Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

The denialists took some stuff out of context that made some publicity for a while, but all of the claims have been reviewed and none of the stuff that was questioned resulted in a significant change to the main line science.

-No, East Anglia put out some spin that you're willing to swallow. The fact is, they don't believe their own propoganda.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Again, it's still been getting warmer since serious fossil fuel use began.

-Please. The 19th century coincides with the end of a long natural cooling period that began around the 13th century (i.e. the end of the Medieval warming period). IOW, it's got warmer over time, and then it got colder over time.

Your argument only makes sense if you believe that temperatures were going to get colder forever; by now, we'd be in an Ice Age. If that were true, then we'd have to say "thank God for Global Warming", don't you think?

Again, you could try answering a simple question:

Originally Posted by JDG 66

...The GW humpers create models based on their theories. Then they make predictions based on their theories. Then the predicitons turn out to be wrong. To some people, that might be an indication that there's something wrong with their models, and in turn, that [there's] something wrong with their theory...

Why is it that the Global Warming Bedwetters' predictions are consistently proven WRONG?

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Follow the money. People who take global warming seriously include such pinko commie groups as the insurance industry, the ski industry, and wine makers. To these industry groups, global warming is very real.

-That's a fair question. Some of them know that they can use it to feed at the public trough, and suck up to power (think GE). That doesn't make them right. Others believe it, but it doesn't make them right. But I always give credit to those who put their money were their mouth is. How many Global Warming Bedwetters do that, eh:

Originally Posted by JDG 66

...something wrong with their theory. But admitting that would not give them an excuse to take over economic policy, would it?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I have to wonder whether PW sees JDG in the same light that a well-fed cat sees a mouse. The cat isn't hungry, so the mouse is entertainment. I'm sure the mouse sees it differently.

-What cat? What mouse?

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

I suppose congratulations are in order here...

PS: Could we say that you may have "hit a nerve" with some of T4T posters?

Originally Posted by The Rani

I'd say he drilled straight into their spinal cords. Without anesthesia.

Ha ha ha!

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-No, East Anglia put out some spin that you're willing to swallow. The fact is, they don't believe their own propoganda.

Have you read any of the stolen e-mails other than the one or two sentences the denialists take out of context?

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-Please. The 19th century coincides with the end of a long natural cooling period that began around the 13th century (i.e. the end of the Medieval warming period). IOW, it's got warmer over time, and then it got colder over time.

Your argument only makes sense if you believe that temperatures were going to get colder forever; by now, we'd be in an Ice Age. If that were true, then we'd have to say "thank God for Global Warming", don't you think?

The Maunder Minimum ran from about 1645 to 1715. The basic hockey stick pattern runs from 1000 AD to present. It has gotten much warmer than it was in either 1645 or 1715. The Maunder Minimum is a short term glitch in a longer term pattern. It also gets colder for a while after major volcanic eruptions, every 11 years at solar minimums and in La Nina years as well. Short term glitches caused by known effects do not invalidate patterns established over a much longer time frame.

The Milankovitch Cycles do cause long term drops in temperature, which cause ice ages to come and go. We are towards what would normally be the tail end of an interglacial. If there were no influences other than the Milankovitch Cycles we would be due at some point to shift into another ice age.

Two of the common denialist memes work from cherry picking extremes. 'The Maunder Minimum was a record cold time. Of course it has been getting warmer ever sense.' 'It has been cooling since 1998.' The latter is said without mentioning that 1998 was a record warm year. If one takes an extreme as one's key data point, one can make extreme and extremely invalid claims.

But both the Maunder Minimum and the 1998 El Nino resulted from known phenomena much shorter term than the long term trend. With or without them the longer term curve is still there.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-No, East Anglia put out some spin that you're willing to swallow. The fact is, they don't believe their own propoganda.



-Please. The 19th century coincides with the end of a long natural cooling period that began around the 13th century (i.e. the end of the Medieval warming period). IOW, it's got warmer over time, and then it got colder over time.

Your argument only makes sense if you believe that temperatures were going to get colder forever; by now, we'd be in an Ice Age. If that were true, then we'd have to say "thank God for Global Warming", don't you think?

Again, you could try answering a simple question:




Why is it that the Global Warming Bedwetters' predictions are consistently proven WRONG?



-That's a fair question. Some of them know that they can use it to feed at the public trough, and suck up to power (think GE). That doesn't make them right. Others believe it, but it doesn't make them right. But I always give credit to those who put their money were their mouth is. How many Global Warming Bedwetters do that, eh:





-What cat? What mouse?





Ha ha ha!

If denialists like you get your way, you should all be sent to rot in Greenland.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Have you read any of the stolen e-mails other than the one or two sentences the denialists take out of context?

The Maunder Minimum ran from about 1645 to 1715. The basic hockey stick pattern runs from 1000 AD to present. It has gotten much warmer than it was in either 1645 or 1715. The Maunder Minimum is a short term glitch in a longer term pattern. It also gets colder for a while after major volcanic eruptions, every 11 years at solar minimums and in La Nina years as well. Short term glitches caused by known effects do not invalidate patterns established over a much longer time frame.

The Milankovitch Cycles do cause long term drops in temperature, which cause ice ages to come and go. We are towards what would normally be the tail end of an interglacial. If there were no influences other than the Milankovitch Cycles we would be due at some point to shift into another ice age.

Two of the common denialist memes work from cherry picking extremes. 'The Maunder Minimum was a record cold time. Of course it has been getting warmer ever sense.' 'It has been cooling since 1998.' The latter is said without mentioning that 1998 was a record warm year. If one takes an extreme as one's key data point, one can make extreme and extremely invalid claims.

But both the Maunder Minimum and the 1998 El Nino resulted from known phenomena much shorter term than the long term trend. With or without them the longer term curve is still there.

Excellent. Now post the historical global temperature records. You should be able to find them going back as far as a few hundred million years.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Have you read any of the stolen e-mails other than the one or two sentences the denialists take out of context?

The Maunder Minimum ran from about 1645 to 1715. The basic hockey stick pattern runs from 1000 AD to present. It has gotten much warmer than it was in either 1645 or 1715. The Maunder Minimum is a short term glitch in a longer term pattern. It also gets colder for a while after major volcanic eruptions, every 11 years at solar minimums and in La Nina years as well. Short term glitches caused by known effects do not invalidate patterns established over a much longer time frame.

The Milankovitch Cycles do cause long term drops in temperature, which cause ice ages to come and go. We are towards what would normally be the tail end of an interglacial. If there were no influences other than the Milankovitch Cycles we would be due at some point to shift into another ice age.

Two of the common denialist memes work from cherry picking extremes. 'The Maunder Minimum was a record cold time. Of course it has been getting warmer ever sense.' 'It has been cooling since 1998.' The latter is said without mentioning that 1998 was a record warm year. If one takes an extreme as one's key data point, one can make extreme and extremely invalid claims.

But both the Maunder Minimum and the 1998 El Nino resulted from known phenomena much shorter term than the long term trend. With or without them the longer term curve is still there.

Bingo. If anyone accepts that either the Medieval Warm Period (when the Vikings settled Greenland and prospered) and the Little Ice Age (when London had Ice Fairs and Pieter Breughel painted scenes of harsh winters in Flanders, and when the Norse colony in Greenland failed) are real, then contemporary Global Warming is real.

Anyone with an agenda can find the intellectual equivalent of whores to make a fraudulent case for anything. Some interests want us accelerating the use of fossil fuels, and anything that would reduce their use would threaten their profits.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Excellent. Now post the historical global temperature records. You should be able to find them going back as far as a few hundred million years.

A visit to the Global Warming Art web pages might be suggested to anyone interested in the data.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

A visit to the Global Warming Art web pages might be suggested to anyone interested in the data.

Oh I've already seen them. I was simply curious if you had and what conclusions you happen to draw. I always notice that climate change arguments never include them.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Oh I've already seen them. I was simply curious if you had and what conclusions you happen to draw. I always notice that climate change arguments never include them.

Yea they do include them. A lot of the literature on "tipping points" comes from the paleo-climate record from ice cores.

The Milankovitch cycles that govern the cycles of ice ages occur over thousands of years and are not relevant to the current warming. In fact, before the Industrial Revolution the pre-industrial levels of CO2 and methane output was actually a good thing, according to the book Plagues, Plows, and Petroleum the CO2 released by agricultural land-use practices and the methane released from rice paddies slowed down the cooling from the peak of the interglacial 8,000 years ago, preventing us from slipping back into glaciation (when CO2 levels drop below 250ppm ice starts to build up in the Canadian Arctic).

The problem only started when industrialization caused CO2 output to increase tremendously. CO2 levels have not been as high as they are now since the Miocene, when the Arctic was ice-free in the summer, Greenland was actually green, and Antarctica was less glaciated. And that increase occurred in only 200 years. It's not the climate change itself that is the problem, it's the speed at which it is occurring.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

...Two of the common denialist memes work from cherry picking extremes...

Thinking of cherry picking:

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

.

...you do realize that the black stat's are the only one which shows us as noticeably warmer than the Medieval warming, right? And some have us cooler, right?

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

...If anyone accepts that either the Medieval Warm Period (when the Vikings settled Greenland and prospered) and the Little Ice Age (when London had Ice Fairs and Pieter Breughel painted scenes of harsh winters in Flanders, and when the Norse colony in Greenland failed) are real, then contemporary Global Warming is real...

-You are confusing a climate with its cause, which is the heart of the Global Bedwetter argument.

Originally Posted by Lady Vagina

If denialists like you get your way, you should all be sent to rot in Greenland.

-If Greenland is significantly warmer, say even better than it was ca. AD 1000, wouldn't Greenland be a good place to move to, Lady Hoo-hoo?


The latest from the GW bed-wetting crowd, here called "warmists":

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...ng-since-1998/


...so the recent lack of warming is to the, er, Warmists. They hate it. It’s an affront to everything they believe in. Damn it, if the world isn’t warming with the alacrity they’d prefer, how are they going to keep the funding gravy train going, and how are they going to persuade an increasingly sceptical populace that the “science” is “settled”, the debate over and the time for action is now? That’s why they can’t reminded of the truth often enough. It’s like salting the slugs that are ruining your garden: necessary, but also kind of fun too...


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...ng-since-1998/

...so the recent lack of warming is to the, er, Warmists. They hate it. It’s an affront to everything they believe in. Damn it, if the world isn’t warming with the alacrity they’d prefer, how are they going to keep the funding gravy train going, and how are they going to persuade an increasingly sceptical populace that the “science” is “settled”, the debate over and the time for action is now? That’s why they can’t reminded of the truth often enough. It’s like salting the slugs that are ruining your garden: necessary, but also kind of fun too...

No global warming since 1998? Simple. All you’ve got to do – as Kaufmann et al have done – is apply the Even Though We’re Wrong We’re Right Panacea Get-Out Formula. In this instance the ETWWWRPGOF (as it’s snappily known) involves Blaming The Chinese. Yep, it turns out all that pollution that Chinese are pumping into the air thanks to their unhealthy obsession with economic growth and giving better lives to their children is actually counteracting the effects of Man Made Global Warming...


...In other words Man Made Global Cooling is cancelling out Man Made Global Warming.

-Problem solved! Ha ha ha!

Continued:

...For years the Warmists have been telling us that they’re so sure of their computer models that they know, they just know, that CO2 has a forcing effect on global temperatures and that combined with positive feedbacks this is going to cause catastrophic warming. And now they’re saying, without a blush, “Well all right, some of those feedbacks might actually be negative and, er, completely cancel out the terrifying thing we were telling you to worry about. But don’t stop worrying, for God’s sake. Whatever is happening is still worrying, very worrying. And if you give us a bit more time we’ll come up with a paper explaining just why it’s worrying.”

When I posted this:

Originally Posted by JDG 66

Why is it that the Global Warming Bedwetters' predictions are consistently proven WRONG?

...this is what I was getting to. If you have a hypothesis, and you do a test based on that hypothesis, and your prediction based on the hypothesis turns out to be wrong, then noramlly you'd say that there is something wrong with your hypothesis.

Continued:

...Tweaking computer models like this proves nothing. The real test is in the real world data. The temperature hasn’t increased for over a decade. For there to be any faith in the underlying scientific assumptions the world has to start warming soon, at an enhanced rate to compensate for it being held back for a decade. Despite what the authors of this paper state after their tinkering with an out-of-date climate computer model, there is as yet no convincing explanation for the global temperature standstill of the past decade.

Originally Posted by Odin

Yea they do include them. A lot of the literature on "tipping points" comes from the paleo-climate record from ice cores.

I disagree. They are seldom brought up at all. I have yet to see anyone post them in this thread.

Originally Posted by Odin

It's not the climate change itself that is the problem, it's the speed at which it is occurring.

I encourage you to research what actually happens physically when a celestial body (asteroid, comet) of sufficient size collides with the earth. It puts any notions we humans have of "climate change" to complete shame. I personally find the physics fascinating.

For starters there is no lofty, romantic Hollywood scene where the fireball arcs lazily over the country sky while the humans contemplate and ponder their fate in awe. No, what happens is the asteroid or comet hits the upper atmosphere and is moving so fast that it impacts ground less than a second later. In that time it creates so much friction that it burns ultraviolet (exponentially hotter than the Sun). The heat is so great that if you are close enough to see it you are vaporized immediately. The impact instantly disintegrates millions of tons of rock and punches through to the upper mantle. If it hits the ocean it vaporizes millions of tons of seawater. The impact is so powerful it ejects debris into orbit and even out of earth's gravity well. Vaporized seawater contains other chemical compounds and computer models show it would devastate the ozone layer for decades. The debris sent into orbit or the upper atmosphere travel around the world and begin to re-enter. As they do (already super-heated from the impact event) the atmosphere creates more friction. Burning embers fall and cause world-wide fires. A combination of these fires with heat generated from debris along with the flash-wave from the original entry and impact cause global atmospheric temperatures to rise upwards of 700 degrees Fahrenheit. Anything not already on fire begins to burn. Millions of tons of rock vapor combines with ash from burning biological sources and surrounds the earth with a cloud so thick, no sunlight can reach the ground for several years. Sunlight is severely diminished for decades if not hundreds of years. This ash and rock falls to the earth in the form of sulfur and other toxic minerals. It poisons the rivers, lakes and oceans. If the impact is close enough to geologically active zones it will cause earthquakes and potentially volcanic eruption exacerbating the problem. The only plants and animals that survive are those that live underground.

Now that is climate change my friend and it only takes a few minutes of our busy little lives to take hold.

And that is just what a collision with an asteroid or comet causes. If you really want to see physics in action (and it's impact on climate) check out gamma ray bursts. Some scientists suspect it has happened before, ending the Ordovician period and causing the second largest extinction of life on earth.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

Thinking of cherry picking:



...you do realize that the black stat's are the only one which shows us as noticeably warmer than the Medieval warming, right? And some have us cooler, right?



-You are confusing a climate with its cause, which is the heart of the Global Bedwetter argument.



-If Greenland is significantly warmer, say even better than it was ca. AD 1000, wouldn't Greenland be a good place to move to, Lady Hoo-hoo?


The latest from the GW bed-wetting crowd, here called "warmists":

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...ng-since-1998/


...so the recent lack of warming is to the, er, Warmists. They hate it. It’s an affront to everything they believe in. Damn it, if the world isn’t warming with the alacrity they’d prefer, how are they going to keep the funding gravy train going, and how are they going to persuade an increasingly sceptical populace that the “science” is “settled”, the debate over and the time for action is now? That’s why they can’t reminded of the truth often enough. It’s like salting the slugs that are ruining your garden: necessary, but also kind of fun too...


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...ng-since-1998/

...so the recent lack of warming is to the, er, Warmists. They hate it. It’s an affront to everything they believe in. Damn it, if the world isn’t warming with the alacrity they’d prefer, how are they going to keep the funding gravy train going, and how are they going to persuade an increasingly sceptical populace that the “science” is “settled”, the debate over and the time for action is now? That’s why they can’t reminded of the truth often enough. It’s like salting the slugs that are ruining your garden: necessary, but also kind of fun too...

No global warming since 1998? Simple. All you’ve got to do – as Kaufmann et al have done – is apply the Even Though We’re Wrong We’re Right Panacea Get-Out Formula. In this instance the ETWWWRPGOF (as it’s snappily known) involves Blaming The Chinese. Yep, it turns out all that pollution that Chinese are pumping into the air thanks to their unhealthy obsession with economic growth and giving better lives to their children is actually counteracting the effects of Man Made Global Warming...


...In other words Man Made Global Cooling is cancelling out Man Made Global Warming.

-Problem solved! Ha ha ha!

Continued:

...For years the Warmists have been telling us that they’re so sure of their computer models that they know, they just know, that CO2 has a forcing effect on global temperatures and that combined with positive feedbacks this is going to cause catastrophic warming. And now they’re saying, without a blush, “Well all right, some of those feedbacks might actually be negative and, er, completely cancel out the terrifying thing we were telling you to worry about. But don’t stop worrying, for God’s sake. Whatever is happening is still worrying, very worrying. And if you give us a bit more time we’ll come up with a paper explaining just why it’s worrying.”

When I posted this:



...this is what I was getting to. If you have a hypothesis, and you do a test based on that hypothesis, and your prediction based on the hypothesis turns out to be wrong, then noramlly you'd say that there is something wrong with your hypothesis.

Continued:

...Tweaking computer models like this proves nothing. The real test is in the real world data. The temperature hasn’t increased for over a decade. For there to be any faith in the underlying scientific assumptions the world has to start warming soon, at an enhanced rate to compensate for it being held back for a decade. Despite what the authors of this paper state after their tinkering with an out-of-date climate computer model, there is as yet no convincing explanation for the global temperature standstill of the past decade.

This warmongering misogynistic global warming denier goes on my ignore list.

Originally Posted by Lady Vagina

This warmongering misogynistic global warming denier goes on my ignore list.

Where he belongs. I think these climate science deniers, who make up the majority of Americans in the heartland, especially the southern and central places, are getting what they voted for. Or at least it didn't seem to affect their Republican vote last Nov. I think they need to endure a lot more of the extreme weather that they voted for, and I hope they do, the hope being the unlikely possibility that they will wake up. And no Justin, no thanks, another reason not to visit there. Too hot for me; or too something! We still have nice weather out here in western CA, most of the time, so far.... knock on wood.....

Originally Posted by Copperfield

I encourage you to research what actually happens physically when a celestial body (asteroid, comet) of sufficient size collides with the earth. It puts any notions we humans have of "climate change" to complete shame.

I know you're hoping for this to happen.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Where he belongs. I think these climate science deniers, who make up the majority of Americans in the heartland, especially the southern and central places, are getting what they voted for. Or at least it didn't seem to affect their Republican vote last Nov. I think they need to endure a lot more of the extreme weather that they voted for, and I hope they do, the hope being the unlikely possibility that they will wake up. And no Justin, no thanks, another reason not to visit there. Too hot for me; or too something! We still have nice weather out here in western CA, most of the time, so far.... knock on wood.....

This strikes me as somewhat callous, don't you think? Remember, even in the reddest State, about 40 percent of the voters vote Blue.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

...I think these climate science deniers, who make up the majority of Americans in the heartland, especially the southern and central places, are getting what they voted for....

-Golly, Eric:

http://blogs.forbes.com/patrickmicha...arly-15-years/

There is no statistically significant warming trend since November of 1996 in monthly surface temperature records compiled at the University of East Anglia...

Huh.

Because, there were never heat waves before the 20th century.

Now, here's the sort of society blues will deserve if they ever get their socialized medicine fantasy in this country:

French Welfare State & the Elderly:

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news...nce-heat_x.htm

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1107/p06s02-woeu.htm

...a parliamentary commission continues to investigate how 14,800 old people died in France last August as a result of unusually high temperatures...


There's nothing quite like a unionized state worker for dedication to their work, is there?

Originally Posted by JDG 66

Now, here's the sort of society blues will deserve if they ever get their socialized medicine fantasy in this country:

French Welfare State & the Elderly:

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news...nce-heat_x.htm

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1107/p06s02-woeu.htm

...a parliamentary commission continues to investigate how 14,800 old people died in France last August as a result of unusually high temperatures...


There's nothing quite like a unionized state worker for dedication to their work, is there?

The heat wave that tormented France in 2006 was simply the normal weather of the northern Sahara. If the normal weather of southern Arizona were to appear in the Willamette Valley of Oregon (a good climatic analogue for inland France), then one would get much the same effect.

Global warming is real and dangerous. It means hotter and longer summers, greater strain upon agricultural crops, and greater stresses on people lest able to meet the changed conditions. Air conditioners are rare in France, a country rich enough to afford them if the norms of weather changed. But what if the heat waves bedevil (literally!) places already at the fringe of human habitability, like Pakistan and northern India?

That must be 'only' academic for you because you have no compassion for poor people anywhere and care about them only when you can score debate points on their deaths. But for you to shed any crocodile tears over the demise over poor people, then those poor people must die horribly and inexcusably for reasons inconsistent with your perverse ethical system derived from Ayn Rand (Greed is the highest of human virtues!)

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

...Global warming is real and dangerous...

-And so is global cooling. So what?

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

This strikes me as somewhat callous, don't you think? Remember, even in the reddest State, about 40 percent of the voters vote Blue.

In some states, less than 40%. But the elections of 2010 were lopsidedly red in many districts. True, not everyone in the heartland states voted for this extreme weather, but the majority did. In that sense, they voted for it. It was the outcome of the vote. All the people have some responsibility, however small, for how their state votes. We all have a voice and can participate (and of course participation means after the election too).

Most states, and most of these being in the middle of the country where the weather is most extreme, voted for representatives who today are seeking doggedly to dismantle our environmental protections and stop any action regarding climate change. Will the people of these states wake up and undue what they did in 2010, and in earlier years too, and by this means possibly reverse (at least some years from now) the results of their vote-- extreme weather in their own location? If not, they can expect far worse to come. What IS callous is for the people in the middle and south of our country to continue to vote as they have, oblivious to the results of their vote.

Brower is correct, global warming is real and dangerous. Even more dangerous are the voting habits of Americans.

Well, at least I'm not as callous as Copperfield.

According to the Sierra Club, "The U.S. Congress is considering more environmentally damaging legislation than at any time since -- well, since, there's been a U.S. Congress."

Who put this congress in office? You know the answer, if you followed events.

A funny sign posted outside of a liquor stores read "Satan called. He wants his weather back."

But seriously, Eric. You almost sound as if you are delighted that people are suffering. I think you are giving politicians too much credit for the weather. These yahoos can't fix anything, let alone the weather. I do believe that the problems of global warming have been many, many decades in the making going all the way back to before I was born. To blame the current people in congress or the people who voted for them exclusively for the weather is a bit unfair. There is plenty of blame to go around. Why not blame the auto manufactures too? Or the people on the factory line who assemble the cars. Might as well blame anyone who drives a car too.

I'm not arguing that there are certain types of legislation that could be passed to help ease some of the problems, but in our country you can't completely legislate human behavior. People living in blue states use just as much fossil fuels as people living in red states. No one is blameless. And I know for a fact that factories in blue states emit plenty of pollution. There is a huge ADM factory and Ethanol plant in Peoria, Illinois. Talk about stinky air around those factories. And you know what? The majority of the people working in them are card carrying Democratic union workers. And they are happy that they have a job.

Sure we can point the finger at the politicians in how they handle natural disasters, but if you want to do that, I will remind you that the mayor of New Orleans and the governor of Louisiana during Katrina were Democrats. And they were the ones who were initially responsible for screwing that one up...Just saying...There is always plenty of blame to go around. And Eric, unless you are living a similar lifestyle to the Amish, you are to blame too.

I know Amy, you want me to be nice and not make harsh political statements about how people vote. We've been through that before. I agree that one can over-generalize about these things, as I tend to do. I know, I have to explain everything ad infinitum to avoid exaggeration and hurt feelings. But being nice when the roof is caving in has its limitations.

The point needs to be made here, however, that people need to take responsibility for their vote. Politicians can and could have prevented this extreme weather, and legislation and regulation makes a big difference. Knocking all politicians is fashionable, but means nothing. We would have much more pollution than we do now without what was done in the 1970s by politicians, even such a corrupt politician as Richard Nixon, in response to the peoples will. Industry does not generally act without prodding by the people and their leaders. It protects its financial interests to the exclusion of anything else. People in the mid west and south especially, but also Americans anywhere, need to look at this extreme weather and say, those politicians I voted for, they caused this, or contributed to this. It could have been less severe if we had acted; decades ago, and last year too. We'd better start voting for politicians who will do something about this extreme weather, which IS caused by global warming; and stop denying either that it's happening, or that alternative energy can fix the problem-- which it can. Who are the politicians the Sierra Club is talking about? It is obviously the House Republicans elected by heartland America in the Nov.2010 election; that's who! Will Americans look out the window, see the rain and sleet and heat and floods and winds coming at them, and say, I have heard what the scientists say, and I can vote to change this? Before it's too late?

I have posted stats that show blue states in fact are much more energy efficient than red states; that is, in fact, a fact. Texas is the most wasteful energy state, and CA and NY are the least. Things don't have to be black and white in order for a pattern to be clear. Or else, there's no turnings and generations theory. No I am not an Amish, but I use less energy than our friends in Texas and Louisiana and Alaska and Wyoming do. There are Republicans in California, and Democrats and Greens in Oklahoma; it's just a matter of degree-- and a blatant pattern of people in red states voting for politicians who refuse to tackle global warming (example, Imhoff of Oklahoma), and want to weaken the environmental regulations that we DO have-- and yet those very states are the ones most suffering from drought, heat, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes. My better side considered sending a donation to help the people out there, but my other half doesn't have so much sympathy for a plight they brought on themselves, and impose on the rest of us too. And then there's the fact that it just seems to go on and on. How many weather disasters can I weep over? How many does it take before some people wake up?

You and your friends in red states who don't vote for these Republican yahoos, might need to do a little more to persuade your friends and neighbors to vote blue, and thus to bring down the heat. It is easier said than done, but that's the challenge. Rather than hurt feelings because I refer to the heartland, see that I am talking about voting stats, which are clear and unimpeachable. See that it doesn't matter if you or your friends don't fit the pattern, just as I myself didn't fit the pattern of California voting Republican not too many years ago. It would not have hurt my feelings for someone to say that California elects yahoo actors like George Murphy and Ronald Reagan to positions in government, just because I lived and voted in California. Even today California still does some very stupid things (like voting for Ahhnuld).

The conservative culture of the red states needs to change; if not now, then someday. People can't hang on to the outdated past forever. History needs to more forward. So, I say, get to work. Do what you can, however little. Someone like you Amy probably already is doing it. I think a change can happen eventually. Already some red states may be turning blue; we can hope. Even Texas. And I'll do what I can too in my own place, and so will blue states folks; which is already more than what folks in red states do. If the red states can't change, then the blue states may have to break away so something can be done about our problems.

It seems that the very hot summer in North America extends up to the Arctic. If trends continue we'll have a new record for most open water in the Arctic.

Early sea ice melt onset, snow cover retreat presage rapid 2011 summer decline

The creeps in congress elected in Nov.2010 are out to destroy our environment.

from the Sierra Club:

The 2012 Interior and Environment Funding Bill under consideration in the House is the single worst bill I have ever seen. This bill will literally cost lives.

If passed, the bill will:

Open the Grand Canyon to uranium mining and our coasts to oil drilling.
Put our health at risk by slashing funding for the EPA and blocking safeguards against deadly mercury and other toxic pollution.
Endanger our wild places and wildlife by defunding the Endangered Species Act and land conservation.
Block the EPA from using the Clean Water Act to protect our water from waste dumping, pesticides, sewage, fertilizers, oil spills, and also from safeguarding drinking water sources for 117 million Americans.
Our forefathers' history and our children's future are at stake -- send a message today.

This slash and burn bill represents a gross abuse of the funding process by Congress. The 2012 funding bill is "must-pass" legislation, and members of Congress are using it to force through corporate polluter give-always that could never pass on their own...

Open the Grand Canyon to uranium mining and our coasts to oil drilling.

JESUS F*CKING CHRIST!!! That is beyond wrong, that is SACRILEGE!

Anything for the ruling corporations. Corporatism is killing the planet.

Corporatism or Survival on Earth? By Siv O’Neall

The Empire is digging in its feet, invading and pillaging one obstinate and geo-politically important country after the other, at the same time as the people at home are deprived of their human rights, the rights to a decent livelihood and a good and secure job. One might think that this would be the sum of the horror show going on today in the world. But no, there just is no end to the damage that is wrought. The criminal takeover and destruction of the planet by the corporations stops at nothing. An additional problem is of course the rapidly progressing and deliberately ignored global warming, but this phenomenon too is most likely linked to corporate misbehavior and over-consumption.

The Corpocrats are so totally deluded by their illusion of infinite power that they also believe that the earth offers the means for infinite growth. What they do not seem to understand at all is the fact that man can never, never dominate nature. The total insanity of these men, the criminal neglect of the environment, the absolutely certain effects of the corporate malfeasance that will soon make the earth unlivable is mind-boggling and literally devastating. They go on living the high life as if there was no tomorrow. Well, there may not be a tomorrow. Unless we put the machine in reverse – right now, this very moment.