U.S. Court of Appeals Rules on EPA CO2 Regulation

[ben4vols]

Carver,

These are the type of people making relentless requests of the climate scientists involved in 'climategate'. They seek only to undermine climate science and discredit the scientists with the information they were requesting. Why would the scientists not be reluctant to hand over their research data?

Ross McKitrick

Stephen McIntyre

These people and many top rung 'skeptics' are members of politically orientated right wing, conservative 'think tanks'. The Heartland Institute is one such think tank. These think tanks and their associated members are the generators of much of the skeptical strategy and attack machine. Unfortunately, many innocent people take the bait and this leads to the great doubt that exists surrounding the science of climate change and it's practicing scientists.

You give Heartland waaaaay too much credit. Innocent people aren't being baited by Heartland, they are looking at the world around them and realizing the AGW math isn't adding up. So they end up looking into the issue more and they come across people like Dr. Spencer, Dr. Lindzen, etc (who may be members of Heartland) who provide a pertinent counter argument to the alarmist section of the AGW field. Does Heartland have its share of loons? Of course, as does the other side.

[ben4vols]

great. now please post some links to account for the warming if it's not C02.

I already debunked the 'computer models are not good' assertion. why are you continuing to repeat it?

You didn't debunk anything about computer models. You copied and pasted a blog from skeptical science, which does not refute the problems with computer models.

[WeatherRusty]

Unfortunately, and this is where my gripe is, there are big dollars at stake on both sides of this argument. Those entities, hidden or not, are corrupting good science. That is why I say that databases need to be made public in a way that they can understand them. Certainly, scientists would want to keep their research on the low down, but if they want to win this argument then it must be released and cared for.

Here is the historical surface temperature record as compiled by NASA GISS:

SEE HERE

Here is the rub though. Some people say, well that's great, but that data has been manipulated. They want to see the raw data. Thing is the raw data would not be in a form "in a way that they can understand them".

The data from all the public agencies and databases is readily available in much the same way. To say they are not is just another misleading inaccuracy being portrayed by those who's goal is to confuse and distort and portray climate science as secretive and guilty of some kind of cover up.

EDIT: WOW, I missed wxtrix post a few before this one. My 2 cents versus her dollar!

[Jonger]

It is to late for natural gas. The Co2 and other GHG's that we have already spewed into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels is here now, it is going to take hundreds of years to dissipate or purge that out. Even now, if we were to change over to gas it is to late and burning gas still makes Co2 because it is still a carbon product. We gain nothing if we burn any carbon based product.

The only solution is your water upwelling technology right?

[WeatherRusty]

You give Heartland waaaaay too much credit. Innocent people aren't being baited by Heartland, they are looking at the world around them and realizing the AGW math isn't adding up. So they end up looking into the issue more and they come across people like Dr. Spencer, Dr. Lindzen, etc (who may be members of Heartland) who provide a pertinent counter argument to the alarmist section of the AGW field. Does Heartland have its share of loons? Of course, as does the other side.

I understand that you have an interest in this subject and have probably developed your opinions based on your investigations. The general public which is the target of a conservative PR campaign to obscure and obfuscate the science on climate change does not share your enthusiasm. They pick up bits and pieces here and there in passing from the general media, or get their information from biased sources such as Fox New and Rush.

Every movement needs organization and for the climate disinformation machine that organization is represented by the conservative think tanks. That's what they do, they manufacture scientific conjecture based on half truths and total speculation and then sell it as responsible, alternative science. They are the repositories for funding the movement. They pose as an equal scientific alternative, going so far as to hold meetings of the Non-Governmental Panel on Climate Change, as if there exists science which represents their viewpoint. It's a sad finely cloaked joke, and people fall for it.

[ben4vols]

I understand that you have an interest in this subject and have probably developed your opinions based on your investigations. The general public which is the target of a conservative PR campaign to obscure and obfuscate the science on climate change does not share your enthusiasm. They pick up bits and pieces here and there in passing from the general media, or get their information from biased sources such as Fox New and Rush.

Since most do not care nor care to understand the subject, climate is rarely brought up on either liberal or conservative media. Generally if you are of a liberal mindset you will follow what liberal politicians tell you. There are plenty of people that believe in AGW that have no clue why they believe in AGW except that is what the liberal media and liberal politicians tell them. As well on the other side there are people of conservative mindset that do not believe in AGW because the conservative media and conservative politicians convey that message to them.

If people really want to understand the climate debate a lot of time and research has to be done, which will exclude most people from getting beyond the talking points.

[ben4vols]

uh, bbenboy still relies on WUWT for his "science".

And you rely on skeptcial science. Nanny nanny boo-boo. Why don't you quit trolling?

[FloridaJohn]

Another thing about the media in general, is that the reporters are taught to get opposing opinions when quoting people. I have heard this referred to as the "two scientist rule," where if you have someone say something positive about a topic, you then have to find someone to say something negative. That way, the news story is "fair," or "balanced," or "neutral."

The problem with that, as it relates to science matters, is that sometimes there are not two sides. Sometimes, everyone is in agreement on a topic. But when the media goes out to find that "opposing viewpoint," it ends up giving more credence to minority opinions. That also contributes to the confusions about where the scientific community stands on climate change. If every story you read has something to the effect of, "not everyone agrees," you start to think that maybe that topic isn't as clear cut as you thought, even though that isn't really the case.

[cyclonebuster]

Here is the problem w/ geothermal(such as Yellowsonte) and the Gulfstream, they would certainly impact those ecosystems in a negative way. Pulling energy from those ecosystems (in any manner) might damage the planet. Yes, the planet is being damaged now by fossil fuels as well. But let's not trade one problem for another. I really think the answer to this is nuclear fusion or some unknown force. My point w/ gas is that it will have to be our transition until we can develop other energy sources. The uncomfortable reality of the situation is that the planet would starve w/out fossil fuels. But true, it is time to transition from that source as it is unclean and limited in amount.

Perhaps, Geothermal you are correct but the Gulfstream you are incorrect. You can actually use that kinetic energy to remove the energy we are adding to it with GHG's by regulating the amount of heat you remove from the surface of the Gulfstream. You can use the kinetic energy in the cooler deep water and bring it to the surface to mix with the warmer water to regulate the SST to where the temperature was prior to the industrial revolution. Basically you can remove the heat we have added with GHG's.. This will do our planet a WORLD of good............ The good effects of this are endless.......... If you would like I can name hundreds of examples of the good this can do....

[cyclonebuster]

Here is the problem w/ geothermal(such as Yellowsonte) and the Gulfstream, they would certainly impact those ecosystems in a negative way. Pulling energy from those ecosystems (in any manner) might damage the planet. Yes, the planet is being damaged now by fossil fuels as well. But let's not trade one problem for another. I really think the answer to this is nuclear fusion or some unknown force. My point w/ gas is that it will have to be our transition until we can develop other energy sources. The uncomfortable reality of the situation is that the planet would starve w/out fossil fuels. But true, it is time to transition from that source as it is unclean and limited in amount.

Also,any nuclear plant is bad. Why? Because they also make a tremendous amount of heat that get's trapped by Fossil Fuel GHG's. GHG'S don't care what heat source they trap. Perhaps in a few hundred years when the Co2 that we have created is gone we can explore Nuclear power again otherwise that heat gets trapped. Here's just one example how nuclear heat makes it to the atmosphere:

At 2 x 4 miles all this radiator does to our atmosphere is warm it. How many Nuke plants are there world wide?

[cyclonebuster]

The only solution is your water upwelling technology right?

Actually a combination of all these........

Solar,Wave,Tidal,Wind,Hydro,Geothermal,OTEC, or even OTEC combined with Gulfstream kinetic energy. Not necessarily in that order....

[Jonger]

Also,any nuclear plant is bad. Why? Because they also make a tremendous amount of heat that get's trapped by Fossil Fuel GHG's. GHG'S don't care what heat source they trap. Perhaps in a few hundred years when the Co2 that we have created is gone we can explore Nuclear power again otherwise that heat gets trapped. Here's just one example how nuclear heat makes it to the atmosphere:

At 2 x 4 miles all this radiator does to our atmosphere is warm it. How many Nuke plants are there world wide?

If we wanted to get rid of the co2, it would be gone... Nobody wants to invest in sequestration.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW 2

[Snow_Miser]

LOL Trix thinks that models are accurate?

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02626667.2010.513518

We compare the output of various climate models to temperature and precipitation observations at 55 points around the globe. We also spatially aggregate model output and observations over the contiguous USA using data from 70 stations, and we perform comparison at several temporal scales, including a climatic (30-year) scale. Besides confirming the findings of a previous assessment study that model projections at point scale are poor, results show that the spatially integrated projections are also poor.

[ORH_wxman]

In terms of using models that are the basis for policy change, GCMs are what would scare me the most because they have been pretty unreliable. The IPCC's main models for projecting the future are the AR4 GCMs which have been completely woeful, even if its only been 12 years since their projection starts. The world would have to start warming at an unlikely rate for them to be anywhere close to accurate by 2030.

[cyclonebuster]

If we wanted to get rid of the co2, it would be gone... Nobody wants to invest in sequestration.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW 2

Not really gone just locked up and put away. Another terrorist target,perhaps... Best thing to do is stop burning carbon based fuels and go wave,solar,hydro,geothermal,tidal,wind,gulfstream kinetic energy and or OTEC ...

[Jonger]

Not really gone just locked up and put away. Another terrorist target,perhaps... Best thing to do is stop burning carbon based fuels and go wave,solar,hydro,geothermal,tidal,wind,gulfstream kinetic energy and or OTEC ...

It would be 100s of times cheaper to sequester carbon until we run out of oil, force the oil companies to develope and offset carbon with underground sequestration.

Terrorists aren't going to bomb 6,000 foot deep carbon dumps.

[cyclonebuster]

It would be 100s of times cheaper to sequester carbon until we run out of oil, force the oil companies to develope and offset carbon with underground sequestration.

Terrorists aren't going to bomb 6,000 foot deep carbon dumps.

They are not going to fly planes into world trade center buildings either.......... Also this would cause electrical power to become more expensive. It is to expensive already when do we just say no? What about earthquakes compromising those structures?

[Jonger]

They are not going to fly planes into world trade center buildings either.......... Also this would cause electrical power to become more expensive. It is to expensive already when do we just say no?

You want to stop fossil fuel use and at the same time complain about the cost of electrical power?

Stopping fossil fuel use today would result in probably 1/3rd of the planet dying of hunger and killing each other... Not exaggerating, that's the reality of the situation.

[cyclonebuster]

You want to stop fossil fuel use and at the same time complain about the cost of electrical power?

Stopping fossil fuel use today would result in probably 1/3rd of the planet dying of hunger and killing each other... Not exaggerating, that's the reality of the situation.

How about a ten year transition? Give investors time to transfer over to clean energy and not lose money in the process.

[Amped]

How about a ten year transition? Give investors time to transfer over to clean energy and not lose money in the process.

President Carter agrees.

[PhillipS]

President Carter agrees.

Wow, great clip! Thanks for posting it - though it makes me feel ancient to realize it's been 35 years since I heard that speech the first time. Interesting, too, to think about what Carter got right and what he was wrong about. He was right about fossil fuels being finite and that we will have to transition to other energy sources at some point - and clearly wrong about the timetable.

[PottercountyWXobserver]

For as much flack Carter receives, I really don't think he was that bad of a president. He was a 100% right about our energy problem.

[Jonger]

For as much flack Carter receives, I really don't think he was that bad of a president. He was a 100% right about our energy problem.

Nobody gets elected because they want to scale back 1.4F degrees of warming. Carter reigned over a period of economic stagnation and was too weak on middle east conflict resolution, that's what he was judged over.

Nixon created the EPA and got the ball rolling on environmental issues, gradually the economic powers of the world are cleaning up their act, its the developing countries you need to worry about today.