Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

April 25, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

KATRINA AND GLOBAL WARMING....So maybe Hurricane Katrina was a result of global warming after all. Here's the latest:

"The hurricanes we are seeing are indeed a direct result of climate change and it's no longer something we'll see in the future, it's happening now," said Greg Holland, a division director at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado.

Holland told a packed hall at the American Meteorological Society's 27th Conference on Hurricanes and Tropical Meteorology that the wind and warmer water conditions that fuel storms that form in the Caribbean are "increasingly due to greenhouse gases. There seems to be no other conclusion you can logically draw."

....Holland, director of the Mesoscale and Microscale Meteorology Division of the federal research center, said tropical storm anomalies in the 1940s and 1950s can be explained by natural variability.

But he said carbon dioxide started changing traceable patterns in the 1970s and by the early 1990s, the atmospheric results were affecting the storm numbers and intensities.

"What we're seeing right now in global climate temperature is a signature of climate change," said Holland, a native of Australia. "The large bulk of the scientific community say what we are seeing now is linked directly to greenhouse gases."

There are still some doubters, but it looks like the connection between Katrina and global warming is hardly the laughable notion conservatives made it out to be last year. In fact, it's very nearly conventional wisdom.

Kevin Drum 10:06 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (228)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

Posted by: doc on April 25, 2006 at 10:21 PM | PERMALINK

The science seems to be supporting common sense conclusions. Must be crackpot. Won't some fundamentalist please tell us what to think?!

Posted by: dennisS on April 25, 2006 at 10:31 PM | PERMALINK

May you live in interesting times, motherfuckers

Posted by: MillionthMonkey on April 25, 2006 at 10:34 PM | PERMALINK

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

It isn't falling so much as coming at you vertically -- with sustained speeds of over 150mph as it peels the roof of your house.

Posted by: Windhorse on April 25, 2006 at 10:36 PM | PERMALINK

Careful, Kevin. This guy is still an outlier, and just because he made some bold claims at a conference -- and the media went nuts about it -- is no reason to elevate him to the status of "conventional wisdom."

The science around global warming and current extreme weather events is still very tentative. Let's all chill out and wait for it to develop. There are plenty of good reasons to take action on global warming that are not tied to any individual weather event.

Posted by: Realish on April 25, 2006 at 10:36 PM | PERMALINK

You know, if we somehow managed to take money and profit out of the equasion I wonder how many people would still doubt global warming? If it wasn't a direct threat to their bottom line would they still fight tooth and nail against the idea especially when you can see the ice caps melting and the storms increasing in strength? I fear that most of the "doubters" are only against the idea due to their ideology of greed and when they finally drown in the rising waters it will be because they refuse to leave all of their stuff behind.

Posted by: Eric Paulsen on April 25, 2006 at 10:37 PM | PERMALINK

during the one of the many hurricanes following katrina, i recall one of the cnn anchorettes actually asking the weather bunny if global warming played any part in the increase in number and severity -- and was treated with a cheery dismissal. now, on to commercial.

Posted by: linda on April 25, 2006 at 10:39 PM | PERMALINK

If there's a bad winter its global warming melting ice, triggering cold winters

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,872591,00.html

If there's a bad summer its global warming

If there's a storm there's global warming

Strangely enough the state of computer modelling in climatology means that you can declare anything, AFTER THE EVENT to be caused by greenhouse gases.

Of course, to be credible enough to convince people to take rises to energy prices, they have to predict stuff BEFORE THE EVENT which they haven't done to any accuracy.

At present climatology is a religion, with a bunch of high priests playing with unrealistic models, to satisfy their funding (be it corporate or green lobby).

Posted by: McA on April 25, 2006 at 10:44 PM | PERMALINK

Lord, here comes the flood
We'll say goodbye to flesh and blood
If again the seas are silent
in any still alive
It'll be those who gave their island to survive
Drink up, dreamers, you're running dry.

Peter Gabriel

Posted by: Eric Paulsen on April 25, 2006 at 10:46 PM | PERMALINK

We simply do not have enough data points to sort this out. We will not have the science to "prove" this relationship anytime in the near future. Instead this is a risk question related to our values. What if we do nothing and the phenomenon turns out to be real vs. what if we change our way of life and it turns out to be mostly a natural cycle. We do not spend enough time discussing future _scenarios_ and what we are willing to trade off. Instead we see another round of this sirt of debate.

Posted by: ecoboz on April 25, 2006 at 10:46 PM | PERMALINK

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0819/p16s01-sten.html

And there's people blaming earthquakes on global warming!

Climatologists are soothsayers. Everytime something bad happens, they run around saying "you did not do what I say". Then hope for more funding. Or restrictions and more funding to recognize the impact of the restrictions.

Posted by: McA on April 25, 2006 at 10:48 PM | PERMALINK

Actually, it isn't the straight line winds, the storm surge, the relentless rain or the powerful impact of the storm itself, but the humidity that gets you.

The humidity, eh? Sounds like another problem that only the Invisible Hand can solve for us.

Posted by: Windhorse on April 25, 2006 at 10:49 PM | PERMALINK

it looks like the connection between Katrina and global warming is hardly the laughable notion conservatives made it out to be last year. In fact, it's very nearly conventional wisdom.

Correction, Kevin, it's very nearly convention wisdom among scientists-- the very people whose opinions don't matter one bit to right wring pundits and policymakers.

Posted by: Constantine on April 25, 2006 at 10:54 PM | PERMALINK

Everytime something bad happens, they run around saying "you did not do what I say".

Funny, you do the same thing when talking about Muslims.

Does that make you a soothsayer too?

Posted by: Windhorse on April 25, 2006 at 10:56 PM | PERMALINK

The science around global warming and current extreme weather events is still very tentative.

On what planet?

Let's all chill out and wait for it to develop.

How long?

Posted by: BB on April 25, 2006 at 11:05 PM | PERMALINK

Shit that must mean it's time for Bush to give the oil companies another tax break!

Posted by: paul on April 25, 2006 at 11:16 PM | PERMALINK

The science around global warming and current extreme weather events is still very tentative. Let's all chill out and wait for it to develop. There are plenty of good reasons to take action on global warming that are not tied to any individual weather event.

As an environmental scientist, with a paper in review that deals with spatial variability of lake effect snowfall and climate change, I'm still skeptical as well and agree with the above. There's a fine line between the logic and common sense thinking that fuels these hypotheses, and the unmitigated fact that the earth's climate and associated weather is a vast, extraordinarily complex system. 40ish years of data is still rather limited when dealing with interrelated cycles that are 10, 20, and 50 years long or longer.

That's not to say that a trend does not exist, but there's also thinking that with global climate change tropical storm generation could be impeded by changed atmospheric conditions.

Posted by: ChrisS on April 25, 2006 at 11:17 PM | PERMALINK

Man this reminds me --- what's happening in Australia? Wasn't a place called, ironically enough, Darwin in the sights of a Cat 5 this week?

....toddles off to another part of the internets....

Ok, it's called Monica and it was heading for Darwin based on stuff dateline Apr 24th, but I can't find anything newer (and I think if it's an Austrialian site that means it's 2 days, not one old)

Posted by: doesn't matter on April 25, 2006 at 11:21 PM | PERMALINK

Sounds like another problem that only the Invisible Hand can solve for us.

Posted by: Windhorse on April 25, 2006 at 10:49 PM | PERMALINK

Actually the economics behind the Invisible Hand is well advanced and would note that environmental issues (due to the free rider problem) can't be solved by the Invisible Hand.

Invisible Hand requires:

1. Willing buyer, willing seller
2. Competition

There is no 'buyer' for the environment. I have the same weather whether I drive a Hum-vee (I wish) or a Prius.

Posted by: McA on April 25, 2006 at 11:22 PM | PERMALINK

Triumph the Insult Comic Dog interviews four Republican Senators on the subject of global warming:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3356749997251913569&q=earth+to+america&pl=true

Posted by: Anonymous on April 25, 2006 at 11:23 PM | PERMALINK

...the connection between Katrina and global warming is hardly the laughable notion conservatives made it out to be last year.

Conservatives?

You mean those dinosaurs that won Iraq for us?

I mean really... so-called conservatives make a stopped clock look brilliant.

PS: New Orleans is going to get hit again this summer. Hope the levies are up and built to conservative specs.

LOL.

Posted by: koreyel on April 25, 2006 at 11:25 PM | PERMALINK

Where as climatologists are..... and are strangely effective at declaring any short-term weather phenomenon to be caused by global warming....but ineffective at getting any 20 year prediction right.

Um, bullshit, dude. You are talking out your ass. The modeling has consistently predicted the magnitude of global temperature warming over the past decade. The models have gotten just better and more accurate.

Posted by: Bastard, Ph.D. on April 25, 2006 at 11:34 PM | PERMALINK

I'm still such a middle-aged newbee at this, but, boy, is this as suprise!

After hitting so many juvenile sites or rabid, right-wing, no-debate pages, this seemed like a haven of reasonable sense. Decent to some excellent comments and information, cites, links, etc., etc.; right-wingers putting in an oar for legitimate to illegitimate counter perspective. Compared to so many others (help me, if you want) seemed OK.

Now this!

So, damn me, I can't give a cite or link, but . . .

I read an article a couple of months ago about one of the primo US tropical storm predictors. Seemed like he had a fairly conservative statistical outlook. Last year, he predicted 13 major tropical storms in the Gulf and S. Atlantic. There were 26. Not only that, but their strength was also much greater than predicted. This was such an extreme statistical anomaly that his prediction for 2006 is -- guess what -- 13 major tropical storms. So, statistically, I'd say we've got a 3 year window to beat that to show a trend. If it happens this year we're in real trouble.

PERSONALLY, I'd take scientists (real ones, Al et al) over politicians or energy execs if my life relied on it.

Global warming is a scientific high-probability. In the 1950s the Dutch, after flooding, had the sense to bet on a 10,000 year probability--with their present-day science!

We're not even betting on 100 years in our 2100 year present day science!

WE ARE SUCKERS!!!!!

Posted by: notthere on April 25, 2006 at 11:36 PM | PERMALINK

No, I'm not that old. It's 2006.

Isn't it?

Posted by: notthere on April 25, 2006 at 11:42 PM | PERMALINK

Blaming any one event on global warming isn't responsible, from what I gather, but that's partially because it provides fuel for the moronic "skeptics".

Inevitably, there will be some wild exaagerations and careless soothsaying associated with global warming--not by scientists, but by the dreaded mainstream media. Dire predictions will always sell more copies of Time.
But there is also a reality out there called "climate change"--and it is very, very well established by mountains of evidence.

Real Climate has a good post up about alarmism in the media right now:

http://www.realclimate.org/

As does Grist:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/4/24/164937/859

It's especially fun to read the comments in the former when "skeptics" write in and try to spout the kind of bullshit McA has been spouting here, and encounter real scientists.

Posted by: zip on April 25, 2006 at 11:44 PM | PERMALINK

The solution is clear. This Greg Holland guy needs to be muzzled, while Homeland Security investigates to see if he ever voted against God's Own Party.

Posted by: sglover on April 25, 2006 at 11:48 PM | PERMALINK

Sounds like another problem that only the Invisible Hand can solve for us.
Posted by: Windhorse on April 25, 2006 at 10:49 PM PERMALINK.


Absolument mon ami...

But it is even worse than that:

The Invisible Hand insists on a transportation system that kills 40,000 Americans year after year (Imagine if the Amtrak lost 109 people a day).

The Invisible Hand has create hostile and ugly traffic jams in every substantial American community in the country. Wasting huge amounts of our finite lifetimes in gridlock and fuming behind red lights.

The Invisible Hand has usurped vast amounts of prime American acerage for paving. Funny: How come everybody wants to drive but NOBODY wants to live on a busy street? Don't ask the invisible hand that question: it's dumber than dog shit and will give you NO intelligible answer.

The Invisible hand has turned Americans into fat dollops with legs that look like jello mixed with cottage cheese. Ugly. Fat. Diseased. Legs.
In short: The Invisible hand has stolen the legs right out from under Americans and only given them illness in return.

The Invisible hand is the CAUSE of global warming. And is INCOMPLETLEY incapable of addressing its solution.

Conclusion:

The Invisible Hand is not entirely worthless. But
it needs to be put on a leash and made to serve mankind.

Further conclusion: Anybody who still thinks the Invisible Hand will solve global warming needs to be chopped up and fed to either fish or trees. That is the only higher purpose they can ever attain to...

Posted by: koreyel on April 25, 2006 at 11:49 PM | PERMALINK

BTW, the first part of Kevin Phillips's book American Theocracy discusses the degree to which oil has shaped America and American politics and the unlikelihood that, as we hit peak oil and beyond, the country can rethink its energy sources. Fascinating book.

Posted by: LeisureGuy on April 25, 2006 at 11:52 PM | PERMALINK

koreyel:

The Invisible Hand likes to give us the Invisible Finger.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on April 25, 2006 at 11:52 PM | PERMALINK

Superb example of another media propaganda blast.

Experts: Global warming behind 2005 hurricanes

Note how that is worded. A slam-dunk conclusion by the article writer, who knew exactly what he wanted when he went to the conference, and wrote the article accordingly.

Why are some of these "experts" considered to be right (three mentioned by name) while the other ones are automatically wrong (one mentioned by name)?

A study Holland helped write last fall wasn't nearly as certain in its conclusions.

Posted by: tbrosz on April 25, 2006 at 11:56 PM | PERMALINK

So what makes someone a real scientist if he's only right in hindsight? Or if they resort to disinformation to try and avoid debate?

There's a logical step between A and B:

A. Climate change is happening

B. Regulating man's economic activity would result in a reduction in that climate change that would be of benefit to mankind

A is one thing. B is another. Trying to use A to dodge debate on B is a political tactic, not science.


Posted by: McA on April 26, 2006 at 12:03 AM | PERMALINK

I don't know about you guys, but I don't need the thought of hurricanes pounding the Gulf Coast to scare the shit out of me about global warming. Imagining parts of the U.S. underwater and the global economy tanking does the trick quite nicely, thank you.

Posted by: Alexander Wolfe on April 26, 2006 at 12:05 AM | PERMALINK

off topic, tbrosz, but I thought you of all people might appreciate this .

Opening graph:
"I've always thought that one of the perverse consequences of a libertarian utopian government that does nothing but national defense, policing and dispute resolution would be that this government would naturally seek to expand its powers in those areas. If a state's only function is policing, it functions as a ... police state."

Posted by: craigie on April 26, 2006 at 12:18 AM | PERMALINK

craigie--

you must have some special privilege on this site, as your post of 12:18 am was not deleted even though it does not relate to the topic of the thread.

in the previous thread my reference to the Illinois Legislature's effort to ask the Congress to impeach the President under a never used Congressional rule was unceremoniously deleted.

Posted by: lib on April 26, 2006 at 12:25 AM | PERMALINK

"So what makes someone a real scientist if he's only right in hindsight? "

As has already been stated, "real scientists" have not been right "only in hindisght."
The models have so far understated, not overstated, the extent of climate change. Try doing some homework away from right wing think tanks.

"Or if they resort to disinformation to try and avoid debate?"

That's a fair characterization of the so called "skeptics," who continually make up horseshit about the "medieval warming period" or produce lists of skeptical "scientists" who turn out to be dentists and chiropractors.

"There's a logical step between A and B:

A. Climate change is happening

B. Regulating man's economic activity would result in a reduction in that climate change that would be of benefit to mankind"

You're right, and boy that sure would be a dumb argument. Of course, it's a strawman argument, like so much else that comes from the clowns on the right.

Try this one:
A. Climate change is happening; serious negative consequences as predicted by the models are already happening.
B. Continued climate change is very likely to have extremely negative consequences, possibly devastating ones.
C. Man made carbon dioxide emissions appear to be by far the most significant cause of climate change.
D.We must reduce carbon dioxide emissions and avoid worsening the situation (though we will also have to discuss ways to adapt to the mess we've already made.)

After that comes a conversation about ways to reduce carbon emissions--and that includes nuclear power, among other solutions. Of course it also includes further arguments that the economy will be just devastated if we make any changes, often backed up by speculative economic forecasts that make the shakiest psuedo-science look like gold. But this is the conversation that serious people need to have--and many corporations (including WalMart!)and even some republicans are joining it.

Posted by: zip on April 26, 2006 at 12:32 AM | PERMALINK

lib:

I've never heard of anyone's posts being deleted here, lib.

Including those Chinese character spammers ...

You must've missed yours somehow. People post OT all the time here and I've never seen it deleted.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on April 26, 2006 at 12:33 AM | PERMALINK

lib: you must have some special privilege on this site, as your post of 12:18 am was not deleted even though it does not relate to the topic of the thread.

I knitted craigie a magic cape. It was supposed to make Bush go shushy every time craigie donned it, but I don't knit very competently. So all it does is protect his posts.

in the previous thread my reference to the Illinois Legislature's effort to ask the Congress to impeach the President under a never used Congressional rule was unceremoniously deleted.

No, really? I've never seen ANYTHING deleted here except a really long piece of snuff spam, after many requests from all and sundry.

Posted by: shortstop on April 26, 2006 at 12:35 AM | PERMALINK

I'm just waiting to see if we get another season of Category 5 hurricanes following one on another like baby ducklings, just as we had last year. Plus so many smaller hurricanes they ran out of cute names for them.

If we don't, great. If we do, maybe this notion that it's just normal variability will lose a little steam.

Posted by: jimBOB on April 26, 2006 at 12:36 AM | PERMALINK

rmck1 and shortstop

I was surprised too. Perhaps it was deleted because it was the first post, and Kevin didn't want to start the discusssion with an OT comment.

Posted by: lib on April 26, 2006 at 12:40 AM | PERMALINK

Wasn't a place called, ironically enough, Darwin in the sights of a Cat 5 this week?

Darwin, of course, was completely flattened by Cyclone Tracy on Christmas Eve 1974 (I think '75...). Completely flattened - 70% of housing destroyed.

Darwin's on cyclone alert again due to Monica bearing down from the north.

BTW, we are facing a banana shortage in Australia due to the fact our entire f*cking crop (sorry, industry) got wiped out by cyclone Larry a month ago.

We're expecting more.

This is not a usual cyclone season for us.

Posted by: floopmeister on April 26, 2006 at 12:42 AM | PERMALINK

Dang, floop, hang in there. Rough year for Oz.

Posted by: shortstop on April 26, 2006 at 12:48 AM | PERMALINK

A single event is not statiscically viable. Katrina is not useful in itself.

Which "Invisible Hand" are we talking about? I prefer to stick to Adam Smith rather than the usual modern co-opt of other people's creations. Wish the oldies had copyright the same way the Repubs have exrended it to anyone the last few years.

I wish the US education system was better. Teach critical facilties and logic. Then we wouldn't have to put up with specious arguments we hear about science. IT'S ALL THEORY.

Harsh, but:

The right wing Bush/Fundamentalist Christian/Scientologist/Neanderthal people who don't understand 17th Century science, let alone 21st Century science: NOTHING IS CERTAIN.

Read Popper's "The Logic of Scientific Discovery." It's all theory.

So we seek truth without predicated bias or belief. Whoops! Kind of rules out religion. Lots of religious scientists but they manage to put that to one side as they work. Unlike politicians who, particularly in the US, think religion trumps logic.

I don't bet against gravity and the math that derived. I don't bet against thermodynamics. I don't bet aganst aerodynamics, which 100 years ago were almosat totally unknown but now an aircraft can be totally designed by computer. I'll bet against cancer and the human genome (they're interlinked) that we can cure the one (we were promised that 25 years ago now) or fully understand the other in 25 years (and that is a low estimate).

So, let's get serious. We, need to understand we have headed down a dead end street at 120mph.

When do we put the brakes ON?

Posted by: notthere on April 26, 2006 at 12:54 AM | PERMALINK

Ok, I confess. Kevin and I are lovers. That's why I can write whatever I want.

No, that's not true. The truth is, I am Kevin.

Ok, that's not true either.

It must be shortstop's magic cape. Which hangs just low enough to protect my, um, posts. You naughty girl! And up so late, as well!

Posted by: craigie on April 26, 2006 at 1:01 AM | PERMALINK

Just trying to recover from the ballpark-induced hypothermia, monsieur le craigie. (3-1...take that, Marlins! Have I ever mentioned how much I don't like the Marlins?)

Posted by: shortstop on April 26, 2006 at 1:03 AM | PERMALINK

floopmeister:

Oz, eh. Well, g'day 'n' g'luck. Plenty of bananas here in the US but too cheap. You may know that.

So what can you give us?

With global warming, the sea mass and lower land mass in the southern hemisphere means slower change. But we hear about the snow melt on the Antarctic peninsula.

What's the view down under?

RU or RL?

Posted by: notthere on April 26, 2006 at 1:14 AM | PERMALINK

Or perhaps the phrase impeachment of the President is verboten here.

To hell with center leftists.

Posted by: lib on April 26, 2006 at 1:14 AM | PERMALINK

lib, I really don't think it was that. If you're concerned, why not e-mail Kevin and ask him? He'll tell you.

Posted by: shortstop on April 26, 2006 at 1:21 AM | PERMALINK

Actually, I think Inkblot answers all of Kevin's mail. But yes, you'll get a response.

Posted by: craigie on April 26, 2006 at 1:23 AM | PERMALINK

the analogy of CFCs, presented w/i a longer post by Dr. Jeff Masters:

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=341&tstamp=200604

Here's the excerpt near the end of the longer post:

"Flashback to 1974

On June 28, 1974, Sherry Rowland and Mario Molina, chemists at the University of California, Irvine, published the first scientific paper warning that human-generated chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) could cause serious harm to Earth's protective ozone layer. They calculated that if CFC production continued to increase at the going rate of 10%/year until 1990, then remain steady, CFCs would cause a global 5 to 7 percent ozone loss by 1995 and 30-50% loss by 2050.

They warned that the loss of ozone would significantly increase the amount of skin-damaging ultraviolet UV-B light reaching the surface, greatly increasing skin cancer and cataracts. The loss of stratospheric ozone could also significantly cool the stratosphere, potentially causing destructive climate change. Although no stratospheric ozone loss had been observed yet, CFCs should be banned, they said. At the time, the CFC industry was worth about $8 billion in the U.S., employed over 600,000 people directly, and 1.4 million people indirectly (Roan, 1989).

Critics and skeptics--primarily industry spokespeople and scientists paid by conservative think tanks--immediately attacked the theory. Despite the fact that Molina and Rowland's theory had wide support in the scientific community, these handful of skeptics, their voices greatly amplified by the public relations machines of powerful corporations and politicians sympathetic to them, succeeded in delaying imposition of controls on CFCs for over a decade. Scientists who advocated CFC controls were accused of being alarmists out to get research funding. One CFC industry magazine stated in 1975, "The whole area of research grants and the competition among scientists to get them must be considered a factor in the politics of ozone" (Roan, 1989).

DuPont, which made 1/4 of the world's CFCs, spent millions of dollars running full-page newspaper advertisements defending CFCs in 1975, claiming there was no proof that CFCs were harming the ozone layer. The chairman of DuPont commented that the ozone depletion theory was "a science fiction tale...a load of rubbish...utter nonsense." (Chemical Week, 16 July 1975). The aerosol industry also launched a PR blitz, issuing a press release stating that the ozone destruction by CFCs was a theory, and not fact. This press release, and many other 'news stories' favorable to industry, were generated by the aerosol industry and printed by the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Fortune magazine, Business Week, and the London Observer (Blysky and Blysky, 1985). The symbol of Chicken Little claiming that "The sky is falling!" was used with great effect by the PR campaign, and appeared in various newspaper headlines.

The CFC industry companies hired the world's largest public relations firm, Hill & Knowlton, who organized a month-long U.S. speaking tour in 1975 for noted British scientist Richard Scorer, a former editor of the International Journal of Air Pollution and author of several books on pollution. Scorer blasted Molina and Rowland, calling them "doomsayers", and remarking, "The only thing that has been accumulated so far is a number of theories."

Sound familiar?

In a 1984 interview in The New Yorker, Rowland concluded, "Nothing will be done about this problem until there is further evidence that a significant loss of ozone has occurred. Unfortunately, this means that if there is a disaster in the making in the stratosphere we are probably not going to avoid it." The very next year, all the "Chicken Little" scientists were proved right, when the Antarctic ozone hole was discovered. Human-generated CFCs were indeed destroying Earth's protective ozone layer. In fact, the ozone depletion was far worse than Molina and Roland had predicted. No one had imagined that ozone depletions like the 50% losses being observed by 1987 over Antarctica were possible so soon. Despite the continued opposition of many of the skeptics, the Montreal Protocol, an international agreement to phase out ozone-destroying chemicals, was hurriedly approved in 1987 to address the threat. By 2003, it appeared that the ozone hole had stopped growing, thanks to the quick action. Molina and Rowland were awarded the Nobel Prize in 1995. The citation from the Nobel committee credited them with helping to deliver the Earth from a potential environmental disaster."

Posted by: LindaG on April 26, 2006 at 1:24 AM | PERMALINK

Here's another possibility, lib: user error. I'm pretty sure that's what Occam's razor leaves behind.

Posted by: Realish on April 26, 2006 at 1:25 AM | PERMALINK

Actually, I think Inkblot answers all of Kevin's mail. But yes, you'll get a response.

And craigie would know, given their special relationship. Just kidding, lib. Seriously, just follow up with Kevin.

Posted by: shortstop on April 26, 2006 at 1:27 AM | PERMALINK

1. I hope McA's island is completely flooded by rising sea levels.

2. I hope that Houston is wiped out by a hurricane this season.

Neocons will still be blaming liberals. But at least some of the worst loudmouths will be gone.

Posted by: osama_been_forgotten on April 26, 2006 at 1:37 AM | PERMALINK

I'm just waiting to see if we get another season of Category 5 hurricanes following one on another like baby ducklings, just as we had last year. Plus so many smaller hurricanes they ran out of cute names for them.
Posted by: jimBOB on April 26, 2006 at 12:36 AM | PERMALINK

This year, we should just name them all George.

Posted by: osama_been_forgotten on April 26, 2006 at 1:48 AM | PERMALINK

Hey! I live in Houston - and we're not all energy barons, you know, ;-)...

Seriously, though, if Rita would have stayed just a little bit south of it's final path, you might have had your wish last summer...

Even the so-called evacuation was ghastly: Many people died simply evacuating from this huge area (not just Houston, but much of this part of the state), stuck for hours and hours in non-moving traffic, w/o air-conditioning in their cars (which would use up their gas, which was running out everywhere, as cars simply crawled, if not stopped all together) in above 100 degree heat... Many were camping out in parking lots along miles of the freeway (hotels and shelters having filled up quickly).

If Rita had actually passed through the main route of evacuation, it would have been a nightmare... My family was fortunate, for we had family to stay w/ in a fairly safe place not too far away from our home.

Just the prospect of evacuating for many, especially the sick and elderly was terribly daunting, considering what people would face attempting to evacuate...

But, we in Houston imagine that this will not be a unique event for us now. And, although this has been my family's home for decades, we are planning to move as soon as we are able to do so. And I would guess that we're not the only ones thinking this way along much of the Gulf Coast now...

Posted by: LindaG on April 26, 2006 at 1:59 AM | PERMALINK

LindaG:

Despite the continued opposition of many of the skeptics, the Montreal Protocol, an international agreement to phase out ozone-destroying chemicals, was hurriedly approved in 1987 to address the threat. By 2003, it appeared that the ozone hole had stopped growing, thanks to the quick action. Molina and Rowland were awarded the Nobel Prize in 1995.

Situation as of January, 2006:

Stratospheric temperatures rose rapidly in November and the 2005 ozone hole is over. Generally ozone levels are at their summer maximum, with a weak gradient across the continent. The 2005 ozone hole was one of the deepest and largest recorded, with a peak of 25 million square kilometres in early September. Ozone values at Rothera in September were among the lowest recorded at this time of year, and values around 110 DU were reached on September 11, 19 and 20. Both Halley and Vernadsky recorded their second lowest values ever during September.

It's a no-lose situation. If the hole shrinks in the near future, t's because of the ban on CFCs. If it stays pretty much the same for many years to come, it will be because it takes "decades" for the fix to work.

Posted by: tbrosz on April 26, 2006 at 2:06 AM | PERMALINK

And don't forget the two Cat 5 tropical cyclones that have now hit Australia (Cyclones Larry - the worst in decades - and the most recent, Monica, which reached up to 220 mph, http://www.cnn.com/2006/WEATHER/04/24/cyclone.monica.ap/index.html?section=cnn_latest)

Posted by: LindaG on April 26, 2006 at 2:06 AM | PERMALINK

C. Man made carbon dioxide emissions appear to be by far the most significant cause of climate change.
D.We must reduce carbon dioxide emissions and avoid worsening the situation (though we will also have to discuss ways to adapt to the mess we've already made.)

Posted by: zip on April 26, 2006 at 12:32 AM | PERMALINK

I think C is unproven, and environmentalists try to make up for that with advocacy not science.

D is only true if the costs of reduction are less than the benefits.

If you shut down the world economy and carbon dioxide increases go down by only 25%...the world's still getting warmer. You are way better off hoping that economic development leads to some kind of energy technology breakthrough or
the biotech to do massive reforestation or desert conversion.

The DDT issue is another example, there are certainly some enviromental benefits to DDT being banned but I don't know if they exceed the number of lives lost to Malaria in the third world.

Posted by: McA on April 26, 2006 at 2:12 AM | PERMALINK

Global warming is pretty much accepted in Australia - there's not much argument about it.

Of course, that doesn't stop our government making us the other country not to sign the Kyoto agreement...

We're prtty much the biggest polluter per head, given that we live in a continent-sized sandbox of mineral goodies. Much of our power comes from dirty brown coal - we are sitting atop millions of tonnes of the stuff (that's what happens when a continent that was once green becomes desert...)

Nuclear energy is on the agenda again, and we've just signed a massive agreement with China to supply them with uranium (again, we have the largest supplies in the world). We're also seriously discussing selling uranium to India - but no plans to have reactors here yet.

Hopefully we'll continue our development of solar power (gee - plenty of sunlight too!) since we're pretty good at fiddling around with that technology.

Our problem is that we are pretty much self-reliant in energy resources - we don't have the sense of energy panic like Europe does.

This is an example of something that's currently in development - 200MW being the projected output.

Posted by: floopmeister on April 26, 2006 at 2:24 AM | PERMALINK

I think C is unproven, and environmentalists try to make up for that with advocacy not science.

And of all people, YOU would know.

Do you have any evidence, you insufferable pest?

Posted by: obscure on April 26, 2006 at 2:32 AM | PERMALINK

Do you have any evidence, you insufferable pest?

Posted by: obscure on April 26, 2006 at 2:32 AM | PERMALINK

No, but who should bear the burden of proof before they mess around with something like energy policy?

One would assume it was 'science'.

Funny kinda of science that says, its true unless you can prove otherwise.

Posted by: McA on April 26, 2006 at 2:55 AM | PERMALINK

(that's what happens when a continent that was once green becomes desert...)

Posted by: floopmeister on April 26, 2006 at 2:24 AM | PERMALINK

And how was that caused by industrial development?
I heard a rumor that the natives didn't have much in the way of SUV's while the desert was already there.

Posted by: McA on April 26, 2006 at 2:57 AM | PERMALINK

http://www.amureprints.com/img1/Toles/2002/tt020613.gif

Posted by: me on April 26, 2006 at 2:57 AM | PERMALINK

(that's what happens when a continent that was once green becomes desert...)

And how was that caused by industrial development?

For crying out loud, don't be such an idiot.

Posted by: floopmeister on April 26, 2006 at 3:01 AM | PERMALINK

http://www.amureprints.com/img1/Toles/2002/tt020613.gif

Posted by: me on April 26, 2006 at 2:57 AM | PERMALINK

The logic behind a threat by a world power intimidating a state that aids or shelters terror
is better demonstrated than the proportion of Global Warming caused by mankind.

Its called Gunboat diplomacy or Pax Romana and worked for at most Empires.

Posted by: McA on April 26, 2006 at 3:02 AM | PERMALINK

The Democrts have been handed a huge campaign issue and they are so stuck in their scaredy-cat conventional reactive thinking that they won't use it. Here is the speech, you bunch of cowards!

"Why are the Republicans SOFT ON GLOBAL WARMING? Could it be because they have two oilmen in the White House? Because they are in the pockets of the oil companies? We can't wait any long for them to figure it out. Vote for us or your children will be washed away by the rising sea levels and intensified storms. They will starve because the changed weather patterns will turn0 farmland into desert!"

For heavens sake, if the situation were reversed, dont you think Karl would pin the hurricanes, the rising tides, the burning brush-lands, totally on the Dems?

This is all true stuff and yet the wimpydems are so afraid of being bold, they wont touch what is potentially the most effective campaign issue of the century!

Posted by: James of DC on April 26, 2006 at 3:25 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin: "In fact, [the connection between Katrina and global warming is] very nearly conventional wisdom."

Except, of course, among those 32% of Americans who still think the Bush Administration is -- to quote the Bushmeister himself -- "doin' a heckuva job."

Fortunately, their numbers are dwindling -- not fast enough for my satisfaction, but they're still in decline.

James of DC: "This is all true stuff and yet the wimpydems are so afraid of being bold, they wont touch what is potentially the most effective campaign issue of the century!"

Not all Democrats are "wimpydems" -- just approximately 80% of the professional Democrats who reside within the Beltway and serve in Congress.

It's the amateurs like us out in the hinterlands who are ready to kick some corpulent, corrupt Republiican ass! We just may have to kick some reluctant DC Democratic booty out of the way first in order to do that -- present company excepted.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on April 26, 2006 at 4:03 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin: "In fact, [the connection between Katrina and global warming is] very nearly conventional wisdom."

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on April 26, 2006 at 4:03 AM | PERMALINK

Unless a lack of wind causes environmental damage. In which case, some climate guy will blame lack of wind and subsequent problems on global warming...then find a climate model to justify the statement.

Oh, look someone already has.!

Nasty Global Warming causes evil storms as well as unusually weak winds impacting plankton.

"But this year, the winds have been unusually weak, failing to generate much upwelling and reducing the number of phytoplankton."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/08/02/marine_problems_plague_pacific/


Posted by: McA on April 26, 2006 at 4:32 AM | PERMALINK

It's a no-lose situation. If the hole shrinks in the near future, t's because of the ban on CFCs. If it stays pretty much the same for many years to come, it will be because it takes "decades" for the fix to work. -tbroze

-------

Well, it wasn't a ban, it was a phase-out, so that by the current day, the total global accumulation has slowed and has begun to decrease.

Did you happen to look at some of the links from the page you cited in order to find out more about the topic that you so readily dismiss out of hand?

If not, you might appreciate reading from this one...

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/unepSciQandA.pdf

"To help foster a continued interaction, this component of the Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2002 presents 20 questions and answers about the often complex science of ozone depletion. The questions address the nature of atmospheric ozone, the chemicals that cause ozone depletion, how global and polar ozone
depletion occur, and what could lie ahead for the ozone layer. A brief answer to each question is first given in italics; an expanded answer then follows. The answers are based on the information presented in the 2002 and earlier Assessment reports. These reports and the answers
provided here were all prepared and reviewed by a large international group of scientists."

For one thing, it explains well the differences between the every day naturally occuring compounds (and there are some), which do play a part in the destruction of ozone, and those that are man made, which were specifically designed for their extraordinary endurance, and play a much greater role in ozone destruction...

It shows what happens w/ solar radiation variation and w/ volcanic eruptions, for example, and shows what distinguishes them from the contribution of man-made chemicals...

It's an informative article...

Posted by: LindaG on April 26, 2006 at 4:40 AM | PERMALINK

Floopmeister: okay, you've got coal, uranium and sunshine; how are you fixed for wind? (Apart from the hurricanes, of course.)

Best to save the coal and uranium for export if you can be self-reliant on renewables alone.

Posted by: bad Jim on April 26, 2006 at 4:41 AM | PERMALINK

There are two things we really need to do at this point.

The first is, on this thread, to stop even paying attention to the weirdos who are still trying to deny the reality of global warming.

The second is to start making it very clear to the "don't build anything anywhere ever" folks that human beings need energy to live, and it has to come from somewhere. The sneering upper-class privilege that would ban offshore wind farms in order to keep their sunset views looking it's still 1800 is a deadly threat to Planet Earth.

Anyone who thinks wind turbines are ugly and anti-nature needs to take a quick trip to Holland. When you see a long stretch of green meadow covered with sheep, and a wind turbine in the background, and you realize that the reason the meadow can stay green for the sheep is BECAUSE of the wind turbine, you start to get the picture.

Posted by: brooksfoe on April 26, 2006 at 4:56 AM | PERMALINK

The wind turbines kill birds. This is a problem we can fix, but we do need to fix it. That said, I find them an aesthetic enhancement.

I think that photovoltaic canopies would do wonders for parking lots, and perhaps even for highways. Intelligent design of buildings would make use of wind and sun and might largely obviate the need for air conditioning, particularly in the arid southwest US.

Transportation's the killer, though, and clean electricity probably won't solve it. We need to revise land use patterns so that we could depend on public transportation instead of personal vehicles, and that will probably take more than one generation to accomplish.

Posted by: bad Jim on April 26, 2006 at 5:14 AM | PERMALINK

the meadow can stay green for the sheep is BECAUSE of the wind turbine, you start to get the picture.

Posted by: brooksfoe on April 26, 2006 at 4:56 AM | PERMALINK

Unsubstantiated. In most cases, global warming will actually increase land available for agriculture. Less snow, more green.

Just don't own too much beachfront land.

Posted by: McA on April 26, 2006 at 6:23 AM | PERMALINK

Being in Holland, the particular meadow in which those sheep graze would a. be underwater since the 16th century if not for the wind power used to pump the water out of it, and b. will be underwater again within 200 years if the maximal global warming scenario comes to pass. Holland can survive a 5-foot rise in sea level; it can't survive a 20-foot rise.

"More agricultural area" is unsubstantiated. Much tundra will not be suited for agriculture or grazing due to thin or erosion-prone topsoil. (Ask the Vikings who settled Iceland and Greenland.) Meanwhile, warming is turning large areas of China, India, Brazil and Africa into desert. And while rainfall is up in Europe, it's down in the western plain states, threatening agriculture in Kansas, Nebraska, Montana and so on.

Posted by: brooksfoe on April 26, 2006 at 6:44 AM | PERMALINK

I've seen 50 years of weather--rather more than most who post here. It seems painfully obvious to me that the weather we see today is much more severe than what I saw 25 or 30 years ago. I mean, we had thunderstorms and tornado warnings in my small Michigan town in January--in January!--this year.

If you can't see this, you're blind, or too young to see the trend.

Posted by: rea on April 26, 2006 at 7:02 AM | PERMALINK

The increasing number of scientists concluding that the 2005 hurricane season was affected by global warming seems to be driven both by the extreme nature of that season as a whole and by increasing information on ocean temperatures and other factors that contributed to it. Dissenters seem to feel that ocean salinity, current patterns and other cyclical patterns have more or an impact on tropical ocean temperatures than overall atmospheric conditions.

To understand just how extraordinary last years hurricane season was and why the normal cyclical patterns are considered less likely to account for it, consider just how many records were broken last year.

1) Most tropical cyclones -- 28, previous record 21.
2) Most hurricanes -- 15, previous record 12.
3) Most catgory 5 hurricanes -- 4, previous record 2.
4) First, fourth and sixth most intense hurricanes ever recorded.
5) Highest Accumulated Cyclone Energy value (which tracks intensity and duration of all storms over the season) -- 250, previous record 243.

The season also featured several records and anomalies for numbers, strength and length of storms for various periods early and late in the season, as well as storms forming farther north and east that normal and in conditions that included heavy windshear that would normally weaken or disrupt storm systems.

Note that records are considered complete back to 1944 when systematic aircraft reconnaissance began for both tropical cyclones and disturbances that had the potential to develop into tropical cyclones. Prior to that extensive records are available for tropical cyclones that made landfall on the USA East and Gulf Coast back to 1899.

Posted by: tanj on April 26, 2006 at 7:08 AM | PERMALINK

See The Tragedy of the Commons, Garrett Hardin, 1968.

The notion can be applied to the atmosphere as well as to grazing areas. As each person (individual, town, corporation. . .) seeks to maximize their advantage by adding pollusive gases to a finite atmosphere, there is a positive (the gain that person or entity experiences by adding pollution) and a negative (the harm we all share as a result of polluted air).

As each individual decides for themselves to add more gases, the negatives eventually grow to outweigh the positives. It could be because of harm to lungs, or, in the case of global warming the suffering caused by drought, intense storms, rising ocean levels, melting tundra. The benefits and costs are quite measurable.

In this day and age it is utterly rediculous to consider the benefits of adding more CO2 to the atmosphere without considering the costs. I have invented a new word to describe this state of denial: trogladitic.

Posted by: pj_in_jesusland on April 26, 2006 at 7:13 AM | PERMALINK

Isn't it interesting that the same people who wanted us to go to war on the evidence of known liars, a complete lack of unequivocal support, and considerable testimony AGAINST the claims of WMD now feel that the considerable scientific evidence and near-unanymity of QUALIFIED scientists -- those actually in the field, and not bought and paid for by commercial interests -- is an insufficient base for action? Funny how that works.

Posted by: smartalek on April 26, 2006 at 7:50 AM | PERMALINK

It is kind of funny that people who can see Jesus in the grease of a frying pan...can't see God when he sends a few extra hurricanes and tornadoes, plagues of stinging insects, and throws in a few good boils for comic effect.

Hurricanes and torndoes are heat engines- add more heat and get more hurricane.

And yes, they did double check that.

Posted by: serial catowner on April 26, 2006 at 8:03 AM | PERMALINK

lucky for republicans, conservatives, and religious fundameltalists, hurricanes only kill and destroy the property of the poor, gays, feminists, and democrats who so richly deserve god's wrath...just ask Pat Robertson.

Posted by: zoot on April 26, 2006 at 8:26 AM | PERMALINK

look on the bright side, more natural disasters means more opportunity for republicans to line their pockets with disaster recovery money.

Posted by: pluege on April 26, 2006 at 8:30 AM | PERMALINK

You have to be an idiot not to accept that there's global warming, than man is reponsible for that warming in large part, and that it's going to have a dramatic effect on the world's weather and climate.

So, you'd have to be McA and tbrosz.

Posted by: phleabo on April 26, 2006 at 9:22 AM | PERMALINK

"Climatology is a religion" and "Climatologists just want funding"

Er... if that's true, then how come climatologists are routinely arguing for money to go to ameliorative policies and programs that they would have little if anything to do with? Most climatologists I've heard are always arguing for something to be done on the political front, not for more funding for climatological research.

In fact, it's the nay-sayers in the fossil fuel industries and the Bush administration that are always saying "we need to do more research."

It's the people who are against what the climatologists are saying who are arguing to give said climatologists more money to do more research...

Posted by: Adam Piontek on April 26, 2006 at 9:32 AM | PERMALINK

Increasingly, it's going to be possible to make someone look like an idiot and exclude them from the debate simply by noting that they are a global warming denialist.

Much like saying someone is a Holocaust denialist excludes them from further debate.

Posted by: brooksfoe on April 26, 2006 at 9:34 AM | PERMALINK

brooksfoe is (as always) right...why even waste time arguing with the last remaining deniers? They're the global-warming equivalent of yelling "Clinton's penis!" every time the Iraq war is mentioned. Just ignore them and keep the information flowing.

Posted by: shortstop on April 26, 2006 at 9:35 AM | PERMALINK

There are still some doubters, but ...

And the jury is still out on tobacco and Darwin, yeah.

In the trailer park, I mean.
.

Posted by: Grand Moff Texan on April 26, 2006 at 9:36 AM | PERMALINK

doc: The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

Are you mocking Bush about Iraq?

Or maybe about Iran?

Or leaks of classified info?

Or Social Security?

Posted by: Advocate for God on April 26, 2006 at 9:50 AM | PERMALINK

McAnus: At present climatology is a religion, with a bunch of high priests playing with unrealistic models, to satisfy their funding (be it corporate or green lobby).

At present, Bush administration policy is a religion, with a bunch of high priests palying with unrealistic models, to satisfy their egos and lust for power and revenge.

Posted by: Advocate for God on April 26, 2006 at 9:52 AM | PERMALINK

McAnus: Trying to use A to dodge debate on B is a political tactic, not science.

Trying to dodge B by lying about A is a partisan political tactic designed to enrich the already rich, not sound public policy.

Posted by: Advocate for God on April 26, 2006 at 9:54 AM | PERMALINK

If tanj is still out there, your list of hurricane/cyclone records for 2005 is interesting. What we're talking about here would be a trend - do the 2000-2004 seasons also tend to the top of those or related categories?

Posted by: VAMark on April 26, 2006 at 9:58 AM | PERMALINK

afg,

This is all nonsense driven by the fact Kyoto is such a disaster. No one is listening so they need to scream louder. These same idiots tried to ram Kyoto down everyones throats but could only get the fools to sign. Now Canada and the rest are looking for a way out. Kyoto accomplished the exact opposite of what it was designed to do. It created pollution.

The eco-freaks see it all slipping away and are using Katrina as a desperate attempt to change the subject and get more publicity. They had to be really spooked at the recent Gallup poll showing the environment ranked 13 of 20 issues. Allow me to explain, no one believes you!!!!!

Posted by: rdw on April 26, 2006 at 10:07 AM | PERMALINK

No, but who should bear the burden of proof before they mess around with something like energy policy?

The people trying to mess around with energy policy by, e.g., weakening existing environmental regulations to promote greater production and, therefore, use of fossil fuels. That would be, btw, the Bush Administration, right now.

Posted by: cmdicely on April 26, 2006 at 10:13 AM | PERMALINK

Just curious . . .

Why do we call oil, coal, shale oil etc. "fossil fuels?" Because they contain fossils?

I don't think so. We should name them for what they are -- carbon-based fuels, in honor of their contents and the gases they release into the astmosphere.

It would also force the trogladitic thinkers who deny global warming to at least acknowledge the active release of carbon when their favorite sources of energy are burned.

Posted by: pj_in_jesusland on April 26, 2006 at 10:19 AM | PERMALINK

rdw:

To quote Boudewijn de Grote's Dutch version of "The Times They Are a-Changin'",

Luister nou even en hou je bek
Want je staat in het water tot aan je nek

"Listen a minute and shut your trap,
'Cause the water you're standing in is up to your neck"

Rather an appropriate sentiment for the Dutch at this point in history. At least Phillips Petroleum has been working on alternative energy sources for 10 years already, and the Dutch have signed Kyoto and are a leading user of wind power. Not that it'll help them any if we in the US continue burning gasoline like crazy and manage to sink Amsterdam and Miami.

Posted by: brooksfoe on April 26, 2006 at 10:29 AM | PERMALINK

My apologies: it's Boudewijn de Groot, and it goes

Kom mensen en luister en hou je bek
Want het water dat komt jullie al tot je nek

The translation is about right. Also nicely for the metaphor, he translates Dylan's song title as "Er Komen Andere Tijden", but "tijden" in Dutch means both "times" and "tides".

Posted by: brooksfoe on April 26, 2006 at 10:36 AM | PERMALINK

OK,OK we are warming up due to emissions.

But at least I am sequestering lots of carbon in my 1.5 acre lot. (For sale by the way, owner finacing)

Posted by: Matt on April 26, 2006 at 10:38 AM | PERMALINK

At least Phillips Petroleum has been working on alternative energy sources for 10 years already, and the Dutch have signed Kyoto and are a leading user of wind power.

All of the majors are investing in alternative energy sources and the Dutch as well as the Canadians and the Spanish have INCREASED emissions MORE than the USA since 1990. Kyoto is a piece of crap. You would be lucky if it was just useless. It's not useless. It's made the situation WORSE!

Pull up some of Tony Blair's recent speeches on the subject. Kyoto is dead. Canada WILL pull out and the Dutch and Spain will follow. If not they get to pay fines to the Russians who've done NOTHING to stop polluting. It's the dumbest treaty in all of History. The Russians treated the entire thing with contempt and only signed to make money. You are fools!!!!

Posted by: rdw on April 26, 2006 at 10:40 AM | PERMALINK

It's not clear that global warming contributed to the severity of Katrina, but it is probable that global warming contributed to the number of tropical storms and hurricanes last year.

Posted by: raj on April 26, 2006 at 10:42 AM | PERMALINK

Sorry, but this just keep getting better: the song goes on

En geef toe dat je nat bent, doorweekt tot je hemd
Probeer het maar niet te vermijden.
Want wie niet wil verzuipen is wijs als ie zwemt.
Want er komen andere tijden.

"And admit that you're wet, soaked to your shirt,
Quit trying to avoid it.
For he who doesn't want to drown is wise to swim.
For the times, they are a-changin'."

Compare Dylan, greater still, obviously, as the orginal:

Come gather 'round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You'll be drenched to the bone.
If your time to you
Is worth savin'
Then you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin'.

Posted by: brooksfoe on April 26, 2006 at 10:42 AM | PERMALINK

Note that records are considered complete back to 1944

This makes them worthless for long term trend analysis. The foundation for your arguments is sand.

Posted by: rdw on April 26, 2006 at 10:45 AM | PERMALINK

Wah! Wah! Wah! Wah! Wah! Wahwahwahwahwahwah!

Posted by: rdw on April 26, 2006 at 10:49 AM | PERMALINK

rdw: the Dutch as well as the Canadians and the Spanish have INCREASED emissions MORE than the USA since 1990.

Carbon emissions for the US and Canada have gone up steadily since 1975, including since 1990, while emissions for Western Europe remained steady or decreased slightly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Emission_by_Region.png

You just make this stuff up, don't you?

Posted by: brooksfoe on April 26, 2006 at 10:54 AM | PERMALINK

By 2016 I will be ready to decide whether humans had anything at all to do with the present global warming, or whether this warming has gone into remission, continues to accelerate, or whatever.

In the meantime it isn't a bad idea to reduce our dependence on imported oil. In my ideal world, about 75% of our fixed-station generating capacity would be nuclear, most people would have solar features to their highly insulated homes, and all sensible people would forget about wind power and quit cluttering the skies with those bird-killing subsidy freaks.

Will the world climate spiral out of control if we do nothing for another decade? I am convinced that even a 20% cut in carbon emissions by theUSA unilaterally would do nothing measurable in terms of climate consequences but would have economic impacts highly disproportionate to the working class and working poor in America.

I maintain that cheap energy, particularly gasolene, has been the only real mechanism to actually increase the quality of life for the lower classes for some time, because cheap mobile transportation makes it easier for us lower types to balance our needs to seek speciality work and education opportunities even while we are forced out of expensive housing areas. I rode a metro bus to work for ten years and despised every trip with a hatred that far surpassed the mere inconvenience and slowness of this form of transportation. I got tired of witnessing crimes on the bus.

Posted by: Mike Cook on April 26, 2006 at 11:02 AM | PERMALINK

rdw: If not they get to pay fines to the Russians who've done NOTHING to stop polluting.

Carbon emissions from Eastern Europe and the former USSR dropped by 40% from 1990 to 2000 due to the collapse of the region's economies. They have still not recovered to their 1990 levels.

This explains why the Russians have little responsibility at this stage to curb CO2 emissions. Forcing impoverished Russians to bear the brunt of these changes while wealthy Americans do little or nothing would be obscene.

Posted by: brooksfoe on April 26, 2006 at 11:02 AM | PERMALINK

James Hansen, NASA head, said exactly this at a conference on February 10. He said that NOAA claims at the time that there was no connection between last year's hurricane intensities and global climate change was directly the result of intense political pressure. I looked up his scientific papers, which go back to the late '70s, and he is the real thing. He knows what he's talking about when he talks about science, and he knows what he's talking about when he talks about political pressure.
Now the kicker question: Why on earth should this be a political issue?

Posted by: Claire on April 26, 2006 at 11:07 AM | PERMALINK

I maintain that cheap energy, particularly gasolene, has been the only real mechanism to actually increase the quality of life for the lower classes for some time

Too bad, it's gone forever. Time for us to start figuring out other ways to live, eh?

Posted by: brooksfoe on April 26, 2006 at 11:07 AM | PERMALINK

Anyone who thinks wind turbines are ugly and anti-nature needs to take a quick trip to Holland.

Or southern Minnesota. We are starting to see a few sprout up. Farmers like them because they do not disrupt their crops and they provide another income from the fields.

They are no more ugly than water towers, and a lot less ugly than city power lines. They are just new - a change.

And puhlease stop the 'windmills kill birds' BS. The freaking blades are up higher than the birds usually fly, and they turn slowly no matter what the wind speed. Sheesh, it's not like there are a bunch of frigging fan blades slicing up the songbirds.

Posted by: Tripp on April 26, 2006 at 11:08 AM | PERMALINK

And puhlease stop the 'windmills kill birds' BS.

Thank you! Anybody who's seriously concerned about this can start a movement to ban plate glass; then I'll take them seriously.

Posted by: brooksfoe on April 26, 2006 at 11:11 AM | PERMALINK

we had some other moronic troll here a couple days ago, ranting about how no one would want an "ugly" windfarm near their property--then the idiot was going on and on about how nuclear was the only option.

Let's see, "no one" wants a wind farm, but they would welcome a nuclear power plant instead? Or a coal plant? Or many other types of factories that pollute as opposed to some windmills?

That's conservatard logic for you.

Posted by: haha on April 26, 2006 at 11:15 AM | PERMALINK

out of control thrill-seeking gangs displaced by hurricanes, running wild throughout the country killing millions of birds with handguns.

Probably illegal immigrants, mostly.

But all these Category 5 hurricanes are just a lot of hype by our sensationalistic media. How come the media never talk about all the nice weather in other parts of the country? On the very day Katrina hit, it was gorgeous in LA and balmy and clear in Minneapolis - but you wouldn't have known that from those left-wing propagandists at CNN.

Posted by: brooksfoe on April 26, 2006 at 11:20 AM | PERMALINK

Probably illegal immigrants, mostly.

And decadent. Don't forget their sexual decadence.

Posted by: shortstop on April 26, 2006 at 11:22 AM | PERMALINK

Windmills don't kill birds; people with guns kill birds.

Except for Cheney.

Posted by: ckelly on April 26, 2006 at 11:23 AM | PERMALINK

On a reality-based note:

Reuters, April 6: US Utilities' CO2 Emissions Up Since 1990 - Report

...between 1990 and 2004, the power producers' emissions of sulfur dioxide decreased about 44 percent, and those of nitrogen oxide fell 36 percent.

However, the report said their emissions of carbon dioxide, the main heat-trapping gas that scientists believe causes global warming, rose about 27 percent in the period and can be expected to increase further as new coal-fired power plants are built...

"Voluntary approaches for curbing greenhouse gas emissions are not working," Ceres President Mindy Lubber said in a statement. "Instead of reducing pollution, we now have a spate of new coal plants and inevitable greenhouse gas limits on a collision course that puts companies and shareholders at financial risk."
...

Daniel Lashof, science director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's Climate Center, said the report proves the efficacy of market-based emissions caps, like those used to regulate SO2 and NOx in the United States.

Posted by: brooksfoe on April 26, 2006 at 11:25 AM | PERMALINK

Except for Cheney.

ckelly shoots, scores and snags MVP!

Posted by: shortstop on April 26, 2006 at 11:26 AM | PERMALINK

McA: Strangely enough the state of computer modelling in climatology means that you can declare anything, AFTER THE EVENT to be caused by greenhouse gases.

Of course, to be credible enough to convince people to take rises to energy prices, they have to predict stuff BEFORE THE EVENT which they haven't done to any accuracy.

Actually, part of why the theory that current global warming is due to human activity is so well-accepted within the scientific community is thatthe model has proved to be accurately predictive. I believe the most recent example of this is the fact that the Artic is warming much faster than the rest of the planet. This was predicted some time ago based on models of global warming.

Posted by: LY on April 26, 2006 at 11:30 AM | PERMALINK

Shopping list:

1) More beachfront property in West Philly, The Benches in Salt Lake City and Barstow, CA.

2) More Kryptonite

Posted by: Lex Luthor on April 26, 2006 at 11:32 AM | PERMALINK

Fortunately, when the ice at the North Pole finally melts, it will reveal the crystal fortress where Lorne Greene preserved Superman's ability to regenerate his super powers, enabling him to fly backwards around the world faster than the speed of light and reverse the process of global warming.

See, President Bush is right - new technologies are the best bet for overcoming the problems of climate change!

Posted by: brooksfoe on April 26, 2006 at 11:38 AM | PERMALINK

If global temperatures rise but due to weather dynamics -- wind, ocean currents -- most of the heat is confined to the polar regions, it's a good bet that some regions of the earth will experience a decrease in temperatures. Why is that a surprise?

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on April 26, 2006 at 11:41 AM | PERMALINK

HIGHLY recommended reading:

Winning The Oil Endgame
By Amory B. Lovins (Cofounder and CEO of Rocky Mountain Institute) et al

Excerpts from the Executive Summary:

Winning the Oil Endgame offers a coherent strategy for ending oil dependence, starting with the United States but applicable worldwide. There are many analyses of the oil problem. This synthesis is the first roadmap of the oil solution one led by business for profit, not dictated by government for reasons of ideology. This roadmap is independent, peer-reviewed, written for business and military leaders, and co-funded by the Pentagon. It combines innovative technologies and new business models with uncommon public policies: market-oriented without taxes, innovation-driven without mandates, not dependent on major (if any) national legislation, and designed to support, not distort, business logic.

[...]

Oil, which created the sinews of our strength, is now becoming an even greater source of weakness: its volatile price erodes prosperity; its vulnerabilities undermine security; its emissions destabilize climate. Moreover the quest to attain oil creates dangerous new rivalries and tarnishes America's moral standing. All these costs are rising. And their root causesmost of all, inefficient light trucks and carsalso threaten the competitiveness of U.S. automaking and other key industrial sectors.

The cornerstone of the next industrial revolution is therefore winning the Oil Endgame. And surprisingly, it will cost less to displace all of the oil that the United States now uses than it will cost to buy that oil. Oil's current market price leaves out its true costs to the economy, national security, and the environment. But even without including these now "externalized" costs, it would still be profitable to displace oil completely over the next few decades. In fact, by 2025, the annual economic benefit of that displacement would be $130 billion gross (or $70 billion net of the displacement's costs). To achieve this does not require a revolution, but merely consolidating and accelerating trends already in place: the amount of oil the economy uses for each dollar of GDP produced, and the fuel efficiency of light vehicles, would need only to improve about three-fifths as quickly as they did in response to previous oil shocks.

Saving half the oil America uses, and substituting cheaper alternatives for the other half, requires four integrated steps:

* Double the efficiency of using oil [...]

* Apply creative business models and public policies to speed the profitable adoption of superefficient light vehicles, heavy trucks, and airplanes [...]

* Provide another one-fourth of U.S. oil needs by a major domestic biofuels industry [...]

* Use well established, highly profitable efficiency techniques to save half the projected 2025 use of natural gas, making it again abundant and affordable, then substitute part of the saved gas for oil [...]

Posted by: SecularAnimist on April 26, 2006 at 11:51 AM | PERMALINK

There was an earlier belief that the number of storms would be severely limited by mechanisms independent of sea surface temperatures. Sea surface temperatures are the chief energy source for hurricanes, but other factors contribute to or limit their formation. It was reasoned that storm intensity might rise due to the increase in sea surface temps, but that the number of hurricanes would hit a wall. Then, last year we went *boom* on the number of named storms and hurricanes. Now, the general feeling is that the increase (number and intensity) in North Atlantic storms is probably linked to global warming.

It's a fairly minor scientific point. The source of the increase in sea surface temperatures is the issue.

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on April 26, 2006 at 11:52 AM | PERMALINK

Actually, I hear that Cheney recently went out and got a bunch of windmills, for hunting.

Posted by: S Ra on April 26, 2006 at 11:52 AM | PERMALINK

I thought that they had already established that there was a historic repeating pattern that was occuring every 20 years or what ever. I thought this was a more viable explanation of why we should expect a few years of big storms but then things would return to a more normal level. Well I'm no meterologist so what do I know.

Posted by: AJ on April 26, 2006 at 12:08 PM | PERMALINK

While there is little doubt that the weather and climate patterns of this planet are dynamic and constantly changing, the idea that us puny little mortals have the ability to impact these systems in any significant way is the height of human arrogance. All of human civilization is but a mere tick of the second hand on the planetary clock that these systems operate by.

Fifteen thousand years ago, there was a mile high ice sheet that stood at my current location in suburban Chicago. Had our civilization existed back then, would environmentalists be running around worrying about the effect of global warming, which was definitely occurring, on the melting of that ice sheet that eventually became the Great Lakes?

Posted by: Chicounsel on April 26, 2006 at 12:12 PM | PERMALINK

If one is really serious about reducing CO2 emissions, then one must support a tax on fossil fuels that slowly escalates well into the future, and replaces other taxes we now pay.

If one is really serious about reducing CO2 emissions, then one must be willing to allow new types of fission reactors to be built and operated.

If one is really serious about reducing CO2 emissions, then one must support allowing more hydroelectric generation, and support allowing windmills be placed wherever they most efficiently produce power.

However, one must also face reality. Even with the above measures, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere will continue to increase well into this century, and likely will increase during the next one. The problem isn't just replacing the energy we use today, but supplying the near certain increases in energy used in the future.

Though I have different motivations than the fear of the effects of global warming, I support all of the things listed above. What I don't support are all the proposals for government micromanaging of our lives.

Posted by: Yancey Ward on April 26, 2006 at 12:15 PM | PERMALINK

the idea that us puny little mortals have the ability to impact these systems in any significant way is the height of human arrogance.

And you're basing this on what science? Oh, just a feeling? And this is worth more than the work of 1000's of climate scientists who've labored for years on the issue? And whose work is based on peer-reviewed, empirical evidence? I see. Your feeling is worth more. What were you saying about arrogance?

Posted by: Anonomous on April 26, 2006 at 12:19 PM | PERMALINK

Actually, I hear that Cheney recently went out and got a bunch of windmills, for hunting.

Whew! S Ra challenges ckelly for today's title! It's ON!

Posted by: shortstop on April 26, 2006 at 12:22 PM | PERMALINK

Chico,

Oh yeah, except there are over 7 BILLION of us puny little mortals!

CO2 concentrations do have a cycle of fluctuation, and we do have the bad luck to live at a time when the normal fluctuation is going high, but the levels at the moment are HIGHER than they have ever been in the past. *Something* is flucting us.

CO2 levels normally vary from, what, 180 ppm to 340 ppm on a long cycle, but this time they've overshot 340 ppm and are at 500 ppm or so, and still rising.

But that has nothing to do with the fact that we've been dumping millions of years of stored carbon into the air for the past 100 years.

No. We can't PROVE a correlation beyond any doubt.

I suppose the point is really moot, though, because we can't keep this up even if we want to. The oil us running out. I imagine we can switch to even dirtier coal though.

Posted by: Tripp on April 26, 2006 at 12:24 PM | PERMALINK

If free marketeers and libertarians have their way, we will outsource the analysis of global warming to the research departments of the oil companies.

Just like they ask drug companies to publish self-serving studies about the effectiveness of their drugs compared to other companies' products.

Just like they ask chemical companies to study the environmental impact of chemical waste.

Just like they ask big engineering firms how to re-build Iraq and Louisiana.

Just like private education consultants tell us how bad our schools suck.

Isn't it wonderful how the private sector is looking out for us. Wherever there's a need, there's a buck to be made.

The market tells us what's best. The market tells us what's best. The market . . . the market . . . the mark . . . zzzzzzzzz.

Posted by: pj_in_jesusland on April 26, 2006 at 12:32 PM | PERMALINK

haha,

"we had some other moronic troll here a couple days ago, ranting about how no one would want an "ugly" windfarm near their property--then the idiot was going on and on about how nuclear was the only option. Let's see, "no one" wants a wind farm, but they would welcome a nuclear power plant instead"

We had some idiot moron fool stupid cretinous scumbag troll a couple of days ago who thought, and who apparently still thinks, that nuclear power plants have to built in the same location as wind farms.

Posted by: GOP on April 26, 2006 at 12:42 PM | PERMALINK

Yancey Ward: If one is really serious about reducing CO2 emissions ...

You omitted a couple of extremely obvious steps towards contributions to reducing CO2 emissions, both of which can be achieved quickly with no new technology: dramatically increasing the fuel efficiency of the US vehicle fleet and dramatically increasing the efficiency of heating and cooling buildings, both commerical and residential.

You did mention wind power, but you neglected to mention photovoltaics. There is enormous unused capacity for rooftop photovoltaic electrical generation, and the technology is now so mainstream that Home Depot sells and installs the equipment.

With regard to nuclear power, the question currently on the table is not whether to "allow new types of fission reactors to be built and operated." The question that's currently been put on the table by the nuclear industry is whether US taxpayers should pay hundreds of billions of dollars to subsidize the development, construction and operation of such reactors and assume virtually all the risk. The "free market" has already issued its judgement of nuclear power: it is an economic failure. No nuclear power plant anywhere in the world has ever been built, and not one single nuclear power plant anywhere in the world today is operated, without gargantuan government (i.e. taxpayer) subsidies and government (i.e. taxpayer) assumption of all risks. "Private industry" will not touch nuclear power, unless the taxpayers pay for it and assume all the risks. That's what the nuclear power industry in the USA is clamoring for today. If that's what you support, you should say so.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on April 26, 2006 at 12:49 PM | PERMALINK

"There are still some doubters, but it looks like the connection between Katrina and global warming is hardly the laughable notion conservatives made it out to be last year. In fact, it's very nearly conventional wisdom."

If there is a "conventional wisdom" about the relationship between global warming and storms, it is only that the increase in the number and intensity of storms may be caused in part by global warming. There is certainly no "conventional wisdom" that specific individual storms such as Katrina can be attributed to global warming.

Posted by: GOP on April 26, 2006 at 12:52 PM | PERMALINK

Yancey Ward,

Ignore SecularAnimist. He's a lunatic. Last year he claimed that we must immediately reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 90% just to have a "hope" of averting global catastrophe and the extinction of humanity.

Posted by: GOP on April 26, 2006 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINK

You think Galileo was a lunatic, do you? Seriously?

Posted by: GOP on April 26, 2006 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINK

whether or not global warming exists or is dangerous isn't even material. All of the solutions to global warming... conservation, alternate energy sources, public transportation, less sprawl, less waste, etc., etc. make perfect sense for a better existence even without the threat of humanity's doom...Earth in the Balance, Small is Beautiful, It Takes a Village, Family of Man, environmental harmony, yada, yada... that's the ticket.

Posted by: pluege on April 26, 2006 at 1:06 PM | PERMALINK

Don P posting as "GOP" wrote: Ignore SecularAnimist. He's a lunatic.

Your hostility is in direct response to the fact that I have repeatedly shown you to be a stupid, willfully ignorant liar whose only purpose here is to impress yourself with your ability to waste other people's time with bullshit.

At least your new handle acknowledges that you are nothing but a Bush-bootlicking regurgitator of scripted, programmed Republican talking points.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on April 26, 2006 at 1:08 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, it wasn't Lorne Green it was Marlon Brando.

Posted by: Jarel on April 26, 2006 at 1:09 PM | PERMALINK

Climatologists cannot accurately predict tomorrow's weather. Why should I believe their predictions about what the weather is going to be like 20, 50, or 100 years from now?

Posted by: c on April 26, 2006 at 1:19 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: No one is listening so they need to scream louder.

So, you clearly agree that Bush and gang are hysterically screaming louder and louder about their policies, especially in Iraq and Iran, because no one is listening.

Posted by: Advocate for God on April 26, 2006 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: Kyoto accomplished the exact opposite of what it was designed to do. It created pollution.

You are a Ronald Reagan trees-create-pollution follower!

An organization creates pollution.

And here I thought it was industrial processes.

Now, kindly explain exactly what type of pollution (chemicals, gasses, etc.) is the Kyoto Protocol (a signed piece of paper) is putting into the environment.

Or perhaps you were speaking of the Japanese city?

Posted by: Advocate for God on April 26, 2006 at 1:41 PM | PERMALINK

This explains why the Russians have little responsibility at this stage to curb CO2 emissions. Forcing impoverished Russians to bear the brunt of these changes while wealthy Americans do little or nothing would be obscene.

What are you babbling about? Who is saying the Russians would pay anything? If there was a shred of a chance they'd have to pay they would never have signed.

The point was the Russians stand to gain a windfall from the Canadians and Dutch when they've done absolutely nothing to deserve it.
This is one example how braindead stupid Kyoto is. Further, it's very probable the Canadians and Dutch have exerted much greater efforts to reduce pollution. The Russians and Chinese have done nothing.

Posted by: rdw on April 26, 2006 at 1:49 PM | PERMALINK

I have a proposal for the head of the GOP, whoever that really is. Annouce that, as a symbol of your faith in the reconstruction effort in New Orleans, you will hold the 2008 GOP convention in New Orleans. That's a big shot in the arm for the city, and it shows the confidence you have in the Bush Administration's ability to, over the next two years, rebuild New Orleans and the surrounding areas. You aren't afraid of hurricanes, since the levees will be perfectly strong then.

Go ahead, it's a bold move. shame it won't happen. Think about it, it's a great viral campaign, GOP08 in New Orleans! Heck, both parties should agree to do that, think of the construction money that would pour in if the entire month of August, 2008 was guaranteed to be booked with every politico-media fat cat in the country!

Posted by: northzax on April 26, 2006 at 1:52 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: What are you babbling about?

The ultimate babbler, dissembler, and prevaricator gives us all a hoot by alleging a so-called kettle is black.

Posted by: Advocate for God on April 26, 2006 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINK

Secular Animist,

I did not neglect increased efficiency; it is covered by the effects of the increased taxes on fossil fuels which, like it or not, will continue to provide a majority of our energy for decades to come.

I only ignored photovoltaics only because people already largely have the right to install them on their properties. However, I could add that people who are serious cannot oppose the creation of light farms, but I don't see real opposition to this anyway, unlike wind farms or nuclear plants.

As for your issues with nuclear power, I do largely agree with you about the problems, but if nuclear power is not used in some form (and I guess we can hash it out as a society), then we will not decrease the use of fossil fuels until their production peaks and begins to fall. All of the other alternatives simply cannot supply the gross energy requirements of our civilization. However, I would point out that regardless of how we adopt higher nuclear use, taxpayers will pay for it all anyway since they are the energy customers.

Posted by: Yancey Ward on April 26, 2006 at 2:01 PM | PERMALINK

pj:

Why do we call oil, coal, shale oil etc. "fossil fuels?" Because they contain fossils?

I don't think so. We should name them for what they are -- carbon-based fuels, in honor of their contents and the gases they release into the astmosphere.

The term "fossil fuels" is useful because it distinguishes oil, coal and other earth-mined substances from fuels like ethanol, biodiesel, and others that are manufactured from plant materials, and are also "carbon based." The former release carbon that has been sequestered for millions of years, while the latter releases carbon that is part of a shorter-term carbon cycle (carbon sequestered in plants) and tends to balance out in the environment better.

Posted by: tbrosz on April 26, 2006 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINK

Poor fellow. Did the Kyoto treaty run over your dog?

Don't fret about me. Kyoto is a great subject for conservatives. It's fun to point out the eco-freaks are so weak in the USA they couldn't get a single Senator to vote for it despite having the wisest President of our history in the oval office.

It's also fun waiting for the future to unfold. Your eco-freak cousins up in Canada have been trashing the USA for years for not being in Kyoto. What are they going to say when their beloved Canada has to choose between paying huge fines to the Russians OR PULLING OUT?

Tell me this isn't going to be cool! This is going to be better than a 4-star movie! Most Canadians have no clue as to the disaster they're in. Wait until they find out what the intellectuals designed for them. They're not going to pay one dime and they're not going to listen to any of those eggheads ever again.

Kyoto is win/win/win for conservatives. We have proof eco-freaks are morons. We have proof they can't be trusted to wipe their own asses they're so dumb. That's why over the next two decades, maybe three decades, you'll hear conservatives talk a lot more abot Kyoto than the eco-freaks. It will be exhibit A for why you can't be trusted.

Posted by: rdw on April 26, 2006 at 2:05 PM | PERMALINK

An organization creates pollution. And here I thought it was industrial processes.

Quite correct, indutrial processes and all consmers create pollution. Kyoto was a notice to ALL of industry that if they were a major consumer of electricity or other polluting products they could expect to pay a fine, potentially a heavy fine, if they operated in Canada or another signee nation. On the other hand, if they moved production to China or anywhere else in the 3rd world they would have zero risk.

Even in the US, which didn't sign, the message was clear. Production has to be moved from the developed world to places like China, India, Brazil where the Govts have been totally clear. They will NEVER pay a fine under Kyoto.

Industralists don't get rich taking stupid risks. They move. Kyoto mandated a massive transfer of industrial assets to the undeveloped world with no ecological protections. The stupidity is stunning.

Posted by: rdw on April 26, 2006 at 2:14 PM | PERMALINK

Yancey Ward: ... if nuclear power is not used in some form (and I guess we can hash it out as a society), then we will not decrease the use of fossil fuels until their production peaks and begins to fall.

There are other ways to decrease the use of fossil fuels, sooner, at lower cost, and at lower risk, than replacing them with nuclear power.

All of the other alternatives simply cannot supply the gross energy requirements of our civilization.

I believe you are wrong about that.

Also, since this is a global warming thread rather than a peak oil thread, I would focus on the argument put forward by proponents of nuclear power that it is a "carbon free" source of energy and can make a major contribution to reducing CO2 emissions. When the entire nuclear fuel cycle is considered, including mining and enriching uranium, and the construction of the power plants, it is not a "carbon free" source of energy.

Even a widespread large-scale buildup of new nuclear power plants would do little to reduce carbon emissions, would not have even that small effect for many years, and would suck up money that would be far more effectively invested in conservation, efficiency, and wind & solar electrical generation.


Posted by: SecularAnimist on April 26, 2006 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK

rdw wrote: Kyoto mandated a massive transfer of industrial assets to the undeveloped world with no ecological protections.

That is pure bullshit. The Kyoto Protocol mandated no such thing. Everything you write here about Kyoto is lies. You are an utterly ignorant, robotic regurgitator of right-wing Republican drivel.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on April 26, 2006 at 2:19 PM | PERMALINK

Pretty much all of the things Howard Hughes did were stupid and risky, with the difference being that he succeeded where others failed because of his perseverence and some dumb luck.

Very few of the things Hughes did were stupid and based on his own analysis, were not risky either. He got into the airline business because he knew he could make money and he got out before the Government screwed it up.

Posted by: rdw on April 26, 2006 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINK

The Kyoto Protocol mandated no such thing.

This is exactly what Kyoto was designed to do.

The heavy fines were designed to be paid for by industry. The ONLY choice open to industry would be to move from the location where fines were almost certain to a location where fines would be impossible. That's exactly what they did.

That's why China, India, Brazil et al made it clear they would NEVER agree to any treaty subjecting them to fines. Not now. Not ever.

BTW: one of the reasons consumer confidence is so high and the economy so strong is unit exports are up a stunning 12% in the 1st Qtr. This is being driven by exports to Asia and other 3rd world locations.

Take a close look at those Kyoto signees liable to pay fines versus the great majority who will never pay any fines. The economic growth of those dumb enough to consider paying Russia is well behind the smarter signees. It has been this way for a decade and will continue. This is but one reason why GWB has had little to do with Canada and Old Europe. They're economic laggards. Our future is with India, Asia, Eastern Europe, etc. There is absolutely no chance any of these regions will ever sign a treaty with limitations on them.

Kyoto was the dumbest thing ever conceived.

Posted by: rdw on April 26, 2006 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK

Secular Animist,

If nuclear power cannot replace fossil fuels, then neither can solar, wind, or increased efficiency.

Posted by: Yancey Ward on April 26, 2006 at 2:53 PM | PERMALINK

c,
Climatologists cannot accurately predict tomorrow's weather. Why should I believe their predictions about what the weather is going to be like 20, 50, or 100 years from now?

Climate isn't weather.

Casinos can't predict the roll of the dice either but they still manage to make a profit.

Were you home-schooled?

Sheesh.

Posted by: Tripp on April 26, 2006 at 3:21 PM | PERMALINK

Here's a good site devoted to discussing the GW scare rationally. This specific article reviews the recent Time magazine article on Global Warming.


http://www.cei.org/pdf/5288.pdf

Posted by: rdw on April 26, 2006 at 3:24 PM | PERMALINK

Casinos can't predict the roll of the dice either but they still manage to make a profit.

Casino's don't try to predict the roll of the dice nor do they much care.

Were you home schooled?

Posted by: rdw on April 26, 2006 at 3:27 PM | PERMALINK

Wait until this summer's storms come. Wait until next summer's storms come. Soon, the Gulf Coast will become uninhabitable, as category 10 hurricaines become the norm. Then come the new arid zones, and vast deserts, that were once referred to as the bread basket of the world, will devastate American agriculture and world nutrition.

Learn to raise rabbits.

Posted by: Hostile on April 26, 2006 at 3:43 PM | PERMALINK

Climatologists cannot accurately predict tomorrow's weather. Why should I believe their predictions about what the weather is going to be like 20, 50, or 100 years from now?

Bake a loaf of raisin bread. Can you predict the location of the raisins? No. Are you afraid that when you go to remove the bread that you'll have a rabbit or cabbage or umbrella instead of a loaf of raisin bread? No.

Climate isn't weather.

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on April 26, 2006 at 3:50 PM | PERMALINK

Climatologists cannot accurately predict tomorrow's weather.

Climate isn't weather.

But the GW freaks are trying to predict the weather out 50 years aren't they? The point is spot on. These twits have no clue as to what temperatures will be 50 years from now. Nor do they have a clue as to what a one degree change would mean, up or down.

It's very fortunate only the Canadians, Europeans and Liberals take them seriously. Even the Canadians are getting a clue. Harper will get them out of Kyoto.

Posted by: rdw on April 26, 2006 at 4:01 PM | PERMALINK

rdw,

Pass me some of what you are smoking.

Global warming is concerned with, you know, a global thing - the global climate, the average global temperature.

Not the day to day weather. They are not predicting the day to day weather 50 years from now.

Posted by: Tripp on April 26, 2006 at 4:10 PM | PERMALINK
Casino's don't try to predict the roll of the dice [...]

...and climatologists don't try to predict day to day whether.

Casino's do rely on the ability to predict the overall aggregate results of many rolls of the dice, just as climatologists predict climate which is, in a sense, the aggregate of weather.

Posted by: cmdicely on April 26, 2006 at 4:29 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: Your hair is on fire, but your message clearly isn't.

Please, keep screaming that global warming is nonsense and that scientists know less about the climate than amateur polical operatives frantically googling around for contrary opinions on the matter. That ludicrous image could not be helping their cause more to persuade those looking into the issue.

The big problem for you is that this isn't an abstract or historical issue where you can manipulate the facts with hype. People all over the world are seeing the effects locally with their own eyes, and weather records are being, well -- "blown away."

And the changes are hurting people's lives and livelihood, hurting business profits, and hurting economies.

Whatever the shortcomings of Kyoto, it's been signed and ratified by almost every country on the planet. It represents a good faith attempt to help mitigate and prevent some terrible effects, including economic ones. I'm fairly certain that if you lived in a more vulnerable area such as an island, coastline, or desertification zone you'd feel a little differently abut Kyoto and its efforts to protect your life and property.

There is no alternative at the moment, and serious conservatives are reviling the laughable Asian - Pacific alliance that Bush is trying to use for misdirection as a joke:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.): "The [Asia-Pacific] pact amounts to nothing more than a nice little public-relations ploy. It has almost no meaning. They aren't even committing money to the effort, much less enacting rules to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions."
Posted by: Windhorse on April 26, 2006 at 5:04 PM | PERMALINK

rdw>Canadians are getting a clue. [re Kyoto]

Harper may very well try to get us out of Kyoto; remember though that he only has a very weak minority government, so he may fail.

Regardless, his actions have nothing to do with "Canadian's" opinions about Kyoto or climate change. Harper is leading a conservative charge straight from the oil patch in Alberta. They govern for the oil industry, by the oil industry, under intense pressure from american oil interests. Conventional crude production is passing (or already past) peak in Canada, so they are becoming totally dependent on the high-carbon tar sands. That gives just a wee bit of bias to that crowd.

The twin issues of oil peaking and CO2 build up will more and more lead to the tail wagging the dog in this way. More resource wars, greater instability, more direct intervention in governance by the fossil fuel industry against the interests of now and future citizens. There is no war on terror. There is a building geopolitical war between the oil economy and every other interest.

Posted by: Bruce the Canuck on April 26, 2006 at 5:13 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, and btw:

rdw> when their beloved Canada has to choose between paying huge fines to the Russians OR PULLING OUT?

It's not going to be Canada that will bear the burden of the fines. It will fall to the oil patch, to Alberta. Do you really think Alberta's current situation is popular in Canada? Try resented. They are sucking up professionals, actually impoverishing the remainder of Canadians. They rub the unshared royalties in our faces, taking the $ while the rest of Canada bears the burdens, and try to export their over-simplified homogenous conservatism to the rest of Canada.

Why do you think, despite a total implosion on the part of the Liberal party, Harper only managed a very weak minority government? Purely due to palpable mistrust of Alberta's agenda and interests. If the *oil patch* winds up having to pay huge fines, or is even merely seen as responsible for them, trust me, Canadians will not blame "eggheads".

We will put the blame squarely on Calgary, where it belongs. And because the current incarnation of the Conservative party has its heart there, it will cripple them.

Posted by: Bruce the Canuck on April 26, 2006 at 5:26 PM | PERMALINK

Hostile wrote: Soon, the Gulf Coast will become uninhabitable, as category 10 hurricaines become the norm.

It is my understanding that "category 10 hurricanes", a.k.a. "hypercanes", are unlikely to result from global warming, except in the most extreme case of runaway global warming that takes the Earth towards Venus-like conditions (by which time not only the Gulf Coast but the rest of the planet would already be uninhabitable). A hypercane could be produced by an asteroid impact in the ocean which caused extreme heating of the ocean waters to the range of 120 degrees Fahrenheit (49 degrees Celsius).

MIT atmospheric scientist Kerry Emanuel (who authored one of several studies last year showing an increase in the size, duration and intensity of hurricanes during the past 30 years), discussed "hypercanes" in this passage, attributed by Wikipedia to the April 1995 issue of Discover Magazine:

"We were trying to predict the maximum intensity that ordinary hurricanes could reach, and we noticed that if we made the ocean too warm and the atmosphere too cold, the equation didn't yield any sensible solution -- it kind of blew up.' Unable to solve the problem with pencil and paper, Emanuel and his colleagues ran a computer simulation of a hurricane over a pool of hot ocean. The computer spat out a phenomenal storm -- 20 miles high, with winds approaching 500 miles an hour.

"The water that created this hypercane was so hot -- 120 degrees at the center of the pool -- that the team knew such a storm couldn't occur in the present climate "or in any climates that Earth had experienced, except maybe near its origin. But we thought that under extraordinary circumstances one might have observed such a storm." A large asteroid or comet slamming into the ocean floor, for instance, would release a lot of heat. If an area of ocean at least 30 miles across were heated to around 120 degrees, Emanuel and his colleagues have found, the result would be a hypercane. An ordinary hurricane forms over a much larger region of the ocean, and one that has been baked to a much lower temperature by the sun. The warm water heats the air above it, and as that warm air begins to rise, it creates a low-pressure zone that draws in air from all sides. The wind causes more water to evaporate, which transfers more heat to the air, which accelerates the nascent storm -- and since Earth is spinning, the storm spins, too.

In an ordinary hurricane, friction exerted by the sea on the swirling winds limits their speed to 200 miles an hour or less. But in a hypercane, that control is overwhelmed by the tremendous heat, which keeps pumping energy into the storm. "The heat engine of the hurricane just runs away," Emanuel says. "Friction can't keep up with it." The winds accelerate to 500 miles an hour. Because the angular momentum of the storm must stay the same, it shrinks to a tight knot just 10 miles across -- around a sixth of the diameter of an ordinary hurricane. Meanwhile it is growing to twice the height, 20 miles high or so, because the air in its center is so hot; that air must rise until it has cooled to the temperature of the air around it. The result is a storm tall enough and strong enough to catapult a huge amount of material -- water vapor, sea salt, and maybe dust, if the crater happened to nick a coastline -- well into the stratosphere.

But it would not take "hypercanes" to make the Gulf Coast uninhabitable. All it would take is a couple of Katrinas a year hitting the Gulf Coast over an extended period, combined with rising sea levels.

And since the increase in the number of category 4 and 5 hurricanes, as well as rising sea levels, are an empirically observed reality, regardless of whether one attributes either to anthropogenic global warming or not, the future of the Gulf Coast does not look good.


Posted by: SecularAnimist on April 26, 2006 at 5:36 PM | PERMALINK

If tanj is still out there, your list of hurricane/cyclone records for 2005 is interesting. What we're talking about here would be a trend - do the 2000-2004 seasons also tend to the top of those or related categories?

Posted by: VAMark

I got my original list from Wikipedia's entry for the 2005 Atlantic Hurricane Season and from one of the links they provided to the FAQ Page for NOAA's Hurricane Research Division.

According to the NOAA site, every year since 1995 has seen an above average number of tropical storms in the Atlantic basin, except for 1997. Each of those years except for 1997 and 2002 had above average numbers of hurricanes, category 3+ hurricanes and ACE.

The 1995, 2004 and 2005 hurricane seasons had the 3rd, 4th and 1st highest ACE values respectively since they started tracking every storm system by plane in 1944. As noted in my previous post, the ACE value is designed to track both the intensity and duration of tropical storms; details on how this value is derived are available at the NOAA link I gave above.

Posted by: tanj on April 26, 2006 at 5:38 PM | PERMALINK

Bruce the Canuck wrote: There is no war on terror. There is a building geopolitical war between the oil economy and every other interest.

Conservative columnist Thomas Friedman wrote a remarkable piece in last Friday's New York Times, urging college students to become active in working on the global warming issue (in particular by getting the institutions they attend to reduce CO2 emissions). Your comment resonates with his concluding paragraphs:

Al Gore eloquently argues that our parents generation, the Greatest Generation, turned back the black tide of fascism. They fought the war and built the institutions that preserved peace and freedom for a lot of people on this planet. Todays young people, Mr. Gore argues, have a parallel task. Yes, he means you college students.

You need to become what the writer Dan Pink calls "the Greenest Generation," and build the institutions, alliances and programs that will turn back the black tide of climate change and petro-authoritarianism, which, if unchecked, will surely poison your world and your future as much as fascism once threatened to do to your parents world and future.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on April 26, 2006 at 5:46 PM | PERMALINK

Not the day to day weather. They are not predicting the day to day weather 50 years from now.

Who said day to day weather?

Posted by: rdw on April 26, 2006 at 6:24 PM | PERMALINK

...and climatologists don't try to predict day to day whether.

No one said they did predict day to day weather.


Casino's do rely on the ability to predict the overall aggregate results of many rolls of the dice,

I think they call it 'the odds'.

Posted by: rdw on April 26, 2006 at 6:26 PM | PERMALINK

Harper may very well try to get us out of Kyoto; remember though that he only has a very weak minority government, so he may fail.

This has nothing to do with Harper. He gains from this. His path will be to make sure Canadians understand just how stupid this deal was for them. Paying billions in fines is one thing. By itself political suicide. Paying the fine to Russia is beyond any sane person's comprehension. How could any leader put Canada is such a position? Harper wants to maximize the embarrasment for the party that made the deal.

He is going to publize the failure of Canada's efforts to reduce emissions under the pervious party. Even without Tar Sands development Canada wasn't coming close to meeting Kyoto requirements. Even adding in the Tar Sands ALL current development was planned, funded and initiated under the prior party.

This is a gift from God for Harper.

Posted by: rdw on April 26, 2006 at 6:35 PM | PERMALINK

Do you really think Alberta's current situation is popular in Canada? Try resented. They are sucking up professionals, actually impoverishing the remainder of Canadians. They rub the unshared royalties in our faces, taking the $ while the rest of Canada bears the burdens, and try to export their over-simplified homogenous conservatism to the rest of Canada.


You have the advantage here. I don't have a solid grasp of Canadian Federalism. I rather assumed the development in Alberta had either already been approved or doesn't need prior approval from the Federal Govt. I would also assume the Federal govt can't decide to just tax one province at a special rate anymore than the US Federal Govt can deal with one state differently than any other. It's also difficult to deal with industry's differently. I'm sure a windfall profits tax is very possible but companies pay accounts to keep that small.

As far as stealing professionals isn't the unemployment rate in Canada 7%?. And if true isn't that a good thing for professionals anyway. If they have a shortage of certain skills that'll drive wages up.

Also, let's assume Canadians are as intelligent as they are green. So how did this happen? How is it Alberta is in such a position?

Posted by: rdw on April 26, 2006 at 6:45 PM | PERMALINK

There is a building geopolitical war between the oil economy and every other interest.

This is total nonsense. 1st off energy demand is only 2% of GDP in the USA and falling. The developments in Canada are a boon for the Canadian as well as the US. We get to import your Tar Sands Oil and export our pollution. You get a ton of money. If it creates a long term political problem within Canada it will be the fact the Western provinces are accumulating so much wealth and population. There will be a shift of political power westward. But it will take time.

If you want a positive view look at it as North America Inc. The NAFTA nations are doing well and will be doing better. Canada and Mexico have energy supplies. Harper and Bush are about to settle a long standing lumber dispute so trade will only increase. The USA has very low unemployment, Canada is heading there and Mexico can supply labor. Each nation has something to offer the other two.

The 2M in incremental Tar Sands oil will allow the USA to replace imports from Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. There's no reason North America can't be energy independent by 2012.

Posted by: rdw on April 26, 2006 at 7:00 PM | PERMALINK

"Whatever the shortcomings of Kyoto, it's been signed and ratified by almost every country on the planet."

No it hasn't. And the only reason it's been signed and ratified by as many countries as it has is because it's basically a scam. Developing countries are exempt from Kyoto's emission goals, so they have nothing to lose by ratifying it, and plenty to gain in the form of a competitive advantage over countries that will bear the costs of compliance. Developed countries that are subject to the emissions goals and able to meet them relatively easily also have an economic incentive to ratify Kyoto because of its carbon trading provisions.

Posted by: GOP on April 26, 2006 at 7:05 PM | PERMALINK

tanj,

"According to the NOAA site, every year since 1995 has seen an above average number of tropical storms in the Atlantic basin, except for 1997. Each of those years except for 1997 and 2002 had above average numbers of hurricanes, category 3+ hurricanes and ACE."

Perhaps you should also pay attention to the following, also taken from NOAA's tropical storm FAQ:

"Some prominent scientists proposed that the intense 2004 hurricane season and its considerable impacts, particularly in Florida, could be linked to global warming resulting from the emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere (e.g., Harvard Medical School 2004; NCAR 2004). But the current state of climate science does not support so close a linkage."...

"Since 1995 there has been an increase in the frequency and in particular the intensity of hurricanes in the Atlantic.. But the changes of the past decade are not so large as to clearly indicate that anything is going on other than the multi-decadal variability that has been well documented since at least 1900"

Posted by: GOP on April 26, 2006 at 7:11 PM | PERMALINK

Perhaps you should also pay attention to the following, also taken from NOAA's tropical storm FAQ:

"Some prominent scientists proposed that the intense 2004 hurricane season and its considerable impacts, particularly in Florida, could be linked to global warming resulting from the emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere (e.g., Harvard Medical School 2004; NCAR 2004). But the current state of climate science does not support so close a linkage."...

"Since 1995 there has been an increase in the frequency and in particular the intensity of hurricanes in the Atlantic.. But the changes of the past decade are not so large as to clearly indicate that anything is going on other than the multi-decadal variability that has been well documented since at least 1900"

Posted by: GOP

That was the consensus in 2004. That the last decade had been unusually active but not enough so to definitively state that it was a result of global warming. As of late-August of last year when Katrina came ashore, there was still considerable doubt.

What the original article Kevin Drum linked to and others like it are saying is that the totality of the 2005 hurricane season, together with the trends from the previous decade are convincing more and more scientists that the changes are more than can be explained by previously observed natural climactic patterns. That in fact, most scientists in the field now believe the increased tropical storm activity is at least partly caused by global warming. This is not even close to being as strong a consensus view as the proposition that global warming is occuring and is primarily caused by human activity, but as Kevin Drum said, it certainly isn't the laughable proposition that skeptics tried to portray it as last year.

Posted by: tanj on April 26, 2006 at 7:31 PM | PERMALINK

>>There is a building geopolitical war between the oil economy and every other interest.
>This is total nonsense. 1st off energy demand is only 2% of GDP in the USA and falling.

So what? What % of american gdp are lobbyist dollars? 0.0001%? It's political and economic leverage that matters.

rdw>You get a ton of money. If it creates a long term political problem within Canada it will be the fact the Western provinces...

No. Alberta alone. "the western provinces" is conservative party bullshit, intended to make their base of interests seem broader than it is. BC has far less in the way of oil, its gas will deplete quickly, and its forests and fisheries are dying due to global warming.

The money is not spread around. In fact it increases costs in other provinces, because Alberta bids up medical & teacher salaries, and has artificially low (subsidized) corporate taxes. that do not cover services provided - they're covered by royalties instead.

>the Western provinces are accumulating so much ...population. There will be a shift of political power westward.

Again, Alberta is generally resented for economic and cultural reasons outside of north-central BC and Alberta itself. This is unlikely to change. Calgary is attracting people natural to its values (conservative, materialistic) but that minimizes its political power, not increases it, due to the way the electoral distribution works.

And Fort McMurray sorts of places are where the jobs are. The kind of place that's a full day's drive north of civilization, with an 8 month winter, unbelievably pervasive clay-mud every time it rains, and a summer with so many blackflies, misquitoes, wasps, gigantic dragonflies that hit your windshield like gravel and other nasties, that you have to stop your car every couple of hours to scrape the half-inch (i'm not kidding here) of crust off the grill so your car doesn't overheat. Which is, you know, a lot of fun when you're surrounded by the cloud of wasps that gather to feast on your insect corpse encrusted car.

Does this sound fun? Canadians have shown themselves willing to pay a very high premimum in personal economics to live in the few truly habitable regions. Nevermind the cultural climate issues.

>The 2M in incremental Tar Sands oil...

Projections. Partially based on available natural gas supplies to upgrade the tar. To date, their natural gas source has been stranded gas local to the area.

Currently this is (from what I can find) about $14 worth of gas per barrel. If natural gas prices spike faster than oil (quite possible), switching to a different production method could present problems. I sincerely hope it does.

>...will allow the USA to replace imports from Saudi Arabia and Venezuela...

Always amazes me how little winger's actually think in terms of market economics. The US will be buy and be "dependent on" the lowest price of oil it can find. That's not necc from upgraded tar.

Posted by: Bruce the Canuck on April 26, 2006 at 7:37 PM | PERMALINK

tanj,

"That was the consensus in 2004."

And it's the consensus in 2006. We've only had one more storm season since 2004.

"What the original article Kevin Drum linked to and others like it are saying is that the totality of the 2005 hurricane season, together with the trends from the previous decade are convincing more and more scientists that the changes are more than can be explained by previously observed natural climactic patterns."

Some climate scientists may be "convinced" of that, you have provided no evidence that a majority or consensus of them are. Even if recent-decade increases in the number and intensity of storms are attributable in part to anthropogenic global warming, the relative contribution of AGW may be quite small, much smaller than the contribution of natural cycles in storm patterns.

"That in fact, most scientists in the field now believe the increased tropical storm activity is at least partly caused by global warming."

Substantiate this claim.

Posted by: GOP on April 26, 2006 at 7:43 PM | PERMALINK

Why do you think, despite a total implosion on the part of the Liberal party, Harper only managed a very weak minority government?

Because Canada is socialist at heart. I confess I haven't watched Canadian politics closely but it appears they are far more like France than the USA. I see nationalized healthcare, high tax rates, extremely low defense spending and strident Anti-Americanism. Further besides just cutting Defense spending Canadians have come to be almost embarrassed at having a strong military and to believe, as the Europeans have, they've reached a level of sophistication they can solve all problems with diplomacy.

Austin Bay wrote an article a few months back on the proud history of the Canadian military pointing out when he was an officer in NATO in the mid to late 80's the Canadian troops were the finest in NATO. High praise coming from an American officer. Unfortunately as Mark Steyn pointed out during the Tsumami relief operations in Indonesia the reason why we didn't see any Canadian ships or troops delivering supplies is that while Canadians are generous they lack the military capability to deliver aid to even remote parts of Canada let alone foreign nations.

We all know socialism doesn't work. As we saw in France recently with the success of their riots they can't give it up. It's going to be interesting watching Canada. They can continue to follow France or move toward the USA/Australian model.

I mention Australia because they have been america's closest ally for over a century and they have a more similar economic model. A decade ago their per capita GDP trailed Canada's by more than 10%. They also trailed France, Germany and the UK. Since then they have passed all three and if current rates hold will pass Canada next year. It's also interesting that while only 2/3 the population Australia spends 75% more on defense.

The interesting thing about all that is despite NAFTA and our very close economic integration Canada and the USA have so little diplomatic influence on each other. Harper has agreed to support the NATO effort in Afghanistan vigoriously and just suffered casualties but this probably represents a last effort by NATO.

The fact is the future is Asia and Australia is far more important an ally than Canada or the EU. If there's heavy lifting to be done Canada has neither the will nor the means. Ditto for the EU nations of Old Europe (excluding the UK). Canadians have a bright economic future and probably don't want a role on the global stage as they had in WWII and the Cold War. Those days are over.

Posted by: rdw on April 26, 2006 at 7:43 PM | PERMALINK

...will allow the USA to replace imports from Saudi Arabia and Venezuela...

Always amazes me how little winger's actually think in terms of market economics. The US will be buy and be "dependent on" the lowest price of oil it can find. That's not necc from upgraded tar.

I fully understand market economics and the fact is, as you know, the Tar Sands oil will sell at the same price as any other oil. Assuming Canada adds the 2M as widely predicted it will be exported to the US because it's cheaper to import from Canada than ship from Arabia.

BTW: at $75 the 2M is conservative. The 2M investment is based on committed projects and funds. I'm sure there could be roadblocks but there are estimates production could be ramped up to 5M.

Posted by: rdw on April 26, 2006 at 7:50 PM | PERMALINK

Don P posting as "GOP" wrote: Perhaps you should also pay attention to the following, also taken from NOAA's tropical storm FAQ: ...

As usual, while you busy yourself with regurgitating scripted, programmed Republican talking points and sneering with belligerent ignorance at people who are far better informed than you are, you are too lazy or incompetent to provide a link to the articles you cite, so I will do so: the particular section of the NOAA FAQ you refer to can be found online here.

That FAQ does not mention or discuss either of these 2005 studies:

Emanuel, Kerry. "Increasing Destructiveness of Tropical Cyclones Over the Past 30 Years." Nature 436: 686-688. 4 August 2005 at www.nature.com

Excerpt:

Theory and modelling predict that hurricane intensity should increase with increasing global mean temperatures, but work on the detection of trends in hurricane activity has focused mostly on their frequency, and shows no trend. Here I define an index of the potential destructiveness of hurricanes based on the total dissipation of power, integrated over the lifetime of the cyclone, and show that this index has increased markedly since the mid-1970s. This trend is due to both longer storm lifetimes and greater storm intensities. I find that the record of net hurricane power dissipation is highly correlated with tropical sea surface temperature, reflecting well-documented climate signals, including multi-decadal oscillations in the North Atlantic and North Pacific, and global warming. My results suggest that future warming may lead to an upward trend in tropical cyclone destructive potential, and taking into account an increasing coastal population a substantial increase in hurricane-related losses in the twenty-first century.

Webster, P. J. et al. "Changes in Tropical Cyclone Number, Duration, and Intensity in a Warming Environment." Science 309(5742): 1844-1846. 16 September 2005 at www.sciencemag.org

Excerpt:

We examined the number of tropical cyclones and cyclone days as well as tropical cyclone intensity over the past 35 years, in an environment of increasing sea surface temperature. A large increase was seen in the number and proportion of hurricanes reaching categories 4 and 5. The largest increase occurred in the North Pacific, Indian, and Southwest Pacific Oceans, and the smallest percentage increase occurred in the North Atlantic Ocean. These increases have taken place while the number of cyclones and cyclone days has decreased in all basins except the North Atlantic during the past decade.

Neither, of course, does the NOAA FAQ (dated October 2005) mention the paper presented this week by Greg Holland, division director at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, to the American Meteorological Society this week, which was the subject of Kevin Drum's blog entry.

So the statement on the NOAA FAQ that "the current state of climate science does not support so close a linkage", is out of date and incorrect.

And when considering the information about climate change on NOAA websites, it is worth keeping in mind reports such as this recent one:

Scientists Say They're Being Gagged By Bush
by Juliet Eilperin
April 16, 2006
The San Francisco Chronicle

Excerpt:

Scientists doing climate research for the federal government say the Bush administration has made it hard for them to speak forthrightly to the public about global warming. The result, the researchers say, is a danger that Americans are not getting the full story on how the climate is changing.

Employees and contractors working for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, along with a U.S. Geological Survey scientist working at an NOAA lab, said in interviews that over the past year administration officials have chastised them for speaking on policy questions; removed references to global warming from their reports, news releases and conference Web sites; investigated news leaks; and sometimes urged them to stop speaking to the media altogether. Their accounts indicate that the ideological battle over climate-change research, which first came to light at NASA, is being fought in other federal science agencies as well.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on April 26, 2006 at 7:54 PM | PERMALINK

Does this sound fun? Canadians have shown themselves willing to pay a very high premimum in personal economics to live in the few truly habitable regions. Nevermind the cultural climate issues.

It's not my cup of tea but that explains why so many Venezuelains have migrated to Canada. It also explains the rumor of cab drivers making $75K. Since you understand market economics you understand salaries will rise to whatever levels are needed to get the manpower needed. With Oil at $75 I'm guessing they can afford to pay it.

My guess is Canada will also be getting a large share of Mexican emigration. Sounds like a win/win for Canada and Mexico. You have the jobs. They have the people.

Posted by: rdw on April 26, 2006 at 7:56 PM | PERMALINK

Calgary is attracting people natural to its values (conservative, materialistic) but that minimizes its political power, not increases it, due to the way the electoral distribution works.

OK, I'll bite. Calgary is going to have more people and they'll be conservative. But Calgary and conservatives will have less power.

How does your system work?

BYW: Canada shares one other problem with Europe. They are rnked 119 of 142 nations in birth rate. At 1.56 you are well below replacement levels. It appears that while the West is adding population the East will be losing it. It'll be interesting to see where Canada is 20 years from now.

Posted by: rdw on April 26, 2006 at 8:02 PM | PERMALINK

"Whatever the shortcomings of Kyoto, it's been signed and ratified by almost every country on the planet."


162 nations have signed with 126 nations refusing to consider ANY limitations. It is a scam.

Posted by: rdw on April 26, 2006 at 8:04 PM | PERMALINK

rdw>the Tar Sands oil will sell at the same price as any other oil.

Exactly. Where the oil comes from does not affect america's "energy independence". It's the energy efficiency of your economy that decides how independent from global oil power politics your society is. If you want energy independance, take on the challenge of moving to 21st century energy production and efficiency. Chasing after the oil is a sucker trap.

The fact that oil might be 2% of gdp is also irrelevant, as I said. Reminds me of some economist's claim that a severe climate shift wouldn't be a big deal because it would mostly hit agriculture and fisheries, which are only 2% of the modern economy (Food production, who needs it?).

Tar sand production levels will be determined in the near term by the spread between the oil price and critical factors of production such as natural gas. If NG price increases match or exceed oil's increase, production will not increase so much.

NG could easily double in price again, as NA is dependent on it for power production and home heating now, LNG plants can't be built fast enough to keep up with depletion, and nobody wants to be stuck with Russia and the middle east as a supplier, anyways.


>Sounds like a win/win for Canada...

A region does not a country make. Alberta will benefit, the remainder of Canada will suffer more problems than benefits. The tradgedy of the commons issue of global climate can easily matter more to people. What is BC without its forests, skiing, and a healthy ocean? Condos in a rainy climate.

>...or move toward the USA/Australian model...

We'll see how that goes. Your "economic model" looks much more precarious than ours at the moment.

Posted by: Bruce the Canuck on April 26, 2006 at 8:14 PM | PERMALINK

rdw>OK, I'll bite. Calgary is going to have more people and they'll be conservative. But Calgary and conservatives will have less power.
>How does your system work?

Those conservative voters will be moving from ridings across Canada that do are more political diverse, to areas near Calgary that are overwhelmingly conservative. Net result: self-gerrymandering.

Posted by: Bruce the Canuck on April 26, 2006 at 8:17 PM | PERMALINK

rdw>It is a scam.

You know what? I'll admit it. Kyoto is totally useless in practice, and seriously flawed. But it made the global dialogue much more serious, and fleshed out many of the economic equality issues. That's all it had to do.

Posted by: Bruce the Canuck on April 26, 2006 at 8:20 PM | PERMALINK

rdw> Because Canada is socialist at heart....strident Anti-Americanism.

Actually Canada can be seen as a cultural and political extension of the trends evident as you go from southern to northern states. People here have a lot of sympathy for residents of the blue states that are chained to the likes of yourself.

Posted by: Bruce the Canuck on April 26, 2006 at 8:29 PM | PERMALINK

SecularAnimist, being his usual lunatic self:

"That FAQ does not mention or discuss either of these 2005 studies"

It doesn't have any reason to, since those two studies do not contradict what it says. Did you even read your own quotes?

"So the statement on the NOAA FAQ that "the current state of climate science does not support so close a linkage", is out of date and incorrect."

You have provided no evidence that it's either "out of date," or "incorrect."

Even realclimate.org claims only that the evidence indicates that it is "possible" (not even probable, merely POSSIBLE) that global warming (some and perhaps most of which is caused by natural climate variability) has merely contributed to storm intensity and number.

Posted by: GOP on April 26, 2006 at 8:40 PM | PERMALINK

As for the claim that "Hurricane Katrina was a result of global warming," the scientists at realclimate.org dispense with that piece of nonsense too:

"... there is no way to prove that Katrina either was, or was not, affected by global warming. For a single event, regardless of how extreme, such attribution is fundamentally impossible."

"Due to this semi-random nature of weather, it is wrong to blame any one event such as Katrina specifically on global warming ..."

Posted by: GOP on April 26, 2006 at 8:53 PM | PERMALINK

You know, I'm sure this gamesmanship really tickles your ego DonP/GOP, but this issue actually matters. Maybe go play with another one.

Posted by: Bruce the Canuck on April 27, 2006 at 1:11 AM | PERMALINK

I'm curious how much we can cut fuel consumption simply by not driving like stoned drunken assholes on xanax.

Posted by: aaron on April 27, 2006 at 1:53 AM | PERMALINK

You know what? I'll admit it. Kyoto is totally useless in practice, and seriously flawed. But it made the global dialogue much more serious, and fleshed out many of the economic equality issues. That's all it had to do

Are you out of your mind? all of the eco-freaks put this grand treaty together they now admit is useless and flawed and you think you have a shred of credibility left?

What are you babbling about regarding economic equality?

I have no idea what economic issue has been discussed in light of Kyoto. There was an economic issue at the core of it's collapse but it wasn't equality. The simple asses who designed this tried to stick America with the entire bill. Even leaving aside the glaring stupidity of admitting it was going to have any discernable effect you still had no shot.

Americans hate socialism and they don't much care for Europeans either. They can have their 12% unemplopment and falling incomes. We are not financing their welfare states. BTW: This is a secondary issue but we're not financing their defense anymore either.

Even in hindsight, doesn't the 95-0 vote in the US Senate tell you just how badly constructed this abomination was? We've got Russ Feingold and 30 other liberal whacko's in that Senate. 95 - 0. Are you kidding me?

Kyoto is dead. They don't know it yet and I can't wait to watch it unfold. Harper is way, way too smart to pull out of this thing on his own. He's going to make sure the Canadian people grow get to understand just how much this will cost them if they stay in and just how stupid the fools were who designed it and then signed it. He's going to want the liberals to campaign to defend it to maximize their humiliation and they he's going to have a plebicite for the Canadian people to vote directly.

Harper isn't going to pull out of Kyoto. The Canadian people will decide directly.

It nice to see you admit Kyoto was useless. Perhaps you can look ahead to the decision on replacing Kyoto when it ends in 2012. Is there any reason sane people would want the fools who designed the current version anywhere near the new one?

Posted by: rdw on April 27, 2006 at 8:56 AM | PERMALINK

Those conservative voters will be moving from ridings across Canada that do are more political diverse, to areas near Calgary that are overwhelmingly conservative. Net result: self-gerrymandering.

I'm not sure but I'll assume a riding is the same as a congressional district in the US. This makes no sense. Aren't both parties effected the same? What changes?

This is classic liberal logic. They use it here all of the time. We have a migration from the blue states to red states. Ergo the red states, getting more blue people, will become more like blue states. Makes all the sense in the world does it not?

So how come this migration, now well over 4 decades old, has created more red states and they're getting redder?

So how come Northern Liberals can't win national elections? Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter were Southern moderates. LBJ was Southern. We've got to go back to 1960.

Also, if Calgary is getting MORE conservartives won't districts eventually be redrawn to reflect the population and thus end up with more conservative districts?

Posted by: rdw on April 27, 2006 at 9:11 AM | PERMALINK

We'll see how that goes. Your "economic model" looks much more precarious than ours at the moment.

What are you babbling about?

Canadian per capita GDP is $32,900. In the US it's $42,000 and growing much faster. US unemployment is at 4.6% versus 6.8% for Canada. This is after absorbing a wave of immigration that for the last 15 years would represent more than 1/3 Canada's entire population.

As we've been discussing the Canadian environment is getting worse while emissions in the US are dropping and your socialized health care system is a shambles. It was interesting watching the Tsumami relief operations. They were on TV in Indonesia and neighboring states 24/7 for weeks. At no time was a Canadian ship seen delivering water or power or medical supplies. The Indonesians did see an armada of US ships there as well as helicopeters and C-130's delivering massive amounts of aid immediately. They also saw Japanese and Australian ships. The Canadian people are generous and your soldiers are brave. But as a nation you are weak.

The US is booming economically with low inflation and interest rates and high growth and high levels of wealth. In the 1sy Qtr unit exports were up a stunning 12% led by Asia. GWB has increased the number of Free Trade Agreements from 3 to 11 and has 17 more under negotiation. We have 4.6% unemployment and are embracing globilization. What do you think of GWB's move closer to India? 1B people, English speaking, huge middle class, moving from socialism toward capitalism in an attempt to copy China's 8% growth track. Think that'll help trade?

We are booming and we will continue to boom for decades.


Posted by: rdw on April 27, 2006 at 9:30 AM | PERMALINK

People here have a lot of sympathy for residents of the blue states that are chained to the likes of yourself.

Knock yourself out! Is there any possible reason why that would be a concern to anyone? Seriously! I hear liberals complain about loss 'respect' from Canadian and Europeans.

So? What's that mean?

If that's a problem exactly what is the problem? You are economically, militarily and diplomatically weak.

You spend 1% of your GDP on the military or about $10B. You can do guard duty and partol duty. Your soldiers are brave but they don't have the equipment or training to function as a modern military. The US spends more than 40x's as much. You can't operate at the front lines with US troops anymore. You'll only slow them down in a real war. These guys aren't any braver or stronger but they have better toys and training. We learned in Iraq can't rely on Canada or NATO. And we're not going to either.

Economically is couldn't be clearer where the future is. American corporations started investing heavily in Asia more than a decade ago. Intel now gets 60% of it's sales from Asia and that number is going up. These nations are still just opening up and gaining wealth. Asia is growing by over 6% versus 1.5% for Old Europe. Asia is expanding trade while Europe is growing more protectionist. India will be a gold mine and they're just getting started. Canada is just starting to catch up with the USA and that's only due to your mineral and oil wealth. Australia is far more vibrant. We need your oil, you need our markets. We'll work together. But the future is Asia.

Posted by: rdw on April 27, 2006 at 10:00 AM | PERMALINK

But the GW freaks are trying to predict the weather out 50 years aren't they? The point is spot on.

First, "GW freaks" is a non-starter. First, it's an insult and that's weak. Second, the evidence and science is on the side of Global Warming.

No. Scientists aren't trying to predict weather 50 years out. Weather is local. Climate is not. There's no way to make the two the same thing. It's not just a distortion. It's a lie. Scientists can calculate how much energy hits the earth. They can calculate how much energy radiates back into space. They can calculate how much lake water warms. How much oceans warm. How much desert warms. How much cropland warms. How much forest warms. How much the different levels of the atmosphere warms. How much the atmosphere warms when it's cloudy. How much it warms when the clouds are high. And how much it warms when the clouds are low. How much it warms when dust storms blow. Etc. Etc. They know how much CO2 contributes. NO2. CFCs. Soot from smokestacks. And on and on. It's a remarkably thorough modern science. This isn't the guesswork deniers want to pretend it is.

Failed societies usually fail for many reasons. There's rarely just one. Atlantis was wiped off the earth in a single stroke, but the remainder go down for many reasons. Environmental degradation plays a huge role in most failed societies. When the last trees were cut on Easter Island, what was the justification? Did they assume magic would replace them? The invisible hand of markets and capitalism?

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on April 27, 2006 at 10:42 AM | PERMALINK

Don P posting as "GOP" wrote: It doesn't have any reason to, since those two studies do not contradict what it says.

This is an example of the screamingly dishonest rubbish that comprises 99% of everything Don P has ever posted here, and is the reason why everyone who ever discussed anything with him came to realize that he is a fake, a phony, a liar, a pretentious fool and a bullshit artist.

That's why no one will engage in discussion with "Don P" any more, and that's why he now posts under a variety of handles and fake email addresses to disguise his identity and trick people into responding to him. But his characteristic dishonesty, his distortions, misrepresentations and rhetorical fallacies, his mindless regurgitation of scripted, programmed right-wing Republican talking points, and his arrogant, belligerent, willful ignorance always out him in the end.

"Tee hee hee" indeed.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on April 27, 2006 at 11:49 AM | PERMALINK

rdw,

We are booming and we will continue to boom for decades.

Tell that to the people with stagnant wages and rising gas prices.

Both you and Bush are blind to the plight of the little (or even middle) people.

And responding to your pathetic wordplay from way above - 'weather' means what is happening in a particular location day to day. Your insistence to continue to equate that to climate, which is the accumulation of weather over a larger area or time period shows you are more interested in word games than in the real world.

Unfortunately for you, none of your (or Bush's) word games are able to confuse people as much when they confront the actual facts of higher gas prices every day.

Even Bush has realized he has to at least give the appearance of doing something about gas prices. Simply telling people 'we are doing great' over and over doesn't work when they have less money in the pocket.

Posted by: Tripp on April 27, 2006 at 12:01 PM | PERMALINK

SecularAnimist,

This is an example of the screamingly dishonest rubbish

No, it is yet another example of the fact that you do not read even your own citations. The paper "Changes in Tropical Cyclone Number, Duration, and Intensity in a Warming Environment" that you cite above is a prime example. Not only does it not conflict with the NOAA statement about the relationship between storms and global warming that I quoted previously, it explicitly confirms that statement. It repeatedly describes the idea that increased storm activity is caused by global warming as "speculation," and concludes with the following statement:

"... attribution of the 30-year trends [of increasing storm activity] to global warming would require a longer global data record and, especially, a deeper understanding of the role of hurricanes in the general circulation of the atmosphere and ocean, even in the present climate state."

Posted by: GOP on April 27, 2006 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK

Canada has been a large part of our contingent in Afghanistan. Canadians have bled and died in Afghanistan for years. Do you think you should really be denigrating and cheapening their sacrifice? Are you implying that those who have died mean nothing?

I've never said or even suggested anything of the sort. I've stated at least 3 times Canadian soldiers were every bit as brave as American soldiers. (Ditto French, German, spanish, Italian, etc.)

The problem is they've been bleeding their military for almost two decades now. Military spending is a pathetic 1.1% of GDP. Australia is 2/3's the size of Canada yet spends 75% more. Obviously their men will be far better trained and equipped. How could they not be?

The work being done in Afghanistan now by these brave soldiers is vital and important. However at the time of the inital invasion the US could not seriously consider a joint effort. The net result would have been a degradation of the USA effort due to the added complexity of having to coordinate 'alien' units of a lower level of experience, training and equipment.

I am not suggesting NATO is over but it is radically different. The USA will not be providing the defense umbrella for Europe. They've been able to spend much less because we spend much more. No longer! Rummy has removed 90% of our troops from Europe and they're not going back. Think of coalitions of the willing. We'll work within NATO when it makes sense to do so. The political dynamics now are such if something happened in Europe and they wanted American boots to help out it would be virtually impossible. 1st off, the group most likely to advocate a muscular policy, conservatives, would need to see a direct threat to the USA before assisting Western Europe. No president will move without conservative support.

For example, todays news of Iran getting missles capable of reaching Paris won't alarm conservatives at all in terms of French or German security. It's their problem. The sentiment in the USA will be that this is an EU issue, not a NATO issue. The EU has more people than the USA and a larger economy. They can provide their own defense. If they want to invest 1% go for it.

Given the Europeans are far more skilled at diplomacy than we Americans it might be 1% is more than they need. I suspect places like Iran look at that 1% and think something else. The good news it's a decision for the Europeans to make and enjoy the benefits or suffer the consequences. That's as it should be.

Posted by: rdw on April 27, 2006 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK

This isn't the guesswork deniers want to pretend it is.


That's exactly what it is. It's one thing to take the temperature and quite another to know what caused it. Do we even know how many variables there are? No. Do we have a clue as to how they interact? Barely.

GW is nonsense. They don't have a clue.

Posted by: rdw on April 27, 2006 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINK

Tee hee hee. Do please show me the 'excellent information" SecularAnimist has provided to support, for example, his lunatic assertion that an immediate 90% reduction in fossil fuel burning is necessary for us to even have a hope of preventing global catastrophe and the end of human civilization.

I don't know precisely what SecularAnimist is referencing, but a scientist who helped develop instrumentation for NASA to explore Mars said something very similar:

"We are in a fool's climate, accidentally kept cool by smoke, and before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable."

He's also the inventor of the revolutionary Electron Capture Detector used worldwide in gas chromatograpy, as well as the President of the Marine Biological Assocation, a Fellow of the Royal Society, and a member of the prestigious Order of the Companions of Honour.

Posted by: Windhorse on April 27, 2006 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINK

Windhorse:

I don't know precisely what SecularAnimist is referencing

I told you what he is referencing. He made the lunatic claim that we must immediately reduce fossil fuel burning by 90% to even have a hope of preventing global catastrophe and the end of human civilization. If you think you have scientific evidence to substantiate this preposterous claim, produce it.

but a scientist who helped develop instrumentation for NASA to explore Mars said something very similar:

Er, your link goes to a non-existent Wikipedia page.

Posted by: GOP on April 27, 2006 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINK

GW is nonsense. They don't have a clue.

Except the "they" that are making the claims are the vast majority of the world's scientists and you are a political nutjob with a radical agenda and no education whatsoever in the area posting from his den.

Do you see what's wrong with that picture?

No, I didn't think so, and that's (one of) your (many) problem(s).

You are such an elitist.

Posted by: Windhorse on April 27, 2006 at 2:05 PM | PERMALINK

Er, your link goes to a non-existent Wikipedia page.

Whoops, don't know how that happened. It was just a link to Lovelock's credentials that I mentioned, as I think he is commonly assumed to just be some guy who wrote a book, when in fact he is an important and accomplished scientist.

Whether or not he is the source of SecularAnismist's claim I don't know, but he essentially agrees with it. Although he is perhaps more pessimistic, because I don't think he necessarily believes we can head off disaster now by any cutback on fossil fuel emissions.

Posted by: Windhorse on April 27, 2006 at 2:22 PM | PERMALINK

Seems to me that you are confusing the writings of various commentators who have a bias against Europe and Canada with actual facts

I am not confusing a single thing nor have you presented a single fact not already well known.

The segment you printed concerning karzi is fascinating and makes my point about US military excellence vs others.

senior aides to President Hamid Karzai say any US withdrawal, no matter how it is camouflaged, will be disastrous for people's morale

NATO is putting in 6,000 troops replacing 4,000 US troops and that's bad for Afghan morale? Shouldn't NATO be insulted? What am I missing?
It speaks volumes doesn't it?

But I'll repeat. What NATO is doing in Afghanistan is great and the troops are heroes. They're every bit as heroic as the American troops they stand beside.

I wasn't speaking of Afghanistan. I was speaking of Iraq. Conservatives learned much about Europe from Iraq. The French and Germans actively stabbed us in the back and it will not be forgotten. Friends can have differences and decide to take different paths. This went well beyond a mere difference. They worked against us.

I'm not quite sure what Europeans and American liberals thought the outrageous anti-americanism was going to get them. I understand american libs hoping to create a political disaster for Bush and be returned to power. It was a dumb sentiment but I know the thinking.

What were our wise European cousins thinking? Why would anyone put all of their eggs in one basket?

GWB has negotiated 8 Free trade Agreements (up from 3) and has 17 on his plate. None are with Western Europe. Trade and diplomatic deals with Asia are exploding. US unit exports rose a stunning 12% in the 1st Qtr led by Asia. Intel now gets 60% of it's sales in Asia. GE started investing in Asia 20 years ago and has a huge presence. Rumsfeld has reduced NATO forces 90% permanently and formally returned the associated bases. Rice announced a state department restructuring downsizing Western Europe to increase the middle east and Asia. She specially mentioned we have as many diplomats in France as we do in India but it should reflect the populations. That's a 19 to 1 ratio.

We can agree these are smart and obvious moves. The leadership of the EU is collapsing as their economy continues it's 2nd decade of weak growth. Merkel inherits a divided govt, Spain has a socialist, Chirac has 20% support but another year while Blair is at his weakest and many have 2 years. The effort at a constitution was a debacle and several countries are reconsidering the wisdon of joining.

So why is NATO important? Shouldn't the EU provide it's own defense? Shouldn't they decide what they want to be without American influence?

The fact is NATO is an artifact of the cold war. It's over. There is the US and the EU. They should remain separate joining in coalitions of the willing as needed or working within the UN but not form permanent alliances outside commerce.

I'd much rather continue to improve relations with Australia, Japan, Indonesia, Thailand, India and the middle east.

Sorry Jason but all of this is fact. Rummy has permanently reduced European troops counts by 90%. Rice has announced a major restructuring and transfer of diplomatic personnel from Europe to Asia specifically suggesting it should reflect relative populations. GWB has signed 8 Free Trade Deals none with Western Europe and he is negotiating for 17 more. THe leadership within the EU is especially weak with divided governments and lame ducks. US trade with Asia is exploding and many American companies get a majority of their sales fomr the region including Intel (60%). It's also a fact this administration has been focused on improving relations with a majority of Asian nations with a series of trade and diplomatic initiatives and a series of actual agreements (India/nuclear power) while as far as I know little is happening with Western Europe.

In fact many weeks ago Chirac called GWB over some provication by Iran and the WH immediately issued a release stating GWB did not call Chirac and did not seek the call. That's hostile. GWB understands his base.

Nothing here is opinion. It's all factual. Much of this has been done in the last 3 years and GWB has 3 more.

BTW: this doesn't even touch on Israel. Consider Sharon. American libs and Europeans hated him. With GWBs help he became the indespensible man doing exactly the opposite of recommended by Paris and Clinton.

Sorry Jason, GWB has remade the world. European-American relations are vastly different, American-Canadian not much different. It was always trade-based and never exceptionally warm. Australia and the UK have always been stronger allies. That won't change. To the extent NATO is important to Canada it's a loss for them. The Canadians spend 1% on defence and they get what they pay for.

Posted by: rdw on April 27, 2006 at 2:45 PM | PERMALINK

Huh? As if this needs to be said, Bulgaria is part of Europe.

Bulgaria and the US reached a final agreement allowing the US military to use several military bases in Bulgaria on March 24. The US will be able to use three Bulgarian military bases - the Novo Selo range and the Bezmer both near Bulgaria's border with Turkey, and the Graf Ignatievo airfield in central Bulgaria. US forces will also use a storage facility near Bulgaria's port of Burgas.

So where's the part about stationing troops? We have access to two bases and a place to position assets.

You may have a minor point. The 90% figure is not final. The US has excellent relations with Eastern Europe and may decide to stations troops there after pulling out of Iraq. These troops will not be going back to Germany. They will keep a number in Iraq for a while AND at huge bases we have in Bahrain and Qatar

Posted by: rdw on April 27, 2006 at 2:55 PM | PERMALINK

Don P, using the handle "GOP", posted the following:

"... attribution of the 30-year trends [of increasing storm activity] to global warming would require a longer global data record and, especially, a deeper understanding of the role of hurricanes in the general circulation of the atmosphere and ocean, even in the present climate state."
-- Greg Holland et al, Changes in Tropical Cyclone Number, Duration, and Intensity in a Warming Environment [This is the paper SecularAnimist cited himself]

Here is the complete paragraph that Don P selectively quoted (emphasis added to the portions that Don P deliberately omitted):

We conclude that global data indicate a 30-year trend toward more frequent and intense hurricanes, corroborated by the results of the recent regional assessment. This trend is not inconsistent with recent climate model simulations that a doubling of CO2 may increase the frequency of the most intense cyclones, although attribution of the 30-year trends to global warming would require a longer global data record and, especially, a deeper understanding of the role of hurricanes in the general circulation of the atmosphere and ocean, even in the present climate state.

Further excerpts:

We examined the number of tropical cyclones and cyclone days as well as tropical cyclone intensity over the past 35 years, in an environment of increasing sea surface temperature [...] Numerous studies have addressed the issue of changes in the global frequency and intensity of hurricanes in the warming world [...] Global modeling results for doubled CO2 scenarios are contradictory, with simulations showing a lack of consistency in projecting an increase or decrease in the total number of hurricanes, although most simulations project an increase in hurricane intensity [...] The observation that increases in North Atlantic hurricane characteristics have occurred simultaneously with a statistically significant positive trend in SST has led to the speculation that the changes in both fields are the result of global warming.

So this paper about hurricane activity in "a warming world" tells us that:

(1) there is an observed 30-year trend toward more frequent and intense hurricanes;

(2) this trend has occurred simultaneously with an observed warming of the ocean (sea surface temperatures or SST);

(3) most models of the effects of anthropogenic increases in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 predict an increase in hurricane intensity;

(4) the observed trends are consistent with the predictions of the global warming models.

With regard to the sentence in the paper that the simultaneously observed increases in sea surface temperatures and intensity of hurricanes has led to the "speculation that the changes in both fields are the result of global warming", the attribution of the increase in sea surface temperatures to global warming caused by anthopogenic increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations is not "speculation":

Barnett, Tim et al. "Penetration of Human-Induced Warming into the Worlds Oceans." Science. 309(5732): 284-287 (8 July 2005). Science Express on 2 June 2005 at www.sciencemag.org

Abstract:

A warming signal has penetrated into the world's oceans over the past 40 years. The signal is complex, with a vertical structure that varies widely by ocean; it cannot be explained by natural internal climate variability or solar and volcanic forcing, but is well simulated by two anthropogenically forced climate models. We conclude that it is of human origin, a conclusion robust to observational sampling and model differences. Changes in advection combine with surface forcing to give the overall warming pattern. The implications of this study suggest that society needs to seriously consider model predictions of future climate change.

And as the previously cited paper says, among the "model predictions of future climate change" that society needs to "seriously consider" is an increase in the intensity of hurricanes, which is in fact no longer merely a prediction, but an observed reality.

A reality that Bush-bootlicking regurgitators of scripted right-wing propgaganda, like Don P, seek to obfuscate and ignore.


Posted by: SecularAnimist on April 27, 2006 at 3:03 PM | PERMALINK

Jason, I advise you not to waste your time on Don P, a.k.a. "GOP". He is a dishonest bullshit artist who delights in wasting people's time.

If you post an article from, for example, The New York Times, which discusses a peer-reviewed study published in Nature or Science, Don P will reply that The New York Times is not "the scientific literature". If you directly cite the original article from Nature or Science, he will either declare that article irrelevant (to whatever he decides to change the subject to), or pretend you never cited it and that he's "still waiting" for your "evidence", or he will selectively quote it to misrepresent its clear meaning so he can pretend that it supports his dogmatic, ill-informed pronouncements. That's how absurdly, blatantly dishonest he is.

For example, you cited James Lovelock's statement that due to anthropogenic global warming, "before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable."

What was Don P's inane response? To demand that you cite "statements by members of the professional climate science community."

Don't let Don P waste your precious time with his dishonest bullshit.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on April 27, 2006 at 3:14 PM | PERMALINK

You mean, after we cut and run? Is that the new position of the Republican Party? We must cut and run and put our troops in Bulgaria?

Cut and run is the Kerry plan. We start removing troops this year as they are replaced by Iraqi troops. Initially they will go home but eventually we'll target a number for foreign non-combat duty.


Yet another brilliant move. Perhaps we can launch an invasion of Romania next year and seize the Ploesti oil fields.

The bases are good for trade and relations. These economies are small but growing. Rather boost their economy than Germany's.

Posted by: rdw on April 27, 2006 at 4:56 PM | PERMALINK

You can't, can you? Because there is no such evidence. SecularAnimist's claim is just another example of the kind of preposterous, ludicrous, hybperbolic, irrational, we're-all-gonna-die! predictions of doom that he has long a history of making here.

We have a 95% chance of a temperature increase between 1.5-4.5C by the end of the century. An increase on the order of 3C would change the world dismally. 3C falls in the middle of that range. Roughly speaking, we have a 50% chance of 3C or worse. (Yes, I know that the probabilities don't divide up like that, but it's close enough for folk music.)

It gets worse. We've essentially already paid for the next 10 years. CO2 is a long lived gas. It has, as they say, a long tail. The CO2 that's up there now won't go away for a long time. And the oceans are like a global hot water bottle. They will give up their accumulated heat slowly. Even if we returned immediately to pre-industrial levels, we're going to reap what we've sown for the next 10 years. The possibility of returning to pre-industrial levels is essentially nil. No country wants to be the first to blink, economically. Our response to the baby steps of Kyoto showed that we sure weren't. Without the US, nothing will happen globally.

One little test, here. It's as if the world were saying, "Act disinterestedly. Do that, and you can extend the lease." But so many people have so much at stake. "Disinterestedly? That's for suckers." Ha. Flunk the test. Eviction time.

I'd guess that there's a 50/50 chance for that scenario to play out.

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on April 27, 2006 at 5:40 PM | PERMALINK

SecularAnimist,

Here is the complete paragraph that Don P selectively quoted (emphasis added to the portions that Don P deliberately omitted):
We conclude that global data indicate a 30-year trend toward more frequent and intense hurricanes, corroborated by the results of the recent regional assessment. This trend is not inconsistent with recent climate model simulations that a doubling of CO2 may increase the frequency of the most intense cyclones, although attribution of the 30-year trends to global warming would require a longer global data record and, especially, a deeper understanding of the role of hurricanes in the general circulation of the atmosphere and ocean, even in the present climate state.

This is classic SecularAnimist bait-and-switch. It's always the same pattern: You make a ridiculous claim; you are then challenged to substantiate that claim with scientific evidence; and you respond by pretending you didn't make the challenged claim at all, and proceed to substantiate a different claim that was not disputed. The words you have emphasized above are completely irrelevant to the issue in dispute. I have not disputed that there has been a 30-year trend of increased storm activity. I have not disputed that this increase is "consistent" with an increase in CO2 concentration or global warming.

The dispute is over your claim that the evidence shows that the increase in storm activity is attributable to global warming.

Your own citation, as well as the NOAA and realclimate.org statements, reject your claim:

""... attribution of the 30-year trends [of increasing storm activity] to global warming would require a longer global data record and, especially, a deeper understanding of the role of hurricanes in the general circulation of the atmosphere and ocean, even in the present climate state."

The paper you yourself cited clearly states in its concluding sentence that we don't have the necessary data record or the necessary understanding of hurricanes to attribute the trend of increased storm activity to global warming. You obviously don't even read your own citations.

Posted by: GOP on April 27, 2006 at 5:44 PM | PERMALINK

Don P, the Bush-bootlicking robotic regurgitator of scriped right-wing propaganda who recently has been posting as "GOP", wrote: I'm still waiting for you to do that ...

You are a liar. You are not "still waiting" for anything. You aren't interested in "evidence", you are interested with regurgitating the right-wing talking points that you get from Rush Limbaugh and impressing yourself with your ability to waste people's time with bullshit.

Whenver anyone posts scientific evidence demonstrating your abject ignorance and the emptiness of your scripted, programmed talking points, you lie. You either deliberately and grotesquely misrepresent the clear meaning of what was posted, twisting yourself in knots trying to pretend it doesn't mean what it plainly does mean, or you ignore it, pretend it was never posted, and lie that you are "still waiting" for it.

Do you even know who James Lovelock is? Can you offer any reason at all why his view of the likely consequences of anthropogenic global warming (which is, if anything, even more pessimistic than mine) should be taken less seriously than your grossly ignorant, dogmatic pronouncements?

Because there is no such evidence.

You are a grossly and willfully ignorant blowhard.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on April 27, 2006 at 5:47 PM | PERMALINK

Jeffery Davis,

We have a 95% chance of a temperature increase between 1.5-4.5C by the end of the century. An increase on the order of 3C would change the world dismally. 3C falls in the middle of that range. Roughly speaking, we have a 50% chance of 3C or worse. (Yes, I know that the probabilities don't divide up like that, but it's close enough for folk music.)

This claim is just utter nonsense. The IPCC did not provide a probability distribution for its range of temperature increase estimates, but the probability distribution is certainly not linear. Climate scientists at MIT estimated the probability of a temp increase at the high end of the IPCC's estimated range to be less than 1%. You cannot just arbitrarily assign a probability of 50% to the mean of the estimated range. That's just scientifically illiterate.

Even if we could be confident of the magnitude of the average global temperature increase, we do not have anything remotely close to a clear understanding of the environmental effects of that increase.

And all this is irrelevant to the issue of SecularAnimist's "90% reduction" claim, anyway.

Show me your scientific evidence substantiating SecularAnimist's ludicrous claim that unless we IMMEDIATELY reduce fossil fuel burning by NINETY PERCENT, we don't even have a HOPE of preventing GLOBAL CATASTROPHE AND THE END OF HUMAN CIVILIZATION."

Show me your evidence for THAT claim. You can't, can you? Because the claim is utterly preposterous, a typical example of SecularAnimist's total lunacy on the issue of global warming.

Posted by: GOP on April 27, 2006 at 5:59 PM | PERMALINK

SecularAnimist,

What part of...

"... attribution of the 30-year trends [of increasing storm activity] to global warming would require a longer global data record and, especially, a deeper understanding of the role of hurricanes in the general circulation of the atmosphere and ocean, even in the present climate state."

...don't you understand?

And what part of...

"the changes of the past decade are not so large as to clearly indicate that anything is going on other than the multi-decadal variability that has been well documented since at least 1900"

...don't you understand?

And what part of...

"the available scientific evidence indicates that it is likely that global warming ... possibly already is making - those hurricanes that form more destructive than they otherwise would have been."

...don't you understand?

Posted by: GOP on April 27, 2006 at 6:07 PM | PERMALINK

Don P, what part of this don't you understand:

"The hurricanes we are seeing are indeed a direct result of climate change and it's no longer something we'll see in the future, it's happening now," said Greg Holland, a division director at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado.

Holland told a packed hall at the American Meteorological Society's 27th Conference on Hurricanes and Tropical Meteorology that the wind and warmer water conditions that fuel storms that form in the Caribbean are "increasingly due to greenhouse gases. There seems to be no other conclusion you can logically draw."

[...]

"What we're seeing right now in global climate temperature is a signature of climate change," said Holland, a native of Australia. "The large bulk of the scientific community say what we are seeing now is linked directly to greenhouse gases."

Greg Holland is one of the co-authors, with Peter Webster, of the September 2005 paper I cited previously, which reported simultaneous 30-year trends in both increasing sea surface temperatures (which another paper I cited above showed to be caused by anthropogenic global warming and ruled out any other explanations) and the intensity of hurricanes, both of which are predicted by global warming models.

You asked for quotes from "professional climate scientists" -- while with your usual blatant and absurd dishonesty, ignoring throughout this entire thread the very such quotes that were the subject of Kevin's original blog post!

If you want to continue making a fool of yourself this way, carry on.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on April 27, 2006 at 6:24 PM | PERMALINK

SecularAnimist,

Yes, I know who James Lovelock is. He's an 86-year-old retired "environmentalist" who has been making increasingly nutty claims as he's gotten older. He is not a climate scientist. He never has been a climate scientist. He has no recognized expertise in climate science. And he makes claims that no professional climate scientist would endorse.

His "billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic" nonsense is from an op-ed he wrote for the British newspaper The Independent. Here is James Annan's scathing critique of Lovelock's piece, which he describes as "alarmist nonsense." Unlike Lovelock, Annan is a professional climate scientist. In fact, he's a member of the IPCC and a contributor to realclimate.org.

Posted by: GOP on April 27, 2006 at 6:29 PM | PERMALINK

SecularAnimist,

Don P, what part of this don't you understand

I understand it perfectly well. I understand, as you do not, that it's not a scientific document of any kind, but merely a news report containing a statement that Holland allegedly made to a reporter. In the actual scientific paper that he co-authored, Holland explicitly rejects the claim that the scientific evidence supports attribution of increased storm intensity to global warming. You keep mentioning this paper yourself. In fact, you just cited it again. I don't know why you can't understand its concluding sentence:

"... attribution of the 30-year trends [of increasing storm activity] to global warming would require a longer global data record and, especially, a deeper understanding of the role of hurricanes in the general circulation of the atmosphere and ocean, even in the present climate state."

What words don't you understand here? "Attribution?" "Would require?" "longer global data record?" "Deeper understanding?"

Posted by: GOP on April 27, 2006 at 6:38 PM | PERMALINK

Don P wrote: Yes, I know who James Lovelock is. He's an 86-year-old retired "environmentalist" who has been making increasingly nutty claims as he's gotten older.

You are an ignorant buffoon and a pathetic liar. James Lovelock is indeed a prominent climate scientist; he developed his Gaia hypothesis (known within the scientific community as the discipline of Earth Systems Science) while working for NASA analyzing the chemistry of the atmosphere of Mars to look for evidence of life. As The Independent noted, Lovelock "was one of a select group of scientists who gave an initial briefing on global warming to Margaret Thatcher's Cabinet at 10 Downing Street in April 1989."

From James Lovelock's biography which I linked to above:

James Lovelock is the author of approximately 200 scientific papers, distributed almost equally among topics in Medicine, Biology, Instrument Science and Geophysiology. He has filed more than 50 patents, mostly for detectors for use in chemical analysis. One of these, the electron capture detector, was important in the development of environmental awareness. It revealed for the first time the ubiquitous distribution of pesticide residues and other halogen bearing chemicals. This information enabled Rachel Carson to write her book, Silent Spring, often said to have initiated the awareness of environmental disturbance. Later it enabled the discovery of the presence of PCB's in the natural environment. More recently the electron capture detector was responsible for the discovery of the global distribution of nitrous oxide and of the chlorofluorocarbons, both of which are important in the stratospheric chemistry of ozone. Some of his inventions were adopted by NASA in their programme of planetary exploration. He was awarded by NASA three certificates of recognition for these.

He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1974 and in 1975 received the Tswett Medal for Chromatography. Earlier he received a CIBA Foundation Prize for research in Ageing. In 1980 he received the American Chemical Society's award for Chromatography and in 1986 the Silver Medal and Prize of the Plymouth Marine Laboratory. In 1988 he was a recipient of the Norbert Gerbier Prize of the World Meteorological Organization, and in 1990 was awarded the first Amsterdam Prize for the Environment by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences. In 1996 he received both the Nonino Prize and the Volvo Environment Prize, and in 1997 Japan's Blue Planet Prize. He has received honorary Doctorates in Science from the University of East Anglia 1982, Exeter University 1988, Plymouth Polytechnic (now Plymouth University) 1988, Stockholm University 1991, University of Edinburgh 1993, University of Kent and the University of East London in 1996, and from the University of Colorado in 1997. He was made a C.B.E. by Her Majesty the Queen in 1990.

Don P tells some more blatant and absurd lies, referring to climate scientist Greg Holland, the subject of Kevin's orginal blog entry: ... it's not a scientific document of any kind, but merely a news report containing a statement that Holland allegedly made to a reporter.

You are an ignorant buffoon and a liar. You are pretending that you don't know that Holland's quoted remarks were most certainly not "a statement that Holland allegedly made to a reporter", but comments made to "a packed hall at the American Meteorological Society's 27th Conference on Hurricanes and Tropical Meteorology" while presenting a paper on the 2005 hurricane season.

As you always do, you have lost this debate. And as always, you lost it because you have nothing to offer but belligerent, arrogant ignorance and blatant, absurd dishonesty.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on April 27, 2006 at 7:35 PM | PERMALINK

SecularAnimist,

You are an ignorant buffoon and a pathetic liar.

You're a complete and total lunatic.

I think it's worth quoting James Annan's comments on Lovelock in full:

Lovelock in the Independent

Via Stoat, I find that Lovelock is getting himself some press coverage for his new book. His article is full of lots of alarmist nonsense, including the gem

'before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable'

Some quantitative estimates too:

'as the century progresses, the temperature will rise 8 degrees centigrade in temperate regions and 5 degrees in the tropics'

I don't know what planet he's living on, but these estimates are ridiculous. The globe will probably warm by about 2-3C in the next century, with oceans and tropical areas generally warming less than the average, and land and northern latitudes warming more. Something in the region of 8 degrees warming by the end of the century might be about right for the north pole, but not for the UK. 5C in the tropics is simply make-believe.

I hope that intelligent readers will see this for what it is - a plug for his new enviro-horror fantasy thriller, and not a scientifically meaningful comment any more than the execrable Crichton. It's a shame to see formerly-respected scientists "go emeritus" (see here for another) but his past achievements do not immunise him from criticism.

Posted by: GOP on April 27, 2006 at 8:44 PM | PERMALINK

SecularAnimist,

referring to climate scientist Greg Holland, the subject of Kevin's orginal blog entry: ... it's not a scientific document of any kind, but merely a news report containing a statement that Holland allegedly made to a reporter.

No, that wasn't a reference to Greg Holland, it was a reference to the news report that Kevin and you have cited, containing a statement Holland allegedly made to a reporter. Newsflash for SecularAnimist: A news report is not a scientific document.

For an actual scientific document co-written by Greg Holland, see the very paper you cited yourself, "Changes in Tropical Cyclone Number, Duration, and Intensity in a Warming Environment." In this actual scientific paper Greg Holland and his co-authors state:

"... attribution of the 30-year trends [of increasing storm activity] to global warming would require a longer global data record and, especially, a deeper understanding of the role of hurricanes in the general circulation of the atmosphere and ocean, even in the present climate state."

Again, what part of this don't you understand?


Posted by: GOP on April 27, 2006 at 8:52 PM | PERMALINK

But what if Iraqi troops cannot stand up as we stand down? Logically, one would assume that US troops would not be able to leave. Yet, it sounds to me like they're leaving whether the Iraqis are ready or not.

The Iraqi troops have been standing up for over a year and they have the higher casualty rates to prove it. There are over 250K trained troops and police and they're adding 5k - 8k per month.


And how is that not cutting and running? Who shall be 'targeted' for foreign duty? Who gets to draw that lucky straw and spend more years overseas?

We've have over 150K troops stationed overseas for the 60 years since WWII. We've reduced our counts in Korea by 10K and Germany by

Sorry, but this is all pretty badly managed, and I hope we can bring our troops home and let the Iraqis sort it out themselves.

Posted by: rdw on April 27, 2006 at 8:57 PM | PERMALINK

SecularAnimist,

I'm also still waiting for your scientific evidence substantiating your lunatic assertion that unless we IMMEDIATELY reduce fossil fuel burning by NINETY PERCENT, we don't even have a HOPE of preventing GLOBAL CATASTROPHE AND THE END OF HUMAN CIVILIZATION.

Posted by: GOP on April 27, 2006 at 8:59 PM | PERMALINK

And how is that not cutting and running? Who shall be 'targeted' for foreign duty? Who gets to draw that lucky straw and spend more years overseas?

We've have over 200K troops stationed overseas for the 60 years since WWII.

We've reduced our counts in Korea by 10K and will reduce them by another 5,000 by 2008. We have also moved another 15,000 away from the DMZ to southern Korea.

We have reduced our counts in Germany by 70,000. This is our entire infantry. They're not going back. Many were sent to Iraq and have since rotated home. After we leave iraq permanently these troops will relocate within the region or to Eastern Europe.

ABC reported today the US expects to reduce our troops in Iraq by 30,000 as early as November. This will bring Iraq troop counts down to 100,000.

With the reductions of 70,000 from Germany and 10,000 from Korea our overseas deployments as of 12/1/06 will not be much different than 9/11/01.

Also note the number of active reserves has been dropping at a rate of over 2,000 per week this year. Mobilized reservists are down to about 105K from 138K at the end of the year. This is versus 61k at the end of 2001.

Posted by: rdw on April 27, 2006 at 9:18 PM | PERMALINK

Don P wrote: I'm also still waiting ...

You are a liar. You are not "still waiting" for anything. You are still engaging in fake, phony, utterly empty rhetorical posturing in an effort to waste my time with more of your bullshit.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on April 27, 2006 at 9:19 PM | PERMALINK

SecularAnimist,

You are a ludicrously blatant liar.

You are a lying lunatic.

Repeat after me: A news report is not a scientific document.

For an example of an actual scientific document co-authored by professional climate scientist Greg Holland, see your own citation, Changes in Tropical Cyclone Number, Duration, and Intensity in a Warming Environment. In this actual scientific paper, Greg Holland and his co-authors state:

"... attribution of the 30-year trends [of increasing storm activity] to global warming would require a longer global data record and, especially, a deeper understanding of the role of hurricanes in the general circulation of the atmosphere and ocean, even in the present climate state."

Again, what part of this don't you understand?

And here's the NOAA, on the same question:

"the changes [in storm activity] of the past decade are not so large as to clearly indicate that anything is going on other than the multi-decadal variability that has been well documented since at least 1900"

Again, what part of this don't you understand?

And here's realclimate.org:

"the available scientific evidence indicates that it is likely that global warming ... possibly already is making - those hurricanes that form more destructive than they otherwise would have been."

Again, what part of this don't you understand?

Posted by: GOP on April 27, 2006 at 9:30 PM | PERMALINK

SecularAnimist,

I'm also still waiting for your scientific evidence substantiating your lunatic assertion that unless we IMMEDIATELY reduce fossil fuel burning by NINETY PERCENT, we don't even have a HOPE of preventing GLOBAL CATASTROPHE AND THE END OF HUMAN CIVILIZATION.

Posted by: GOP on April 27, 2006 at 9:31 PM | PERMALINK

And if the balloon goes up? Send in the Boy Scouts, I guess.

Sure as hell won't be the Yuengling Brigade of the 101st Keyboarders. Their mad typing skilz are desperately needed back here at home. You'll find them in their dens, listening to Rush for inspiration while furiously pounding the keys to whip up fervor against Dan Rather and our European allies, all sweaty from the effort and throwing back premium lagers one after another just to keep going.

Posted by: Windhorse on April 27, 2006 at 10:08 PM | PERMALINK

Jason, you are a fraud.

We had 200,000 troops stationed overseas BEFORE 9/10 including over 70,000 in Germany and 40,000 in South Korea.

All 70,000 in Germany were removed. So far nearly 10,000 have been removed from South Korea and at least another 2,500 will be removed. Additionally another 10,000 will be moved from the DNZ and Capital to the southern tip.

We have troops in Germany why?

Some troops in a support role in South Korea makes some sense but they are now a wealthy country quite capable of defending itself and not thrilled with our presence. I'd remove ALL 40,000.

This we have 130,000 troops in Iraq but on a net basis only 50,000 more are stationed overseas as a result of Iraq.

As far as the reserves their recruitment has been very strong hurt only by the fact so many regular army soldiers are re-enlisiting. The reason the MSM no longer discusses recruitment or reenlistment or reserve strength is they're all doing well.

Posted by: rdw on April 28, 2006 at 9:24 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly