Wednesday, April 11, 2007

Hot gases emanating

A few headlines from today show that the once unquestionable orthodoxy of global warming appears to be fraying at the edges and is not the sure fire (pardon the pun) path to doom it has been sold to be by politicians eager to gain power through fear.

We start with the fact that NYC is experiencing the coldest April, so far, in 113 years:

http://snipurl.com/1g27r


Then we have the following passage from, of all people on MY blog, Camille Paglia in the most current issue of Salon:

As a native of upstate New York, whose dramatic landscape was carved by the receding North American glacier 10,000 years ago, I have been contemplating the principle of climate change since I was a child. Niagara Falls, as well as the even bigger dry escarpment of Clark Reservation near Syracuse, is a memento left by the glacier. So is nearby Green Lakes State Park, with its mysteriously deep glacial pools. When I was 10, I lived with my family at the foot of a drumlin -- a long, undulating hill of murrain formed by eddies of the ancient glacier melt.

Geology and meteorology are fields that have always interested me and that I might well have entered, had I not been more attracted to art and culture. (My geology professor in college, in fact, asked me to consider geology as a career.) To conflate vast time frames with volatile daily change is a sublime exercise, bordering on the metaphysical.

However, I am a skeptic about what is currently called global warming. I have been highly suspicious for years about the political agenda that has slowly accrued around this issue. As a lapsed Catholic, I detest dogma in any area. Too many of my fellow Democrats seem peculiarly credulous at the moment, as if, having ground down organized religion into nonjudgmental, feel-good therapy, they are hungry for visions of apocalypse. From my perspective, virtually all of the major claims about global warming and its causes still remain to be proved.

Climate change, keyed to solar cycles, is built into Earth's system. Cooling and warming will go on forever. Slowly rising sea levels will at some point doubtless flood lower Manhattan and seaside houses everywhere from Cape Cod to Florida -- as happened to Native American encampments on those very shores. Human habitation is always fragile and provisional. People will migrate for the hills, as they have always done.

Who is impious enough to believe that Earth's contours are permanent? Our eyes are simply too slow to see the shift of tectonic plates that has raised the Himalayas and is dangling Los Angeles over an unstable fault. I began "Sexual Personae" (parodying the New Testament): "In the beginning was nature." And nature will survive us all. Man is too weak to permanently affect nature, which includes infinitely more than this tiny globe.

Next in line are some of my favorite targets, limosine liberals, in this case rock stars crusading against global warming in the current Live Earth concerts (from the Daily Mail of London):

.....But green campaigners called the stars' involvement hypocritical last night saying their lifestyles which demand they jet themselves and their huge entourages on world tours give them enormously large carbon footprints.

Last year, for example, they report how Madonna flew as many as 100 technicians, dancers, backing singers, managers and family members on a 56-date world tour in private jets and commercial airliners.

Madonna herself also has a collection of fuel-guzzling cars, including a Mercedes Maybach, two Range Rovers, Audi A8s and a Mini Cooper S. Yet she will headline the London concert to "combat the climate crisis".

Madonna's Confessions tour produced 440 tonnes of CO2 in four months of last year. And that was just the flights between the countries, not taking into account the truckloads of equipment needed, the power to stage such a show and the transport of all the thousands of fans getting to the gigs.

The Red Hot Chili Peppers produced 220 tonnes of CO2 with their private jet alone over six months on their last world tour which was 42 dates.

"The average a British person produces is 10 tonnes a year," said John Buckley, managing director-of CarbonFootprint.com.

He added: "It's great for the celebrities to come out and support the cause, but they then have to follow it up in their own lifestyles. We should now keep a close eye on whether Madonna and the others makes any changes to their own lifestyle."

Don't hold your breath!

We're okay for another day.....phew!

16 comments:

Devastatin' Dave said...

Don't worry, Beamis. The celebrities and politicians can buy "carbon offsets." Whatever the hell that is. It's all good.

beamis said...

Sounds like the "indulgences" that the Catholic Church used to sell to rich sinners just before Martin Luther broke up the lucrative papal party.

Audie said...

Same old, same old.

1) Continuing to ignore what the vast majority of scientists (climatologists in particular) say about the issue, and instead pointing to such in-the-know "scientists" as ... Camille Paglia?!?! ... as, what, proof that the scientific consensus is wrong? Truly hilarious. Her geology professor in college "in fact" asked her to consider geology as a career. Boy, howdy! With credentials like that, stand aside you filthy-handed Nobel laureates who actually DID make it your career! Would-be geologist Paglia has a pen, an audience, and a few questions for you all! Amazing how you've all conspired, across disciplines, across cultures, across nations, etc., to arrive at some of the same conclusions -- and to all be devoid of integrity, too -- at least according to Beamis and Paglia! Tell us more, Camille! You have, after all, studied poetry and literature and feminism, and have written books such as "Vamps and Tramps." Clearly, you are an authority on global climate change.

2) Someone explain this sentence to me: "To conflate vast time frames with volatile daily change is a sublime exercise, bordering on the metaphysical." ?? Huh??

"Sublime" means "of such excellence, grandeur, or beauty as to inspire great admiration or awe." So, conflating vast time frames (which is what global climate change is about) with volatile daily change (which is what Paglia and Beamis confuse it with) is an exercise of such excellence, grandeur, and beauty as to inspire great admiration and awe? Please explain. Yes? Oh, wait. She clarifies by saying that this "sublime exercise" also "borders on the metaphysical." Yeah, I'll say. This time, the dictionary is helpful: "metaphysical: based on abstract (typically, excessively abstract) reasoning; transcending physical matter or the laws of nature."

Yeah. Climate scientists will continue to deal with the "physical," the laws of nature. Paglia and Beamis can remain in the metaphysical, in which realm their continued conflations apparently have more weight (and are, allegedly, even sublime). I wouldn't know. But the disagreement makes sense given that they're talking about two different realms (one physical, one metaphysical).

I think what she meant instead of "sublime" was "misguided." That would have made more sense.

3) That the earth doesn't go through natural warming and cooling trends, and that humans are somehow going to "destroy the earth" are two of the many claims that are not part of the real scientific debate on global climate change but nevertheless continue to appear in layperson's laughably haphazard constructions of same. When you misrepresent the opposing side's argument, your own side can appear to be better off intellectually than it actually is.

Why continue to waste time with straw men?

Audie said...

By the way, you're right on about the hypocrisy of megaconsumers preaching about global climate change (though, since you don't believe humans are contributing to the problem, it should be less of an issue with you, no?).

Also, I do believe the article you've referenced is the first time I've seen the Mini Cooper listed as a "fuel-guzzling car." Guzzling? This post set a new record for the number of times I was sent to my dictionary. Are you and the authors you're quoting using a random-adjective-generator or something?

beamis said...

I think the Mini Cooper was included in a list of multiple vehicles that were owned by said limosine liberal to help illustrate her massive "carbon footprint". I personally don't begrudge her owning however many cars she wants. It's totally her business.

As far as Ms. Paglia is concerned I included her smugly incoherent musings only to show that even the New York upper West Side crowd is starting to have its own serious doubts concerning this dubious theory of doom foisted on us by that genius of the ages Al Gore.

I like warmer better than colder. So I say bring it on!

Audie said...

Well, thanks for the clarification, sir.

And my guess is that you have multiple reasons for disliking NPR, having to do with both its presumed content and also its very existence, but here, I think, is a pretty balanced take (from today) on Gore and this label you give him of 'propagator of a theory of doom.'

***

... Gore has championed the issue of global warming for decades; he has books and an Oscar-winning documentary to his credit.

Now that he is firmly in the spotlight on this issue, so are his detractors. They include some scientists who are concerned about climate change, but have raised questions about Al Gore's data and some of his conclusions. NPR's Science Correspondent Richard Harris spoke with Renee Montagne to help sort through some of the questions.

Would you say that Al Gore – given all of his history with this subject – is a credible voice on global climate change?

Gore is a lay person, he is not a scientist, and he's careful to say that. But that said, he does get the big picture very well. Most scientists say he really can see the forest for the trees.

Human activities are contributing to climate change, those changes will become more pronounced as the time goes on, and it is possible that those changes could be severe. But that said, scientists do quibble a little bit about some of the facts that he draws to make those arguments.

Can you give us some examples of some of the concerns that scientists have?

I saw Al Gore give a talk at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco last December. He was cheered by this enormous audience of scientists, who were really excited to hear his message that it's time to take global warming seriously.

But after the talk, a couple of [the scientists] came up to me and said, you know, "He didn't exactly get the science right."

Gore said that Arctic ice could be gone entirely in 34 years, and he made it seem like a really precise prediction. There are certainly scary predictions about what's going to happen to Arctic sea ice in the summertime, but no one can say "34 years." That just implies a degree of certainty that's not there. And that made a few scientists a bit uncomfortable to hear him making it sound so precise.

There are also questions about Al Gore's estimates as to how much the sea levels will rise.

Yes, in fact, in his documentary he talks about what the world will look like – Florida and New York – when the sea level rises by 20 feet. But he deftly avoids mentioning the time frame for which that might happen. When you look at the forecast of sea-level rise, no one's expecting 20 feet of sea-level rise in the next couple of centuries, at least. So that's another thing that makes scientists a little bit uneasy; true, we have to be worried about global sea-level rise, but it's probably not going to happen as fast as Gore implies in his movie.

One other dramatic moment in the film has to do with Hurricane Katrina.

Indeed. Gore implies – he never says, but he implies – that Katrina was due to human-induced global warming. And I think if a scientist were to talk about this, most scientists would say, "These are the kinds of things that we expect to see more of as a result of global warming," but people are careful not to attribute specific storms or events to global warming.

Again, Gore doesn't do that exactly, but he sort of leaves the impression, and it's a very lawyerly way he does this. If you actually read it word for word, you can't say, "This he said wrong." But he leaves the impression that Katrina was [a result of] global warming and I think scientists don't go that far.

Is this partly cultural in the sense that, by nature and by profession, scientists care about all of the details?

I think it's partly cultural, and I think that in that sense, Al Gore is very well attuned to the culture of Washington, D.C. The culture of Washington, D.C. is: "Don't do anything unless there is a crisis." And that's been the problem with global warming for all these years: It's something serious to be worried about – the worst case scenarios are pretty scary – but Al Gore has realized that if you want to get attention, you really have to focus on the crisis. You have to make people worry about things maybe a little bit more than scientists would say.

Is there some element of – if you will – professional jealousy here?

Among the scientists? No. I think the scientists are actually pretty grateful by and large that Gore has succeeded in bringing their issue to the public's attention. But scientists do care very much about how precise the details are. And when it's not exactly right, they bristle a little bit. But, [that's] the difference between a popularizer, like Gore, and scientists, for whom the details really are what's most important.

Devastatin' Dave said...

Aud-man,

I have to admit, I think you're being a little dogmatic on this issue. Why can´t Paglia chime in on the issue? How do you know she hasn´t read the same research as you and has come to a different conclusion?

In the past, you've dismissed the contrarian writings of Michael Crichton, because he's not one of the "court scientists," just an author. He's a learned man. Why should I believe Al Gore before Paglia and Crichton? Gore is the point man for your side, and if he is mis-stating your side's position I don't see anyone rushing to correct him.

This idea that only a select group are allowed to contribute to the debate smacks of elitism. In your comment, you state that some are "Continuing to ignore what the vast majority of scientists say about the issue..." First, just being in the majority doesn't make you right, otherwise GW wouldn't be President right now. Second, maybe some of us aren't ignoring them, but disagreeing with them.

When only 5% of atmospheric CO2 is human-caused, red flags are gonna go up when someone tries to convince me that that humans are responsible for massive climate change.

When the Medieval Warming Period is ignored to produce the dramatic "hockey stick" graph, then red flags go up.

Most of the contrarian stuff I've read points to flucuating solar activity as a possible cause of climate change. Is that really that inconceivable? That the sun effects our weather and climate? Occam's Razor would tell you to begin your research there.

Audie said...

Well, truly, I am astounded that we keep saying the same things to each other, over and over and over and over. I like it better when the argument at least gets "advanced".... But, anyway, once again:

1) The science on global climate change does account for solar (and other natural) fluctuation. Your continued suggestion that "the science should begin there" suggests to me that you're not very familiar with the science (because if you were, you wouldn't keep suggesting that it's flawed in that it doesn't do something that, in fact, it clearly does).

2) You say: Why should I believe Al Gore before Paglia and Crichton?

YOU SHOULDN'T! THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN TRYING TO TELL YOU GUYS! For one side of this scientific issue, you keep trotting out Al Gore; for the other side of this scientific issue, you keep trotting out the likes of Michael Crichton and Camille Paglia. None of them are scientists (and at least one of them doesn't pretend to be).

Imagine this scenario: I have my car looked at by every certified auto mechanic in the world, and 90+% of them say "You'd better get your brakes replaced before you go on that thousand-mile road trip. The ones you've got are probably not gonna last you a hundred miles. And driving the other 900 miles on those brakes is a dangerous idea, and something bad will probably happen if you do that." And then I ask my little sister what she thinks -- cuz she's witty and was really smart in school and one time one of her teachers told her she would make a good auto mechanic if she ever wanted to, but she liked art and culture instead and so wrote lots of intellectual books on culture, and a few well-received works of fiction, too (mostly not having anything to do with cars) -- and anyway she sits in the front seat of my car and says, "Neh. I don't really think those mechanics know what they're talking about [even though each of them had spent a lot of time working on it, not to mention all of their subject-specific training, and all my sister did was ruminate on it over a Big Gulp]. They just want your money. I heard a thing on AM radio one time about this mechanic who ripped people off, so I think you should ignore them all. And what's with that training certification that they all have? Bunch of elitists, that's what I say. Certified victims of brainwash, fer sure! Besides, they're just being doomsayers. No one knows what's gonna happen! Who can predict the future? The idea is preposterous! Did you hear them? They said if we drove this car over a hundred miles, we would absolutely certainly without a doubt die in a horrible car wreck, precisely at mile 101. [Of course, none of them actually said this.] But see? We've driven a mile and a half already since this conversation started, and nothing bad has happened. In fact, even if they are right, so what?!? So we won't be able to stop the car! I like the car to be moving! Those mechanics -- what a bunch of self-interested, doomsaying idiots!"

And then Al Gore pulls up in his limousine, and rolls down his window and says, "Hey, didn't you hear what that vast majority of auto mechanics said about your brakes? Here, I've made a few graphs to try to simplify their complex explanations of brake failure. You might die in a horrible crash at mile one-oh---" And my sister rolls her window up and asks, "Why listen to him, Al Gore, of all people, over me?"

Do ya see what I'm saying?

At all???????

Beuller? Anyone?

Would I be being "dogmatic" to suggest that, as far as the conditon of my brakes is concerned, I really needn't pay much heed to either my sister or Al Gore? Honestly, I don't think so. They're absolutely entitled to their opinions, and more power to 'em to use the means available to them to express those opinions. My (repeated) point is that, really, it seems like a far better idea for me to pay attention to what the auto mechanics are, nearly unanimously, saying. If I thought Al Gore or my little sister or Camille Paglia had any useful insight on the condition of my car's brakes, I would do more than give them a polite listen. For anything beyond that, I'm going with the nearly unanimous opinion of the trained mechanics who've actually spent considerable time with my brakes in their greasy, black-fingernailed hands.

And, no, it's not their near-unanimity that makes them right. But, neither is such consensus meaningless, either.

3) You also say: Gore is the point man for your side, and if he is mis-stating your side's position I don't see anyone rushing to correct him.

You're actually responding to a post in which I provided an example of exactly that.

4) It's like a Bloom County or Winnie-the Pooh cartoon to me: On one side, you have a massive confluence of scientific data, across disciplines, across cultures, across nationalities; and on the other side you have... a penguin, a cat, a piglet, a tigger.... And the first side presents their evidence, and the other side just goes... "Hmmph. Conspiracy." {snort} "Yep. Conspiracy. Mm-hm." "Shoes untied."

(Except in tone,) that's no more elitist than siding with the certified mechanics over my little sister when it comes to the probable condition of my car's brakes a hundred or a thousand miles down the road.

5) You say: ...only 5% of atmospheric CO2 is human-caused....

Did you measure this yourself? If not, I assume you got it from a source you consider credible and reliable. Care to share it? Same with your supposed implications of same? I looked briefly for a source myself, but came up empty. Did find this, though:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=222

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/about/

I look forward to your next comments on this issue, which I'm guessing will go something like: But shouldn't climate scientists be considering solar fluctuations?

And then I'll be sure that you're just baiting me.

Devastatin' Dave said...

Concerning the brakes analogy...I can see the thickness of the brake pads, I can see the presence, or lack thereof, of gouges in the rotors. With this, I can determine if my brakes need replaced. And I'm not even a certified mechanic.

On the other hand, I'm given estimated temperatures from core samples of Arctic ice from 5,000 years ago. I'm given estimated temperatures for parts on the globe that don't have a weather station. I'm given scenarios from faulty weather models. I'm given temperatures from the late 1880s that were measured with more primitive measuring devices and asked to compare those with temperatures taken with more modern devices. I'm given dramatic, impressive "hockey stick" graphs that can only be construed when you conveniently omit a 300-400 year warming period. Do you see why I'm skeptical? And all for what? So some scientist can wring his hands over the fact that there has been a whopping .9F increase in temperature over a 100 year span. Stop the presses while I get out my fan.

As for the 95-5 ratio, I'll look for it, but that is the ratio I've seen in almost every article.

More later...

Devastatin' Dave said...

Some other thoughts...

You say that the current research takes into account solar variations and natural cycles. For eons, the earth has been cooling and warming and the natural cycles and solar variations have been ongoing, yet this time those aren't the overriding factors. It's human-caused emmissions. You don't find that odd?

You also imply, that among the scientists, that there is nearly unanimous agreement on human-caused global warming. You could, also, probably find research indicating that 90% of Americans believe in God. So what? You won't see me running to my local church to pray and ask for forgiveness any time soon. I don't care if 99% believe something. If the 1% is right, then I'm with them.

I had written the Al Gore comment before seeing the previous post. However, I find it interesting that this Renee Montagne person can sit there and say that scientists question Al's science and data and facts, but that he "gets the big picture very well." What?! If his data and conclusions are off, then isn't it possible that his "big picture," whatever that is, is off, too? Seems a little disingenuous.

You also claim that the "doom and gloom scenarios" are a misrepresentation of the real scientific debate. If this is the case, then what's the big deal? Why this clarion call for drastic changes in how society is ordered? Because something might happen 90 years from now? That's like saying, "Audie, we notice that you drink Shiner Bock and studies indicate that drinking beer may have an adverse effect on you 30 years from now." Are you really gonna stop drinking Shiner Bock?

Devastatin' Dave said...

http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller21.html

Audie said...

DD said: Concerning the brakes analogy...I can see the thickness of the brake pads, I can see the presence, or lack thereof, of gouges in the rotors.

Exactly. But looking at your backyard thermometer, or noticing that it's 31 degrees in New York City yesterday, are not, in this case, activities analogous to looking at your own brake pads. And that's what many skeptics do (including Ms. Paglia, even after qualifying the exercise as "sublime" [?] and "metaphysical").

The "brake pad" analogy can easily be changed (especially with all the computer diagnostics, etc. on newer cars) to something more difficult for a layperson to see for themselves, and my point is the same.

And if I'm skeptical after the first diagnosis, and I get a second opinion, and then a third, and then a fourth, and eventually a thousandth and beyond, etc., almost all of which confirm the original diagnosis, I'm going to eventually relinquish my skepticism about my "brake pad" (or whatever) issue.

Presumably, you would drive on in such an instance. Fine. Whatever!


Regarding "estimated" temperatures, etc.: Why is this such a problem? There can be very good reasons for regarding some estimates as reliable and others as unreliable. I can "estimate" how old a downed tree was when it was cut, by counting its rings. Someone who then comes along and says, "Yeah, but you don't know how old it was" is just being a nincompoop. We can "estimate" that there was a huge desert of sand where Zion National Park is today (and make pretty reliable conclusions about its climate back then, too). We have plenty of support for such "estimations" as these, and the same goes for much of the work in global climate change, even though most of us are less familiar with the details of that work than we are with counting tree rings.

And in fact, you and other skeptics repeatedly refer to past ice ages and "warming periods" and ancient glacial evidence (as well you should), never seeming to have a problem with all those estimations.


DD says: ... there has been a whopping .9F increase in temperature over a 100 year span. Stop the presses while I get out my fan.

:-)

All most scientists working with this are saying is "Look at this spike; look at its correlation to these other factors; note that there are very scientifically sound explanations for why this correlation could be cause-and-effect; note that we're doing nothing to mitigate those other factors; therefore we can expect this spike to continue, and due to the nature of exponentiality, we can expect the effects to become more and more dramatic over time; if it does continue what are some possible effects -- i.e., might this affect fresh water supplies, coastal industries, species populations, etc.; if at place A we have conditions X, which could easily change to conditions Y if these trends continue at this pace, then we can estimate what will happen at place A because we already have those same conditions (Y) over here at place B...."

Resistance to this still boggles my mind, and I don't think it's a coincidence that it usually comes from people who have an investment (emotional or financial) in withholding support to those who might in fact try to mitigate those (likely) causal factors. But that's a separate issue from the science, and more and more skeptics on the scientific data are switching camps due to the overwhelming evidence, and are now saying, "OK, the scientific data are right, but I still have problems with the policy implications [including whether or not there are any]." You and Beamis are like the last people standing in the "the science is wrong" camp." I'm gonna start calling you "Tenacious D" and "Tenacious DD." LOL


DD says: You say that the current research takes into account solar variations and natural cycles. For eons, the earth has been cooling and warming and the natural cycles and solar variations have been ongoing, yet this time those aren't the overriding factors. It's human-caused emmissions. You don't find that odd?

No. For eons, the area now known as the Netherlands has been alternately flooded and terrestrial. But, these days, it is terrestrial, and this time, it is partly because of human influence (viz., the building of dikes). The fact that there has been a natural fluctuation over eons, and now there is a detectable human influence on that cycle, is not a problem per se, as you suggest. Nor is determining the extent of that influence.


DD says: You also imply, that among the scientists, that there is nearly unanimous agreement on human-caused global warming. You could, also, probably find research indicating that 90% of Americans believe in God. So what?... I don't care if 99% believe something. If the 1% is right, then I'm with them.

Perhaps you passed over this statement of mine: "And, no, it's not their near-unanimity that makes them right."

But, as with the auto mechanics and their nearly-unanimously-corroborating diagnoses of my car, the fact of consensus is not meaningless to me, as I am not an expert, as you nor Beamis nor Camille Paglia nor Al Gore are not, either.

As for the God thing, again we are mixing the physical realm with the metaphysical. To say that 95% of all people hold some metaphysical belief is not analogous to 95% of all scientists in the relevant fields supporting a claim about the physical universe. Perhaps you can see the difference.


DD says: I find it interesting that this Renee Montagne person can sit there and say that scientists question Al's science and data and facts, but that he "gets the big picture very well." What?! If his data and conclusions are off, then isn't it possible that his "big picture," whatever that is, is off, too? Seems a little disingenuous.

Why? If Al Gore said "Kobe Bryant is the best offensive player in the NBA right now, leading the league in total points, points per 48 minutes, and average points per game, with 34," someone a bit more in the know could say, "Well, actually, he's only scored an average of 31.2 points per game so far this season -- but you're right that he is leading the league in all those categories and is, by almost any measure, the best offensive player in the NBA player right now." It's not "disingenuous" to say that Gore's gotten the big picture right, even if he didn't get a detail exactly right. Certainly, it's worth looking into, but despite the quibble over his saying 34 points per game instead of the more accurate 31.2 PPG, his big-picture analysis holds up.


Lastly, well, I might not stop drinking Shiner Bock just because something bad might happen to me 30 years from now, but I probably would stop drinking Shiner Bock if (assuming I might have kids some day) there was a very good chance that continuing to drink Shiner Bock would ensure that my children would be born with birth defects.

Ah, what the heck. Pass me a cold one!

Better yet, pass me a CFC-chilled one!

Devastatin' Dave said...

Audie said: You and Beamis are like the last people standing in the "the science is wrong" camp." I'm gonna start calling you "Tenacious D" and "Tenacious DD." LOL

Doesn't the last man standing win? I found this site interesting...

http://www.friendsofscience.org/

Speaking of Tenacious D, download their song "F*** Her Gently." Brilliant.

Steven said...

Fact: Al Gore is an elitist, socialist, shakedown artist (10 x's worse than Jackson and Sharpton combined).

Fact: Al Gore along with socialist counties around the world will use global warming as an excuse to impose C02 taxes

Fact: Like tabacco settlement money, C02 tax money will be used for everything but what it was intended for.

Fact: Pretty soon even America (which calls itself a capitalist country) will tax its citizens out of 60% of its gross pay to pay for social programs aimed at buying poor people's votes

Prediction: A federal imposed 10 cent per gallon CO2 tax before 2008 ends.

Fact: This money will be funneled into paying for the war

Steven said...

I'll belive this guy

Rather than global warming, Gray believes a recent uptick in strong hurricanes is part of a multi-decade trend of alternating busy and slow periods related to ocean circulation patterns. Contrary to mainstream thinking, Gray believes ocean temperatures are going to drop in the next five to 10 years.


Over the past 24 years, Gray, 77, has become known as America's most reliable hurricane forecaster.


The brakepad anology is weak. They can't predict tomorrow's weather yet they have the polar ice caps melting and flooding New York city in a 100 years.

The same people were learning how to build igloos 30 years ago preparing for the next ice age.

Steven said...

It would be interesting to see what Gore's stance on emissions trading is.