that disagree with the THEORY of GW than there are that agree with it. This idea of I'm right your wrong is complete nonsense. Just because the Supreme Court rules on something or a newpaper writes an article doesn't determine whether or not I believe it as truth.

[Bullreds & Greenheads]

Global Warming Beneficial?

A meteorology professor at the Massachusetts institute of Technology says there is no compelling evidence that global warming will lead to a catastrophe — and in fact might be beneficial.

Richard Lindzen writes in Newsweek: "Much of the alarm over climate change is based on ignorance of what is normal weather and climate. There is no evidence that extreme weather events are increasing…Indeed, meteorological theory holds that, outside the tropics, weather in a warming world should be less variable, which might be a good thing."

Lindzen says most of the current alarm over climate change is based on what he calls "inherently untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately forecast the weather a week from now."

Meanwhile, top hurricane forecaster William Gray of Colorado State University called Al Gore "a gross alarmist" during the closing speech of the National Hurricane Conference in New Orleans.

Gray says the recent increase in strong hurricanes is part of a natural cycle that has nothing to do with global warming. He says Gore is, "doing a great disservice and he doesn't know what he's talking about."

[Bullreds & Greenheads]

U.S., International Newsweek Editions Present Different Views of Warming
American issue leaves out M.I.T. professor criticizing global warming theory and article about adapting to change.

By Dan Gainor
The Boone Pickens Free Market Fellow
Business & Media Institute
4/10/2007 5:05:19 PM



In real estate, it’s “location, location, location.” Newsweek magazine’s April 16 issues show location also is a factor in what the media tell you about global warming. M.I.T. Prof. Richard Lindzen’s column poking holes in global warming dogma never appeared in the 3-million-plus-circulation American edition.

The Lindzen column actually contradicted much of what was in the American edition. “Recently many people have said that the earth is facing a crisis requiring urgent action. This statement has nothing to do with science. There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we've seen will amount to anything close to catastrophe,” wrote Lindzen.

“What most commentators – and many scientists – seem to miss is that the only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes,” he added.

Instead, the U.S. edition led with a cover headline saying “Save the Planet – Or Else.” The front page photo showed California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger balancing a small globe on one finger. The issue highlighted “Arnold’s crusade” and featured more than 33 pages of global warming apocalypse – along with several pages of related ads.

Newsweek International was a bit different. That issue led with a story called “The Way Forward” that emphasized learning to adapt to climate change. The international edition still hyped the dangers of rising global temperatures, but pointed out that, “in the short term,” there will be “winners and losers from climate change.”

Along with Russia, Greenland and other northern nations, the United States will be fine, according to the article. “America and other rich nations will be left relatively unscathed, because they are removed from equatorial regions that will be hardest hit, and wealthy enough to adapt.”

There was more. The subheading on the main article declared: “By government fiat or market force, humans will adapt, and that will bring opportunities as well as challenges.”

Lindzen’s piece included a tagline explaining how “ his research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies.” The U.S. edition included “Ideas for the Planet” from 12 people like Hollywood’s own Laurie David, environmental activist and producer of “An Inconvenient Truth,” and Thomas E. Lovejoy, Ph.D., but none of them included taglines about their funding.

The U.S. issue was filled with the more typical media view of climate change – especially the “impending crisis” that Lindzen critiqued. That attitude was reinforced with a profile of “The Green Giant,” Schwarzenegger, who is “out to prove that environmentalism and hedonism can coexist,” wrote Karen Breslau.

Other articles told readers that “It’s Hip to Be Green” (profiling young environmental activists); “Will Polar Bears Be OK?”(teaching climate change paranoia to the children) and the “12 Ideas for the Planet” (heck, Time magazine had 39 more).

[JJ McGuire]

I have pointed out to the naysayers that their position stands in opposition to the Republican majority US Supreme Court, the Republican majority US Senate, the United Nations, 16 states, hundreds of large corporations, many of them electric utilities whom have nothing to gain and much to lose by acknowledging GHG induced GW, and most importantly, common sense, and yet they continue to offer tripe comments based on fear of change and other emotions rather than science and logic, there just seems to be no point in continuing this discussion with them.

Well, it's a well known fact, Sonny Jim, that there's a secret society of the five wealthiest people in the world, known as The Pentavirate, who run everything in the world, including the newspapers, and meet tri-annually at a secret country mansion in Colorado, known as The Meadows.
So who's in this Pentavirate?
The Queen, The Vatican, The Gettys, The Rothschilds, and Colonel Sanders before he went tits up. Oh, I hated the Colonel with is wee *beady* eyes, and that smug look on his face. "Oh, you're gonna buy my chicken! Ohhhhh!"

[Bullreds & Greenheads]

Parts of this article were highlighted in bold by me.

Chill out over global warming
By David Harsanyi
Denver Post Staff Columnist

You'll often hear the left lecture about the importance of dissent in a free society.

Why not give it a whirl?

Start by challenging global warming hysteria next time you're at a LoDo cocktail party and see what happens.

Admittedly, I possess virtually no expertise in science. That puts me in exactly the same position as most dogmatic environmentalists who want to craft public policy around global warming fears.

The only inconvenient truth about global warming, contends Colorado State University's Bill Gray, is that a genuine debate has never actually taken place. Hundreds of scientists, many of them prominent in the field, agree.

Gray is perhaps the world's foremost hurricane expert. His Tropical Storm Forecast sets the standard. Yet, his criticism of the global warming "hoax" makes him an outcast.

"They've been brainwashing us for 20 years," Gray says. "Starting with the nuclear winter and now with the global warming. This scare will also run its course. In 15-20 years, we'll look back and see what a hoax this was."

Gray directs me to a 1975 Newsweek article that whipped up a different fear: a coming ice age.

"Climatologists," reads the piece, "are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change. ... The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality."

Thank God they did nothing. Imagine how warm we'd be?

Another highly respected climatologist, Roger Pielke Sr. at the University of Colorado, is also skeptical.

Pielke contends there isn't enough intellectual diversity in the debate. He claims a few vocal individuals are quoted "over and over" again, when in fact there are a variety of opinions.

I ask him: How do we fix the public perception that the debate is over?

"Quite frankly," says Pielke, who runs the Climate Science Weblog (climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu), "I think the media is in the ideal position to do that. If the media honestly presented the views out there, which they rarely do, things would change. There aren't just two sides here. There are a range of opinions on this issue. A lot of scientists out there that are very capable of presenting other views are not being heard."

Al Gore (not a scientist) has definitely been heard - and heard and heard. His documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," is so important, in fact, that Gore crisscrosses the nation destroying the atmosphere just to tell us about it.

"Let's just say a crowd of baby boomers and yuppies have hijacked this thing," Gray says. "It's about politics. Very few people have experience with some real data. I think that there is so much general lack of knowledge on this. I've been at this over 50 years down in the trenches working, thinking and teaching."

Gray acknowledges that we've had some warming the past 30 years. "I don't question that," he explains. "And humans might have caused a very slight amount of this warming. Very slight. But this warming trend is not going to keep on going. My belief is that three, four years from now, the globe will start to cool again, as it did from the middle '40s to the middle '70s."

Both Gray and Pielke say there are many younger scientists who voice their concerns about global warming hysteria privately but would never jeopardize their careers by speaking up.

"Plenty of young people tell me they don't believe it," he says. "But they won't touch this at all. If they're smart, they'll say: 'I'm going to let this run its course.' It's a sort of mild McCarthyism. I just believe in telling the truth the best I can. I was brought up that way."

So next time you're with some progressive friends, dissent. Tell 'em you're not sold on this global warming stuff.

Back away slowly. You'll probably be called a fascist.

Don't worry, you're not. A true fascist is anyone who wants to take away my air conditioning or force me to ride a bike.

[Hammer]

As readers of this thread know, I have limited my analysis of the effects of GHG induced GW to break up of polar ice caps (already happening), melting of glaciers (already happening), alteration of waterfowl and migratory bird flyways (already happening), dying tropical reefs (already happening) and percentage of CO2 in our air (2X-3X as much as 300 years ago and more than anytime in the least 1MM years and possibly as far back as 30MM years ago)...

So what these articles say is not relevant to me or my comments except it shows how a clever writer can use language to obfusicate basic science....What is relevent is that he human race evolved in an environment of decidely more O2 and decidely less CO2 than we are currently breathing...The science is not up to speed on effects of this basic chemistry on humans and other mammals much less other life on Earth but it is being worked on and I have seen enough preliminary results to believe this is a major problem...

I could care less about media spin one way or the other...What I am interested in is peer reviewed science and the jury on that is in- literally not a single article in a peer reviewed scientific journal anywhere in the world debating the reality that GHG induced GW is a real phenomena...Less clear is the effect this has on climate and a host of other variables but the lack of clarity does not change the reality of the phenomena...

You give me one MIT professor, I give you the National Academy of Sciences...You give me a Diamond Shamrock (T Boone Pickens oil company) research fellow, I give you the Nobel Prize Committee....I give you the Supreme Court, the United Nations, 16 states and hundreds of multibillion dollar companies and you give me a hack writer from Denver? Surely you gest.

The momentum is overwhelmingly against you in this debate, the tide has turned to the point that evern GWB has acknowledged GW is real and human induced, yet you continue to persist in your naysaying so answer me this you stinking genuises:

When exactly will the South rise again?

[bigwater]

you should have posted this on the general discussion forum..

you'd have gotten a much better response..

bwabwaa

[JJ McGuire]

The momentum is overwhelmingly against you in this debate, the tide has turned to the point that evern GWB has acknowledged GW is real and human induced, yet you continue to persist in your naysaying

Humans induced global warming, your aluminum foil hat is too tight.