Politics

[connor_in]

 

[Cackalacky]

I can count on one hand how many times I have been a tough guy here lol.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Full Report | National Climate Assessment

The National Climate Assessment has just been released. This report deals only with the United States and is MASSIVELY DETAILED. It is the most comprehensive report yet to date and has been scrutinized to death before publication.



I urge everyone to spend time reading this. It took me most of last night to get through it but it is incredibly well done.

Here is the thing that bothers me about climate change. People are telling us, including the President, that the science is "settled".

How would we feel if the same people came out and said that chemistry was settled? Or that physics is settled? What if Einstein believed that it was settled that time was absolute as Newton thought?

I have no doubt that the report is scrutinized heavily and that people truly believe what they are writing. But what if they are looking at it wrong? What if there is some other measurement that obsoletes current models? The fact that so many people are not open to the idea that perhaps the current thinking is wrong, gives me very good reason to be skeptical given that humans have been wrong so many times in the past.

Please don't take this directed at you Cack, b/c it's not. Also, please don't assume that I am against trying to change things proactively incase the science is right. I just believe balance is missing in the debate, as skeptics are mercilessly ridiculed. History supports their concerns.

 

[Cackalacky]

Here is the thing that bothers me about climate change. People are telling us, including the President, that the science is "settled".

How would we feel if the same people came out and said that chemistry was settled? Or that physics is settled? What if Einstein believed that it was settled that time was absolute as Newton thought?

I have no doubt that the report is scrutinized heavily and that people truly believe what they are writing. But what if they are looking at it wrong? What if there is some other measurement that obsoletes current models? The fact that so many people are not open to the idea that perhaps the current thinking is wrong, gives me very good reason to be skeptical given that humans have been wrong so many times in the past.

Please don't take this directed at you Cack, b/c it's not. Also, please don't assume that I am against trying to change things proactively incase the science is right. I just believe balance is missing in the debate, as skeptics are mercilessly ridiculed. History supports their concerns.

Just read the report or don't. I hope you do. To the bolded, not being open to an idea is the problem. Read the report. Argumentum ad populum is a terrible reason to believe anything. Be skeptical but don't follow an ideological herd.

Regarding your balance issue. Should we consider balance when arguing with flat-earthers or young-earth creationists? No. Someone who argues that endogenous retrovial DNA sequences do not implicitly show humans and other animals have evolved from a common ancestor? No there is no balance needed except in the political and economical arenas who actively fight it for money or political reasons.

Once again read the report. When you have multiple lines of evidence converging on a single conclusion.... well that tends to be the answer. That is just the result of the methods used. Its hard to argue against it and to do so you need evidence to the contrary and it is just not there.

 

[connor_in]

I can count on one hand how many times I have been a tough guy here lol.

I posted a picture...you called me an idiot...whatever number you counted on your one hand prior to today...unfold another finger

 

[kmoose]

Yeah...this type of bait and switch stuff is pretty stupid. I guess being pissed because someone you know maybe had their ass shot off or got blown up in a war that the administration she was a key cog in and which we now know made stuff up to justify said war isn't a good enough reason for not wanting to have her speak at a commencement? This isn't about ideas it's about actions taken and decisions made. Has she come out and apologized for her role in or condemned the decisions that were made which lead to those needless deaths? Don't think so.

Has Nancy Pelosi? Because Pelosi and her merry gang were also shouting from the rooftops about how dangerous Hussein and his chemical weapons were. Just out of curiousity; what stuff was made up?

 

[Cackalacky]

I posted a picture...you called me an idiot...whatever number you counted on your one hand prior to today...unfold another finger

LOL. If you think that is being a tough guy you have very thin skin. You posted the picture in a dismissive manner and without reading the link. So you 1) obviously did not read it and did not care to read it and 2) took the time to go to google images and find an dismissive photo in order to post here in a derisive/mocking manner based on your well documented predispositions. But what you should have done is, as GoIrish said, found a picture of an ostrich with its head buried in the sand and posted that instead. That would have been infinitely more accurate.

 

[connor_in]

Just read the report or don't. I hope you do. To the bolded, not being open to an idea is the problem. Read the report. Argumentum ad populum is a terrible reason to believe anything. Be skeptical but don't follow an ideological herd.

Regarding your balance issue. Should we consider balance when arguing with flat-earthers or young-earth creationists? No. Someone who argues that endogenous retrovial DNA sequences do not implicitly show humans and other animals have evolved from a common ancestor? No there is no balance needed except in the political and economical arenas who actively fight it for money or political reasons.

Once again read the report. When you have multiple lines of evidence converging on a single conclusion.... well that tends to be the answer. That is just the result of the methods used. Its hard to argue against it and to do so you need evidence to the contrary and it is just not there.

First, maybe you should heed your own advice I bolded above.

Second, I don't think anyone is denying there is climate change. There always has been and always will be climate change. Long before anything man-like started scrabbling over the earth and long after we aren't even a memory here, there will be climate change. What you are arguing is AGW or Anthropogenic (man-made) Global Warming, which was renamed to Climate Change because the warming wasn't occurring as quickly as modeled. They had to change it and start pointing to any thing that occurred and say that it was much worse now due to climate change or else wide swaths of believers would turn a deaf ear to them. Those that put out this heavily political document, want us to believe man and his carbon footprint are the cause of all of this and immediate radical changes are the only way to curb it (and before I go any further, I have not read the current document yet, but read its predecessor and what I am told is this is very similar but with more exclamation points and more references to now vs references to the future). The problem is many predictions that keep being made keep coming out not true or at the very least exagerated over what occurs. Also, whenever we have a cold snap or the Gore Effect ( Urban Dictionary: Gore Effect ) and someone points it out or laughs at a believer, they tell us how weather is climate. Conversely, whenever a bad storm hits, or we have a heat wave it is automatically a symptom of climate change and the weather isn't climate line is forgotten. Heck, we had a terrible winter this year and believers blame climate change for that too...please tell me what isn't attributable to AGW/climate change?

As I said, AGW believers think this is all man's fault. Does man effect the atmoshpere, yes. Is all climate change man's fault, no. This I think is one of the main problems of the backlash you have received. The idea that it is all our fault in a huge complex, ever changing ecosystem seems to easy an answer. That and the immediate, radical, economy damaging solutions which your side wants to implement makes people stop and think. Not even mentioning that the solutions/changes that you want to implement are not proven and may very well not work. Please see the effect of the Kyoto treaty on those that implemented parts of it.

Basically your side asks us to trust you, that you know what to do and whom to fund, and what changes to make to save us all. But many don't necessarily believe you do know. Also, seeing the baby steps of the green economy funded by our government be such disasters like a Solyndra, the terrible effects of green economic policies starting to be implemented in other parts of the world makes many worry about your "solutions".

 

[Cackalacky]

First, maybe you should heed your own advice I bolded above.

Second, I don't think anyone is denying there is climate change. There always has been and always will be climate change. Long before anything man-like started scrabbling over the earth and long after we aren't even a memory here, there will be climate change. What you are arguing is AGW or Anthropogenic (man-made) Global Warming, which was renamed to Climate Change because the warming wasn't occurring as quickly as modeled. They had to change it and start pointing to any thing that occurred and say that it was much worse now due to climate change or else wide swaths of believers would turn a deaf ear to them. Those that put out this heavily political document, want us to believe man and his carbon footprint are the cause of all of this and immediate radical changes are the only way to curb it (and before I go any further, I have not read the current document yet, but read its predecessor and what I am told is this is very similar but with more exclamation points and more references to now vs references to the future). The problem is many predictions that keep being made keep coming out not true or at the very least exagerated over what occurs. Also, whenever we have a cold snap or the Gore Effect ( Urban Dictionary: Gore Effect ) and someone points it out or laughs at a believer, they tell us how weather is climate. Conversely, whenever a bad storm hits, or we have a heat wave it is automatically a symptom of climate change and the weather isn't climate line is forgotten. Heck, we had a terrible winter this year and believers blame climate change for that too...please tell me what isn't attributable to AGW/climate change?

As I said, AGW believers think this is all man's fault. Does man effect the atmoshpere, yes. Is all climate change man's fault, no. This I think is one of the main problems of the backlash you have received. The idea that it is all our fault in a huge complex, ever changing ecosystem seems to easy an answer. That and the immediate, radical, economy damaging solutions which your side wants to implement makes people stop and think. Not even mentioning that the solutions/changes that you want to implement are not proven and may very well not work. Please see the effect of the Kyoto treaty on those that implemented parts of it.

Basically your side asks us to trust you, that you know what to do and whom to fund, and what changes to make to save us all. But many don't necessarily believe you do know. Also, seeing the baby steps of the green economy funded by our government be such disasters like a Solyndra, the terrible effects of green economic policies starting to be implemented in other parts of the world makes many worry about your "solutions".

So much fail in this post. Please ....you need to read the report so you can stop positing the numerous erroneous statements above as a valid point of view. I have no side. My intent in posting the report is purely academic and to generate some discussion with those who might read it You have not obviously as the majority of your above post is addressed, step by step and with great detail and evidential support. People like you inject politics in it. Your statements on AGW are very far off and wrong and actually the report clearly shows that AGW is a real thing and is accelerating. Again read the report. It is quite clear or don't. Fuck it....

 

[Bluto]

Has Nancy Pelosi? Because Pelosi and her merry gang were also shouting from the rooftops about how dangerous Hussein and his chemical weapons were. Just out of curiousity; what stuff was made up?

The "intelligence" stating Hussein had WMD's in the first place and or had something to do with Al Queda. I think it's as pathetic that Pelosi and others were so quick to beat the drums of war but we're talking about Rice and why people might not want her to speak at their commencement. If people didn't want Diane Feinstein to speak at their commencement because she is a crony capitalist and a suck up who has parlayed her political office into being filthy rich I would be ok with that too.

 

[connor_in]

LOL. If you think that is being a tough guy you have very thin skin. You posted the picture in a dismissive manner and without reading the link. So you 1) obviously did not read it and did not care to read it and 2) took the time to go to google images and find an dismissive photo in order to post here in a derisive/mocking manner based on your well documented predispositions. But what you should have done is, as GoIrish said, found a picture of an ostrich with its head buried in the sand and posted that instead. That would have been infinitely more accurate.

^ This is another problem with AGW people. Dismissive, arrogant, and know-it-all attitudes. See the South Park Smug episode

What I should have done? Really? Please now tell me what i should do at my job? What should I eat for lunch? What religion should i be? What books should i read?

Please...tell me what else I SHOULD DO... since you seem to know what is best for me and apparently everyone else on the planet.

I eagerly await your response and please point me to where I can find THE TRVTH as you apparently have to all things ever

 

[connor_in]

So much fail in this post. Please ....you need to read the report so you can stop positing the numerous erroneous statements above as a valid point of view. I have no side. My intent in posting the report is purely academic and to generate some discussion with those who might read it You have not obviously as the majority of your above post is addressed, step by step and with great detail and evidential support. People like you inject politics in it. Your statements on AGW are very far off and wrong and actually the report clearly shows that AGW is a real thing and is accelerating. Again read the report. It is quite clear or don't. Fuck it....

The rest of your post here and your other posts show that your statement I bolded above is not true.

 

[GoIrish41]

Here is the thing that bothers me about climate change. People are telling us, including the President, that the science is "settled".

How would we feel if the same people came out and said that chemistry was settled? Or that physics is settled? What if Einstein believed that it was settled that time was absolute as Newton thought?

I have no doubt that the report is scrutinized heavily and that people truly believe what they are writing. But what if they are looking at it wrong? What if there is some other measurement that obsoletes current models? The fact that so many people are not open to the idea that perhaps the current thinking is wrong, gives me very good reason to be skeptical given that humans have been wrong so many times in the past.

Please don't take this directed at you Cack, b/c it's not. Also, please don't assume that I am against trying to change things proactively incase the science is right. I just believe balance is missing in the debate, as skeptics are mercilessly ridiculed. History supports their concerns.

Here is how I look at it.

Let's say you and I are standing in the middle of a long road and way off in a distance, we can see a Mack Truck barreling at us at 100 miles per hour. It's a long way off, so there is no urgent need to jump out of the road. Heck, we even have the option to have a debate about how long it will take before we have to move in order to avoid being hit by the truck. One of us may be able to do the math in our head and know exactly how long we have if all the factors in this scenario remain constant. The other might just go with his gut and feel like he'll know when the time is right to move out of the way. Meanwhile, that truck keeps coming. Soon we'll be able to hear it horn blasting to warn us if the driver believes that we may be two blind men standing in the road and he doesn't want to run us over. Still, we have some time to move if we choose to do so. The one of us who uses math to know precisely when to move, will probably just move and get it over with. He'll think, why risk it? If he waits until the last minute to move and trips and falls, he will get crushed, so he wisely steps out of the path of the oncoming truck. The other of us, determined that his gut is accurate, remains in the road to prove to the other guy that he was right. He's going to wait until he can smell the oil burning in the engine of the truck before he makes a move. Or worse, he believes that the truck driver will surely hit the breaks before any harm will come to him. If he's really crazy, he will deny there is a truck at all and tell the other guy he's an idiot for believing what he sees. In any case, I submit that the doubter's solution to the problem is a whole lot riskier than the guy who moved out of the way. When it comes to climate change, even in the off chance that all the science that is "settled" turns out to be BS, what is the down side to cleaning our air so future generations can live in a better world? Because it will cost gazillionairs some profits? Get off the road my friend. This isn't going to end well.

 

[Cackalacky]

^ This is another problem with AGW people. Dismissive, arrogant, and know-it-all attitudes. See the South Park Smug episode

What I should have done? Really? Please now tell me what i should do at my job? What should I eat for lunch? What religion should i be? What books should i read?

Please...tell me what else I SHOULD DO... since you seem to know what is best for me and apparently everyone else on the planet.

I eagerly await your response and please point me to where I can find THE TRVTH as you apparently have to all things ever

The rest of your post here and your other posts show that your statement I bolded above is not true.

Read the report. LOL. If you don't, there is no point in discussing anything, or just put me on ignore so I can't offend your delicate sensibilities with data and reality.

 

[kmoose]

The "intelligence" stating Hussein had WMD's in the first place and or had something to do with Al Queda. I think it's as pathetic that Pelosi and others were so quick to beat the drums of war but we're talking about Rice and why people might not want her to speak at their commencement. If people didn't want Diane Feinstein to speak at their commencement because she is a crony capitalist and a suck up who has parlayed her political office into being filthy rich I would be ok with that too.

So you're saying that Saddam Hussein did NOT gas the Kurds in Northern Iraq?

 

[Bluto]

So you're saying that Saddam Hussein did NOT gas the Kurds in Northern Iraq?

No what I'm saying is that millions were killed based on false pretenses. There is a difference between saying someone had something (which he did) and he has something (he did not) is connected to a group that just blew up the World Trade Center (he wasn't) an immediate threat (he wasn't). He also gassed Iranians while Reagan and co gave him a bunch of "atta boys".

Honestly based on track records I'm surprised more conservatives (particularly libertarians) aren't praising the current administration for being far less interventionist in its approach to foreign policy than any of the recent Republican ones.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Honestly based on track records I'm surprised more conservatives (particularly libertarians) aren't praising the current administration for being far less interventionist in its approach to foreign policy than any of the recent Republican ones.

He intervened in Libya, and would have in Syria too if public opinion (and a last minute compromise brokered by Putin) hadn't forced him to back-off. His administration purposely destabilized Ukraine, thereby bringing us much closer to a serious conflict with a major nuclear power. And he's also doubled down on the previous administration's policies of drone assassination, torture, and flagrant disregard for civil liberties.

I'm very grateful that our military hasn't gotten embroiled in another expensive adventure abroad, but that's occurred in spite of the Obama administration. He's every bit the liberal interventionist that his predecessor was.

 

[Bluto]

He intervened in Libya, and would have in Syria too if public opinion (and a last minute compromise brokered by Putin) hadn't forced him to back-off. His administration purposely destabilized Ukraine, thereby bringing us much closer to a serious conflict with a major nuclear power. And he's also doubled down on the previous administration's policies of drone assassination, torture, and flagrant disregard for civil liberties.

I'm very grateful that our military hasn't gotten embroiled in another expensive adventure abroad, but that's occurred in spite of the Obama administration. He's every bit the liberal interventionist that his predecessor was.

I agree with all that but in relative terms this administration when compared to Reagan and Bush 2 is about as non interventionist as one could expect from a US admin. If you feel that this admin has doubled down on torture, assassination and violating civil liberties I would say what this admin is currently doing doesn't hold a candle in terms of scale and numbers when compared to the Reagan admins policies toward Central and South America alone. Again in relative terms this admin has been the least interventionist that I can remember. Now what does that say about our political system? Nothing good I would imagine.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I agree with all that but in relative terms this administration when compared to Reagan and Bush 2 is about as non interventionist as one could expect from a US admin. If you feel that this admin has doubled down on torture, assassination and violating civil liberties I would say what this admin is currently doing doesn't hold a candle in terms of scale and numbers when compared to the Reagan admins policies toward Central and South America alone. Again in relative terms this admin has been the least interventionist that I can remember.

This administration's foreign policy has been constrained by: (1) a weak economy; and (2) the war-weariness of our citizenry and allies. I'm not inclined to give Obama credit for that. The statements and actions of his administration have made it pretty clear that he's just as much of a liberal interventionist as GWB was.

 

[Bluto]

This administration's foreign policy has been constrained by: (1) a weak economy; and (2) the war-weariness of our citizenry and allies. I'm not inclined to give Obama credit for that. The statements and actions of his administration have made it pretty clear that he's just as much of a liberal interventionist as GWB was.

See my edit above. We probably agree more on this than we disagree. Blowing up third world nations on a bigger or smaller scale has become synonymous with US foreign policy.

 

[Cackalacky]

US Drone Strike Statistics estimate according to the New America Foundation.[2]
(As of 25 December 2013)

Year Number of
Attacks Casualties
Militants Civilians Unknown Total
2004 1 3 2 2 7
2005 3 5 6 4 15
2006 2 1 93 0 94
2007 4 51 0 12 63
2008 36 223 28 47 298
2009 54 387 70 92 549
2010 122 788 16 45 849
2011 73 420 62 35 517
2012 48 268 5 33 306
2013 26 145 4 4 153
Total 369 2,291 286 274 2,851
2) The Bureau of Investigative Journalism estimates the following cumulative statistics about US drone strikes:[3]
(As of January 2014)

Total strikes: 381
Total reported killed: 2,537 - 3,646
Civilians reported killed: 416 - 951
Children reported killed: 168 - 200
Total reported injured: 1,128 - 1,557
Strikes under the Bush Administration: 51
Strikes under the Obama Administration: 330

Maybe the wholesale invasion of countries is frowned upon, but the indiscriminate killing of a target and nearby children and civilians is clearly acceptable. Hardly the actions of someone who received a Nobel Peace Prize. They have also previously stated that American's are no exception to being hit by a drone strike.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

See my edit above. We probably agree more on this than we disagree. Blowing up third world nations on a bigger or smaller scale has become synonymous with US foreign policy.

You're probably right. I argued the point because this recent stretch of relative military restraint seems driven by circumstance instead of a conscious shift in policy. Which means we will likely find ourselves in another Pyrrhic conflict as soon as those circumstances change.

If this new-found restraint was actually the result of a conscious policy shift by Obama, I'd happily praise him for it. But both major parties are economic neoliberals and foreign policy interventionists, and both are committed to maintaining the majority of our social safety net. So I cringe a little whenever someone tries to make a case that there are serious political differences at work here.

On an unrelated note, this is from AmCon's Daniel Larison:

Fettweis makes another useful observation in his chapter on honor and credibility:

The concern with credibility actually serves to decrease U.S. power by effectively yielding control over events to its junior partners. The assurance that the United States will act to bolster its reputation on a consistent basis allows smaller states to exert influence over the actions of their senior partner in ways they would otherwise be incapable of doing. (p. 116)

We have seen this several times in the last few years. Allies and client states alike have used Washington’s obsession with preserving “credibility” to pressure it into doing what they want while offering various gestures of “reassurance.” If the U.S. “fails” to be as accommodating to the demands of its allies and clients as hawks would prefer, or if it pursues a policy in the service of American interests that some clients dislike, hawks will accuse the administration of neglecting and abandoning them. American hawks most obsessed with maintaining “credibility” are naturally the ones that fear that it is slipping away everywhere, and allied and client governments are only too happy to exploit this anxiety by joining the chorus of worriers. Then hawks seize on these expressions of worry from foreign officials to “prove” that U.S. “credibility” really is diminishing, when all that this proves is that allied and client governments want the U.S. to do even more things for them. Allies and clients can use Americans’ preoccupation with “credibility” to advance their preferred policies, or to undermine U.S. policies that they dislike, and to try to guilt the U.S. into taking actions that they can’t or won’t take on their own.

This creates a perverse arrangement in which U.S. allies and clients demand and receive protection from the U.S., and then threaten to pout and gripe if they don’t receive constant reassurance and additional promises. If our policymakers and pundits weren’t so fixated on preserving “credibility,” and if hawks weren’t so inclined to panic about losing it, it wouldn’t be practical for allies and clients to berate their patron so often for lack of attention and support. As it is, hawkish client governments whine that the U.S. isn’t doing enough for them, and U.S. officials more often than not hasten to placate them for fear that “credibility” will be lost if they don’t engage in this absurd ritual.

This dynamic is a lot more sinister when you consider the benefits our domestic hawks are directly receiving from these client governments. It's like the Persian emissary bribing the Ephors in 300.

 

[Cackalacky]

I'm really pumped the Senate is actually going to vote in the next month or so on an amendment that would basically override the 1976 Buckley case saying that campaign money is free speech as well as the more recent Supreme Court cases.

I seriously doubt it will get the 2/3 vote needed but I'm glad the issue of money in politics will get some serious debate. Maybe even be a big issue in the mid term elections.

WOLF-PAC.com got their proposed convention into the Vermont Legislature. Moving ahead in other states.

Progress in particular states[edit]

On March 21st, 2014, the Vermont Senate officially passed their resolution calling for the convention.[12] Shortly after, on April 9, 2014, Illinois's senate passed a similar resolution.[13] On May 2, 2014, Vermont became the first official state to pass both houses to call for Wolf PAC's amendment.[14]

 

[Cackalacky]

Climate change denial: After global warming report, deniers deny.

Right on cue. A follow up to my climate change post.

 

[MJ12666]

Climate change denial: After global warming report, deniers deny.

Right on cue. A follow up to my climate change post.

Sorry I can't post more frequently but my employer frowns on employees accessing these type of sites (it is grounds for termination) and I figure that some of the individuals who frequently post here are probably on some type of government assistance and I am doing my part to make sure that their assistance is well funded. Anyway you seem to be extremely knowledgeable on a plethora of topics; however you were way off base regarding the Rutgers/C. Rice debacle. The protesters were a a small group of lemmings organized by two left wing professors who three times had their attempts to have the invitation to Ms. Rice withdrawn rebuffed. Their last ditch effort recruiting 50 mostly foreign students and children of illegal aliens obviously worked but I can assure you the group was not motivated by friends who got their asses shot off as you suggested. You obviously do not live in NJ or you would have known this. Anyway, getting back to the climate change issue, I was wondering if you could read the article found at:

Ice Ages – What are they and what causes them? - Utah Geological Survey

It discuss the major ice ages the occurred during Earth history. While I am not a scientist, the data included in the article appears to imply that we are simply in a warming cycle that frequently occur which has nothing to do with human activity. Would be interested to know what you think.

Heading back to the Montreal/Boston game which is headed for OT. Great game.

 

[Bluto]

Sorry I can't post more frequently but my employer frowns on employees accessing these type of sites (it is grounds for termination) and I figure that some of the individuals who frequently post here are probably on some type of government assistance and I am doing my part to make sure that their assistance is well funded. Anyway you seem to be extremely knowledgeable on a plethora of topics; however you were way off base regarding the Rutgers/C. Rice debacle. The protesters were a a small group of lemmings organized by two left wing professors who three times had their attempts to have the invitation to Ms. Rice withdrawn rebuffed. Their last ditch effort recruiting 50 mostly foreign students and children of illegal aliens obviously worked but I can assure you the group was not motivated by friends who got their asses shot off as you suggested. You obviously do not live in NJ or you would have known this. Anyway, getting back to the climate change issue, I was wondering if you could read the article found at:

Ice Ages – What are they and what causes them? - Utah Geological Survey

It discuss the major ice ages the occurred during Earth history. While I am not a scientist, the data included in the article appears to imply that we are simply in a warming cycle that frequently occur which has nothing to do with human activity. Would be interested to know what you think. Thanks.

To put it simply an interglacial period and climate change caused by humans are not mutually exclusive. Look at the change in average global temperatures since the beginning of industrialization (ie when people started pumping carbon into the atmosphere at extreme rates) and where those trends are headed and that will tell you what you need to know.

 

[Cackalacky]

Global Warming -- Research Issues

Typical greenhouse gas concentrations. Obvious trend.

Nuff Said. Again, pretty obvious.

Benthic Co2 is decreasing meaning less Co2 is being sequestered in the oceans. This is bad.

CO2 levels over last 400,000 years including ice ages. Note the fairly stable cycles for several periods. Note the not so typical peak at the far right.

Stabilization models show that due to CO2s long atmospheric lifetime, stabilization efforts will take a long time. I don't know whats wrong with this picture but its beautiful.

Recent Sea level rise. Get your boats ready if you live on the low-lying coasts.

Pretty sure a billion people live in these places as well as massive and important economic engines. Not great for 'Merica.
Sea Level Rise Maps Gallery - Global Warming Art

This is a hardiness map showing climate zones in the US since 1990. You will see a change to the north as the warming trend increases. Interesting. The impact to agriculture and other aspects of our economy would be significant and require a long term plan. Just push play.
Hardiness Zone Changes at arborday.org

Here is a skeptical science site that even allows you to stick with "basic" facts or trudge into the "intermediate" levels of data that has been collected (awesome info filled site and please share)
The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism

Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Also please see the section on the relationship with the ocean. Very important.

Sorry I can't post more frequently but my employer frowns on employees accessing these type of sites (it is grounds for termination) and I figure that some of the individuals who frequently post here are probably on some type of government assistance and I am doing my part to make sure that their assistance is well funded. Anyway you seem to be extremely knowledgeable on a plethora of topics; however you were way off base regarding the Rutgers/C. Rice debacle. The protesters were a a small group of lemmings organized by two left wing professors who three times had their attempts to have the invitation to Ms. Rice withdrawn rebuffed. Their last ditch effort recruiting 50 mostly foreign students and children of illegal aliens obviously worked but I can assure you the group was not motivated by friends who got their asses shot off as you suggested. You obviously do not live in NJ or you would have known this. Anyway, getting back to the climate change issue, I was wondering if you could read the article found at:

Ice Ages – What are they and what causes them? - Utah Geological Survey

It discuss the major ice ages the occurred during Earth history. While I am not a scientist, the data included in the article appears to imply that we are simply in a warming cycle that frequently occur which has nothing to do with human activity. Would be interested to know what you think.

Heading back to the Montreal/Boston game which is headed for OT. Great game.

Sure thing. I posted the above on page 296 I believe. It's a pretty comprehensive post. Ice ages occur periodically. The link you provided is relevant but only to natural processes. I have another post you might like but I have to go find it. I also posted a link above to the most recent report released yesterday (on this page). Very detailed.

As far as the Rice issue, that was not me. Probably Connor in most likely.

 

[Cackalacky]

Pictures like this only prop up one's own bias. When looking at ice cover there is always a contraction and expansion phase. What you really need to be looking at and is nearly impossible to visualize is the concept of Mass Balance and what this does to oceanic water salinity and therefor numerous other important characteristics of seawater. Mass balance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This of course includes the ocean's ability to act as a carbon sink (solubility is determined by temperature, salinity, currents etc). There is also the actual speed and direction of currents which also effect the speed and direction of air currents including the jet streams. Further, normal large scale weather patterns such as El Nino are changed. If you need a reference to how important El Nino is to the southern Pacific countries, you should do your research on that. The entire west coast of South America is virtually dependent on favorable El Nino conditions. Albedo is another important concept relating to ice cover.Albedo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Since this is much more complex than i will ever be able to explain, please do us a favor and put a little more thought into the issue of climate change instead of posting a relatively worthless picture and claiming victory.....

Signed,
Someone who sciences for a living


Image 1-Mass Balance of the Greenland Ice Sheet

Image 2 - Mass Balance of Polar Ice Loss

Image 3 - Albedo of Greenland Ice Sheet (Function of Ice Present)
More Ice = More reflectivity or albedo. Less albedo >increase in heat trapped below atmosphere> Increase temperatures.

All of these contributors are accelerating a positive feedback loop

/digression.
Sorry guys.

Edit: I will add one more thing: Regardless of the cause, we are not helping and it will start to show real negative dividends soon. Image 2 references reaching the Barrier Island Threshold by 2012. We are already seeing issues here as you can see. I am protected by barrier islands and they play a major role in energy dissipation from storms and also help function as the earth's "lungs." Losing them is bad.

To put it simply an interglacial period and climate change caused by humans are not mutually exclusive. Look at the change in average global temperatures since the beginning of industrialization (ie when people started pumping carbon into the atmosphere at extreme rates) and where those trends are headed and that will tell you what you need to know.

Here is the other post. I am adding this to Bluto's as he is correct. The mass balance of Ice is impacting the oceans which in turn impact pretty much everything else.

 

[chicago51]

Here is the thing that bothers me about climate change. People are telling us, including the President, that the science is "settled".

How would we feel if the same people came out and said that chemistry was settled? Or that physics is settled? What if Einstein believed that it was settled that time was absolute as Newton thought?

I have no doubt that the report is scrutinized heavily and that people truly believe what they are writing. But what if they are looking at it wrong? What if there is some other measurement that obsoletes current models? The fact that so many people are not open to the idea that perhaps the current thinking is wrong, gives me very good reason to be skeptical given that humans have been wrong so many times in the past.

Please don't take this directed at you Cack, b/c it's not. Also, please don't assume that I am against trying to change things proactively incase the science is right. I just believe balance is missing in the debate, as skeptics are mercilessly ridiculed. History supports their concerns.

Do consider the science on smoking and lead based paint unsettled? Special interest pretty much used the same sort of tactics as the climate denialist back in the day.

So what are you saying that CO2 levels aren't higher at any point since humans have been on earth?

Science debate on what the ramfications of that are may be debabtable, although I'll stick with 95 percent of the peer reviewed scientist that are getting kick back from oil cartels.

We are entering uncharted territory as a species that is for certain.

For the record I recognize the speical interest in green energy as well. That is why I would rather see revenue neutral carbon tax/rebates rather than government spending to solve this problem.

 

[GoIrish41]

Republicans vote against extending $85 billion in tax credits. It seems clear what they are against, but I don't understand what the Republicans are for anymore.

Strange times: Republicans block tax credits -- as a protest - CNN.com

(CNN) -- It is a rare, strange day when Senate Republicans vote to block billions in tax cuts. But that's what happened Thursday when they chose to freeze a massive tax credit package in order to protest how Democrats are running the chamber.

By a vote of 53-40, the EXPIRE Act, which would extend $85 billion in tax credits, failed to get the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster.








House GOP unveil tax reform plan







Burnett deconstructs GOP tax reform plan







McConnell: No agreement to raise taxes
Only one Republican, Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois, voted with Democrats to advance the measure. The rest of the GOP votes were "no," as Republicans vented anger that Democrats have refused to allow votes on their amendments to this and most other bills in the past year.

"This is bigger than any one bill," Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said on the floor. "What (Democrats are) doing is muzzling the people of this country, a gag order on the people we were sent here to represent."

"It's time to act as the U.S. Senate should act and allow (both sides) the opportunity to express their view," echoed Sen. Orrin Hatch, Republican of Utah.

The pushback comes as the Senate struggles to find a way to operate. Traditional processes and procedures for working through sharp divides have broken down in the past year.

Democrats, frustrated with Republicans for blocking presidential nominees, changed a significant piece of the filibuster rule. Triggering the so-called "nuclear option," Majority Leader Harry Reid and Democrats made it easier to get around GOP objections. That raised hostility behind the scenes to a new level.

At the same time, Republicans are also furious that Democrats will not let bills have a so-called "open" process, where senators can propose amendments and get a vote on their idea.

That is far from unique to Reid or this Senate. Republicans have used the same tactic to choose friendly amendments when they were in the majority.

But after months of tension and in a bitter midterm election year where they want to rail against Democrats, Republicans decided that Thursday was the day to take a stand on the process issues in the Senate.

Reid fired back, insisting that Republicans are the ones causing obstruction in the Senate and are doing so for political reasons.

"It should not be lost that Republican senators are continuing their agenda by just saying no," the Nevada senator said after the vote. "I wonder who called them today to kill this bill? No matter the excuse, Republicans continue to wage war against common sense."

Reid also made sure to point out that, with Thursday's vote, Republicans were blocking their own cause.

"That's what just happened, Republicans just voted against tax cuts," Reid said.

What happens next?

The bill to extend the tax cuts is frozen temporarily but not dead. Reid suggested that both sides should take the weekend to think about their next moves.