Real Climate also has an article on the recent CERN experiments, The CERN/CLOUD results are surprisingly interesting… The meat of the article reflects how the experiments really do suggest lots of stuff about interactions between cosmic rays and the atmosphere. The big theme is that the experiment calls for a need for more experiments. Those seriously following the "cosmic rays cause global warming" claim might want to review it. Those who aren't following the science would have a steep learning curve.

The new experiments don't say what the denialist propagandists would like to say, though.

We were clear in the 2006 post that establishing a significant GCR/cloud/climate link would require the following steps (given that we have known that ionisation plays a role in nucleation for decades). One would need to demonstrate:

… that increased nucleation gives rise to increased numbers of (much larger) cloud condensation nuclei (CCN)
… and that even in the presence of other CCN, ionisation changes can make a noticeable difference to total CCN
… and even if there were more CCN, you would need to show that this actually changed cloud properties significantly,
… and that given that change in cloud properties, you would need to show that it had a significant effect on radiative forcing.

Of course, to show that cosmic rays were actually responsible for some part of the recent warming, you would need to show that there was actually a decreasing trend in cosmic rays over recent decades – which is tricky, because there hasn’t been (see the figure).

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Real Climate also has an article on the recent CERN experiments, The CERN/CLOUD results are surprisingly interesting… The meat of the article reflects how the experiments really do suggest lots of stuff about interactions between cosmic rays and the atmosphere. The big theme is that the experiment calls for a need for more experiments. Those seriously following the "cosmic rays cause global warming" claim might want to review it. Those who aren't following the science would have a steep learning curve.

The new experiments don't say what the denialist propagandists would like to say, though.

The Denialists are only reading the based articles about actual article and then parrot the biased article rather than reading the original article.

So who here has actually read the paper published by the scientists rather than an article about the paper or a political web site commenting on the paper?

*raises hand*

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...burned-editors#

Solyndra, a manufacturer of solar panels, is bankrupt, which is inconvenient for the Obama administration, which extended half a billion dollars’ worth of [COLOR=#ee1c24 !important][COLOR=#ee1c24 !important]loan[/COLOR][/COLOR] guarantees to the firm as part of the president’s stimulus effort. The inconvenience extends to the 1,100 Solyndra employees who have just lost their jobs and to the U.S. [COLOR=#ee1c24 !important][COLOR=#ee1c24 !important]taxpayers[/COLOR][/COLOR] who may be on the hook for the bankrupt firm’s loans. The project was indeed “shovel ready,” as the president likes to put it; unhappily, in this case, the shovel belongs to the gravedigger. Perhaps the gravestone could read: “Another project funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.”

Solyndra was an irrestibly juicy piece of bait for stimulus-happy progressives...

...It made solar panels, a product so green that Democrats could almost forget that this was a profit-oriented corporation, backed by venture capitalists, oil money, and private-equity funds, and led by a former Intel executive. The firm was in Nancy Pelosi’s back yard, and it was looking to expand, with plans to build a factory for the mass production of its photovoltaic cells. But the firm was not thriving, and those venture capitalists were not eager to put their own money on the line for that new facility. So they put your money on the line, instead...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...=all#pagebreak

...The economic policy term for this is “central planning,” wherein the government tries to pick the winners and losers and dumps hundreds of billions of dollars into various business sectors in the belief that it will pay off in the long run.

The government isn’t very good at this business, as we’ve seen in the disastrously ineffective $825 billion spending stimulus plan that President Obama and the Democrats shoved through Congress in 2009...

A lot of the money was given to businesses that Mr. Obama thinks will be good for the environment, though his investment decisions didn’t always work out the way he hoped.

http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/ob...eyn-green.html


...On Thursday night, the president told a Democratic fundraiser in Washington that the Pass My Jobs Bill bill would create 1.9 million new jobs. What kind of jobs are created by this kind of magical thinking? Well, they’re “green jobs” – and, if we know anything about “green jobs,” it’s that they take a lot of green. German taxpayers subsidize “green jobs” in their wind-power industry to the tune of a quarter of a million dollars per worker per year: $250,000 per “green job” would pay for a lot of real jobs, even in the European Union. Last year, it was revealed that the Spanish government paid $800,000 for every “green job” on a solar panel assembly line. I had assumed carelessly that this must be a world record in terms of taxpayer subsidy per fraudulent “green job.” But it turns out those cheapskate Spaniards with their lousy nickel-and-dime “green jobs” subsidy just weren’t thinking big. The Obama administration’s $38.6 billion “clean technology” program was supposed to “create or save” 65,000 jobs. Half the money has been spent – $17.2 billion – and we have 3,545 jobs to show for it. That works out to an impressive $4,851,904.09 per “green job.” A world record! Take that, you loser Spaniards! USA! USA!

We've heard that the Pentagon is looking at how climate change and resulting economic effects are apt to create security problems. It seems the British are pushing the same meme. CNN reports Climate change compounds global security threat, British admiral says

Originally Posted by JDG 66

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...burned-editors#

Solyndra, a manufacturer of solar panels, is bankrupt, which is inconvenient for the Obama administration, which extended half a billion dollars’ worth of [COLOR=#ee1c24 !important][COLOR=#ee1c24 !important]loan[/COLOR][/COLOR] guarantees to the firm as part of the president’s stimulus effort. The inconvenience extends to the 1,100 Solyndra employees who have just lost their jobs and to the U.S. [COLOR=#ee1c24 !important][COLOR=#ee1c24 !important]taxpayers[/COLOR][/COLOR] who may be on the hook for the bankrupt firm’s loans. The project was indeed “shovel ready,” as the president likes to put it; unhappily, in this case, the shovel belongs to the gravedigger. Perhaps the gravestone could read: “Another project funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.”

Solyndra was an irrestibly juicy piece of bait for stimulus-happy progressives...

...It made solar panels, a product so green that Democrats could almost forget that this was a profit-oriented corporation, backed by venture capitalists, oil money, and private-equity funds, and led by a former Intel executive. The firm was in Nancy Pelosi’s back yard, and it was looking to expand, with plans to build a factory for the mass production of its photovoltaic cells. But the firm was not thriving, and those venture capitalists were not eager to put their own money on the line for that new facility. So they put your money on the line, instead...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...=all#pagebreak

...The economic policy term for this is “central planning,” wherein the government tries to pick the winners and losers and dumps hundreds of billions of dollars into various business sectors in the belief that it will pay off in the long run.

The government isn’t very good at this business, as we’ve seen in the disastrously ineffective $825 billion spending stimulus plan that President Obama and the Democrats shoved through Congress in 2009...

A lot of the money was given to businesses that Mr. Obama thinks will be good for the environment, though his investment decisions didn’t always work out the way he hoped.

Business has a miserable track record on high-cost innovation. Mainly, they never do it on their dime. The Treasury always covers those costs, so the only questions concern the amount of risk we, as a nation, are willing to assume and how much of those risk dollars should be recouped. Personally, we need to take a lot of risks in the energy domain, because we're going to need a range of green options very soon. In return, we should expect the companies that exploit that risky R&D to pay to use it. Of course, risky ventures are just that. We're pushing the envelope, and can't always predict what we'll find as things develop. Given that, investing a few hundred million on a potential solution that might be worth tens or hundreds of Billions isn't out of line at all. Some ventures will fail and others will prove better than expected. It's part of the process. The alternative is to invest nothing and get nothing in return.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Business has a miserable track record on high-cost innovation. Mainly, they never do it on their dime...

-I guess it never occured to you that the reason they don't do it with their own money, is that they know it's a crappy investment, since so-called "Green Technology" is a joke:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=a2PHwqAs7BS0

Subsidizing renewable energy in the U.S. may destroy two jobs for every one created if Spain’s experience with windmills and solar farms is any guide.

For every new position that depends on energy price supports, at least 2.2 jobs in other industries will disappear, according to a study from King Juan Carlos University in Madrid.

...In Spain, where wind turbines provided 11 percent of power demand last year, generators earn rates as much as 11 times more for renewable energy compared with burning fossil fuels. The premiums paid for solar, biomass, wave and wind power - - which are charged to consumers in their bills -- translated into a $774,000 cost for each Spanish “green job” created since 2000, said Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at the university and author of the report...

CNN reports that Epic flooding in Thailand might not recede for more than a month.

No single incident can be considered directly linked to climate shifts, not even 'epic' ones, but here is one more incident. The monsoons have been much stronger than usual in Thailand.

Originally Posted by TnT

For the statistically minded, it would be more interesting to see a Juran analysis of all the things that kill birds prematurely and the percentage of the total that are caused by windmills. Like domestic house cats for instance.

If you had read this:

Originally Posted by JDG 66

http://www.fws.gov/birds/mortality-fact-sheet.pdf

...instead of going for a knee-jerk response, you would have gotten an answer (Uncle Sam's version, anyway).

Originally Posted by TnT

There is a huge windmill farm about 20 miles south of Holbrook, AZ on the road that shortcuts from I-40 to Payson, AZ and on into Phoenix. I travel it often as I have relatives in the Phoenix area.

Because of the bird-killing claims on our forum here, the last time I drove by I turned off and traveled the dirt roads that service the area around the windmills.

I would challenge any of you to do the same and find any evidence of dead birds lying around the bases of the windmills. I found none...

Well. As I pointed out, the US Fish and Wildlife Service found 33,000 birds/year killed by wind turbines:

Originally Posted by JDG 66

http://www.fws.gov/birds/mortality-fact-sheet.pdf

...and the American Bird Conservancy suspects 400,000 birds/year killed by wind turbines:

[QUOTE=JDG 66;395411]http://www.abcbirds.org/newsandrepor...es/110907.html

...but their nationwide analysis obviously takes a back seat to your intense 30 minute windfarm study...


None of your questions cover the key point:

Originally Posted by JDG 66

http://www.abcbirds.org/newsandrepor...es/110907.html

Oil Companies Prosecuted for Avian Deaths but Wind Companies Kill Birds With Impunity...

The United States Attorney in North Dakota has charged seven oil companies in seven separate cases with violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act for the illegal killing of 28 migratory birds. Yet, American Bird Conservancy – the nation’s leading bird conservation organization – reports that the wind industry, despite killing more than 400,000 birds annually, has yet to face a single charge...

Why is the US government prosecuting (or persecuting) an oil company for killing 28 birds, when windfarms seem to kill quite a few as well?

While you're whiping the egg from an wind turbine-killed bald eagle off your mug, you can read this, with what seem to be newer estimates:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...VlJ_story.html

Six birds found dead recently in Southern California’s Tehachapi Mountains were majestic golden eagles. But some bird watchers say that in an area where dozens of wind turbines slice the air they were also sitting ducks...

("sitting ducks!" Get it?)

...Windmills kill nearly half a million birds a year, according to a Fish and Wildlife estimate. The American Bird Conservancy projected that the number could more than double in 20 years if the administration realizes its goal for wind power. The American Wind Energy Association, which represents the industry, disputes the conservancy’s projection, and also the current Fish and Wildlife count, saying the current bird kill is about 150,000 annually.

Over nearly 30 years, none of the nation’s 500 wind farms, where 35,000 wind turbines operate mostly on private land, have been prosecuted for killing birds, although long-standing laws protect eagles and a host of migrating birds.

If the ongoing investigation by the Fish and Wildlife Service’s law enforcement division results in a prosecution at Pine Tree, it will be a first...


I can hardly wait for the wind power boondogle to turn into an even bigger boondoggle once these wind farmers start getting prosecuted and sued! Then we can completely crush their economic feasibility!

Actually, I'd rather they didn't, but the same should go for oil producers...

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

CNN reports that Epic flooding in Thailand might not recede for more than a month.

No single incident can be considered directly linked to climate shifts, not even 'epic' ones, but here is one more incident. The monsoons have been much stronger than usual in Thailand.

Massive snowstorm before Halloween hits the Northeast. Of course no single incident would point to global cooling but here is one more incident....The snowstorm has occurred MUCH earlier than usual in the Northeast....

Originally Posted by Weave

Massive snowstorm before Halloween hits the Northeast. Of course no single incident would point to global cooling but here is one more incident....The snowstorm has occurred MUCH earlier than usual in the Northeast....

ROFLMAO. It never fails, every fall when the first snow flies the Denialists shout "GLOBAL COOLING" like brain-dead fools. Good lord, 1C warming is not enough to abolish fall snowstorms, LOL!

Oh, and a warmer atmosphere means more moisture in the air which means more heavy snow in areas cool enough to get snow. This spring here in Fargo we had a blizzard with so much moisture in it that we had thunder and lighting during the storm! Thundersnow!

Originally Posted by Odin

ROFLMAO. It never fails, every fall when the first snow flies the Denialists shout "GLOBAL COOLING" like brain-dead fools. Good lord, 1C warming is not enough to abolish fall snowstorms, LOL!

Oh, and a warmer atmosphere means more moisture in the air which means more heavy snow in areas cool enough to get snow. This spring here in Fargo we had a blizzard with so much moisture in it that we had thunder and lighting during the storm! Thundersnow!

Yes the absurdity of you climate alarmists is quite hilarious. Its such a convenient theory. When its warm-global warming, when its cold-global warming, when tt snows heavily, global warming, when theres a dought-global warming. Seems to cover any event. I was, however just pointing out with sarcasm how every time there is an unusual event you alarmists go and blame "climate change"....

Originally Posted by Weave

Yes the absurdity of you climate alarmists is quite hilarious. Its such a convenient theory. When its warm-global warming, when its cold-global warming, when tt snows heavily, global warming, when theres a dought-global warming. Seems to cover any event. I was, however just pointing out with sarcasm how every time there is an unusual event you alarmists go and blame "climate change"....

We have actual scientific data on our side. You have corporate-backed scientifically ignorant snark.

Originally Posted by Odin

We have actual scientific data on our side. You have corporate-backed scientifically ignorant snark.

It is the mark of a True Believer to feel obligated to reply to every single conflicting statement. One who is more reason-based, rather than faith-based, is often content to simply let reality's true nature show itself over time. What is, and what is not, will become apparent all on their own.

TL;DR: don't freaking worry so much. Life is short.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I'd add this reminder:

One man's dumb sh*t is another man's facts.

Originally Posted by Odin

ROFLMAO. It never fails, every fall when the first snow flies the Denialists shout "GLOBAL COOLING" like brain-dead fools. Good lord, 1C warming is not enough to abolish fall snowstorms, LOL!

-ROFLMAO. It never fails, every summer when the first heat wave hits, the GW frauds shout "GLOBAL WARMING" like brain-dead fools. Good Lord, heat waves and cold snaps come and go, LOL!


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...heating-again/

I saw this analysis on another forum that pretty much says it's over for the skeptics; they're just in their dying throes - the smart ones know it and are keeping relatively quiet, the ones like Glick here don't get it and probable are not capable of getting it.

The skeptics' stool had three legs to it: the data is bad, the earth is not warming any more, and if it was, there's no proof it is caused by humans.


The Berkeley study (BEST) was designed to address the biggest part of the first leg - the land temperature data base is bad because of poorly located monitoring stations, urban encroachment and heating and other such nonsense. The BEST study was funded by the Koch brothers and had some of the strongest, actual scientists, skeptics rearin to show the land data was bad.

What they did was knock it out of the park that the land data was accurate, confirming the other data bases showing the warming trend. In the process of doing that, they knocked out the second leg of the stool - the lead author had a front page Wall Street Journal article declaring no doubt that the earth is warming -

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...796327348.html

The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism
There were good reasons for doubt, until now

Now that Dr Muller is no longer a skeptic of the first two legs of the skeptics' stool, they are trying as hard as they can to throw him under the bus. Here's their three lines of attack:

- the BEST people released their findings to public scrutiny before going through formal peer review, whaaa, whaaa, whaa!!!! Pretty fricking funny given all the shit the skeptics have provided with barely a lick of any review let alone scientific peer review. Not worth spending any more time on this laughable line of attack.

- the now major line of attack that Glick has one reference to - that the data presented "hides the decade of cooling" where since 1998 (or 2005, depending on data base) hottest year, the average annual global temperature has level off or gone slightly down. But this is a trap for the skeptics that I believe Muller laid for them, to be sprung with the final papers are published. I think, however, it is just now becoming clear to some of them, the smarter ones at least -

The BEST effort had top statisticians and they have made it clear that you cannot statistically say anything about a long-term global warming trend with only a decade of data. That is reaffirmation of Benjamin D. Santer findings -
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2011JD016263.shtml

which even the major statistician on the skeptics' side, Roger Pielke had already agreed with -

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011...ter-et-al-2011/

"I agree with Santer et al that “[m]inimal warming over a single decade does not disprove the existence of a slowly-evolving anthropogenic warming signal

But I realize that is insufficient to have any impact on you megaphone types (includng Whitehouse who has long been in a race with Watts as to whom is more moronic).

However, there is something else that is coming. Here's some hints -





- also, you might want to know that the April 2010 data point is based on only 47 stations, all in the Antarctic whereas the data point for March was base on 14,488 stations. If you are having a hard time grasping this, imagine how big your megaphone would be if instead there had been a 2010 data point showing a huge spike upwards but a data point with two orders of magnitude higher uncertaintly than the average for all other data points and based on 1/1000 of the number of stations as the previous month and all those few stations were in the Sahara Desert... in, get this, July! Yea, your megaphone would be pretty hard to lug around now wouldn't it?

Oh and guess what happens to to curve of the "decade of cooler temperatures' when you take that single weird April 2010 data point out? Maybe we'll all soon be taking about "hiding the increase?"

So, it's not enough to embarrass the skeptics with showing that the land data is credible and confirms the globe is warming. No, Muller is also going after how flimsy their one remaining argument is that cooling has stopped in the last decade. There entire counter-argument is based on a single spurious data point. Imagine every time they go through gyrations of weird analysis coupled with conspiracy theories that include thousands of scientists being bribe to lie, that it is pointed out their entire argument is based on one bad data point!


Right now, you can tell the smart ones or at least the ones with some inside knowledge, they're the ones moving as quickly as they can to defend the one remaining leg on their stool (which as the author above notes now makes them sitting on a shaft ), their last line of attack - it's not man-made.

You would think after all the shit that they have thrown at so many credible and dedicated people over the first two issue that they would now have some humility. Yea, right.

Originally Posted by playwrite

So, it's not enough to embarrass the skeptics with showing that the land data is credible and confirms the globe is warming. No, Muller is also going after how flimsy their one remaining argument is that cooling has stopped in the last decade. There entire counter-argument is based on a single spurious data point. Imagine every time they go through gyrations of weird analysis coupled with conspiracy theories that include thousands of scientists being bribe to lie, that it is pointed out their entire argument is based on one bad data point!

It really isn't a bad data point. The solar cycle was nearing its warm peak. That year featured the mother of all el-ninos. If one bothers to understand climate science, it would be expected to be an absurdly hot year. If one corrects for what you'd expect in an el nino solar peak year, it's right square on the hockey stick. You just can't take an extreme data point that is known to be extreme with a good understanding as to why it is extreme, and use it as an anchor point for a trend line. If one does that, one's credibility is shot. One obviously is a propagandist rather than a scientist. It is that bad an analysis.

I would add that it is nigh on impossible to embarrass a 'skeptic' with facts. From inside a values locked perspective, their opinion has to be Fact, or Reality would be unacceptable to them. Humans can defend their world views with delusion in an amazing way. This would be equally well provable if the skeptics were right and the scientists wrong. The gap between the two world views is that large.

The human capability for self delusion is actually more interesting than the climate science, or should be to a fan of T4T theory. T4T is about cultural change, about how traditional world views and values shift. The human ability to refuse to see a problem is a large part of why crises are required. This is as true in economics, politics and security as in climate science. On this issue, however, economics, policies, security and science have become absurdly intermingled.

Scientists forecast more extreme weather

Read about it here

Never before 2011 have so many extreme weather disasters occured. We have had unprecedented devastating floods in Pakistan, Thailand, Phillippines, China and the Mississippi River, among other places. We have had huge fires in Austrailia, Russia and New Mexico. Droughts in Africa and Texas and all over the country. And much more! How many Joplins and Katrinas does it take before we start taking action? How many floods, droughts, fires, hurricanes, tornadoes, killer storms, ocean dead zones, famines, species die-offs, plagues does it take? How long before the glaciers and ice caps melt and we have no more water and food? How long before our beautiful beaches erode? How long before our land is inundated? And we have to suffer all this just so that a few energy and car company executives are not inconvenienced? All this because hucksters and ideologues don't want to believe the facts? All this because we don't understand that the alternatives to fossil fuels exist, and could be available to all virtually tommorrow if the money were invested there instead of more oil wells, tar sands and pipelines? Ask your representatives to act now. Vote out Republicans so we have a congress willing to act when it IS asked! Make the energy and car companies switch now! Hell, we have only one American Big 3 car company making one inadequate hybrid electric car! Is this America? And if and when you can, buy a Tesla or Nissan Leaf!

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Never before 2011 have so many extreme weather disasters occured.

Can you cite evidence of this or are you just throwing this out there? And remember what you said about me:

My experience with you Teddy, is that you do not think out your ideas and positions very well, but just throw things out.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

We have had unprecedented devastating floods in Pakistan, Thailand, Phillippines, China and the Mississippi River, among other places.

Bullshit. All of these places have seen more devastating floods in the past.

My experience with you Teddy, is that you do not think out your ideas and positions very well, but just throw things out.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

We have had huge fires in Austrailia, Russia and New Mexico. Droughts in Africa and Texas and all over the country. And much more!

This sounds like you are selling the shamwow on a 2:30am infomercial.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

How many floods, droughts, fires, hurricanes, tornadoes, killer storms, ocean dead zones, famines, species die-offs, plagues does it take? How long before the glaciers and ice caps melt and we have no more water and food? How long before our beautiful beaches erode? How long before our land is inundated? And we have to suffer all this just so that a few energy and car company executives are not inconvenienced? All this because hucksters and ideologues don't want to believe the facts? All this because we don't understand that the alternatives to fossil fuels exist, and could be available to all virtually tommorrow if the money were invested there instead of more oil wells, tar sands and pipelines? Ask your representatives to act now. Vote out Republicans so we have a congress willing to act when it IS asked!

Vote out the Republicans and we won't have floods, droughts, fires, hurricanes, tornadoes, killer storms, ocean dead zones, famines, species die-offs, and plagues anymore?

My experience with you Teddy, is that you do not think out your ideas and positions very well, but just throw things out.

Originally Posted by TeddyR

Can you cite evidence of this or are you just throwing this out there? And remember what you said about me:

YOu are a global warming skeptic? How does that jive with your empiricist outlook?

Did you read the link or not? Read it before just throwing things out there.

Bullshit. All of these places have seen more devastating floods in the past.

All the reports said they were unprecedented or very rare.

Vote out the Republicans and we won't have floods, droughts, fires, hurricanes, tornadoes, killer storms, ocean dead zones, famines, species die-offs, and plagues anymore?

Weather would not be extreme again. No doubt after action is taken, it will take time for the man-made global warming effects to settle down. But if we don't act, we will get more instead of less. Did I claim we didn't have ANY floods etc. before global warming? Why did you change what I wrote? Read more carefully Teddy, before you just willy-nilly throw things out there.

(Reuters) - An increase in heat waves is almost certain, while heavier rainfall, more floods, stronger cyclones, landslides and more intense droughts are likely across the globe this century as the Earth's climate warms, U.N. scientists said on Friday.

The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) urged countries to come up with disaster management plans to adapt to the growing risk of extreme weather events linked to human-induced climate change, in a report released in Uganda on Friday.

The report gives differing probabilities for extreme weather events based on future greenhouse gas emissions scenarios, but the thrust is that extreme weather is likely to increase.

"It is virtually certain that increases in the frequency and magnitude of warm daily temperature extremes ... will occur in the 21st century on the global scale," the IPCC report said.

"It is very likely that the length, frequency and/or intensity of warm spells, or heat waves, will increase," it added.

"A 1-in-20 year hottest day is likely to become a 1-in-2 year event by the end of the 21st century in most regions," under one emissions scenario.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7AH19X20111118

Originally Posted by TeddyR

Can you cite evidence of this or are you just throwing this out there? And remember what you said about me:





Bullshit. All of these places have seen more devastating floods in the past.





This sounds like you are selling the shamwow on a 2:30am infomercial.



Vote out the Republicans and we won't have floods, droughts, fires, hurricanes, tornadoes, killer storms, ocean dead zones, famines, species die-offs, and plagues anymore?

Vote in the Republicans and they won't happen any more?

I'm from New Mexico and I have watched the forest fire season creep up until it's pretty nearly year-round. I have also seen our pinons and our ponderosas dying of bark beetle infestations that used not to reach those altitudes and latitudes. For what it's worth.

You'd think with the Republican appreciation for profit, that crop failures would give them pause!

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

YOu are a global warming skeptic? How does that jive with your empiricist outlook?

Did you read the link or not? Read it before just throwing things out there.

Eric, you are ducking the question. I will ask you again, can you cite evidence of this statement you made?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green
Never before 2011 have so many extreme weather disasters occured.

..... or Eric, are you just throwing things out there? It is pretty simple, either you made this up, or it is verifiable. I'd hate to think you are guilty of the thing you accuse me of doing.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

All the reports said they were unprecedented or very rare.

What reports Eric? Let's take flooding and the places you mentioned. Below are all instances of worse flooding than 2011.

China

1931 China flood - 2.5 million deaths
1887 Yellow River (Huang He) flood - 900,000 deaths
1938 Yellow River (Huang He) flood - 500,000 deaths
1975 Banqiao Dam failure, result of Typhoon Nina. Approximately 86,000 people died from flooding and another 145,000 died during subsequent disease.
1935 Yangtze river flood - 145,000 deaths
1998 Yangtze River Floods left 14 million people homeless.
1954 Yangtze River Floods killed 33,000 people


Pakistan

Bangladesh has been victim of numerous floods throughout the years, the major ones being in 1954, 1955, 1970, 1985, 1988, 1998, 2007. You will undoubtedly recall the 1970 flood due to George Harrison's famous concert in support of the people of Bangladesh.
2003, Sindh province was bading affected due to monsoon rains causing damages in billions.
2007, Cyclone Yemyin submerged lower part of Balochistan Province in sea water killing 380 people. Before that it killed 213 people in Karachi
1950 flood killing 2,900 people
1992 flood killing 1,800 people


Phillippines

2006 Southern Leyte mudslide killing 1,100
1972 Luzon flood Philippines killed 650


Mississippi River

Where do I start, save me the keystrokes. This is well documented - 1927 and 1993 for starters.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Did I claim we didn't have ANY floods etc. before global warming? Why did you change what I wrote?

Eric, what words did I change? Here is what you said big boy:

We have had unprecedented devastating floods in Pakistan, Thailand, Phillippines, China and the Mississippi River, among other places.

The definition of unprecedented:

Definition: 1. having never happened before; 2. having no precedent, example, model, or equivalent

Synonyms: novel, new, original, unparalleled

Or, when you used the word unprecedented, were you just throwing it out there? Otherwise I read what you wrote as saying we have never had any floods this bad before 2011. Is that not what you meant? That is what you said. I have neither taken your words out of context nor have I changed them one bit. In your hysterical, self-righteous green frenzy, you exaggerated just a bit didn't you? Using weather to build the case for global warming is as silly as using astrology to build the case for how world affairs will unfold.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Read more carefully Teddy, before you just willy-nilly throw things out there.

More projecting I see.

It is people like you who set back the environmental movement. In your zeal to save the world, you trip all over yourself to offer up any proof, no matter how silly or half-baked.

By the way, it's you who needs to read your articles more carefully. It spoke of extreme weather in coming decades. It didn't say current weather conditions were tied to global warming. Silly little man.

But the summary report was also hedged with caveats, reflecting the difficulty in tying specific extreme weather events to human-induced global warming.