Article

2008-05-13 Home Front: Politix

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2008-05-13 00:00|| || Front Page|| [3 views ] Top

#1 The facts of global warming

Please someone get him up to speed on the issue.

Posted by twobyfour 2008-05-13 01:04|| 2008-05-13 01:04|| Front Page Top

#2 DAMMIT!

McVAIN, you fricken FOOL!

First LaRaza and open borders, now THIS?

You gaddamned moron.

I want to vote for you but keep this up and I cannot in good conscience do so.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-05-13 01:28|| 2008-05-13 01:28|| Front Page Top

#3 Nuclear power is a cornerstone of Senator McCains plan to combat climate change

What's your problem exactly, OldSpook?

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2008-05-13 01:46|| 2008-05-13 01:46|| Front Page Top

#4 I want to vote for you but keep this up and I cannot in good conscience do so.

Personally I hope the Democrats win in a landslide. The country has forgotten the consequences of letting them run the show so I suppose we'll have to suffer through four years of it before normalcy can return.

Posted by AzCat 2008-05-13 03:19|| 2008-05-13 03:19|| Front Page Top

#5 I think McVain is tossing out a red herring here to differentiate himself from Bush.

Personally I hope the Democrats win in a landslide.

Yep, nothing like the pain that 4 years Obamalamdingdong and a filibuster proof donk House and Senate to destroy the Democrap Party. But, could the Nation survive it? Ihave my doubts when almost 50% of the country seems to be gibbering feces fling Chimpanzees.

Posted by Zenobia Angiling2437 2008-05-13 05:31|| 2008-05-13 05:31|| Front Page Top

#6 It took the labour party 10 years to ruin the U.K. and for the public to wake up (the media were complicit with the cover-up). be careful what you wish for.

Posted by Bright Pebbles 2008-05-13 06:41|| 2008-05-13 06:41|| Front Page Top

#7 The rest of the world cannot afford four years of President Hussein. Though with DC likely to be a smoking crater thanks to al Qaeda and the rest of his friends I doubt his administration would make it through a full term.

Posted by Excalibur 2008-05-13 09:00|| 2008-05-13 09:00|| Front Page Top

#8 OldSpook, you said it better and cleaner than I thought it.

Posted by RWV 2008-05-13 09:12|| 2008-05-13 09:12|| Front Page Top

#9 grom, its because he gives ANY weight at all to the hoax that is anthropogenic global warming.

And its not that he advocates nukes, he also is stupid enough to advocate cap-and-trade systems, and begin the largest, most wide reaching buraecracy that will have economic regulation powers - a disaster for the US economy, and for individual freedom.

I suggest you read up a bit more on McVain and his idiotic policies.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-05-13 09:18|| 2008-05-13 09:18|| Front Page Top

#10 The nation survived 4 years of Jimmah Carter.
These bastards in D.C. are selling our country away to the rest of the world. They a filling their pockets and we are losing what little wealth the middle class had to begin with. So someone please tell me which of these three assholes will do the least damage to us in the next 4 years.

Posted by bigjim-ky 2008-05-13 09:57|| 2008-05-13 09:57|| Front Page Top

#11 We were lucky in the mid-seventies. I'd rather we didn't push our luck.

Posted by doc 2008-05-13 10:02|| 2008-05-13 10:02|| Front Page Top

#12 Basically I think we need to go nuclear for foreign policy reasons. If McCain believes climate change is the reason or the excuse to sell the nation on nuclear power so be it.

Posted by rjschwarz 2008-05-13 11:20|| 2008-05-13 11:20|| Front Page Top

#13 Living in NJ is finally going to pay off. Not voting for McCain won't make any difference in this Democrat hellhole. I get to indulge my "I ain't votin for this jackass" belief without any risk of effecting the outcome of my state's vote.

Posted by jds 2008-05-13 11:52|| 2008-05-13 11:52|| Front Page Top

#14 Need to ditch the other crap he wants to do with it. Giving the EPA control over economic growht is a recipe for socialist top-down economic disaster.

Its Watermelon Environmentalism at its wors (green outside, red inside), whcih is why McCain being for it puzzles me: either he is incredibly dishonest, or else incredibly stupid. Neither of which speak well for him as President.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-05-13 12:18|| 2008-05-13 12:18|| Front Page Top

#15 OldSpook is right on. Only an idiot or a polished turd would believe global warming.
Does anybody really think that McCain is a better man than Bob Barr ? Seriously ?
Bob Barr didn't give us campaign reform which allows George Soros to donate millions while citizens can only donate thousands. Bob Barr didn't write the McAmnesty bill with Fat Teddy to reward illegals with our Social Security dollars. And, the cap-and-trade plan would lead to Great Depression II. This jerk is way over his head. But, he is a useful fool, so the media and the CFR have annointed him. If more serious American patriots had the morals of OldSpook and me, then we would toss this nitwit out no matter which party he belonged to. Let's not forget his efforts to undermine the president's choices for SCOTUS judges. He is nothing but an egocentric jerk, who, like all the rest of them, thinks he is important. When I saw that video of him singing 'People', I couldn't help thinking of McCain fiddling while America slides into the Notre American Union. Maybe he'll sing 'We Are The World'.

Posted by wxjames 2008-05-13 12:23|| 2008-05-13 12:23|| Front Page Top

#16 even the oil companies are accepting the scientific consensus about anthropogenic global warming. McCains statements are reasonable, and increase the likelihood that I will vote for him.

Posted by liberalhawk 2008-05-13 14:02|| 2008-05-13 14:02|| Front Page Top

#17 Bob Barr isn't going to be president. Vote for him if you like, but be under no illusion that you change anything.

McCain has to play the game that has been given him, folks. Yes, I would appreciate it if he stated publicly that 'climate change' was a complete con from start to finish. But he can't do that and survive as a viable candidate.

He's in the business of winning elections, and to win he has to say nice things about climate change, and even have a plan to 'deal' with it. So he proposes "good stewardship, prudence and simple common sense". Given the alternatives, that's not such a bad plan.

Anyone in a democracy that thinks it better to let the opposition win so as to 'teach the country a lesson' will find himself, one day, not living in a democracy.

Posted by Steve White">Steve White 2008-05-13 14:55|| 2008-05-13 14:55|| Front Page Top

#18 lib, they are accepting it because they profit more in a fully regulated market, since they can buy influence instead of having to compete. And please do not confuse "global warming" with ATHROPOGENIC global warming.

CONSENSUS is *not* proof. Its has been warmer and cooler long before this time, and none of that was correlated with human influenced CO2 levels. Not to mention we are encountering cooling, in spite of slightly elevated CO2 levels. The more accurate temperature measues have show little if any "global warming" in the past decade, and are starting to indicate a cooling trend. The effects of CO2 are minuscule (espcially compared to water vapor), and only correlative at best, and certainly not proven as causative.

Based on the accurate evidence, and not on faulty models, its becoming obvious that the Global Climate is not that susceptible to human activity, and it is folly to accept a politically driven "consensus" as proof. Plus that consensus is now dissolving, due to lack of *proof*, and the facts are beginning to point to solar activity and ocean current cycles as far larger influences that swamp any influences we have.

AGW is junk science, and responding to it politically is flat out stupid - its treating a problem that doesnt exist, and using governmental and collectivist methods to do so, all based on what amounts to shamanism instead of science.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-05-13 14:57|| 2008-05-13 14:57|| Front Page Top

#19 bringing this back to McCain, this and his open borders proclivities trace back to his well known stubbornness and temper.

He is well known in DC to not like being challenged on something he has made up his mind on. Present him with facts contrary, and he gets angry. Its almost as if he is saying "I know what the truth is for ME, and all the other facts can be damned". He is arrogant, opinionated and stubborn. Unfortunately he is also quite irrational and ignorant on these vital matters.

That is a bad combination of things to have as a President. The other unfortunate thing is we realistically have no other choice, given how bad Hillary and Obama are - they are as bad as McCain on the AGW and Illegals/Border issues, but are even worse on geopolitical issues and the war. And its arguable that Hillary has an equally bad temper and definitely is prone to revenge, and Obama is the flip side - terribly ignorant coupled with being naieve.

Its sad that we the people are left with this pumpkin-headed McCain as the best of a bad lot.

As far as Bob Barr and the LP (and Mike Gravel whio is also seekign the LP nomination) go, they are simply bad jokes for the tinfoil hat groupies (plus Overnight AM conspiracy morons and Lew Rockwell's Sturm Abtielung).

I know because I was behind Harry Browne and Ron Paul back in the late 70's and 80's when I was a Libertarian (i.e. clueless idealist and nearly a Randinista), back before I grew up and saw the world as it is.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-05-13 15:14|| 2008-05-13 15:14|| Front Page Top

#20 The only good news about this election is that it is highly unlikely the victor will be elected to a second term.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2008-05-13 15:16|| 2008-05-13 15:16|| Front Page Top

#21 OS--

I feel your pain.

My contact with the YAFfers in the '70's was enough exposure to libertarians that I feel I will ever need. Stone Age political traditions, with Ook and Mork.

However, the Republican candidate for President has several marks--or left several--against him. You know what they are, from speech issues to border issues. If you do a little digging, you'll also notice that there are industries out there that he has an antipathy toward (read hardon).

But this Cap and Trade nonsense simply serves to underscore his lack of training or savvy in the unintended consequences of government policy. Want growth? You'll need to balance that with glacial restrictions on land use to offset your growth proposal. And these glaciers won't melt.

A little time looking at what the Cap and Trade people propose will open your eyes. Want to end private property rights? Vote for Cap and Trade.

Posted by OregonGuy">OregonGuy 2008-05-13 15:34|| http://oregonguythinks.blogspot.com/]">[http://oregonguythinks.blogspot.com/] 2008-05-13 15:34|| Front Page Top

#22 McCain seems intent upon testing people's patience. If he teams with Huckabee I'm for Barr in November.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2008-05-13 15:51|| 2008-05-13 15:51|| Front Page Top

#23 "lib, they are accepting it because they profit more in a fully regulated market, since they can buy influence instead of having to compete."

Then why did they oppose it for so long?

Anyway, a Carbon trading system would NOT be a fully regulated market, not by a long shot.

"And please do not confuse "global warming" with ATHROPOGENIC global warming."

I dont.

"CONSENSUS is *not* proof."

Absolute proof we dont have. When the probabilities pile up, how much of a gamble will we take?

" Its has been warmer and cooler long before this time, and none of that was correlated with human influenced CO2 levels."

Because humans didnt influence CO2 levels so massively before the industrial revolution.

"Not to mention we are encountering cooling, in spite of slightly elevated CO2 levels. The more accurate temperature measues have show little if any "global warming" in the past decade, and are starting to indicate a cooling trend. The effects of CO2 are minuscule (espcially compared to water vapor), and only correlative at best, and certainly not proven as causative. "

Not every short change represents a new trend. And anyway, the GHG levels are still increasing, at an increasing pace. One wouldnt necessarily expect what we've seen so far to be indicative of whats coming. Thats why you NEED the models, and cant go only on observed trends.

"Based on the accurate evidence, and not on faulty models"

The models are regularly revisited and improved, and are the best indicators we have. Again, its not possible to determine the future based on whats happened already, given increasing concentrations of GHGS (not just CO2, BTW)

" its becoming obvious that the Global Climate is not that susceptible to human activity, and it is folly to accept a politically driven "consensus" as proof."

Its not at all obvious, and the consensus has much wider support than the skeptics, who really are a narrow politically driven group.

" Plus that consensus is now dissolving, due to lack of *proof*,"

I see no evidence of that.

" and the facts are beginning to point to solar activity and ocean current cycles as far larger influences that swamp any influences we have."

The "faulty climate models" incorpate solar activity (including the effect of changing reflectivity) and ocean current cycles, exploring for offsetting and reinforcing effects.

"AGW is junk science, and responding to it politically is flat out stupid - its treating a problem that doesnt exist, and using governmental and collectivist methods to do so, all based on what amounts to shamanism instead of science."

Except the scientists mainly dont think so, and the methods arent particularly collectivist. In this case the skeptics are doing the junk science.

Posted by liberalhawk 2008-05-13 16:01|| 2008-05-13 16:01|| Front Page Top

#24 My very rational wife works in the environmental science realm. The issue is not climate change in itself as it is evident that the earth's climate has cooled/warmed cyclically throughout history. The issue she & her non moonbat scientific colleagues see is the "zero to sixty type" of change that has occurred recently. So it is not that is has warmed recently but how quickly it warmed in a short duration of time that they are concerned & perplexed by. Even her community are mixed on what they think the causes are. They take into consideration possibility of sunspots & the sun's heating period, earth's distance during it's rotation in space (farther/closer variances), CO2 emissions, oceanic properties, glaciers melting up north but south pole ice getting thicker, etc. She seems to think man has some influence but is not the prime mover of what we see today. She's not on board w/the goracle but doesn't believe that man has absolutely no part in the speed in which things warmed up. Obviously it will still take years to cyphyer through all the facts and info then match it to historical evidence to get a compelte picture.

BTW - I am a libertarian but still support the war, believe in free-trade while actually enforcing the borders & our national sovereignty, reducing the size of gov't, slashing taxes/spending on entitlement programs & actually supporting/defending & adhering to that great document called the constitution and the founders. Just a hopeless utopian I guess.

Posted by Broadhead6 2008-05-13 16:01|| 2008-05-13 16:01|| Front Page Top

#25 Living in NJ is finally going to pay off. Not voting for McCain won't make any difference in this Democrat hellhole. I get to indulge my "I ain't votin for this jackass" belief without any risk of effecting the outcome of my state's vote.

Same thing in Kaliphornia. Republicans have written off this state. They still ask me for money (they won't get any this year). But they know my vote won't count. This year it won't count because I won't vote.

I have long contended that the right Republican could turn it red again. McCain is not that right Republican. My impression is that he wants to turn the US into a third world country by importing vast numbers of illegal immigrants and then outsourcing the better jobs to China and India.

Personally, I'd rather have Obama and the donks take the blame for all the $hit that's gonna happen in the next four years so we can have a chance for a real conservative in 2012.

McCain might end up in the White House but only because Obama is so far out on the looney fringe. Don't be surprised though, if Obama moves toward the center before November and makes a real race of it.

Posted by Abu Uluque 2008-05-13 16:22|| 2008-05-13 16:22|| Front Page Top

#26
OldSpook (#10), rjschwarz (#12) already answered for me. IMO, the only way (barring genocide) to stop Islamic World conquest is nuclear power.

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2008-05-13 16:44|| 2008-05-13 16:44|| Front Page Top

#27 Well, your country is nuclear armed ....

Posted by lotp 2008-05-13 16:46|| 2008-05-13 16:46|| Front Page Top

#28 A few items

Less than 5% of tropospheric warming (Note: that is to say retention of warmth, not permanent temperature increase) is due to CO2.

3.4% of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere annually is human based.

CO2 that has gone from 0.028% to 0.038% since the industrial revolution.

Thats a gain of approximately one onehundredth of one percent and we emit less than 3.4% of what is already a small component.

The major atmospheric warming components are water vapor and clouds. In excess of 95%.

Pretty slim reed you rest YOUR junk science on LH.

There is little if any PROOF there, on,ly conjecture and inadequate facts. Given that, its is WRONG to act in such a precipitous manner, and to pontificate as if this is already proven.

It is NOT.

Regional and global variance is far larger than the projected warming numbers, and indeed draw doubt as to the very existenece of warming, versus simply being noise in the data.

Add to that fundamental errors in the basic number of previous things presented as "proof", and the its basis in documented flawed models like ModelE of 2006 vintage, and there is very little scientific confidence in your sources.

Basically, since humans have been keepign accurate records around 1880, there has been +0.6 °C ± 0.2 °C change on average globally. Thats stright from the COADS SST data. So thats an increase of 0.04C per DECADE.

So globally speaking, global warming may not exist.

And globally speaking, there simply is no *proof* that anthropogenic warming exists.

Locally? Sure. Look at the heat traps and wind changes a modern western city brings, and the effects the huge amounts of pollutants in China.

But those can and should be addressed locally.

Until you can PROVE it, stop meddling with using the government to force others to go along with what is essentially a quasi-religious belief at this point.

Forcing questionable collectivist solutions onto people based on questionable science and half-baked theories, by using an oppressive and comprehensive government bureaucracy is the mark of a totalitarian, a fascist or other elitist/collectivists. So watch where you tread, you may be keeping company you'd rather not be associated with.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-05-13 17:14|| 2008-05-13 17:14|| Front Page Top

#29 My main point here is:

YOU are making the extraordinary claim, demanding extraordinary measures be taken, advocating governmental force and fiat if necessary.

That demands that you in turn provide extraordinary PROOF, proof that will survive the criticism of skeptics, and critical examination of your conjecture against verifiable empirical data.

The current pro-AGW litany of flawed models, incorrect numbers, inaccurate data, incomplete theories (inviting deus ex machina), inconsistent conclusion, guesstimates and other hallmarks of junk science are not acceptable.

When you can prove it to me with irrefutable sources and accurate data and a demonstrably accurate theory, then I'll be willing to accept.

But until then, in the words of Heinlein:

What are the facts? Again and again and againwhat are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what "the stars foretell," avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable "verdict of history"; what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!

And, as shown plenty of places, and by others far more expert and distinguished than I, your side does not have sufficient facts to sufficiently prove your case.

So stay the hell out of other people's business with your extraordinary demands for extraordinary measures until you provide extraordinary proof that there truly exists a need to do so.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-05-13 17:19|| 2008-05-13 17:19|| Front Page Top

#30 http://www.cafepress.com/buy/cthulhu+2008?CMP=KNC-G-HIT-RP-Cthulhu2008&gclid=CPjA4dq2pJMCFQLBsgodUyusnw

Screw all three candidates - I'm considering Cthulhu 08' or possibly the independent ticket of Cobra Commander/Destro - I want the "weather dominator" dammit (& delicious milkshakes made from distilled senior citizens of course).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzrd6eVAsjA

Posted by Broadhead6 2008-05-13 17:37|| 2008-05-13 17:37|| Front Page Top

#31 crap, I srewed up the links, I suck...

anyway - google Cthulhu 08 or Cobra 08 on youtube and watch "yes, we shall" - funny stuff.

Posted by Broadhead6 2008-05-13 17:40|| 2008-05-13 17:40|| Front Page Top

#32 Further, there are calls by scientists for the IPCC (the major nexus of AGW advocacy) to be disbanded for being overtly political and incompetent scientifically.

And as far as alack of consensus goes, how abotu this: the AGW consensus docuemnt was signed by 154. Furthermore, several of these scientists have asked to have their names removed from the IPCC report, but have had their requests denied. Several have actually sued the panel to have their names removed, but few have been successful.

At this site, you will find a petition, signed by over 17,200 scientists who say that the currently available scientific data do not support the conclusion that global warming is anything other than a naturally occurring cyclic phenomenon. The site also contains a peer reviewed scientific paper that gives an overview of the existing climate science. This peer reviewed paper demonstrates that the positive feedback model is not valid and that therefor, the entire hypothesis of man-made global warming is also not validated.

So there you go. If you want to use consensus, then what if there isn't one? Or that the consensus is the other way?

How you respond to that will be very informative to the heart of the matter: are you are being truthful and rational about the reasons for your advocacy of extraordinary government actions?

Posted by OldSpook 2008-05-13 17:41|| 2008-05-13 17:41|| Front Page Top

#33 And if you are swayed by scientific letters at the UN, here is a letter from 100 to the UN Secretary General in opposition to IPCC and its conclusion and treatment of AGW.

How's that for a LACK of consensus?

McCain is Ignorant, Stubborn, and on this, WRONG!

Dear Mr. Secretary-General,

Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction

It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.

.

List of signatories:

Don Aitkin, PhD, Professor, social scientist, retired vice-chancellor and president, University of Canberra, Australia

William J.R. Alexander, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Member, UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000

Bjarne Andresen, PhD, physicist, Professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark

Geoff L. Austin, PhD, FNZIP, FRSNZ, Professor, Dept. of Physics, University of Auckland, New Zealand

Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant, former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg

Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biol., Biologist, Merian-Schule Freiburg, Germany

Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhD, Reader, Dept. of Geography, Hull University, U.K.; Editor, Energy & Environment journal

Chris C. Borel, PhD, remote sensing scientist, U.S.

Reid A. Bryson, PhD, DSc, DEngr, UNE P. Global 500 Laureate; Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research; Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography, and of Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin

Dan Carruthers, M.Sc., wildlife biology consultant specializing in animal ecology in Arctic and Subarctic regions, Alberta

R.M. Carter, PhD, Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia

Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.

Willem de Lange, PhD, Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering, Waikato University, New Zealand

David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma

Freeman J. Dyson, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.

Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University

Lance Endersbee, Emeritus Professor, former dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monasy University, Australia

Hans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist and climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands

Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University

Christopher Essex, PhD, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario

David Evans, PhD, mathematician, carbon accountant, computer and electrical engineer and head of Science Speak, Australia

William Evans, PhD, editor, American Midland Naturalist; Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame

Stewart Franks, PhD, Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia

R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawaii Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawaii at Manoa

Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas; former director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey

Gerhard Gerlich, Professor for Mathematical and Theoretical Physics, Institut für Mathematische Physik der TU Braunschweig, Germany

Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, sc.agr., Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, INTTAS, Paraguay

Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adjunct Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden

Vincent Gray, PhD, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of Climate Change 2001, Wellington, New Zealand

William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University and Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project

Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut

Louis Hissink MSc, M.A.I.G., editor, AIG News, and consulting geologist, Perth, Western Australia

Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona

Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, AZ, USA

Andrei Illarionov, PhD, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity; founder and director of the Institute of Economic Analysis

Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, physicist, Chairman - Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland

Jon Jenkins, PhD, MD, computer modelling - virology, NSW, Australia

Wibjorn Karlen, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden

Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia

Joel M. Kauffman, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia

David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Zealand

Madhav Khandekar, PhD, former research scientist, Environment Canada; editor, Climate Research (2003-05); editorial board member, Natural Hazards; IPCC expert reviewer 2007

William Kininmonth M.Sc., M.Admin., former head of Australias National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organizations Commission for Climatology Jan J.H. Kop, MSc Ceng FICE (Civil Engineer Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers), Emeritus Prof. of Public Health Engineering, Technical University Delft, The Netherlands

Prof. R.W.J. Kouffeld, Emeritus Professor, Energy Conversion, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

Salomon Kroonenberg, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Geotechnology, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

Hans H.J. Labohm, PhD, economist, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), The Netherlands

The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust; former Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K.

Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary

David R. Legates, PhD, Director, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware

Marcel Leroux, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS

Bryan Leyland, International Climate Science Coalition, consultant and power engineer, Auckland, New Zealand

William Lindqvist, PhD, independent consulting geologist, Calif.

Richard S. Lindzen, PhD, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

A.J. Tom van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors

Anthony R. Lupo, PhD, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Dept. of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia

Richard Mackey, PhD, Statistician, Australia

Horst Malberg, PhD, Professor for Meteorology and Climatology, Institut für Meteorologie, Berlin, Germany

John Maunder, PhD, Climatologist, former President of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization (89-97), New Zealand

Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economy, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.

Ross McKitrick, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph

John McLean, PhD, climate data analyst, computer scientist, Australia

Owen McShane, PhD, economist, head of the International Climate Science Coalition; Director, Centre for Resource Management Studies, New Zealand

Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University

Frank Milne, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Queens University

Asmunn Moene, PhD, former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway

Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director of the IPAs Deregulation Unit, Australia

Nils-Axel Morner, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden

Lubos Motl, PhD, Physicist, former Harvard string theorist, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic

John Nicol, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Physics, James Cook University, Australia

David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa

James J. OBrien, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University

Cliff Ollier, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Geology), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia

Garth W. Paltridge, PhD, atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia

R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University

Al Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, Minnesota

Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia

Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan

Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Planetary Geology and Isotope Geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences

Alex Robson, PhD, Economics, Australian National University Colonel F.P.M. Rombouts, Branch Chief - Safety, Quality and Environment, Royal Netherland Air Force

R.G. Roper, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology

Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands

Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, B.C.

Tom V. Segalstad, PhD, (Geology/Geochemistry), Head of the Geological Museum and Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, Norway

Gary D. Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CA

S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and former director Weather Satellite Service

L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario

Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville

Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, KTH (Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, Sweden

Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

Dick Thoenes, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

Brian G Valentine, PhD, PE (Chem.), Technology Manager - Industrial Energy Efficiency, Adjunct Associate Professor of Engineering Science, University of Maryland at College Park; Dept of Energy, Washington, DC

Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD, geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand

Len Walker, PhD, Power Engineering, Australia

Edward J. Wegman, PhD, Department of Computational and Data Sciences, George Mason University, Virginia

Stephan Wilksch, PhD, Professor for Innovation and Technology Management, Production Management and Logistics, University of Technolgy and Economics Berlin, Germany

Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland

David E. Wojick, PhD, P.Eng., energy consultant, Virginia

Raphael Wust, PhD, Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Australia

A. Zichichi, PhD, President of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva, Switzerland; Emeritus Professor of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy

Posted by OldSpook 2008-05-13 17:43|| 2008-05-13 17:43|| Front Page Top

#34 FYI - that petition letter and study?

Here is an update:

Approximately 19,000 signers of this petition. Qualification to be a signatory requires that the individual have a university degree in physical science, either BS, MS, or PhD. Those with PhD degrees are so designated. Those with BS and MS degrees are undesignated or sometimes designated as MD if appropriate.

The signatures and the text of the petition stand alone and speak for themselves. These scientists have signed this specific document. They are not associated with any particular organization. Their signatures represent a strong statement about this important issue by many of the best scientific minds in the United States.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-05-13 17:50|| 2008-05-13 17:50|| Front Page Top

#35 Much of the doom/gloom about global warming is based on mathematical models of how the climate works. Unfortunately, we DON'T REALLY KNOW how it works. People who make up and run these models make simplifying assumptions so that the models are tractable and can be run at all during a reasonable period of time. Also unfortunately, making simplifying assumptions about a model of something as complex as climate can completely invalidate the model. The climate is a chaotic system, which means that a small change in the initial conditions can have a huge effect on the outcome.
To make matters worse, we have been collecting worldwide, 24/7 temperature and other data via satellite for a few years. We don't know in detail for sure what the weather was before that. To make changes to our lives and economies based on such incomplete data is effing stupid in my opinion.

Posted by Rambler in California">Rambler in California 2008-05-13 17:53|| 2008-05-13 17:53|| Front Page Top

#36 Yes we shall!

Posted by Abdominal Snowman 2008-05-13 18:06|| 2008-05-13 18:06|| Front Page Top

#37 I just tried to post the yes we shall video embedded, and wound up at roadside america.

Posted by Abdominal Snowman 2008-05-13 18:07|| 2008-05-13 18:07|| Front Page Top

#38 huh. never mind. it worked.

Posted by Abdominal Snowman 2008-05-13 18:07|| 2008-05-13 18:07|| Front Page Top

#39 OS - use a link rather than filling pages of copied text in a comment.

Posted by lotp 2008-05-13 18:28|| 2008-05-13 18:28|| Front Page Top

#40 Broadhead 6 for Pres. I like your opinions.

And don't be tooooo impressed with 19,000 signatures - I think I'm one of them!

Posted by Bobby 2008-05-13 18:30|| 2008-05-13 18:30|| Front Page Top

#41 BH6 is nice but I'll take OldSpook.

Posted by jds 2008-05-13 19:45|| 2008-05-13 19:45|| Front Page Top

#42 bigjim-ky, I think the Jury is still out on whether we survived 4 years of Jimmy Carter.

Posted by Deacon Blues">Deacon Blues 2008-05-13 20:40|| 2008-05-13 20:40|| Front Page Top

#43 lotp normally I would link (as I did with the 19,000) but the 100 was for visual impact.

And bobby, please note the blurb posted about the 19,000 signatories - I beleive there is checking done to verify the proper degree and major, especially with the PhD's.

Its very significant that so many are willing to sign a document that concludes that AGW does NOT exist.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-05-13 21:10|| 2008-05-13 21:10|| Front Page Top

#44 Ether way the very fact that McCain did this at a wind technology firm is kind of cool. It's not the answer but any energy generated from any non-middle east is a good idea.

Posted by Icerigger 2008-05-13 22:44|| 2008-05-13 22:44|| Front Page Top

23:55 Chuck Simmins
23:52 gorb
23:32 rjschwarz
23:24 JosephMendiola
23:20 JosephMendiola
23:14 JosephMendiola
22:59 trailing wife
22:45 Icerigger
22:44 Icerigger
22:39 Icerigger
22:34 OldSpook
22:21 Grusoling Panda8701
22:13 ryuge
22:10 DMFD
22:09 Shieldwolf
22:04 Frank G
21:58 JosephMendiola
21:11 Besoeker
21:10 OldSpook
21:07 Gleth Fillmore2319
21:06 GK
21:06 OldSpook
21:05 Jan
21:05 Besoeker