Gen Xers don't have to be conservative (or Marxist) ideologues who like to insult people and say "whatever." Here in California we have folks like these guys who know what's up, and are charismatic leaders too!
Noah Diffenbaugh actually gives his birth year in this video as 1974.
Mark Jacobson is listed on wikipedia as born in 1965.
I think this is more a coincidence than anything else, and it comes from the unholy alliance that forms today's Republican Party. Powerful business conservatives see AGW mitigation as a direct threat to their power, but they need the votes of religious conservatives, who more often than not believe that evolution contradicts the Bible. Anti-science is capable of infecting all political alliances, but not all rejection of anti-science has an adverse affect on power or the bottom line. That's the very important thing to remember when you consider the GOP's anti-AGW mitigation plank.Originally Posted by pbrower2a
I would be troubled if people on my side of the political spectrum rejected objective science in favor of some temporary advantage to my side or the interests of its backers. Science solves problems; rejection of science ensures that real problems never get solved.
I support same-sex marriage, but I can imagine some situations which, if true, would cause me to reject same-sex marriage in principle. If I were convinced that having two parents of the same sex (contrary to reality, so you can leave it at that) would hurt children I would reject it. (Hey -- I reject something that really does hurt children -- sex involving children and adults -- but that has nothing to do with same-sex marriage.) Of course there is no convincing evidence that having same-sex parents will hurt children as much as failed marriages do -- and we allow divorce. Like most liberals I have rejected the idea that economic hardships create criminal behavior; enough poor and disadvantaged people avoid crime that attributing crime to poverty and disadvantage is a gross offense to poor and disadvantaged people who lead honorable lives. Crime is largely the result of one-person or one-gang crime waves; remove the criminal from our midst and we are safer.
OK... so what do we do about poverty in America? Just because poverty is the Third Rail of contemporary politics (believe the Right, and we need even more poverty as a spur to toil under even harsher conditions and for less so that profits and executive compensation can be greater).
What can religious people do if they find that evolution is true? Do they suddenly decide that all of the oral teachings of Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed are completely untrue and that one has no ethical constraints against killing, theft, rape, perversion of justice, and making fraudulent oaths? Hardly. The concept of a workable society implies that people need some security of their persons and property, that integrity in business dealings is good for business whether or not there is a God, and that objective justice is worth support lest one have lynchings or anarchy. Atheists and agnostics can be honorable people.
The rejection of anthropogenic global warming is absurd as the defense of the 'harmlessness' of tobacco use. As with the denial of the harm of tobacco use, greed trumps science.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."
― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
Funds allocated to organisations lobbying against Obama’s climate bill and working to undermine rules to reduce carbon pollution, tax records show.
The secretive funders behind America’s conservative movement directed around $125m (Ł82m) over three years to groups spreading disinformation about climate science and committed to wrecking Barack Obama’s climate change plan, according to an analysis of tax records.
The amount is close to half of the anonymous funding disbursed to rightwing groups, underlining the importance of the climate issue to US conservatives.
The anonymous cash flow came from two secretive organisations – the Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund – that have been called the “Dark Money ATM” of the conservative movement.
The funds, which when channelled through the two organisations cannot be traced to individual donors, helped build a network of thinktanks and activist groups. These worked to defeat climate bills in Congress and are mobilising against Environmental Protection Agency rules to reduce carbon pollution from power plants which are due to be finalised this summer. In many cases, the anonymous cash makes up the vast majority of funding received by beneficiaries – more than comes openly from the fossil fuel industry.
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...er-three-years
This probably helps explain why we have so many cr@ppy pols degrading our political process.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."
― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
The Weather Channel Confronts Climate Change
Interesting article on Slate about the Weather Channel's move to make people aware about climate change, using very practical arguments and featuring military and business leaders.
On Wednesday, the Weather Channel launched a dramatic campaign it says is intended to help shift the climate change conversation from science to solutions.
The series of short videos, called Climate 25, is surprisingly political for a venue like the Weather Channel, and most are aimed at making the case for urgent action from a conservative, Republican angle. Among the featured speakers are U.S. Army Gen. Charles H. Jacoby (Ret.); Henry Paulson, a former CEO of Goldman Sachs who served as secretary of the treasury under President George W. Bush from 2006 to 2009; and Paul Polman, the CEO of Unilever. At one point, Christine Todd Whitman, the EPA administrator under George W. Bush, addresses Republicans directly, saying, “It’s our issue.”
The 25 black-and-white segments seem inspired by TED talks—short, two- to three- minute video essays by influential speakers with interesting perspectives. They were produced with help from one of the producers of Showtime’s Emmy-winning documentary Years of Living Dangerously. Often, the speakers in Climate 25 make direct eye contact with the camera, and the effect is gripping and memorable—like a blunt Ad Council PSA. Taken together, the series is one of the best-produced summaries of climate risk I’ve ever seen.
I want people to know that peace is possible even in this stupid day and age. Prem Rawat, June 8, 2008
Ho hum:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...lobal-warming/
The thrust of Karl’s paper is this: that far from staying flat since 1998, global temperatures have carried on rising. It’s just that scientists haven’t noticed before because they’ve been looking in the wrong place – on land, rather than in the sea where all the real heat action is happening...
...the GWPF reports there are several glaring problems with Karl’s paper, starting with the fact that it contradicts all the other surface temperature data sets and also satellite data (which clearly shows no warming post 1998). Also, without any plausible explanation, Karl also chooses not to use the data from the Argo array “that is our best coherent data set on ocean temperatures.” The suspicion naturally arises that this is because if Karl had used the Argo findings, they would have made his paper look ridiculous.
But, of course, accuracy and scientific integrity was never the point of this exercise...
I hope you don't live in Florida.
I want people to know that peace is possible even in this stupid day and age. Prem Rawat, June 8, 2008
What could be worse than living in Florida as global warming takes place?
Living in Bangladesh as a peasant farmer.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."
― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
Go California! And Texas?
from http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=20492
"California has become the first state with more than 5% of its annual utility-scale electricity generation from utility-scale solar power, according to EIA's Electric Power Monthly. California's utility-scale (1 megawatt (MW) or larger) solar plants generated a record 9.9 million megawatthours (MWh) of electricity in 2014, an increase of 6.1 million MWh from 2013. California's utility-scale solar production in 2014 was more than three times the output of the next-highest state, Arizona, and more than all other states combined.
Several large plants were phased into operation in California during 2014, including two 550 MW solar photovoltaic plants, Topaz and Desert Sunlight (Phases 1 and 2), as well as the 377 MW Ivanpah (Phases 1, 2, and 3) and the 250 MW Genesis solar thermal plants. In total, nearly 1,900 MW of new utility-scale solar capacity was added, bringing the state's utility-scale capacity for all solar technologies to 5,400 MW by the end of 2014.
California has promoted solar power through a series of state policies, including a renewable portfolio standard (RPS) that requires electricity providers to obtain 33% of the power they sell from eligible renewable sources by 2020. In 2014, the state obtained 22% of its electricity from nonhydropower renewables including wind, solar, and biomass.
California also created incentives, including rebates and net-metering policies, to encourage rooftop and other small-scale solar capacity, whose generation is not captured in the above figure. By the end of 2014, more than 2,300 MW of small-scale solar capacity was installed on homes and businesses, according to the California Public Utilities Commission.
The top three states in utility-scale solar generation in 2014 were California, Arizona, and Nevada. These states in the southwestern United States have some of the best solar resources in the world. However, states with less-favorable solar resources, such as New Jersey and Massachusetts, also are among the top 10 states in total solar generation. All of the top 10 states—with the exception of Florida—have a renewable portfolio standard in place. Most of those policies include a specific target for solar power or customer-sited generation.
The increase in California's solar production came the same year that drought conditions caused hydroelectric generation to fall 46% compared to the previous five-year average. Although solar is only available at certain times of the day, the annual increase in California's solar generation in 2014 offset 83% of the decrease in hydroelectric generation. Along with increases in generation from wind power and geothermal energy, solar power helped make California the top state producer of nonhydroelectric renewable electricity in 2014, narrowly topping Texas."
See Mr. Glick? No red or blue colors needed to quote a large segment of text!
Much Ado About Nothing
There has been a flurry of mainstream media articles questioning whether the "Hiatus" is real or not. Real Climate just put out an article on how the measurement change that created the media surge is in the noise rather than anything significant in the long term debate. Basically, anything as short term as the Hiatus isn't apt to be significant in the long term.
It is alleged that the general public doesn't understand it properly.
Another case of selective data analysis. 1998 was an anomaly, as the data record amply shows. So yes, picking an anomaly as your base will guarantee that you can make you point ... assuming you have one. I also see you decided to quote one of the most biased websites in existence. Your credibility died before I looked at the post.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
-Because, why? Drowning?
To borrow Playwrite's latest pet sensation, I think your amygdala is showing.
...as oposed to homo-global warming bedwetters picking dates in the late 1970s during the "Ice Age" scare, or the end of the Little Ace Age? You gotta start somewhere.
And you fail to come up with an honest reply to the author's point about Karl's cherry picking of inconvenient eveidence. That's the hazards of replying to an article you didn't bother to read.
Starting Point?
Both sides have been known to cherry pick data or start / end points of trends. Yes, you have to be highly skeptical of obvious cherry picks and people who depend on obvious cherry picks to base their arguments. (You may look in the mirror now.) You reject the cherry pickers not entire fields of science where a few scientists have cherry picked....as oposed to homo-global warming bedwetters picking dates in the late 1970s during the "Ice Age" scare, or the end of the Little Ace Age? You gotta start somewhere.
And you fail to come up with an honest reply to the author's point about Karl's cherry picking of inconvenient eveidence. That's the hazards of replying to an article you didn't bother to read.
I just did a google "carbon fuel burning history chart". Lots of them out on the web, more or less comparable. Choose a point in time where you think burning fossil fuels "really took off" or whatever criteria you think you can defend. Choose a starting point based on fuel burning rate not on a peak or trough in temperature.
(Expletive deleted) but those charts resemble exponential curves.
That's right. And too bad Glick's red ink doesn't make the post any more credible
What amazes me is that the 1998 thing is so obvious, and yet the right-wingers and deniers keep using it. lol
-Can you find one that coincides with the Medieval Warming Period?
There are models that include that period, along with the Little Ice Age. I assume you have a point here, though it's a stretch to see it. Fossil fuels are a relatively recent technology - even coal. So looking back several hundred years may be interesting, and it's good to validate climate models without consideration of human impact, but it has no bearing on the present effects of CO2 build-up. In fact, it took a long time to raise the CO2 level high enough that the greenhouse effect emerge from the background noise. Now it has.-Can you find one that coincides with the Medieval Warming Period?
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
Noise
I didn't find a chart of humans burning fossil fuels that goes that far back in a casual search. The oldest I found went back to 1751. Before that, the operational word would be 'negligible'.
I did find a chart of carbon dioxide in the air that goes back to the Medieval Warming Period. There is a slight surge in CO2 during the MWP. This is actually to be expected. There is a mutual feedback between temperature and CO2. Raise the temperature of the oceans and they cannot hold as much CO2, so CO2 gets released to the atmosphere. The opposite is also true. Raise the amount of CO2 in the air and first the air then the oceans get warmer.
But the CO2 bump during the MWP is about 40 ppb., which is pretty close to the noise level, while the jump from the Civil War to today is over 1000 ppb, which is not. Entirely different beasts.
Also, the Medieval Warming Period was a local thing, not global. There were climate changes all over the place, but in Antarctica and elsewhere the trend was actually cold.
The atmosphere is complicated. There is more there than the casual individual coming in with a political rather than scientific world view is generally willing to learn. I sometimes like fencing with denialists, if only to review the science for others reading the thread. It's hard to do when the denialist in question doesn't know enough about the science to raise meaningful points.
Last edited by B Butler; 06-15-2015 at 05:10 PM.
Doppler
I think it's the only thing they've got left right now. When the choice is between re-evaluating one's world view and being blind to the evidence, well, what would you expect?
Hmm... I thought the red shift was doppler effect. Conservative reality is moving away from the real world fast enough to cause a skew in the color of the light.
Drowning is a bit extreme, but there is the little issue of property value erosion.-Because, why? Drowning?
.
I want people to know that peace is possible even in this stupid day and age. Prem Rawat, June 8, 2008
A draft of Pope Francis’ long-awaited encyclical on the environment has leaked just days before the Vatican was set to release it to the world.
L’Espresso, an Italian magazine, published the 192-page document on its website Monday. The draft encyclical says that while there may be other factors involved in climate change, "numerous scientific studies indicate that the majority of the global warming in recent decades is due to the large concentration of greenhouse gases... emitted above all due to human activity," according to a Huffington Post translation of the document.
The draft opens by saying climate change is the Earth’s way of protesting “irresponsible use and abuse of the goods that God placed in her.”
“We have grown up thinking that we were her owners and dominators, authorized to loot her,” the draft reads, according to a translation by The Guardian. “The violence that exists in the human heart, wounded by sin, is also manifest in the symptoms of illness that we see in the Earth, the water, the air and in living things.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...n_7587392.html
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."
― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
Yes, Glick's posts all seem to turn red lol
Good one! Liberals seem to better remember science even if they went to some other activity.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."
― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
-Duh.
...it shows that warming and fossil fuel use doesn't exactly coincide to the extent that he would like to think.
-We're not the ones who are claiming that we have to wreck the world economy in order to prevent the flooding of Florida. You are.
-A common claim of Medieval Warming Period deniers. It occured in Greenland, Europe, Central Asia, China, and Japan. That's pretty global. Incidentally, it was a world-wide period of prosperity...
...and...
-Yeah...
1) None of you addressed the article's point that it was Tom Karl (the homo global warming alarmist) who cherry picked data (e.g., temeprature records);
2) More amusingly, you seem to have missed that it was Karl, the HGW guy, that picked the 1998 baseline, not the debunkers. So, if you were being intellectually honest, your outrage regarding the "cherry picked" year should be with the Tom Karl.
So, tell me, if the year 1998 is so irrelevant, why is that the HGW alarmist cherry picked data to make it go away?
-Uh, Jenny, you do know that a 5 degree F rise in temperature is not going to completly melt the polar ice caps at all, right?
You know that it would barely touch it, right?
All of you know that, right?
What do any of you think the actual worst case scenario really is?
-Considering the above, apparently not. I'm seriously wondering about their reading comprehension.
I find it amazing that the effects are already becoming evident, yet the deniers are more determined to debunk than ever. How much change needs to occur before the cause and effect are obvious?
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
-If the evidence is so obvious, why do alarmist feel the need to cover up about themselves and lie about their opponents? They obvioulsy don't have confidence in their own "evidence" or "analsyis."
