NPR weighs in on climate change policy, predictably

Obligatory belching smokestacks spewing (steam?) Credit Martin Meissner/AP

NPR helpfully weighs in on climate change and the upcoming election.  Even though a certain party has had super-majority control of the Congress and the Executive branch for the past 2-years (and done nothing on energy/climate policy),  NPR blames the real boogeymen and women:  GOP candidates not-yet-elected and, of course author George W. Bush.  Their arguments, aside from being of the typical straw man variety, go back to the age-old meme:  if only the knuckledraggers and flat-earthers would get with the program and accede to the demands of the enlightened (NY Times John Broder summarizes that argument, dutifully).  From NPR, which is known for impartial analysis:

The more carbon that gets released into the atmosphere, the higher the average temperature rises.
That’s a scientific fact.
Human activities, such as driving, flying, building and even turning on the lights, are the biggest contributor to the release of carbon.
That too, is a fact.
And yet the majority of Republicans running for House and Senate seats this year disagree.

Ken Buck, the GOP senate candidate in Colorado admits he’s a climate change denier. Ron Johnson, who leads in the polls of Wisconsin’s senatorial race, has said that “it is far more likely that [climate change] is just sunspot activity or something just in the geologic eons of time where we have changes in the climate.”

And when Christine O’Donnell, the Republican candidate for Senate in Delaware, was asked whether human activity contributes to global warming, she said, “I don’t have an opinion on that.”

Conservatives in Congress are turning against the science behind climate change. That means if Republicans take control this November, there’s little hope for climate change policy.

Today’s climate change denial trend isn’t new. Years ago, when President George W. Bush was in the White House, scientific data on climate change was censored, and some scientists and top-level policymakers resigned in protest.

Scientific Findings Dismissed

For 10 years, Rick Piltz worked as a senior official for the Global Change Research Program — the main governmental office that gathers scientific data on climate change carried out by U.S. researchers.

“It was an office where the world of science collided with the world of climate politics,” Piltz tells NPR’s Guy Raz.

In the spring of 2001, Piltz was putting together a major report for Congress. The report would include clear evidence that tied carbon emissions to a rapid shift in global temperatures.

Piltz says his team was told “to delete the pages that summarized the findings of the IPCC report. To delete the material about the National Assessment of climate change impacts that had just come out.”

The IPCC, or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is the international body that collects climate research from countries around the world. The National Assessment was a similar report that covered research from U.S.-based scientists. In both cases, the result was conclusive: Climate change was happening and human activity was speeding it up.

But the Bush White House didn’t buy it.

“The expertise had come together to make pretty clear and compelling statements, and to say that you didn’t believe it was to say that you didn’t want to go along with the preponderance of scientific evidence,” Piltz says.

The science was being politicized. Over the next four years, almost every report Piltz and his team put out was heavily edited. References to climate change or carbon emissions were altered or even deleted.

By 2005, Piltz couldn’t take it anymore. He resigned and told his story to The New York Times.

A Conservative Who Spoke Up — And Paid The Price

It’s a big deal for Republicans in Congress to say they believe that humans are heating the planet.

“People look at you like you’ve grown an extra head or something,” says Rep. Bob Inglis, a Republican from South Carolina.

Inglis has represented South Carolina’s 4th District for the last 12 years, but this one will be his last.

In June, Inglis lost the primary bid to Tea Party-backed Republican candidate Trey Gowdy, who accused him of not being conservative enough.

For the longest time, Inglis says, education, health care issues and the environment have been Democratic issues, while taxes and national security have been Republican issues. Inglis says that’s not right.

“As a Republican, I believe we should be talking about conservation, because that’s our heritage. If you go back to Teddy Roosevelt, that’s who we are.”

Inglis paid the price for speaking out about the importance of conservation and climate change.

He admits he may have “committed other heresies,” such as voting for TARP and against the troop surge. “But the most enduring problem I had, the one that really was difficult, was just saying that climate change was real and let’s do something about it.”

Inglis, who also voted no on cap-and-trade, tried to make climate change palatable for conservatives. He proposed a revenue-neutral tax swap: Payroll taxes would be reduced and the amount of that reduction would be applied as a tax on carbon dioxide emissions — mainly hitting coal plants and natural gas facilities.

Inglis also tried to connect the issue of climate change with the issue of national security. “We are dependent on a region of the world that doesn’t like us very much for oil. We need to change the game there.”

Inglis even stressed the need to hold the oil and coal companies accountable for their environmental practices.

Accountability, he says, “is a very bedrock conservative concept — even a biblical concept.”

Even though Inglis won’t be coming back to the Hill to serve another term, he hasn’t lost hope in climate change policy. The choice, Inglis says, is clear.

“Do we play to our strengths? Or do we continue to play to our weakness — which is playing the oil game.”

Tackling Climate Change Takes Both The Left And The Right

Bill McKibben, scholar in residence at Middlebury College in Vermont and the founder of 350.org, says it is a tragedy that conservatives are turning their back on the science behind climate change.

“On this issue maybe more than most, we need that interplay of liberal and conservative,” he says. “Liberals are good at sort of pointing the way forward in kind of progressive new directions and conservatives are good at providing the anchor that says human nature won’t go along with that. That back and forth has been very useful.”

If Republicans take control of the House this November, McKibben says, he doesn’t see a future for climate change policy.

“Look, the Democrats — with a huge majority — couldn’t pass climate change legislation even of a very, very weak variety this year, so I doubt there’ll be any action over the next two years.”

That is, unless conservatives decide to team up with liberals.

“We desperately need conservatives at the forefront of the fight,” McKibben says. “The sooner that conservatives are willing to accept the science, the reality, the sooner we can get to work with their very important help in figuring out what set of prescriptions, what combination of market and regulation will be required in order to deal with the most serious problem we’ve ever stumbled into.”

About these ads

173 thoughts on “NPR weighs in on climate change policy, predictably

  1. Time to remember buddies!:
    CO2 follows temperature, not the other way. Open a coke and you´ll see it: The more you have it in your warm hand the more gas will go out when you open it.
    CO2 is the transparent gas we all exhale (SOOT is black=Carbon dust) and plants breath with delight, to give us back what they exhale instead= Oxygen we breath in.
    CO2 is a TRACE GAS in the atmosphere, it is the 0.038% of it.
    There is no such a thing as “greenhouse effect”, “greenhouse gases are gases IN a greenhouse”, where heated gases are trapped and relatively isolated not to lose its heat so rapidly. If greenhouse effect were to be true, as Svante Arrhenius figured it out: CO2 “like the window panes in a greenhouse”, but…the trouble is that those panes would be only 3.8 panes out of 10000, there would be 9996.2 HOLES.
    See:

    CO2 is a gas essential to life. All carbohydrates are made of it. The sugar you eat, the bread you have eaten in your breakfast this morning, even the jeans you wear (these are made from 100% cotton, a polymer of glucose, made of CO2…you didn´t know it, did you?)
    You and I, we are made of CARBON and WATER.
    CO2 is heavier than Air, so it can not go up, up and away to cover the earth.
    The atmosphere, the air can not hold heat, its volumetric heat capacity, per cubic cemtimeter is 0.00192 joules, while water is 4.186, i.e., 3227 times.
    This is the reason why people used hot water bottles to warm their feet and not hot air bottles.
    Global Warmers models (a la Hansen) expected a kind of heated CO2 piggy bank to form in the tropical atmosphere, it never happened simply because it can not.
    If global warmers were to succeed in achieving their SUPPOSED goal of lowering CO2 level to nothing, life would disappear from the face of the earth.
    So, if no CO2 NO YOU!

  2. The only “conservatives” that NPR should be lamenting about are the Chinese Communist Party, who will gladly pick up the pieces of the Western World’s manufacturing base with lax environmental rules of their own. For some reason, jobs and spending are the number one priority of the opposition party, not egregious regulation and cap-and-taxation.

  3. Us stoopid rednecks will never get it right!!

    That’s because we cling to our guns and religion and science.

    …and are hard-wired to think stupidly when scared…

  4. To be expected, especially after getting that 1.8 million bucks recently from the old spooky guy – Soros.

  5. All government support of NPR must stop. It’s basically a liberal front organization in which people like George Soros can leverage funds on the backs of U.S. taxpayers.

  6. Enneagram says:

    “If greenhouse effect were to be true, as Svante Arrhenius figured it out: CO2 “like the window panes in a greenhouse”, but…the trouble is that those panes would be only 3.8 panes out of 10000, there would be 9996.2 HOLES.”

    You’re kidding, right? This is the level of your understanding of absorption spectroscopy? This is climate skeptic science?

  7. NPR is absolutely hopeless on this topic. It is the broadcast platform for the proselytizers of the hypothesis of CAGW. Unquestioning, wholesale acceptance of the hypothesis is apparently a condition of employment. Contrary opinion is neither permitted nor considered.

  8. The AGW proponents own modeling falsifies the AGW hypothesis….. The Tropical Tropospheric “Hot Spot” is not observed in real data collected by Radiosondes.

    The “Hot Spot” was predicted by the AGW proponents to prove that there were amplifying feedbacks caused by extra CO2 creating more Water Vapor and thus increasing temperature……………. But it wasn’t there.

    Instead what is shown is that Positive feedbacks from water vapor are hugely exaggerated in the models and thus the modeled predicted temperatures are exaggerated by a factor of six… So a significant and worrying modeled warming of 3C per Century, is in reality only a modeled warming of 0.5C over the course of a Century….. And that’s in the easy, uncomplicated world within a computer model.

    To find 0.5C warming over a century in real observations out in the real world, would be a daunting job indeed, as this small signature would be lost in the background noise of natural climate variation.

    There is no TT Hotspot…. Thus the AGW Hypothesis is falsified.

  9. Shallow people with no scientific training who think the global climate behaves as a linear open loop system (even when they don’t even know what THAT means and that they are doing it), and people who know better are the ignorant ones. These are the types of people who, in ages past, mocked those who questioned whether the gods controlled volcanoes, and whether it was really necessary to sacrifice young virgins to appease them.

    The climate always changes. Human nature never does.

  10. Quoting:
    “a tax on carbon dioxide emissions — mainly hitting coal plants and natural gas facilities.”
    Commenting:
    By an odd coincidence, those are the two natural resources of which the US has (roughly) a TWO HUNDRED YEAR SUPPLY!
    So, you want us to buy energy from abroad, while these resources go undeveloped?
    You Suck!

  11. That is steam, not smoke.

    First, smoke is BLACK. Second, steam dissipates quickly; you can see that happening in the stack to your right. Smoke hangs in the air in a big, long, black trail.

    If you see a smoke stack next to a steam stack, the differences are incredibly striking.

  12. Time to defund NPR from the 2% (so it says) of its budget it derives from the taxpayers. Please vote appropriately on November 2, and then tell NPR to make it on its own in the free market (like other US media…).

  13. Owen says:
    October 23, 2010 at 7:17 pm
    Enneagram says: …
    You’re kidding, right? This is the level of your understanding of absorption spectroscopy? This is climate skeptic science?
    ============================================================

    Well he probably is kidding Owen, but at Arrhenius’s expense….

    So, what are you trying to say Owen?…… That Svante Arrhenius didn’t describe the Atmosphere as “like a Greenhouse”?

    I think you’ll find he did…. Thus you should be directing your scorn at Arrhenius and not Enneagram.

    …. Or is your understanding of history too poor?

  14. I am someone who has supported NPR often in the past, and enjoyed several of their programs – but that is done. It is now just one more left wing advocacy organization, and should be defunded. It has outlived it’s usefulness.

    After all, why should the government be supporting an organization that is really just a station for rich white people, by rich white people? And all in support of a hardcore left wing agenda.

    Time to say goodbye to All That.

  15. I don’t listen to NPR often, but when I have listened it has been well worth while. They actually give excellent detail and spend time developing their news reports. I feel I understand an issue when they are through with their analysis. And they do not speak in angry capital letters with many exclamation points.

    Quit picking on them – they do a great job.

    Ryan: would you describe this “news report” as journalism or activism?

  16. NPR, I listen to one of the shows every week in Chicago, once a week.
    It is not political. I may be missing the other broadcasts?

    NPR, might be our best ally. Smart “kids”, easy to convert, willing to conform to the latest political breeze. I bet they believe everything they hear, without any kind of confirmation.

  17. John W. Garrett says:
    October 23, 2010 at 7:21 pm
    NPR is absolutely hopeless on this topic. It is the broadcast platform for the proselytizers of the hypothesis of CAGW. Unquestioning, wholesale acceptance of the hypothesis is apparently a condition of employment. Contrary opinion is neither permitted nor considered.

    This is a MAJOR issue concerning NPR. See the Juan Williams controversy. NPR is not a news outlet. It is a propaganda machine and has been for years.

  18. The Times is in the business of presenting raging socialists as conservatives. It’s part of the deception. No surprises here. Quite the chuckle to see expectations that Conservatives will “work with” blithering leftist idiots -to solve “The problem” of fantasy climate change.

    How truly psychotic.

  19. Mr. Hansford,

    The argument that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is too low (not enough absorbers and too many windows) is totally incorrect. Many of your skeptic friends try to argue just the opposite – that the CO2 band is saturated, absorbing all of the infrared outgoing radiation, and current CO2 increases therefore will have no further effect. Which is it?
    Sorry to be so blunt, but I think neither Enneagram nor you have any idea about what Arrhenius was talking about. Learn some science, starting with absorption spectroscopy.

  20. Ryan Maue:

    Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and later, Henry David Thoreau, all
    subscribed to the notion, “That government is best which governs
    least.”

    A Congress split more evenly along party lines will be able to do
    less in the way of aggressive legislation on almost every topic
    that fosters contention. It’s one of the brilliant social safety valves
    intentionally built into our U.S. Constitution.

    This will include not unraveling the laws from previous
    Congressional sessions. In the arena of climate “disturbance” there
    will be less support for agreeing to pernicious treaties based on
    unsettled science. There will be less clamor for carbon taxing
    that trickles down to pick the already thin pockets of the average citizen.

    But, please remember:

    NPR is still smarting from the Reagan/Bush attempts to disembowel public
    radio and television and put such services entirely in the hands of those
    wonderful, private news and entertainment corporations.

    NOAA and NASA are still suffering from the financial hurt the several
    Bush administrations laid on them, while again inviting private corporations
    to help take up the slack (and make profits).

    Can there be any doubt why NPR editorialists might lean toward
    editorializing in support of issues fostering a more liberal atmosphere in
    any particular political sphere?

    It looks like Election USA 2010 will be a flattening of the playing field
    for the BIG round of elections in 2012.

    … I like tea too much to be tossing it into the bay. I like NPR too
    much to totally give up on it.

  21. NPR: Nothing Particularly Relevant.

    At one time in my life —decades ago— they were good at getting the message out. But as time went on, they became more and more irrelevant by dint of the fact that they engaged in broadcasting a blatantly communistic message.

    So now, as far as I’m concerned, they are as worthless as teats on a boar hog.

  22. “The more carbon that gets released into the atmosphere, the higher the average temperature rises. That’s a scientific fact.”

    That statement reminds me of Achilles and the Tortoise. One can believe that, and still believe the effects of CO2 are overrated. For instance, the temperature can increse with each additional doubling by a factor of 1/10
    The net increase after n doublings would be
    1.111111…….

  23. Whaddaya expect from a bunch of knuckle dragging PROGRESSIVES who would fire Juan Williams?!?!?!?! He apparently wasn’t extreme enough for them on every single talking point!!!

  24. evanmjones says:
    October 23, 2010 at 7:34 pm

    That is steam, not smoke.

    First, smoke is BLACK.

    Depends on the fuel. I’ve seen plenty of whitish/greyish smoke.

  25. You don’t need to be a weatherman to see that Anthropogenic Climate Change is coming to DC on Election night.

  26. I do not think that the word “fact” means what NPR thinks it means. NPR begins a broadcast segment with the assertion that “manmade CO2 causes Earth’s temperature to rise and that is a fact.” I will not rehearse the infinity of reasons for believing that this “fact” is not a fact. NPR is a propagandist for statist causes. It is nigh time that NPR be defunded. US citizens who choose to be communists are welcome to do so. But out government should not be in the business of funding communists.

  27. I have listened to NPR fairly often for well over 30 years. I remember the piece NPR did on Kristen Byrnes a couple of years ago. While it was somewhat balanced, the music score they chose in the background was one I’ve heard them use in other pieces that were about looney, off-beat or comical subject matter that was not to be taken seriously.

  28. Ryan,

    I would call it a news report reporting the hypothesis that most climate scientists would say is best supported by the available data.

    Ryan: that’s your opinion, and that’s fair. This article is built upon the classical liberal template that the GOP is standing in the way of science, and in their mindset, “progress”. In fact, it has been recalcitrant Democrats who torpedoed cap and trade in the Senate (cross reference West Virginia governor Joe Manchin’s campaign commercial blowing a hole with his rifle in a cap and trade bill). Note the Obama administration’s handling of the oil spill data, and “suppressing” scientific data and not allowing NOAA to go public. Geeze, sorta blows a hole in that James Hansen not-being-able-to-speak-out-under-Bush canard…

  29. rogerthesurf says:
    October 23, 2010 at 7:52 pm
    “The more carbon that gets released into the atmosphere, the higher the average temperature rises.
    That’s a scientific fact.”
    ‘Do you think he had some proof for that statement which I don’t know about? Of the empirical kind I mean.’
    ———————————————————
    Try the surface temperature data collected over the past 100 years and the direct CO2 data since the 1950’s and ice core data going back earlier. You might also want to look at the RSS and UAH microwave data of tropospheric oxygen, and compare that warming with the surface warming data. Take a look at the NSIDC September report and look at September ice minima over the past 40 years. There is plenty of data out there, data of different types that are all internally consistent. You need to spend more time with actual data and less time with an easily available ideology that supports what you’d like to believe.

  30. Owen says:
    October 23, 2010 at 8:03 pm
    Mr. Hansford,

    Learn some science, starting with absorption spectroscopy.

    Ah Owen, Owen, Owen…where to begin, where to begin… *Sigh*

    I’d start with lognormal mathematics. That may be something you didn’t pass in college, or even get to, but it isn’t too late.

  31. Astonishing ignorance at NPR.
    Have they no understanding of the properties of the CO2 molecule? Its ability to hold heat is logarithmic, not geometric.
    Greatest source of CO2? How about primary production, soil respiration, and geophysical events? All of those beat human activities as the lead contributor of CO2
    Those clowns need to be calibrated.

  32. How many ways can AGW be shown wrong? Add one more to the list tomorrow morning. What will NPR do when the whole thing finally collapses on their heads. Oh wait, then they will be the deniers.

    John Kehr

  33. NPR is nothing more than the Left hand of the DNC and fanatical left.. George Soros (who is reaping billions due to Obama’s Ban in the Gulf which sent drilling rigs and the employment south) is giving millions to NPR to keep it going…

    that in itself is reason enough to defund it..

    It is also reason to suspect anything it does..what are its motives?

  34. I don’t know what happened then.
    What I was trying to say was:-

    Anybody who talks about THE SCIENCE gets my back up straight away.
    What they mean is “scientific evidence” for a particular hypothesis.

    The term “THE SCIENCE” alerts us to the fact that it is a politican speaking.
    That’s wether they have been awarded a PHD or not.

    “THE SCIENCE” sounds just like “the recepe” for puff cakes or somesuch.
    Science is a process – the “scientific method”, not a thing.

  35. Just this quote alone is a complete lie because there is no”fact” established.

    “Human activities, such as driving, flying, building and even turning on the lights, are the biggest contributor to the release of carbon.
    That too, is a fact.”

    PROVE that it is a fact! Let’s see it.

    NPR has outlived its usefulness.

    They call themselves “Public” Radio, but they do not necessarily reflect the views and the interests of the Public…who [whether the Public likes it or not] funds them with their tax money.

    I have to admit…[and I have listened to and supported NPR for many years]….their handling of this highly, highly irresponsible piece…combined with the North-Korean-style censorship of Juan Williams recently…it is all adding up.

    They’ve got to go.

    Good riddance, NPR. You will never get another dollar of donation from me.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  36. They [NPR] report as if they are in their own greenhouse effect of the Washington Insider Greenhouse, and feedback is rampant.

    Pathetic.

    Keep talking, NPR. Keep talking.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  37. But the really BIG question, Owen, isn’t about whether there’s warming–it’s what to do about it.

    I take it you’re a Kyoto Protocol fan… am I right? If so (and I’m presuming a Yes answer here), then you don’t have any trouble spending, say, $40 Trillion for a $3 Trillion benefit?

    See, the thing about some Repubs isn’t that they’re science-dead-in-the-brain as you claim; no, what they do is what any good businessman or engineer would do, and that is consider what happens AFTER the science. What amazes me is that your so-called “science” president (who’s so far from being a scientist it’s a joke!) is really no businessman, either. And he’s no engineer, to boot!

    So the Dems charge ahead like there’s no tomorrow (literally, from their belief in “Tipping Points”, apparently), and that must be what drives them to spend SO MUCH MONEY! (By 2012, the INTEREST alone will consume all tax revenues… oh jolly good, we’re never going to get out of debt!)

    What, the Dems don’t plan on being around when the debt comes due? Their “catastrophe” will have wiped everybody out by that time?

    That’s about the only logical explanation unless one considers the alternative, which is BLT and then it all makes sense! Perfect sense!

  38. When I got to the line where NPR says….
    “Today’s climate change denial trend isn’t new. Years ago, when President George W. Bush was in the White House, scientific data on climate change was censored, and some scientists and top-level policymakers resigned in protest.”
    …I couldn’t read any further. Fortunately, that was early in the piece, saving me the pain of reading the whole thing.
    As a climate scientist, I’ve been interviewed twice by NPR for “no things considered”, once about Noctilucent Clouds and another time about a lunar eclipse. Both times the interviewer asked me if humanity was influencing the appearance or occurrence of the phenomena, and both time I answered, simply, “no”. So both times he rephrased the questions and asked again, and again once more, a total of six times. Six times my answer was “no”. Of course, none of my “no” answers were aired.
    So what hypocrites they are at NPR – censoring facts, comments, and interviews that suggest that AGW (and related human trashing of the universe) is NOT happening, while claiming others censor data that suggest AGW is happening.
    From my personal experience with NPR and with some academic entities who shall remained unnamed until I retire, censorship of facts that refute AGW is rampant.

  39. Poor NPR. As AusieDan alludes to, they have failed to understand that there is no such a thing as a “scientific fact”. There is science which seeks to determine the facts, and there are facts. One cannot disagree with the facts. One can only disagree with the selection, accuracy and interpretation of the facts (which would be the science). Conflating one as the other reveals a troubling inability to differentiate between the two, or else a deliberate attempt to mislead.

    I don’t know which is worse (and that is a fact).

    I shall now return to my reading of historical literature which is my second favourite topic after the climate debate. I have a wonderful book that I am part way through. I just got to the part where science determined that anyone who was ill had too much blood in them and some would have to be let out. I know this seems shocking today, but at the time it was apparently the consensus, and the science was settled, and those who disagreed were simply too stupid to understand the scientific facts. Seems like the blood letters had trouble differentiating between science and fact as well.

    On the other hand it is scientific fact that throwing virgins into volcanoes prevents them from erupting. I can prove this by pointing out the large number of undersea volcanoes recently discovered. There are more than we thought because no one threw any virgins into them. Only the land based volcanoes have had virgins thrown into them, and their number has remained static. My understanding is that some primitive tribes attempted to throw virgins into undersea volcanoes, but without success. It turns out virgins float. Who knew? Maybe virgins are all witches? I haven’t read that far yet but I think that’s where the science went the next century in regard to detecting witches.

    In any event there seems to be some sort of parallel between volcano control and disease control. If the volcano erupted despite having had virgins thrown in, it was clear that an insufficient number of virgins had been used. Similarly, if blood letting failed to cure the patient and they died, clearly an insufficent amount of blood had been let out according to the proven scientific consensus of the time, and they had the facts to prove it.

    Turns out they were “scientific facts” which don’t actually exist.

  40. Peter Pan says: “If only ALL the kids out there would get on board and say the magic words, Tinkerbell the Climate Fairy would recover!”

    LOL.

  41. What warming?
    Oh, you mean that little 0.6C blip the last 100 years?
    The warming stopped 10-15 yrs ago, and that’s the way the climate cookie crumbles.
    NPR is so last decade. They have a program called Fresh Air, and they really should step outside and get some of it before they pass out.

  42. Having been a computer programmer for the past 44 years (including programming for NOAA) I am well familiar with the difference between scientific facts and computer modeling. A computer model of our atmosphere is only a finite approximation to all the atmospheric physics, which isn’t even fully understoond. AGW is an outgrowth of computer models, not scientific facts.

    Ryan: by all means expound…

  43. I consider myself to be neither a D or an R, but the choice between the parties on AGW and other areas of politicized science has pushed me more toward the R’s, particularly in this election cycle when voting D will almost certainly result in Cap & Trade of one type or another.

  44. Owen says:
    “You’re kidding, right? This is the level of your understanding of absorption spectroscopy? This is climate skeptic science?”
    =============
    I think you’ll find our scepticism surrounds the extravagant conclusions that are drawn from wisps of information. Your inference that Enneagram’s dubious analogy represents “skeptic science” is emblematic of this tendency.
    Your comment a little later that “Many of your skeptic friends try to argue just the opposite” succeeds in emasculating your own rhetoric.
    This topic can be discussed at many different levels, your choice appears to be the basement. Let us know when you bump into positive feedback down there.

  45. I only listen to NPR every once in a while to check on whether they are still at least as looney as they have been in the past. And it’s amazing how quickly the evidence appears!

    But thanks to this post and NPR’s treatment of Juan Williams, there just doesn’t seem to be any more need to do it.

  46. R.S.Brown says:
    October 23, 2010 at 8:05 pm

    Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and later, Henry David Thoreau, all
    subscribed to the notion, “That government is best which governs
    least.”

    You may want to source that quote: It’s apparently from Thoreau, not Jefferson or Paine.

    http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/spurious-quotes

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Disobedience_%28Thoreau%29#.22That_government_is_best_which_governs_least.22

    Jefferson was a wealthy plantation owner, and, Tom Paine was poor and believed that government could relieve the misery of mankind: http://www.politicususa.com/en/beck-thomas-paine (I have no idea which group posted this, but, I like their analysis and not necessarily them.). Jefferson’s initial negative view of the federal government changed when he became president and had to actually run things. Think, “Louisiana Purchase” and “Lewis & Clark Expedition”. I’m hardly a Jefferson expert, but, I’m sure there’s more. You can’t follow manifest destiny without a lot of government intervention.

    Thoreau was using his society as a backdrop to see how little socially necessary work could be done, which is why he started living in the woods. He was a critic of organized society and thought misery could be reduced by having more time to live life. And like many critics, he was unfair to many people whose labor he could not do without. So, on this government issue, I oppose Thoreau. Personally, I believe that government is best which governs best. But, tautology doesn’t sell books.

    I was going to bail out on this reply, but, I put a half hour into writing it, and, now you all have to read it. :)

  47. Let us not forget that NPR really is about promoting left-wing politics and……nothing else. Maybe their scientific writers need a psychiatrist.

  48. NPR is one of only two external radio stations I can and do listen to on my satellite feed.

    While acknowledging the left/liberal bias in some of it’s programs I still find the station informative and interesting. Certainly they are no worse than the BBC and in many instances much better.

    Surely having alternative points of view on a whole range of subjects is a good thing. NPR seems quite willing to air views that don’t align with their various bias as I have found when phoning in with my own views. That is what WUWT does too.

    Rather than descend to the depths that the liberal/left does by trying to stifle alternative views we should rather encourage as much diversity in broadcasting as possible . It’s the marketplace of ideas after all that allows us to convince others in a rational way. Having access to the other guy’s point of view helps us sharpen and strengthen our own. The small amount of state support that the NPR gets is money well spent if it helps to progress the debate.

    Now who do I talk to about getting Rush and Howard and Glen to to a free satellite feed?

  49. “….Ken Buck, the GOP senate candidate in Colorado admits he’s a climate change denier…”

    My name is Chris and I admit I am also a climate change denier.

    No seriously, how can you take these people seriously when they don’t even know the difference between carbon and carbon dioxide?

    And what can one make of “….climate change was happening and human activity was speeding it up…..?

    Apostasy!

  50. If anyone doubted that global warming is anything less than the rich and powerful regulating and taxing the poor and powerless, this should give you some thought:

    When the rich and famous get involved in “climate change” politics, it’s just conscience-salving on their part for their extravagant lifestyles.

    A week ago, it emerged that the Oscar-winning film director had put his money where his mouth is by donating $1m of his personal fortune to opponents of Proposition 23, a ballot measure facing voters in California at the coming mid-term elections which would suspend the state’s landmark law combating climate change. Supporters of the proposition weren’t going to take that lying down, though. On Thursday, they returned fire by releasing a short film that claims to highlight a Titanic-sized gulf between Mr Cameron’s somewhat magisterial proclamations regarding the importance of combating climate change, and his actual lifestyle.

    “He’s fighting Proposition 23 because he says we should use less fossil fuel,” notes the film. “But if Cameron succeeds, it will mean higher prices and job losses.” It proceeds to quote a recent newspaper interview in which he discussed global warming, telling a reporter that “we are going to have to live with less”. The camera then cuts to aerial footage of the three adjacent homes that Cameron inhabits in the hills of Malibu. Although they each have heated swimming pools, and together boast more than 24,000 sq ft of living space, the properties have not a single energy-saving solar panel or windmill between them. “He also owns a 100-acre ranch in Santa Barbara, a JetRanger helicopter, three Harleys, a Corvette, a Ducati, a Ford GT, a collection of dirt bikes, a yacht, a Humvee fire truck, and a fleet of submarines,” continues the narrator. “And yet he demands WE live with less? James Cameron: HYPOCRITE.”

  51. “Human activities, such as driving, flying, building and even turning on the lights, are the biggest contributor to the release of carbon.
    That too, is a fact.”

    Isn’t that completely false? I thought human activity was responsible for about 4% of C02 produced.

  52. “The more carbon that gets released into the atmosphere, the higher the average temperature rises.

    That’s a scientific fact.”

    There is no proven link. Correlation is not proof of causation. Not that the rise of atospheric co2 correlates with the rise in temperature very well anyway. Added to which, recent discoveries regarding the Sun, the oceans and their cycles point to most if not all of the late C20th rise in global temperature as being a natural phenomenon.

    “Human activities, such as driving, flying, building and even turning on the lights, are the biggest contributor to the release of carbon.

    That too, is a fact.”

    Utter rubbish. The carbon cycle involves enourmous natural fluxes:

    Ocean-atmosphere 92 gigatonnes/year
    Trees-atmosphere 60 gigatonnes/year
    Soils-atmosphere 60 gigatonnes/year

    Fossil Fuels and cement production-atmosphere 6 gigatonnes/year

    These ‘science reporters’ couldn’t lie straight in bed.

  53. Rattus Norvegicus said on October 23, 2010 at 10:56 pm:

    Congratulations Ryan, you’ve no credibility left. How does it feel?

    Perhaps no credibility left with the far-left NPR lovers. Which is not automatically a bad thing…

  54. “The more carbon that gets released into the atmosphere, the higher the average temperature rises.

    That’s a scientific fact.”

    So why in the Carboniferous was CO2 like 1500ppm and the temperature was the same as today and the sun was a lot hotter then today?

  55. JDN says:
    October 23, 2010 at 11:35 pm

    You may want to source that quote: It’s apparently from Thoreau, not Jefferson or Paine.

    I had previously said:

    Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and later, Henry David Thoreau, all
    subscribed to the notion, “That government is best which governs
    least.”

    What in the phrase subscribed to followed by the noun
    notion has confused you ? I didn’t attribute the quote
    or the principle it encompasses to any one individual.

    A bit of early U.S. history:

    Tom Paine wrote extensively on limiting government to prevent both
    tyranny by the State and tyranny by the mob. He corresponded
    with Jefferson before the Declaration of Independence was drafted. A
    paraphrase of the “…which governs least” shows up in the
    Anti-Federalist Papers which were written by various individuals
    to agitate for a Bill of Rights to be included in
    any new
    “constitution”. Alex Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison didn’t
    want individual rights spelled out in a constitution or through
    follow up amendments. The trio wrote and published the Federalist
    Papers, saying in part that a Bill of Rights was a waste of time.

    Some of the Anti-Federalist Papers were published in various
    newspapers and circulated as handbills among the States’ delegates as
    they were adopting their own state Constitutions. Most of the states
    had their own Bill of Rights long before the United States of American
    had the first ten Amendments added. The first ten Amendments to
    the U.S. Constitution were done as an incentive for the States to adopt
    the Constitution in the first place.

    Sidebar:

    Thomas Jefferson was the official “reporter” of the weather to the
    1st Constructional Convention in 1775-76. His reports were logged in
    the minutes by the clerk each day Jefferson was in attendance at the
    Convention sessions.

    As the American Ambassador to France, Jefferson got to see both
    sides of tyranny, by the State and the mob, before he was
    President.

    We brought the Louisiana territory. We didn’t
    conquer the French to get it. The purchase was viewed as a return
    favor to a financially strapped France internationally, and as a
    general boondoggle by most U.S. citizens in the early 1800s.

    Lewis & Clark were sent out to prove we didn’t get our pockets
    picked by those cunning Frenchies.

  56. Jeff Alberts says:
    “October 23, 2010 at 8:19 pm
    evanmjones says:
    October 23, 2010 at 7:34 pm

    That is steam, not smoke.

    First, smoke is BLACK.

    Depends on the fuel. I’ve seen plenty of whitish/greyish smoke.”

    The stuff from the tall stacks is smoke. Used a Ringelmanns chart many times to determine colour in my public health days. The stuff from the cooling towers beyond is water vapour. Of course neither are relevant to carbon dioxide. They use these pictures for ‘reportage’ to grab the readers attention and generally illustrate the subject.
    Ironically gas power stations might show no signs of smoke but lots of CO2 – how do they get away with it?

  57. noaaprogrammer says:
    October 23, 2010 at 10:02 pm
    Having been a computer programmer for the past 44 years (including programming for NOAA) I am well familiar with the difference between scientific facts and computer modeling. A computer model of our atmosphere is only a finite approximation to all the atmospheric physics, which isn’t even fully understoond. AGW is an outgrowth of computer models, not scientific facts.”

    Indeed! The hubris of climate scientist is quite amazing. Just as computers were suppose to cut down on the need to print, but instead made thousands of charts much easier to produce and lead to much greater printer use, so computers and computer models take thousands of POORLY known actual numbers, and numerous equally POORLY understood physical processes, and arrive at certain answers of global disaster.

    Climate science is arm waving through computers at hummingbird speed.

  58. President Obama says people don’t think clearly when they are frightened.

    That handily explains the thoughts of people frightened by global climate disruption then. Maybe the president got a thing right for once.

  59. ““We desperately need conservatives at the forefront of the fight,” McKibben says. “The sooner that conservatives are willing to accept the science, the reality, the sooner we can get to work with their very important help in figuring out what set of prescriptions, what combination of market and regulation will be required in order to deal with the most serious problem we’ve ever stumbled into.” ”

    Oh that’s easy. 100% regulation, 0% market. That will lead to a fast collapse; and as we know from the USSR and lately from Ireland, collapse is the one thing that brings down emissions the fastest. And McKibben plays as if he doesn’t know that. I guess he needs some conservatives in his boat so he can blame them for the collapse after it happened.

    I wish America luck in November. Here in Germany, it looks dire. The three socialist parties are not in government, but they have frighteningly high approval levels. I might be forced to escape to the free world come the next election.

  60. Owen says:
    October 23, 2010 at 8:39 pm
    “There is plenty of data out there, data of different types that are all internally consistent. ”

    At least he doesn’t want us to consider model outputs.

  61. “Owen says:
    October 23, 2010 at 8:03 pm

    Mr. Hansford,

    The argument that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is too low (not enough absorbers and too many windows) is totally incorrect.”

    “Sorry to be so blunt, but I think neither Enneagram nor you have any idea about what Arrhenius was talking about. Learn some science, starting with absorption spectroscopy.”

    We get that you disagree, but you advance no argument of your own. The impression I get is that you don’t understand the science yourself, you just repeat the propaganda.

    I have noticed that AGWists never make the case, they just insult so-called knuckle-dragging Skeptics.

    Who knows if I heard the case one day, I might believe it. but photo-shopped polar bears ain’t making the grade.


  62. Owen says:
    “You’re kidding, right? This is the level of your understanding of absorption spectroscopy? This is climate skeptic science?”
    =============

    So climate skeptic science is based on what one person posts? I could probably argue that he is right just to upset you or something, but since we are doing the scientific method of anecdotal incidences are truth, I think its more fun to just call you a third grader, explain to everyone else why you are, and then move on.

    Here is in third grade speak what you did here:
    1) Person A said X
    2) Person A is part of Group 1
    3) Group 1 all believe what person X said
    4) You are all poopoo heads because you all believe that. the world is going to end!

    We could discuss how you came to the conclusion the world is going to end, but with your logic, yes….I don’t think we need to worry about you and logic for a few more years.

    What happened to the good trolls? I like to spank trolls from time to time, but you are no fun. Don’t tell me that I scared them away. I know I am ugly, but come on…

  63. Christopher Hanley says October 24, 2010 at 12:34 am: “how can you take these people seriously when they don’t even know the difference between carbon and carbon dioxide?”

    The “carbon=carbon dioxide” meme has been deliberately cultivated by the warmist propagandists to bolster their cause, in the same manner as stranded polar bears.

    “Carbon” is dirty black soot, something one surely does not want to be spewing into the atmosphere.

    But CO2 is a colorless, odorless trace gas comprising a minuscule 0.039% of the atmosphere, with an unknown “ideal” or best range range for life on Earth.

    Now wouldn’t you rather promote climate alarmism with something dirty, black, and noxious, rather than with something innocuous, invisible, and with unknown effects?

  64. JDN,
    Thanks for that, it was Thoreau who said those words, but the sentiment was not new at the time.

    PS I h8 iPad, it’s not gd fr comments.

  65. The exhaust fumes from a powerplant are usually almost invisible, except for all the water vapour that makes up the white plume.
    Some powerplants, under public pressure to not show a plume, actually heat up the flue gas to get rid of the white plumes, thereby lowering the total efficiency of the plant and consequently increasing the fossil fuel use.

    Ironic huh.

  66. To say that there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect is an argument that gives sceptics a bad name, as Owen rightly points out.
    Fortunately, there is a greenhouse effect and this contributes to warming the Earth and making out planet habitable. When people say that there is no such thing, they mean that they don’t understand it.
    The term ‘greenhouse effect’ may not be the most appropriate since it confuses Enneagram to devise his own theory based on panes of glass. This is not how it works.
    Most of the light and heat radiation emitted by the Sun is able to pass unhindered through the atmosphere to warm the Earth. The Earth in turn warms and emits radiation back into space. However, because the Earth is cooler than the Sun, the Earth’s radiation has a different spectral distribution, peaking in the infra-red rather than in the visible part of the spectrum. However, the atmosphere is opaque to some infra-red wavelengths, notably between 5 to 7 microns because of water vapour and between 14 to 16 microns because of CO2. Radiation trying to escape in these bands is thus initially ‘trapped’, close to the Earth’s surface, and that produces a warming effect.
    The proportion of atmospheric CO2 may be very small but ii is still sufficient to attenuate a beam of radiation at 15 microns to extinction over a transmission path of 100 metres.
    This effect can be demonstrated in an laboratory or in the field.There is no point in saying that it doesn’t happen because it can be shown to happen. Indeed, it is one of the few tenets of global warming theory that can actually be validated.

  67. The New Yorker had an interesting piece on the sausage making that failed to pass any “climate change legislation” this year.

    As the World Burns
    How the Senate and the White House missed their best chance to deal with climate change.

    … environmentalists and congressional aides who work on climate change were critical of the White House. Many of them believe that Obama made an epic blunder by not pursuing climate change first when he was sworn into office. The stimulus failed to reduce unemployment to an acceptable level. The health-care law, while significant, only raised the percentage of people with insurance from eighty-five per cent to ninety-five per cent. Meanwhile, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is already above the level that scientists say risks causing runaway global warming. According to the argument, Obama was correct when he said during the campaign that placing a price on carbon in order to transform the economy and begin the process of halting climate change was his more pressing priority.
    No diagnosis of the failure of Obama to tackle climate change would be complete without taking into account public opinion. In January, the Pew Research Center asked Americans to rank the importance of twenty-one issues. Climate change came in last. After winning the fight over health care, another issue for which polling showed lukewarm support, Obama moved on to the safer issue of financial regulatory reform.

  68. Alan McIntire says:
    October 23, 2010 at 8:10 pm
    “The more carbon that gets released into the atmosphere, the higher the average temperature rises. That’s a scientific fact.”

    ……One can believe that, and still believe the effects of CO2 are overrated. For instance, the temperature can increse with each additional doubling by a factor of 1/10
    The net increase after n doublings would be 1.111111…….”

    Whilst I am with Alan McIntire on this, what amazes me most about this so called ‘science’ is the certainty with which proponents state their case given that there is all but any evidence supporting the case.

    I would join issue with the statement “The more carbon that gets released into the atmosphere, the higher the average temperature rises. That’s a scientific fact.” As far as I see it, this is a proposition upon which the jury is still out. May be it is true that the more CO2 that gets released in the atmosphere, the higher the average temperature, but may be that is not true.

    The reality is that we do not know enough about the workings of the atmosphere and its effect on temperatures to make such a bold statement. And the proof of this is that between 1940s and 1970s, temperatures did not rise (they fell) notwithstanding a substantial rise in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. We do not know why the expected rise in temperatures did not occur. The explanation is natural variation. Some may argue aerosols but that is simply supposition upon which their is no empiral proof.

    For the last decade,temperatures have not risen (may be they have even fallen when one takes into account poor homogenisation/adjustment and UHI) notwithstanding a rise in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. Again, we do not know why the expected rise in temperatures did not occur and this is put down to natural variation.

    The reality is that there is only poor correlation betwen CO2 levels and temperature. On a geological scale the planet has been very warm when CO2 levels were low and very cold when CO2 levels were gigh. Sometimes temperatures fell as CO2 levels rose. Sometimes temperatures rose as CO2 levels fell. For the main part the rise in CO2 lags behind rises in temperatures (but sometimes predates it). During the instrument period (say 1800s to date), there is little correlation between CO2 levels and temperatures. In fact, the only period when there is some correslation would be between the 1970 and late 1990s. There is simply too much which we have yet to be able to explain.

    In my opinion natural variation is nothing more than shorthand for ‘we do not know or understand what processes are at work and how these impact on temperature.’ Until we can explain each and every rise and fall in temperature and identify what drove the rise or the fall and how that driver works, we cannot make bold assetions. Any assertion about what will happen when x occurs needs to be framed cautiously.

  69. “James Evans says:
    October 24, 2010 at 1:03 am

    “Human activities, such as driving, flying, building and even turning on the lights, are the biggest contributor to the release of carbon.
    That too, is a fact.”

    Isn’t that completely false? I thought human activity was responsible for about 4% of C02 produced.”

    I’m astonished it took so long for anyone here to pick that up. To me that is the simplest weak point, in that it’s flat wrong. I don’t trust the figures to better than an order of magnitude, but according to a New Scientist article a couple of years ago the annual flux of CO2 is about 27 GT from human activities and 429 GT from natural processes. Some “fact”!

  70. THE LOGARITHMIC EFFECT

    The Earth isn’t covered completely in cloud because it can only hold a certain amount of water vapor before it condenses out and fails back to Earth as rain/snow/hail etc.

    As regards carbon dioxide, it’s fairly well known to scientists that there is a logarithmic effect concerning carbon dioxide and trapped heat. It really wouldn’t matter if carbon dioxide concentration doubled or in fact went up 20 times – it wouldn’t trap any more radiation in the particular absorption wavelengths concerned than the existing concentration of carbon dioxide does. There’s an optimum level where further amounts make no difference – bit like your loft insulation – a depth of 60cms won’t save any more heat loss than 30cms – which is about the optimum level.

    That fact alone should really knock the “carbon dioxide = global warming” debate on the head. According to new research from Bristol University http://bristol.ac.uk/news/2009/6649.html ; “new data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now”.

    Carbon dioxide makes up 0.0385% of the atmosphere – and man’s contribution to that is about 3%, that works out at 0.001155 ppm of man-made carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This is an insignificantly small number and is unworthy of consideration in climate calculations.

    The most common illustration by the global warming propagandists of carbon dioxide is of chimneys and cars belching carbon dioxide, which rises into the upper atmosphere and forms a layer of carbon dioxide above the Earth. This portrays the carbon dioxide as forming an impenetrable layer that is turning the atmosphere into a gas chamber. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth.

  71. richard verney says: October 24, 2010 at 4:32 am
    I would join issue with the statement “The more carbon that gets released into the atmosphere, the higher the average temperature rises. That’s a scientific fact.” As far as I see it, this is a proposition upon which the jury is still out. May be it is true that the more CO2 that gets released in the atmosphere, the higher the average temperature, but may be that is not true.

    It is a matter of opinion rather than the fact.
    1950-1980 was period of the fastest acceleration in CO2 emissions ever recorded, and yet global temperatures were either falling or stagnating !

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CO2-Arc.htm

  72. Owen criticizes:

    Enneagram says:

    “If greenhouse effect were to be true, as Svante Arrhenius figured it out: CO2 “like the window panes in a greenhouse”, but…the trouble is that those panes would be only 3.8 panes out of 10000, there would be 9996.2 HOLES.”

    You’re kidding, right? This is the level of your understanding of absorption spectroscopy? This is climate skeptic science?

    Yes, as a matter of fact, it is. What Enneagram is saying is that, since the 15 micron band — the only place where the CO2 spectrum makes any difference, given the dominance of water vapor — has a frequency orders of magnitude lower than the molecular collision rate at normal surface pressures, and since it is essentially saturated within the first half-dozen meters above the surface at 15 degrees C, the only effect of increasing or decreasing CO2 will be to raise or lower by a meter or so the height at which this IR is saturated, thermalized, and dispersed by convection.

    Next question?

  73. Wijnand says:
    October 24, 2010 at 4:05 am
    Love the irony! Suppressing water vapour plumes by burning more fossil fuel!

    Almost as funny/depressing as installing wind farms that over their short lives increase CO2 emmissions (from build materials and efficiency decrements on stand by conventional back up. Or using arc lights powered by diesel generators to get feed in tariffs from PV panels – tho’ that is anecdotal.
    hats off to the Law of Unintended Consequences, such as biofuels increasing tropical slash & burn,and killing the poor by driving up food prices…. I laugh only so I shall not weep. (or get very very angry)

    As an aside to Owen, who may be new to this blog, there are lots of threads etc explaining the physics of CO2 absorption/reemission of photons of certain IR frequencies , and the theoretical warming of the bottom of the atmospheric column that would result to continue the long run radiation balance. Most folk here know all this. Its the results in the real world that are less clear, and the feedbacks in the models which are queried.

  74. Ben.D:
    “…What happened to the good trolls? I like to spank trolls from time to time, but you are no fun. Don’t tell me that I scared them away. I know I am ugly, but come on…”

    A good deal of effective troll spanking occurs on James Delingpole’s blog on the Daily Telegraph (UK). I respectfully suggest that you take a look, and join in (unless you’re already involved) – it’s addictive.

  75. It is fair to say that, over geologic time scales, C02 follows temperature somewhat, but is not correlated directly to it.
    Mostly wagging its tail with temperature change, it on occasion will sit down and refuse to budge.
    One very eye-opening example is between 120,000 BP to 113,000 BP where, in the Vostok Ice Core, C02 remained stable while temperature fell 5 C. This is repeated verbatim between 238,000 BP to 231,000 BP.
    C02 is the dog along for the hike, running back & forth, but is clearly not the master.

  76. I listen to NPR here in South Africa, via satellite radio.
    I am always amused at the self-righteous tone that the station projects – all the presenters are SO pc, squeaky clean and patronising!! And so utterly BORING. The only programme worth listening to is Prairie Home Companion. Why not make it a music station – then it would be worth listening to!

  77. Bomber_the_Cat says October 24, 2010 at 4:11 am:

    “To say that there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect is an argument that gives sceptics a bad name, as Owen rightly points out…. This effect can be demonstrated in an laboratory or in the field.There is no point in saying that it doesn’t happen because it can be shown to happen. Indeed, it is one of the few tenets of global warming theory that can actually be validated.”

    That’s all very well and good, but there are a plethora of other natural phenomena that effect global climate (clouds, oceans, seasons, etc) and to exclude virtually all of these from the warmist argument is preposterous and ludicrous.

    It is just ridiculous to assert that CO2 (aka the very deceptively-named “carbon”) is solely responsible for anything as complex and unpredictable as “climate change.”

    You don’t have to be a scientist or particularly a “climate scientist” to deduce what a crude and unsophisticated argument it is.

  78. You yanks worry about public funding for a piddly little radio station.

    You should be grateful you don’t live in the UK and have to fork out £3 billion pa of taxpayers money for the Biased Broadcasting Corporation.

  79. NPR? Isn’t that the progressive media group that now recommends psychiatric treatment for those guilty of Thought Crimes? I kinda feel bad for Juan Williams as he actually seems to be a fairly decent chap. For a progressive. lol.

  80. Anyone can see money and the quest for power not science is driving AGW ideology. Carbon dioxide is the chosen villain not because of its infrared absorption properties; it was chosen because it’s the signature of human activity. Oxidation of hydrocarbons releasing heat and controlled to produce work is one of the primary human activities to assure survival. CO2 is ALWAYS produced when hydrocarbons are oxidized.

    Politicians and bureaucrats see classification of CO2 as a pollutant as their road to riches. Now they can regulate, tax, ban, permit etc. and collect money for their efforts. Bureaus are NEVER satisfied they continually push for tighter standards; if parts per billion are good parts per trillion have to be better. True there are many compounds and entities that MUST be kept out of the environment at every turn; CO2 is simply not one of them.

    We are seeing CO2 equated with soot, temperature records manipulated, climate model scenarios floated as doomsday fact….all for what? If you believe it’s for the children, for the environment, to stop pollution, to stop climate change or to save the earth you’ve been had.

    It’s about controlling everything and every person because whoever has the most power and money wins…………………..

  81. Back when I used to listen to Glenn Beck, before he went crazy, he talked about being interviewed by NPR for something. Beck mentioned how NPR was fishing for a sensationalist story and when they could not get one, they stopped the interview. That told me all I need to know about NPR. That was before Glenn Beck had his own TV show on CNN Headline News. I don’t remember exactly when, but it was between 2000 and 2002. (Of course, Glenn went on to Fox News and now I rather pound sand than listen to him.)

    Need any more proof? Juan Williams is a strong liberal, but a sensible one because he regularly appeared on Fox News. It is my theory those decisions caused the NPR management to look for an excuse to fire Mr. Williams. I say that because every liberal always calls Fox News “Faux News” and hates Fox with a passion. (I never understood why the liberals just didn’t ignore Fox like I do. Half the ratings come from liberals having a fit about Fox.) Mr. Williams finally gave that excuse when he had the audacity to say something that may be considered disparaging about a religion not Christianity. Make no mistake: If Mr. Williams said he was nervous around right-wing Christians, he would still have a job at NPR; but because he said he was nervous around Muslims like most Americans are, that was his great sin.

    Why is it too much to ask that our news be objective? I’ve long known that NPR was one of the worst news sources there is.

  82. It was through my own experience that I distrusted the AGW messengers.
    After all,these messengers where the same people who happened to be wrong about every other agenda they had pushed.
    Many non learned folk, including me, can only really make a judgement based on the political aspect of AGW and not the science to be honest.
    The fact that the ‘cure’ to AGW being proposed by the usual suspects,just so happened to fit into their world view stank of opportunism.

  83. Even though a certain party has had super-majority control of the Congress and the Executive branch for the past 2-years
    =======================================================
    This is how they get away with blaming.
    They have controlled Congress for four years, not two.

  84. Bomber_the_Cat says:
    “The proportion of atmospheric CO2 may be very small but ii is still sufficient to attenuate a beam of radiation at 15 microns to extinction over a transmission path of 100 metres.”

    How much attenuation are you talking about? You can do the same thing with a beam of white light if you set the power output low enough or the threshold of the detector high enough.

  85. Why do the folks at NPR and the EU and the UN IPCC, and many other places, find it incomprehensible that Copenhagen and the like have not succeeded in bringing about the great, comprehensive, economic and socialist changes designed to save the World?

    Think about it, “what” are they actually trying to achieve? “It” has very little to do with climate, weather, CO2, or alternative energy. How many Nuclear Power Plants have they (not China) built in the past 20 years? Climate just seems to be something they’re “Shouting About” today.

    “What” they are about is “Social and Political and Economic Change”; they’re NOT about saving the planet for us and our grandchildren; they’re about taking the planet for themselves.

    Oooooooh well! Tomorrow is another day, right Scarlet?

  86. I thought the “Let’s defund NPR” line, after the Juan Williams flap could serve as a distraction, with people moaning about losing “the arts.”
    This blatant propaganda, with every scientific reality intentionally ignored in favor of AGW dogma, makes me think it might be a good idea after all.

  87. For those of you disparaging Glenn Beck by calling him crazy…

    What Glenn has done is expose corruption in government–both in organizations and at the individual level: He did it to the Repubs when GWB was president; that was fine with CNN because it fit in with their PC agenda so Glenn kept his job there. As soon as Glenn started exposing the lies and deceipt of the Obama Administration, he was no longer welcome at CNN but Fox News saw an opportunity and they hired Glenn because of his honest analysis.

    Now Glenn is going after corruption and anything that would bring down our current Republic–including the likes of G. Soros and the marxists/communists that surround Obama. Glenn has made mistakes, like calling Obama a racist, but he apologized for that when further study indicated Obama really was a disciple of Black Liberation Theology as taught by Reverend Wright. Adherence to this social structure would destroy the Republic and foster World Governance, which is what Glenn’s been harping on for a couple of years now.

    So rather than bash Glenn for what you think is crazy (unless YOU are a marxist/communist, too), I suggest going to his web site, look at the contents of his 40-day/40-night pledge in restoring faith, hope and charity on a personal basis. The founders knew the Republic couldn’t be maintained with a bunch of lying, thieving, God-denying people. Glenn basically says we have a choice–get back to work on the Republic, or roll over and let marxism or communism (it really doesn’t matter which) take over and control our lives. (It is the same approach of lying and stealing that drives global warming “climate scientists” today–they’re fine with the ideology that the Earth is more important than humans, hence the reason you can go to jail for destroying an eagle’s egg but you get federal protection for killing a human baby.)

    Sure–nothing crazy about that!

  88. I’m wondering how NPR would react to the fact that not all skeptics are conservatives and how some conservatives aren’t skeptics?

  89. R.S.Brown says:
    October 24, 2010 at 2:31 am

    I had previously said:

    Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and later, Henry David Thoreau, all
    subscribed to the notion, “That government is best which governs
    least.”

    What in the phrase subscribed to followed by the noun
    notion has confused you ? I didn’t attribute the quote
    or the principle it encompasses to any one individual.

    ————————
    My response completely destroyed your position. But this being the internet, you can still maintain it in the face of obvious defeat.

    So, once again. Paine wanted public pensions & welfare. Jefferson, when president, made unconstitutional use of federal power to buy the Louisiana purchase, used federal power to map out the land for development and pursued a policy of federal expansion, supported public schools but not compulsory attendance, was heavily influence by Francis Bacon (public funding of science, actually, royal funding of science at the time), created the University of Virginia with state support so that science would not be locked up with the elites but would be more widely disseminated. Both Paine & Jefferson wanted big government projects but were wary of excessive power in a few hands. Only Thoreau, the darling of leftists everywhere and the environmental movement of the 70’s in particular, wanted to eliminated government as much as possible.

    I don’t see how you can show up on this website and not see the similarity between Thoreau’s unreasoned romanticism of brutish living and the present day tendency to romanticize “renewable” energy. If Thoreau were alive today, whose side of this debate do you think he would be on?

  90. I have listened to NPR for many years and will continue to do so. They have some talented and hard working reporters (the Planet Money crew is excellent) and do some nice in depth stories. HOWEVER, on the climate change issue they are just hopelessly lost, and it brings into sharp focus NPR’s lack of experience & knowledge of how science progresses. This is not unique to NPR, of course; how Revkin can claim he is a “science” reporter is beyond me, he doesn’t seem to know anything about the history of science or its workings.

    NPR lost me a few years back, especially with their god-awful “Living on Earth” program, where every stinking story seems to find a global warming connection & where they love covering the psychology of climate change “denialists”. This psychological deficiency has been repeated a few times from NPR, almost always likening people who question the magnitude and danger of AGW with those who deny the connection of health problems with smoking.

    A snippet from one of Living on Earth’s hard-hitting inquires August 7 2009 (the problem with the “denialist” camp HAS to be psychological):

    HOST JEFF YOUNG: Now psychologists are turning their attention to the great divide between science and public opinion on climate change.

    Professor Robert Gifford, at the University of Victoria in British Columbia, led a task force studying global warming attitudes for the American Psychological Association. Gifford sees a telling parallel between those who doubt climate change, and those who ignore health warnings about smoking.

    (By the way, who are all these supposed people who didn’t know & admit the connection between smoking and health issues, besides known paid industry shills? I say this as a moderate smoker, I know it’s bad, I always did, & if it takes me down so be it; all other smokers I know have the same mindset)

    The problem for NPR on the climate change issue is that their science reporters are ill prepared to judge the merits of scientific arguments, and their management is getting stories that they see no need to question. It doesn’t disqualify NPR as an overall news source (I listen to Beck & Limbaugh with equal trepidation), you just need to know where their weaknesses lie.

    And also they were jerks to fire Juan Williams, but that doesn’t make them evil, they’re just another petty and paranoid management team…….

  91. Like I said in a previous thread, I have (as a liberal thinking but now registered Independent) grown immensely sick and tired of catastrophe. I want democrats to start talking about tightening the belt around governmental departments and bailouts, and start rescinding job killing regulations that stifle small business entrepreneurship. I have even decided to add peptobismal to my daily regiment in order to stave off the upset stomach I get from voting for conservatives who also beat the drum of moral regulations and discriminatory rules and regulations (talk about your nanny government, jeesh). It’s hard to fall in love, co-habitate, fly to a state that allows couples of any creed to marry, find a caring doctor who will attend to your family planning needs, or find a state that allows you to have/adopt children, if you haven’t a job.

    And WHAT IS WITH THE QUALITY OF PENCILS THESE DAYS???? They break as often as Democrats wax poetic about green jobs!!!! Have we regulated our Amercian made on American soil small businesses to the point that we have to suffer daily from foreign made pencils? What is up with that????? You know what? If Democrats would just do this one thing: lower the regulations on the cost of making a good pencil so that some savvy small business could start a series of plants devoted to making a quality wood pencil with a tough graphite/lead core, I would change back to being registered as a Democrat!!!!

  92. Thoreau was a civil engineer by training. He worked in the family pencil business where he invented a better pencil and several machines to produce them. I doubt he would agree to the government subsiding wind farms and solar panels.

  93. Jeff Alberts says:
    October 23, 2010 at 8:19 pm

    evanmjones says:
    October 23, 2010 at 7:34 pm

    “That is steam, not smoke.
    First, smoke is BLACK.”

    Depends on the fuel. I’ve seen plenty of whitish/greyish smoke.

    Some on this blog know more about this than I do, but I believe that steam is invisible. There may be conditions under which steam becomes visible, but steam that comes out of pots or water kettles on my stove has always been invisible to me for as long as I have been alive. I never forget the burn I got on my finger when I did not listen to my mom about 70 years ago and tried to detect that invisible steam that produced the little cloud a short distance from the boiling water kettle.

    Certainly, the colour of smoke can be one of a wide range, depending on what is being burned and on the efficiency of the fire that burns. However, let’s concentrate on the photo that Evan Jones commented on.

    I don’t know if the photo is of a power generating station, maybe not, but I see three smokestacks, four cooling towers (the low, squat structures in the background) and evidence of a fifth cooling tower (the third large plume of “steam” rising from behind the dark rectangular structure in the lower middle of the photo).

    Cooling towers do not emit steam, they emit water vapour. The vapour may, and often does, condense, depending on the dew point of the air the water vapour emitted from the cooling towers is being injected into. Technically, the condensed water vapour emitted from the cooling towers is visible as a continuously forming cloud. That cloud eventually evaporates, although, depending on local atmospheric conditions, the length of time that may take will vary, and often the cloud may become a drizzle, light rain, fog or even snow or an ice fog.

    That is all perfectly normal, harmless, just plain H2O, and it involves no pollutants, not even CO2 — the life-giving, blessed gas without which no life would be on Earth.

    Things are a little more complex with what comes out of the three tall smoke stacks shown in the photo. I assume that they emit combustion by-products, but the photo does not provide supporting evidence for that. Such smoke stacks are tall to disperse the pollutants they spew into the air and to spread those pollutants over as wide an area as possible.

    There seems to be no evidence in the photo that what comes out of the smokestacks is anything other than H2O. Note that the H2O that is being emitted is actually steam (it is invisible at first) that turns immediately after leaving the smokestack into condensed water vapour and then evaporates into the thin air. On very cold and humid days, those visible, white plumes of condensed water vapour that originate from the three smoke stack will extend for miles, sometimes perhaps to vanish somewhere over the horizon.

    So, nothing of what we can see being emitted in that photo presents a danger to anyone. None of it is a pollutant, except to those who may want to make people believe that dihydrogen monoxide (a.k.a. H2O or plain water) is a danger that we must eradicate and learn to do without, just as they want to teach all plant life on Earth to learn to live without the essential, life-giving CO2.

    CO2 is most likely a combustion product that is also being emitted by those three smoke stacks, provided that what the smoke stacks emit into the air results from the combustion of coal, natural gas, oil or any other hydrocarbon.

    Air is most likely the source of the oxygen contained in the H2O and CO2 emitted by the smoke stacks, with both of those gases being the combustion product of hydrocarbon being burned. However, CO2 contained in the exhaust of the smoke stacks is and remains invisible, while H2O is and most often becomes visible at least for a short time, until the condensed water droplets visible in the emitted cloud evaporate again.

    There are two more major constituents in the exhaust emitted by the smoke stacks. One of those is comprised of various nitrogen oxides, the source of which is the air used for combustion plus any nitrogen compound contained in the fuel that is being burned. In sufficient concentration, nitrogen oxides can be visible as a brownish haze and are a constituent of smog. Still, none of that is apparent in the photo.

    The other major constituent of the exhaust gases is comprised of sulphuric oxides. Coal or hydrocarbons contain sulphur. When burned, sulphur combines with oxygen from the combustion air and is emitted through the exhaust for the combustion process. Most commonly, the major sulphuric oxide emitted is sulphur trioxide, but that almost instantly gets changed to sulphur dioxide and, if H2O is available in the ambient air into which it is being emitted, into sulphuric acid. In sufficient concentration, sulphur dioxide, or SO2, becomes visible as a yellowish haze and is a constituent of smog.

    Neither nitrogen oxides nor sulphuric oxides are visible in the exhausts emitted by the three smoke stacks in the photo.

    There is another component of the exhausts emitted by smoke stacks that is of concern. That is fly ash resulting from the combustion of coal. The major concern with fly ash is that it contains heavy metals, primarily mercury but also some heavy metals that are radioactive. The amount of radioactivity emitted by a coal-fired power generating plant creates more radioactive pollution in the vicinity of a coal-fire power generating plant than does a nuclear power generating plant of comparable generating capacity.

    At any rate, fly ash can be visible as a whitish-gray haze when suspended in the air. However, no evidence of fly ash is apparent in the photo.

    So, all that such photos draw attention to is condensed water, clouds, clouds of water. By insinuating that all of that water has something to do with CO2 that is not harmful at all, we have one of the most effective propaganda tools ever devised. Even Al Gore made use of clouds of “steam”. Does that make him a bit backward — by being steam-powered?

  94. I love Car Talk on NPR, with Tom and Ray.

    That program could be syndicated and make hefty profits. No reason to keep it hidden on NPR.

    Oh, the AGW stuff? They suck! ;o)

  95. The large short stacks are coolers and can only emit steam while the tall stacks are the process stacks and the emissions could contain particulates. There are requirements set by the EPA that limit the concentration of those particulates. The emissions are measured by instrumentation in the stacks and/or by visual inspection (smoke reading) The picture is not at the correct angle to determine if the plume is steam or contains more particulates. The correct method would be to look directly across the top of the stack 90 degress to the plume. If it is all steam there will be a small area right above the top of the stack that will be clear. Any percentage of obstruction from clear would be the opacity of the gas stream indicating the level of particulates. Again the permissible level is monitored by the EPA and periods on non-compliance usually result in fines.

    I know this because I was in charge of the air handling system of a steel mill with an opacity limit of 3% which is undectable by the naked eye. We used special opacity monitors in the stack and daily visual inspection of the plume to meet compliance requirements. This task was not taken lightly and the cost was considerable. I maintained a curent smoke reading certification at all times while thus employed. I do believe in the necessity of cleaning emissions and unfortunately the levels set are more defined by the lobbying effort of the industry concerned than the science of air quality.

    Hope this helps some,

    Barry Strayer

  96. JDN says:
    October 24, 2010 at 8:29 am

    So, once again. Paine wanted public pensions & welfare.

    Didn’t Paine say that society was a blessing, but government, at best, a necessary evil? I seem to recall something like that somewhere in Common Sense.

    Paine favored certain governmental intrusions, or helping hands, so he had his feet on both sides of the fence. But since his starting point was skepticism about the state unless proven innocent/helpful on some certain topical area, he was not truly a statist. His attitude was pragmatic and evidence-based, which was the general American attitude until recently, when theoretical / rhetorical (sound-good / feel-good) European modes of political & social thinking have gotten ahold of us.

  97. NPR is more biased on CAGW than any other topic (with the possible exception of Juan Williams).

    NPR literally never, ever gives any credence to any argument which is the least bit skeptical of CAGW.

    Often, their alarmist reporting is more absurd and more over the top than any other source.

  98. If NPR can’t get the science right, it shouldn’t get public funding.

    If NPR continually sides with a particular political party, it shouldn’t get public funding.

    If NRP does both, it shoudn’t get public funding AND it should change its name to:

    National___(fill in party name)___Radio

  99. Pamela Gray says:
    October 24, 2010 at 8:44 am

    I have even decided to add peptobismal to my daily regiment in order to stave off the upset stomach I get from voting for conservatives who also beat the drum of moral regulations and discriminatory rules and regulations (talk about your nanny government, jeesh).

    I am in the same boat, but in the opposite direction. I can’t stand voting for either side right now, but if either side would adopt normalcy and such, I would vote for them in a heartbeat. I think over time I have become more libertarian then anything, and its a shame to watch things unfold. (I am not a tea party member).

    From the other side of the fence, I think Government should butt out of family planning in general, let the consumers live their lives in peace without interference. (at the same time, maybe echoing my libertarian views, they shouldn’t pay for family planning either…) Same with marriage, if two homoesexual people want the same misery as me in marriage, whats the harm?

    Shrug, I would vote democrat in a heartbeat if they were sceptical of cap and trade, being thats what I am voting on…but only replicans are that way, so to vote for them I go. Sigh, we all lose our principals over cap and trade and economic concerns it seems. I have to vote for the evil R just like you.

  100. The push is towards totalitarianism. Sorros is a defense contractor who supposedly leads his sheep from the “left” position. It is a ruse. The “leaders” on both the left and right are working towards a common goal. They have both sides covered and plan to get there from either or both directions. Total control is the endgame not communist or fascist politics. The same money is funding both sides/philosophies. You don’t fight the opposition you lead it! One way to combat this is for the average citizen to see through their games. They constantly set up phony scenarios that pit good citizens at each others throats. (Non-story: Juan Williams, but see how well it works.) If you can see through the AGW ruse you can see there are hundreds of other well coordinated plans out there to keep the masses at war with each other instead of united and free. Divide and Conquer is a time tested method.

  101. “Manmade CO2 causes Earth’s temperature to rise and that is a fact.”

    No it isn’t. It is a discredited hypothesis — the product of manipulated climate models that bear no relationship to the real world. There is no empirical evidence to support the contention that man-made increases in CO2 cause global warming (although, as Dr. Roy Spencer argues, such increases may “slow down” the cooling process). In fact, the opposite is true, with ice core samples revealing that rising CO2 levels follow temperature increases by hundreds of years.

    CO2 is a convenient fall guy for global elites who stand to make billions of dollars trading carbon credits and promoting and manfacturing expensive alternatives to fossil fuel-generated energy. Driven by greed, they choose to downplay or banish from the public eye the natural causes of climate variation. In particular, they deliberately divert attention from the fact that modest changes of one to two percent in the Earth’s albedo brought about by small changes in cloud cover are sufficient to account for the observed average temperature changes of the last century.

    Compared to the impact of the sun, man-made CO2 emissions have about as much influence on our climate as a few farts in a hurricane.

  102. If the entire human contribution is less than 4%, how can anyone make this statement?

    “Human activities, such as driving, flying, building and even turning on the lights, are the biggest contributor to the release of carbon.”

  103. NPR report has all the qualities of a bitter teenage girl who did not get to be prom queen. If they were on the Titanic they would still be washing dirty dishes.

    I watch NPR only for their British comedy programs such as Last of the Summer Wine and One foot in the grave. No wait, that is on AETN TV.

    If you can avoid their attitude, they make a good case to vote GOP.

  104. The caption under the NPR photo reads: Steam and smoke rise over a coal-burning power plant in Gelsenkirchen, Germany.

    More specifically, it is the Scholven power plant in Gelsenkirchen, Germany, which emits about 10.7 millions tons of CO2 per year. Since NPR journalists (and probably most of their audience) believe that CO2 is the devil, the photo makes perfect sense.

  105. Theo Goodwin says: October 23, 2010 at 8:27 pmI do not think that the word “fact” means what NPR thinks it means. NPR begins a broadcast segment with the assertion that “manmade CO2 causes Earth’s temperature to rise and that is a fact.” I will not rehearse the infinity of reasons for believing that this “fact” is not a fact. NPR is a propagandist for statist causes. It is nigh time that NPR be defunded. US citizens who choose to be communists are welcome to do so. But out government should not be in the business of funding communists.

    I have seen quite a misuse of the term “fact” over the past two years. In many cases it was more applicable to replace that term with “opinion” or even “biased hope”.

  106. John from CA says: October 24, 2010 at 11:01 amIf the entire human contribution is less than 4%, how can anyone make this statement?
    “Human activities, such as driving, flying, building and even turning on the lights, are the biggest contributor to the release of carbon.”

    NOM!

  107. Maybe one of us should help the NPR people out since their press release is so easy to pick apart… How about:

    “For the last 150 years (or so) humans have been increasing their release of carbon into the atmosphere. This is a fact – based upon the quantities of fossil fuels consumed.

    For the last 150 years (or so), global temperature seems to be gradually rising. This is a widely accepted observation and backed up by many lines of evidence; assuming we can agree on what a “global temperature” means.

    Many Republicans do not believe that the impact of releasing CO2 upon the environment at the current levels justifies deaconian measures that would reduce wealth and prosperity for most people, and would retard the development in third world countires keeping many people in poverty.

    But what Republicans fail to realize, is that rising CO2 in the atmosphere is turning the oceans into steaming vats of PURE ACID which is killing all life on the planet and will soon lead to the mutation of iguana’s into HUGE VORACIOUS MAN-EATING MONSTERS AS BIG AS GODZILLA AND EVERYONE IS GOING TO DIE!!!!! Aaaagggghhhhh….”

    I think I might have a career writing for them – please do not stop their public funding as it might impact my chances of getting hired. Its a lot more fun to write stuff that doesn’t have to be real than stuff that has to agree with data and fact.

  108. If NPR did their basic homework on the atmospheric carbon cycle available on numerous government websites (which I am sure they did but had to hide) they would have to state that 96.73% of all Co2 is generated by nature, and only 3.27% is generated by man.

    But why let real facts get in the way of a scare-the-hell-out-of-em pre-election piece?

  109. Mark Twang says:
    October 23, 2010 at 9:37 pm

    Peter Pan says: “If only ALL the kids out there would get on board and say the magic words, Tinkerbell the Climate Fairy would recover!”

    You forgot to add: “If you don’t frau Schiller will take THE RED BUTTON!
    and blow up up!”

  110. Heating exhaust gases to remove the stack plume reminds me of our political “leaders” mandate that coal fired power stations only use low sulfur coal. They now burn sulfer in the exhaust stream so the electrostatic precipitators capture the fly ash!

  111. Dang it watching “Elvira the Mistress of the dark “and meant to say:
    “and blow you up”!
    Elvira is distracting….

  112. The only thing I learned on reading the NPR screed is that their writers and editorial board don’t know the difference between carbon and carbon dioxide. That’s an extreme form of scientific illiteracy.

  113. John from CA says:
    October 24, 2010 at 11:01 am

    “If the entire human contribution is less than 4%, how can anyone make this statement?”
    “Human activities, such as driving, flying, building and even turning on the lights, are the biggest contributor to the release of carbon.”

    They are entitled to their *opinions*.

  114. JDN says:
    October 24, 2010 at 8:29 am

    My response completely destroyed your position. But this being the internet, you can still maintain it in the face of obvious defeat.

    All this social unrest, revolution, and experimentation took place during
    and at the end of the Little Ice Age (LIA), which ran from roughly 1350
    to 1850 A.D. America’s agrarian society gradually evolved into one with
    an agrarian/industrial and rural/urban dichotomy.

    Thoreau was writing 60 years after most of the original States had set their
    respective Constitutions and 50 years after the U.S. Constitution, with the Bill
    of Rights tacked on, was adopted. The Ordinance of 1787 abolished slavery
    as a practice in our Northwest Territory (the areas now known as Ohio, Indiana,
    Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin and part of Minnesota).

    Thoreau was conceived during The Year Without Summer (1816)
    and born July 12, 1817.

    Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience (1849), and Walden, or Life in
    the Woods
    (1854) were written at the end of a period of social
    experimentation involving Fourerism and, in particular, the Phalanx
    movement in all it’s various flavors in the 1840s.

    Charles Dickens, another writer of note, had already had a financially
    successful go at damning the rise of industry and capitalism and.
    surreptitiously, at the governments that allowed it’s advent. His British
    Empire was just starting to thin at it’s expansionist edges. Since Thoreau
    was a serious subscriber and participant in the Romantic movement in
    America he had to revolt against the founding Fathers who
    grew up during the “Age of Reason” (1700-1770) and their collective values.

    As before:

    Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and later, Henry David Thoreau, all
    subscribed to the notion, “That government is best which governs
    least.”.

    Roger Knights (above) has a good grasp of Paine’s general philosophy
    on governments… and the distrust of government woven into the
    “American” system

    Paine and Jefferson resisted overbearing government to the point of
    successful revolution . Thoreau bitched about government
    and resisted paying his poll tax.

    Que es mas macho ?

  115. @ Grumbler says:
    October 24, 2010 at 2:36 am
    —–
    I’ve worked a bit in GDR, they have very strict air pollution controls on their stack gases. This plant likely burning a hard coal (vs. the ugly soft-stuff that the East Germans used to burn), followed by particulate removal with electrostatic precipitator & wet scrubbing to remove sulfur.

    Please see: http://www.power-technology.com/projects/walsum/

    It looks ugly, but most of what we see coming out of the stacks is water, at a higher temperature than out of the parabolic cooling towers (note atmospheric mixing patterns). There certainly are traces of particulates & other material that constitute classic “smoke,” but I don’t think this plant is a nasty one.

    We have some nasties in the Chicago region, grandfathered in & patched together by Midwestern Generation and ComEd. Even those don’t show much of a “smoke” plume unless you catch them at the right time.

    China, on the other hand….

    http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Climate-Change-Issues-Wednesday-Sept-1-2010-photo-chimney-coal-fired-power-plant-emit/ss/events/sc/120203climateissues/im:/101008/481/urn_publicid_ap_org22159917a32047dcad2414c703e896e8/

  116. Oops, sorry, meant Federal Republic of Germany! My bad, GDR is long gone, thank God! Nasty place…I worked in a few of the Warsaw Pact states, glad they are gone.

  117. In the early 1900’s it was the liberal William Jennings Bryant who lead the charge against Darwin’s theory of evolution. Bryant felt Darwin’s idea violated the liberal view of a cooperative society. (Most recent opposition to evolution religious based. The Republican Party decided to co-opt this originally non-political trend, to it’s shame.) Today many conservatives feel, wrongly, that climatology threatens the free enterprise system. Now this has become a dogma among them.

    While it is true that there are “greenies” who want to use AGW as an excuse for socialistic causes, this has nothing to do with the science and real solutions are likely to include nuclear power and market based GHG trading schemes – to the “greenies” horror. What better way to discredit the socialist left than to use the market and engineering technology to solve the greatest problem humankind is facing? But the dogmatic cycle, started and fueled by oil and coal money, has taken on a live of its own to everyone’s detriment.

  118. Here in Minnesota we listen to MPR which must stand for Muslim Public Radio, every time I tune there is some story about how great Muslims are. Their Sunday morning show “Speaking of Faith” is about every faith except Christianity. So last week when they fired Juan Williams for his remarks I was not surprised.

  119. In regard to : NPR Funding
    Burch Seymour says:
    October 24, 2010 at 2:26 pm
    FWIW, Funding of NPR is explained here:

    http://hubbub.wbur.org/2010/10/22/npr-funding

    I found this comprehensive analysis of NPR funding in the comments section. Attribution to: Brent on October 23, 2010, at 1:33 PM

    Let me help you with some research. Your either misleading listeners or you havent looked into how NPR’s primary funding is from the Federal gov. Hey just ask NPR’s political action committee that actively lobbies congress for additional funding. More information on that in a moment.
    Hope I can post my research here all in one comment, here it goes.

    http://www.npr.org/about/aboutnpr/publicradiofinances.html

    I. Public Radio Stations that are members of National Public Radio (NPR)
    “Stations receive support from several sources – listener contributions, corporate sponsorship, in-kind and direct support from universities (for those licensed to a college or university), foundation grants and major gifts, grants from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and in some cases state and local governments. “
    Note: Most of NPR’s revenue comes from Public Radio Station members that ARE directly funded by the federal government. Federal funds are indirectly paid to NPR by member stations.
    • Direct funding by Federal, State and Local Gov. (5.8%)
    • Publically funded University’s (13.6%)
    • Corporation of Public Broadcasting (10.1%).
    • Indirect public funding by Universities (13.6%)
    That’s 29.5% of the total Public Radio Station revenue stream comes directly or indirectly from government.
    All income for public radio is income tax exempt and “donations” are tax deductible charitable contributions. If they were private companies, they would be required to pay 35% federal income tax on revenue.
    Note: Corp. of Public Broadcasting (CPB) received 25million from congress in 2010 as a bailout. $25 million for CPB for “fiscal stabilization grants to public radio and television stations, which have experienced a downturn in revenues due to the recession that has resulted in job losses and reductions to local programming and services.” In addition, the conference report included language providing that “fiscal stabilization grants shall be awarded to public radio and television licensees no later than 45 days after enactment of this Act based on the guidance outlined in House Report 111-220.”

    http://www.cpb.org/aboutcpb/financials/2010stabilization/

    CPB approx. 500 million per year in federal funding.
    II. National Public Radio’s Sources of Revenue
    “NPR, Inc and NPR Foundation are 501c (3) organizations and are each required to file Form 990. In addition to the Forms 990, NPR and NPR Foundation are each required to file form 990T to report unrelated business income. “
    “NPR’s revenue comes primarily from fees paid by our member stations, contributions from corporate sponsors, institutional foundation grants, gifts from major donors, and fees paid by users of The Public Radio Satellite System. We receive no direct federal funding for operations. The largest share of NPR’s revenue comes from program fees and station dues paid by member stations that broadcast NPR programs. “
    Note: this is true, they receive direct funding by entities that ARE Federally funded. Misleading but technically/legally correct.
    “Program fees and dues paid by our member stations are the largest portion of NPR’s revenue.” (approx. 79% of total revenue). “This includes fees paid to air the NPR newsmagazines, other programming we produce and distribute, and annual member dues.”
    a. Programing Fees 40%:
    i. Annual member dues make up 3% of total Programming Fees :
    “Annual member dues make up the balance of program fees and dues, contributing about 3% of the total program fee and dues; this is set at a flat rate.”
    “Payment of dues entitles stations to be represented by NPR before Congress and regulators, and extends to them rights to NPR programming, digital distribution, and other services.”
    Note: NPR’s Political Action Committee to lobby congress for federal funding of member stations.
    b. Annual Member Dues 1%:
    Note: Indirectly Federally funded income
    • Dues are paid by the publically funded member stations.
    c. Distribution Services 8%:
    “NPR’s Distribution Division operates the Public Radio Satellite System. They collect revenue from stations and producers that use its platform for broadcast distribution, (nearly every organization in the public radio community). In addition, the PRSS offers excess capacity to both public radio and non-public radio users for private networks to keep the cost of distribution as low as possible.”
    Note: Indirectly Federally funded income
    • Revenue from Distro. services comes from Federally funded public radio community.
    • NPR’s Distro. Services income is tax exempt due to its non profit status.
    d. Grants & Contributions 10%, NPR Foundation Support 2%, NPR Foundation Endowment Distributions 5%, and Investment Income 4%:
    Indirect federal support; charitable contributions are tax deductible charitable contributions by the “donor”.
    Note: Indirectly Federally funded income
    • NPR’s nonprofit status means income from Investments and income received by both NPR foundations are tax free.
    e. Other Revenues 4%:
    “Other revenues include facility rental income, NPR-branded consumer products, and license fees.”
    Note: Indirectly Federally funded income
    • NPR does not have to pay income taxes on this revenue.

  120. Bomber The Cat (Oct. 24 at 4:11)

    “To say that there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect is an argument that gives sceptics a bad name, as Owen rightly points out.” No, actually its the other way around. Robert W. Woods coldframe experiment put to rest the idea that internal re-radiation has anything to do with heating a green house. Instead the sun simply heats the air in a physically confined space, the main component of which is a greatly reduced air exchange.
    “The term ‘greenhouse effect’ may not be the most appropriate since it confuses Enneagram to devise his own theory based on panes of glass. This is not how it works.”
    Oh, really and I quote ” Fourier maintained that the atmosphere acts like the glass of a hothouse because it lets through the light rays of the sun but retains the dark rays of the ground. This idea was elaborated by Pouillet.” — From “On The Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground”. Written by Svante Arrhenius. Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science. Series 5, Volume 41, April 1896, pages 237 – 276. Or how about this little gem. Quote “In the early 19th century Fourier found the atmosphere to be acting like a glass of a hothouse, letting through light rays of the sun but retaining the dark rays from the ground. That dark thermal radiation is absorbed by atmospheric trace gases, now called greenhouse gases”. Sound Familiar? The quote is from the introduction to Philpona and crew on radiative forcing, Geophysical research letters Vol. 31, 2004. The is one of the main papers referred to on the Skeptical Science(not!) website.You are apparently ignorant of what your side is actually saying. Dark rays! And they call this science! You, sir apparently are the confused one (along with all the other warmistas).

  121. Maybe we can kill the Corporation for Public Broadcasting too.The FCC is the regulatory arm of the gov’t and the CPB (AFAIK) deals with content.

  122. More CO^2 = more vegetation
    More vegetation = more humans who can live without handouts.

    Regessives can’t have that.

  123. Owen says,
    “Try the surface temperature data collected over the past 100 years and the direct CO2 data since the 1950′s and ice core data going back earlier. You might also want to look at the RSS and UAH microwave data of tropospheric oxygen, and compare that warming with the surface warming data. Take a look at the NSIDC September report and look at September ice minima over the past 40 years. There is plenty of data out there, data of different types that are all internally consistent. You need to spend more time with actual data and less time with an easily available ideology that supports what you’d like to believe.”

    Owen, you have quoted us a lot of data and observations, which may have some sort of correlation with what you believe.

    However when I studied statistics, I remember clearly that in my very first class as a freshman at university, our lecturer spent some time belabouring us with examples of how correlation was never proof of anything. He did a good job because I never forgot that fact.

    Unless you have some insight or empirical data that supports a particular hypothesis as to the CAUSATION of the observations you mention, (which I would definitely be interested in hearing about), I suspect you better look towards your own analysis of the data instead of accusing me of succumbing to that “easily available ideology that supports what you’d like to believe.” syndrome you mention.

    Cheers

    Roger

    http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

  124. As for gutting spending in the Reagan-Bush years: The NASA Budget: 1081-1993 (RR and GHWB years: + 65% in constant dollars), 1993-2002 (-11%), 2003-2008 (latest available) + 11%. The component shifts need more analysis. The statements about censorship of contrary opinion is ironic, given the degree to which Hansen, and GISS have operated as advocates while government employees. People at the cabinet level can be forgiven, as they are policy makers; but the others use government time to put out one side and actively collude to suppress contrary opinions.

    I couldn’t find reliable number on NOAA. Climate Science did generally increase, I believe; but President Obama has definitely increased funding for climate-related research a lot throughout government. I don’t think the work is particularly well directed, which is why looking at gross spending is less important than looking at priorities.

  125. Those of you who say that NPR does not present both sides of the climate change debate simply don’t listen very often. When they discuss climate change on Science Friday, they usually invite a climatologist who says we are heading towards catastrophe by about the year 2050, and, they have one who puts the catastrophe at about 2080.

  126. I know Bob Inglis personally and I am here to tell you today that he is a bonafide idiot. Both his kids are working for big democrats and sadly they have all drunk the koolaid. He is a lawyer and does not have a bone in his body capable of understanding anything scientific. He had become fixated on getting along in Washington so it was time for him to leave.

  127. Also I meant to add that Bob Inglis was not representing the wishes of the residents of the 4th district of South Carolina so we fired him. He was known as congressman clueless and I have told him so to his face.

  128. To anyone who cares:

    Cooling towers, both natural and forced convection, emit steam. Whether that steam is visible or not depends on the atmospheric conditions it is emitted into. The picture shows natural convection cooling towers. Stacks without scrubbers emit mostly invisible vapors. If a coal plant is fitted with scrubbers then the stack also emits large amounts of steam. This appears to be the case in the photo.

  129. rbateman says:
    October 24, 2010 at 5:29 am
    It is fair to say that, over geologic time scales, C02 follows temperature somewhat, but is not correlated directly to it.
    Mostly wagging its tail with temperature change, it on occasion will sit down and refuse to budge.
    One very eye-opening example is between 120,000 BP to 113,000 BP where, in the Vostok Ice Core, C02 remained stable while temperature fell 5 C. This is repeated verbatim between 238,000 BP to 231,000 BP.
    C02 is the dog along for the hike, running back & forth, but is clearly not the master.

    ========================

    Repeated for effect. Of all your descriptive writing on here, Robert, this is one of the best.

    I tend to gravitate towards illustrations canine so you got my Scooby Doo attention on this one. Rrrroooooo?

    Nice job.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  130. Regarding the photo caption:

    “Obligatory belching smokestacks spewing (steam?) Credit Martin Meissner/AP”.

    Steam, which is water in its gaseous form, is invisible; I agree, the picture probably depicts water vapor.
    Peter

  131. Mike says:
    October 24, 2010 at 3:08 pm
    ‘…… to include nuclear power and market based GHG trading schemes –…….’

    So you trade being dependent on foreign oil for dependent on foreign carbon credits?
    What type of energy policy is that? That type of mine set is nothing more than rent seeking.

  132. Defunding NPR must also include the multi-millons the Gov’t hands out to the local NPR stations and more multi-millions given for maintaining and upgrading their satellite operations. CPB must be thrown in for good measure. Let Stalinist Soros pick up the slack.

  133. NPR’s list of human activities that produce CO2 left out breathing. If everyone who has ever used the term “carbon polution” would stop exhaling CO2, it might not cure global warming but the world’s average IQ would go up considerably.

  134. While we are defunding NPR; let’s not forget to have the FCC pull their non-competitive spectrum allocations – that will hurt more then the 2% funding.

  135. Almost every program on NPR (at least in the past, I find them quite flawed now) has an obligatory note naming the Foundation that partially funded the programing. Seemingly most are funded by some of the most conservative entities around. Do you think the Rockefeller Foundation ( They own EXXON) or the Ford Foundation is really liberal? They just control both sides of an issue. Sorros is a conservative defense contractor. Who cares what he says he is? Look at actions not words.

  136. Great thread, glad to see the NPR funding shell game exposed.

    As far as cool aid drinking references go, well, those usually come from gatorade drinkers.

    Personally, I’ll be voting Constitution Party again until I ever see the control grabbing extremists thrown out of the big two or one or t’other. John Kerry, please resign!

    Nor will I ever wish to see this country turned into a Libertardian Paradise like Somallia. Don’t think libertarians realize what being a libertarian is even fully about.

    Damn those Whigs for creating a politically powerful caste of rich aristocrats who’s aim, to subvert democracy. Historical note: they had to change colors after ‘Bloody Kansas’ and the slavery issue (kicking off a civil war) and largely because of Franklin Pierce. What recent president is directly related to Pierce? Hint, he has a new book out.

  137. tj says

    “Do you think the Rockefeller Foundation ( They own EXXON) or the Ford Foundation is really liberal? They just control both sides of an issue. Sorros is a conservative defense contractor. Who cares what he says he is? Look at actions not words.”

    YES they are liberals – EXXON was heavily vested in cap and trade. Soros controls much of the media, specifically MSNBC, CNBC and NBC. Yes, I looked at their actions. And all would profit hansomely from any cap and trade or tax based on carbon.

  138. tj says:
    October 24, 2010 at 10:26 pm

    Do you think the Rockefeller Foundation ( They own EXXON) or the Ford Foundation is really liberal?

    The Rockefeller Foundation is pretty liberal. Weren’t they a big mover behind the UN?

    The Ford foundation has escaped control of the Ford family decades ago, being infiltrated and captured by its progressive administrators. Ford family members sued to try to get it back on track and aligned with the wishes in Ford’s will, but the courts sided with the administrators (I suspect recognizing them as fellow-members of the anointed class, whose preferences must prevail).

  139. I have seen several times it stated that CO2 follows temp change… not the other way around. Excuse me for stating the obvious, but isn’t that a silly statement on it’s own? CO2 dumped into the atmosphere heats up the atmosphere, and then more heat realeases more CO2. I am one of the biggest uneducated skeptics out there, and I’m not quite clear why the ‘heat precedes CO2′ argument is trotted out. Someone help me?

  140. From the article: Inglis says: “As a Republican, I believe we should be talking about conservation, because that’s our heritage. If you go back to Teddy Roosevelt, that’s who we are.”

    Just to clear up an error that many people on all sides make: TR was no conservative, in fact he was about as far from conservative as a politician could get. He was a leader of the progressive (left) movement and ran as the candidate of the progressive party (popularly called the “Bullmoose” party) because Taft had failed to live up to progressive expectations.

    Calling Roosevelt a conservative is one of those 20th century historical errors that the left continually gets away with, like calling Wilson a great president because of his championing the League of Nations, or even better calling Hitler a “conservative” when he was the leader of the NationalSocialists! A quick reading of the Nazi party platform reveals the socialist nature of their agenda. A more modern comparison would be calling Arlen Specter or Michael Bloomburg or Olympia Snowe conservative.

  141. Smokey:
    You know, I have put versions of that graphic up numerous times, but the warmists always come up with some way to minimize it. I even found it on a warmist site once (don’t remember where) that was using it to forward their argument, somehow.

    What I find compelling about it though, is not the CO2 issue at all. If one looks at the temperatures for the last 400,000 years, I find it striking that the vast majority of the time is spent in the -4 to -10 degree range, and only a very small amount of time in the +2 to -2 degree range. And, we have been in that range for a very long time (about 10,000 years). It would seem to this non-scientist that we are do for a little cold weather in the next, oh, 10,000 years or so. Also, the maximum temp of the last 10,000 years was at the beginning of the cycle of warm and not at the present time.

    Here is an article by Frank Lansner in WUWT from 1-30-09. It is one of my favorite references to throw at these nutcases who can’t seem to understand that a little warming is a good thing. The really hard part is going to be adapting when Chicago is under a mile of ice. But somehow they have spun that to be “climate change”. I think it’s a leftist thing.

  142. “As a Republican, I believe we should be talking about conservation, because that’s our heritage. If you go back to Teddy Roosevelt, that’s who we are.”

    Huh, I didn’t realize that the Republican heritage consisted of people who left the party to run against their sitting president.

    Or whack job protectionist jingoists who played the game of destroying business they did not like and protecting those they did, ie the “good trusts” and “bad trusts”.

  143. Wolfman:
    Re: Your NASA numbers

    Wolfman says: October 24, 2010 at 4:46 pm

    If the opportunity ever presents itself, have a quiet off-the-record chat
    with John Glenn about the recent history of NASA funding and the various
    Executive branch-ordered changes in programs and priorities.

    Also, please recall that NOAA was reorganized into the Department of
    Commerce…

  144. I can’t believe anyone who posted here would give money to National Public Radio expecting unbiased and objective reporting, NPR is about as unbiased and objective as Time, Newsweek, and the New York Times are ( Which is to say it isn’t objective at all ) . Just because NPR gives on air time to non-leftists for Op-Eds doesn’t mean it isn’t nonetheless very pro-left in general, The NYT occasionally gives Op-Eds to non-leftists but that doesn’t detract from the fact that almost all of their reporting and newspaper editorials have a left-wing slant. A 99% leftist story reporting slant ( Which constitute the bulk of the papers pages ), 97% leftist newspaper editorials, and a 85% leftist Op-Ed pieces mix don’t come close to adding up to 50/50 balance overall, and that is exactly what NPR is like, a radio version of the NYT. I have listened to NPR on and off over the years because they are one of only a handful of radio news programs in the US that cover news in-depth, but that doesn’t mean I don’t take their editorializing or the spin that accompanies a large majority of their stories without a very big grain of salt. It’s actually not hard, because virtually all of the major newspapers, magazines, wire services, and radio and TV networks ( With the exception of course, of Fox News. ) have a very strong left-wing slant in the US. This has only worsened over the last generation because of the retirement of “Old Guard” reporters ( Who often didn’t attend colleges and had other real world jobs prior to becoming journalists. ) and their replacement by more left-wing “Baby Boomers” ( Who often went straight from college into journalism ) whose “political consciousness” was formed in the sixties and seventies during Vietnam and Watergate. These boomers are now running most major news sources in the US because a lot of them are now in management and/or supervisory positions within their respective organizations.

    What I love is how the media is going around claiming that the vast bulk of NPR’s money doesn’t come from the Federal Government, fine, if that is the case then they won’t miss the lack of government money when it’s cut from their budget. My guess though, is that a sizable chunk of their money does come from Uncle Sam directly or indirectly and the pledge drives which they periodically bombard their listeners with. NPR should not be getting any government money anymore than than it’s TV equivalent PBS does, both are pretty consistently left-wing in their outlooks and even a lot of their programming that is hailed a middle of the road really isn’t. PBS not long ago was hailed for it’s Frontline documentary on pharmaceuticals and the drug industry, but I watched the program and it was objective and unbiased for only the first half hour and then completely one sided ( On the left ) for the last half hour. So I guess in public broadcasting land 75% left/25% right and 100% left the last half hour ( Which is what most people who watched it will remember the most strongly. ) is considered ” objective ” and ” unbiased “. The really sad fact though is that there are some people in public radio broadcasting in the US who consider NPR insufficiently left-wing and instead listen to Pacifica Radio who makes NPR look like a bunch of right-wingers by comparison.

  145. nofate,

    You’re right about cold being the real threat, and a little more warmth being something we’re supposed to be frightened about.

    Andrew,

    Thank you for pointing out that the Progressive Party was an offshoot of the Republican Party. Teddy Roosevelt, William Taft and Woodrow Wilson [the original incompetent president that Carter patterned after] comprised the Progressive era in America.

    There is a reason that TR is on Mount Rushmore – and Wilson isn’t.

    And speaking of whack jobs who destroy businesses they don’t like, Obama takes the cake, no? Being in the coal power or oil drilling business now would make anyone nervous with this guy in charge. I’ll take a patriotic jingoist any time over a naive incompetent who kisses up to royalty.

  146. Smokey:
    From the Lansner article I referenced above: {Assuming CO2 is NOT the driving mechanism behind large changes in average temperature}
    ““What is the mechanism behind ice ages???”
    This is a question many alarmists asks, and if you can’t answer, then CO2 is the main temperature driver. End of discussion. There are obviously many factors not yet known, so I will just illustrate one hypothetical solution to the mechanism of ice ages among many:
    First of all: When a few decades of low sunspot number is accompanied by Dalton minimum and 50 years of missing sunspots is accompanied by the Maunder minimum, what can for example thousands of years of missing sunspots accomplish? We don’t know.
    What we saw in the Maunder minimum is NOT all that missing solar activity can achieve, even though some might think so. In a few decades of solar cooling, only the upper layers of the oceans will be affected. But if the cooling goes on for thousands of years, then the whole oceans will become colder and colder. It takes around 1000-1500 years to “mix” and cool the oceans. So for each 1000-1500 years the cooling will take place from a generally colder ocean. Therefore, what we saw in a few decades of maunder minimum is in no way representing the possible extend of ten thousands of years of solar low activity.”

    How can anyone thinking logically, knowing what we know about terrestrial, solar, and celestial cycles and their incomprehensible lenths (to humans), not allow for the possibility of a thousand or 10-thousand year long solar minimum? Just in terrestrial terms, the Siberian Traps lasted for a million years or so, and the more recent Deccan Traps laste “only” about 30,000 years or so. In “The Chilling Stars”, Svensmark points out the vast celestial time periods as he also theorizes that the terrestrial cooling/warming cycles are related to solar cycles and their interaction with cosmic rays streaming through the galaxy.

    There is another graph (which I can’t find the link to at the moment) that shows a similar pattern from ice cores in Greenland. Same pattern, several thousand miles apart. Proof? No. Coincidence? Not likely.

    The pattern is for ice ages, with warm periods like the current one that started about 10k yrs ago being the exception. We’d better learn to adapt, but knowing the progressive penchant for blaming everyone but themselves for whatever ills befall mankind, I don’t see it happening.

  147. Smokey:
    On the other subject, i.e. progressives, I would consider the most successful of the whole 20th century to be the vaunted Franklin Roosevelt. He came out of the Wilson administration and while I can’t remember the exact phrase he used, he subscribed to the Rahm Emmanuel philosophy of not letting a good crisis go to waste. When MacArthur went into the Hooverville and killed a few of the protesters, Roosevelt commented something like “We have just been handed the Presidency”.
    Unfortunately, Obama appears to be Roosevelt on steroids.

  148. Smokey-“And speaking of whack jobs who destroy businesses they don’t like, Obama takes the cake, no? Being in the coal power or oil drilling business now would make anyone nervous with this guy in charge. I’ll take a patriotic jingoist any time over a naive incompetent who kisses up to royalty.”

    Basically agreed on all counts, Smokey.

  149. What NPR did to Juan Williams

    by ThinkAsTheyDoOrElse

    Dark humor involving a bird, a wind turbine, and funny music

    Similar to video posted in tips and notes but quote puzzle angle is missing.

Comments are closed.