Wednesday, January 9, 2013

2012 Warmest Year in US On Record

If you were paying attention you expected this, but with the year closed we can officially say that this is the hottest year that's ever been recorded in the US. We're in this predicament due to capitalism's never ending requirement for increased consumption and profit.

Check out this interesting commentary which discusses, among other things, the behavior and mindset of the rich.  A recent survey of rich people, 1000 people with an average net worth of $3 million, reveals that a quarter of them feel they would need another $5 million before they would actually feel wealthy.  So the never ending drive for profits continues on behalf of these millionaires that think what they have is not enough.  We are quite literally making the planet inhospitable in our effort to satiate the never ending consumptive requirements of people that already have more than they need.  As referred to in the article Karl Marx predicted that capitalism contains within itself the seeds of it's own destruction.  We're watching it slowly unfold before our eyes.


HispanicPundit said...

Did you type this post on your Samsung SIII? Or was it in front of your Mac? Or in the comfort of your work office? Or...

Examinator said...

I suspect you are catching the same mental ailment as Chad, SAONRD. (pronounced sonared like in SONAR and submarines looking for the bottom).
i.e. Selective All or Nothing Reasoning Disorder!

NO SANE PERSON is saying everything should go back to tribal mud huts existence. That's like releasing a bag feathers on a windy hill and trying to retrieve them all...F impossible!

I would assert your reasoning of well you like/use technology therefore you're a hypocrite ergo the issue is a null is non sequitor at best, at worse trolling.

It's all about DEGREE.
Logic dictates so long as man lives on this planet we are going to alter the biosphere. The issue is by HOW Much and HOW quickly.
The determining factors are broadly speaking will that Anthropomorphic influence be with in the tolerance of of the biochemical ability of the biosphere to null it.

Does that mean we may have to change (sacrifice) some things ....Possibly even Probably, if one wants to be pessimistic.
But from an objective perspective And given our adaptability, that is a Luddite (myopic) perspective.
In generations to come they will like their ancestors will adapt and be happy to what ever the changes are. Therefore the only meaningful conclusion in that context is obvious....things will be different (period). Better or worse judgements are irrelevant.
Our recalcitrant Ludditism WILL be looked on with disdain by our antecedents much the same way we view the 'Inquisition' today.
That too was to maintain the 'modern'(of the time) status quo.
CHANGE IS THE ONLY ABSOLUTE in human perspective and existence.
It's time the conservatives (sic) and the liberals (sic) started to focus on managing change before it manages us to a premature exit.

Jon said...

I distinguish between what you might call "feel good" action and "do good" action. I could maybe go live in a log cabin in Montana, but that's really not going to change anything. What might change things is some of the suggestions I made in a recent post "What To Do About Global Warming" which I'm too lazy to link to.

The fact is we have a huge problem here. I think a solvable problem. You and me giving up our phones really won't change anything, but organizing and pressing for drastic changes in governmental policy could. So that's what I'm striving for.

Examinator said...

FYI it's the same in Aus.
In fact the Bureau of Met has had to introduce a new higher temperature range for its temperature maps this year.
Above 50 C ...126 F.
The conservatives that inhabit that area they are not in any doubt about AGW in fact one on TV last night not only swore that the Pub WOULDN'T run out of beer ( a reference to a famous song about the 'pub with no beer.), he'd fly it in himself if he had to, but he has a chair he like to offer any AGW doubter
(It's a carved stump outside)!
There's been reports of raining birds...birds literally falling out of the trees dead with the heat out that way.
And yes it has happened before.
The Goannas (large Lizards) are
digging up the buried hibernating "water bag" Cyclorana platycephala frogs for their water.

The last decade contains the the most extreme weather events per year ever.
Aust is a land of "droughts and flooding rains"
i.e. they may get bush fires one year a cyclone and a flood the next. but rarely does it have so many/ extreme swings in the *same* year.
Today is over the 98 F where I am. For the record I'm typing this on an old Computer and without air conditioning.

Examinator said...

and like the wicked queen in Over the rainbow I'm melting!
PS while both goannas and the The frogs exist (upto years in the baked earth) and the aborigines do use the water in emergencies there are no verified REPORTS of the event I described...I made it up. it sounded and is plausible ;-). Aussie humor.
Goannas do dig up prey.
However, the bird incident, mainly dry country parrots is true.
Ground temps are well into the 50's C

Chad said...

Looking forward to the extended RV season! With temps up we can get out earlier than ever before and we can enjoy later in the year.

Having a 125 years of temparture records to evaluate on a planet that is what 4 million years old seems like a great sampling. Especially when you think that their was a period in time when the earth was filled with lava then another period when the earth was practically covered in ice. I think those events happened when there was not a single car/building or human footprint to speak of.

If its time for mother earth (or God) to hit the reset button then that's what's gonna happen. Might as well enjoy the balming 1 degree increase in temp while it lasts!

When gov't continues to confiscate earning and wealth which always increases the costs of good and services I can't hardly blame the rich in their thought process.

Jonathan said...

Jon and Ex,

You bring up good points about pointing to a problem doesn't mean I need to necessarily completely change my lifestyle. Or perhaps a better way to look at it, my lifestyle doesn't change the fact there is or isn't a problem here.

There's always a tendency when one tries to advocate a cause for people to focus on the messenger more than the message. Heck, I'd say that's a popular ploy for the Atheist who attacks the teachings of Jesus by looking at those who advocate Christianity but in many cases are bad examples themselves.

I just got back from a trip to Vegas, where after a 3 day conference connecting with leaders in the social media industry (bloggers, podcasters etc. such as Guy Kawasaki and Leo Laporte) and speaking on using Virtual Assistants, I went to the consumer electronic show for the day (CES) where technology and consumerism combines with narcissism and selling sex (i.e. the models pushing brand X).

But here's my question - you say you're striving for organizing and pressing for drastic change, but what in the world does that mean? What steps are you going to take for this year? What are your goals?
How do you know if you're successful or failing?

We're 10 days into January, and I've already invested 2 vacation days and about $1,000 to improve my reach and connect with like minded influential leaders in my field. I plan on making a major impact over the remaining 354 days of the year.

I'd encourage you to set some goals if you haven't already for the year regarding the issues that concern you most. :-)

Ken said...

Hey Jon. I thought of you when I heard the news about record temperatures the other day. Though I may not agree, I do respect your effort to " practice what you preach " on climate change. We have discussed how you ride a bike and do other things to try to reduce your " footprint". At about the same time this report was coming out, the ink was drying on the deal that Al Gore was cooking up with Aljazzera over the Current network deal. My point, or better yet question is, don't jackasses like this really hurt the cause. This clown jet sets around the world preaching about the coming devastation if me and you don't change what we drive and how we heat our homes. And then he makes a handsome profit from Middle Eastern oil. I am just curious what your thoughts are on this. I find the guy to be a complete hypocrite. He probably burns more fossil fuel in a weekend than I burn in 10 years.

Examinator said...

Comparing you to Al Gore is false logic your reasoning assumes that we're all the same, that has the wiff of equality (erroneously known as Communism) have you turned? ;-)
Personally I'd opt for proportional sacrifice.

How would you know if he has instructed his EMPIRE to reduce its carbon footprint by 25%?
Which would be WAY more than yours if you were to reduce by 25%.
Likewise he personally can only use so many mobile phones or drive so many cars or eat so many meals etc. at a time.
What is often overlooked is that your foot print is made up with the CO2 released in growing, manufacturing, transporting your food, consumables and consumerist (throw away knick Knacks).

Sure he flys which isn't good but even if he reduces his flights by 15% pa that is a substantial amount.
One mustn't confuse an individual with the end goal.
We reckon that our carbon foot print has reduced 19% in the last two years.
one factor is we grow much of our veggies (without chemicals etc) we (I) use compost and ordinary alternatives. Sadly I don't have the high base that AG does.
I've made it a personal rule never ask anyone to do more than I'm prepared to. Asking AL to cut back by 40% and bucketing him for not doing so is simply not EQUITABLE. if he choose to do more that's his choice and a bonus.

Jon said...

Good points, Jonathan. Yeah the problem doesn't go away even if I consume less, but on the other hand I still want to be the change that is needed. OK, I have a smart phone. I use it every day, like all day. I think Ex's point is right. We're not saying that nobody should acquire things they will use and need (I understand "need" is a relative term). So while I did buy a smart phone I also made it clear to my family over Christmas that I wanted virtually nothing. I got two books, a car phone mount, and otherwise it was gift cards. Like restaraunts. Usually Christmas for us is a three ring circus and we dialed it back some. I'd prefer to dial it back more, but this is progress.

I'm eating a lot less meat (which is a bigger part of the problem than cars from what I understand), kind of trying to lean towards vegetarianism. I'm trying to convince the family to take staycations instead of going to Florida. I'm trying to reduce the amount of stuff in my home so that conceivably I could live in a smaller home, opening my home up to someone else so there is less demand for bigger homes (not that my home is enormous, but I'd be happy in something smaller).

What I also need to do is just eat less food. That's a big one. Like most Americans I just eat more than I need to eat. Bad for health and bad for the environment. Also the wallet. Food is a major part of our budget.

So yeah, I think you're right that people that are concerned should make specific goals. I have long term goals (live simply, consuming little, which has the added bonus of getting me retired earlier, which would be nice) and short term goals (less meat consumption and general consumption, thinking hard prior to purchases to determine whether I really need a thing, donating/selling stuff I'm not using so it can be re-used).

Jon said...

Hey Ken,

You know, I understand the point of criticizing Gore for his flying and traveling. But here's something that I think liberterians are often criticized for that maybe applies here. Liberterians are charged with being heavy on ivory tower thought experiments but very light at on the ground efforts to make the changes they say are necessary.

But this is not so for environmentalists. You move from theory to real advocacy when you map a strategy for achieving your goal. What Gore has obviously done is actually considered what would be required to make the changes he says are necessary. He needs awareness altered. How do you do that? Just sitting in your home and talking about how we have a major crisis here, but refusing to get out on the road and make the extra effort to change minds for fear that you are consuming fossil fuels, presumably Gore thinks that's an ineffective strategy. Yes, flying burns fossil fuel. But the short term cost is offset by the long term benefits of the mental change that is so desperately needed in this country in the face of INTENSE corporate propaganda intended to convince us that it's all a liberal conspiracy. I can't fault him for that.

And as far as Al Jazeera, I really don't see the problem. What is the problem with selling a media group to Al Jazeera? Al Jazeera has their own biases based on their ownership (I think it's the royal family in Qatar) so naturally their reporting reflects their interests. I think the regime in Qatar is hostile to Assad so the coverage is colored. But that's true of all media outlets. I watch Al Jazeera more than I watch a lot of other media. They actually interview the world's top intellectuals, like Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein. Finkelstein, a critic of Israel and extremely prominent, has never once been interviewed by major US media. Our media is so beholden to the Israel lobby that Finkelstein is off limits. Chomsky, voted the world's top public intellectual, has been on a couple of times. I think when he was on Bill Maher's show it was like the top rated show Maher ever had. I mean, if they wanted ratings they'd bring in these people that the viewers are so interested in seeing, but ratings are secondary to serving the interests of their corporate owners, who don't want to hear these dissenting voices.

I'm not sure how selling to Al Jazeera is hypocritical either. It doesn't harm the environment, does it? Remember that Gore is not saying profits are wrong. It's OK to make a profit. But to do it by externalizing the costs, like the fossil fuel industry does (the costs are going to be paid by all of us, they just get the reward), is objectionable.

Jon said...

Ken, here's an interesting article on the Al Jazeera issue. A couple of quotes:

The country that, in the name of free speech, allows flag-burning, Ku Klux Klan marches and protests at military funerals by religious zealots hoisting "God hates fags" placards decided years ago that AJE represents the kind of speech it simply cannot tolerate.

Slogans are being drawn up, marketing schemes hatched.

An old colleague of mine (there are no end of Canadians at AJE) thinks the key is to consciously look and sound as starkly different as possible from the rest of the American pack.

"I'd put up a picture of [reality star] Kim Kardashian," he said, "with a voiceover saying 'Take a look at her. Because this is the last time you will ever see her on this station. Welcome to Al Jazeera.'"

That's a pitch I'd buy.

Ken said...

Libertarianism rests on a simple foundation - the understanding that everyone thinks for himself and decides for himself. While most libertarians believe that a state of freedom can't be obtained overnight, they want to see as many rules, regulations, taxes, and laws as possible eliminated- so that people can learn to live with each other voluntary and in the harmony that isn't possible when one group has the power to force it's will on another. Is that Ivory Tower? Maybe. But libertarians would never use force. Enviromentalists would.
I don't have a problem with Aljazzera. If they can compete in the marketplace, great. I just find it fascinating that Al Gore wouldn't even take sponsors for Current that had anything to do with big oil. But he has no problem taking big oil dollars when it comes to selling his network. And I'm not alone. I was reading on line today comments from Current staff that were lambasting him on this deal. These are true believers who were down for the cause. Their Crusader sold them out. I see their point. This man has no credibility.

Ken said...

Come on Ex. Have you seen Gore lately? He is definitely eating way more meals than me.

Chad said...

I read Gore has more money then Romney now? Also heard his charitable contributions are 90% less. Good role model.

Chad said...

But common for the Progressive Elites.

Examinator said...

The point is Comparing you with me misses the point...It isn't about everyone cutting back to the same lifestye or same earning/income level...that is false logic.
my point is the need it to cut the WORLD'S unsustainable consumption levels.
Jonathan want goals so I'm borrowing a concept in the Bible...Remember the widow's mite parable? I'm taking the lesson here to mean EACH TO THEIR EQUITABLE CAPACITY. So what I'm saying is that forget the individual but strike a flat rate for every one say 15% ....logically like taxation those with more would cut back more in actual tonnage but relatively everyone is in the same proportional boat. Those that are rich are still rich by the same relative rate. They still have their freedom to decide where they cut back . What I'm proposing would not disadvantage any group over another.
If Michael Moore wants to spend his foot carbon foot print on his waste (spelling deliberate) then that is his choice just so he cuts back somewhere else.

If Chad wants to spend his carbon footprint on his RV petrol monster then that is his choice.

It is an idiocy to demand that every one become the same that is not what Most Greenies are saying.

BTW Most Greenies don't use violence any more than every Fire Arm owner is an irresponsible, Selfish, narcissistic Jerk... They are the ones that get into the MSM...because they are sensation NOT because they are the majority.
i.e. Our family are 'environmentally' aware (greenies if you must) but none of us would countenance violence much less killing(bombing) NRA offices because of their views, regardless if I think they are supporting a deadly industry. More people are killed by firearms that abortions in America and certainly in the countries where the weapons originate in the USA.
I only wish the Right would adopt the same tolerance, with say Abortion clinics.
In point of fact My youngest daughter has a degree in science and a degree in environmental Management and....Works for and at a Coal Mine.
No 2 son wants to be an environmental engineer i.e. Design and build Better sewerage plants and water treatment systems etc.

No1 son has applied for a management role with an environmental engineering firm as their electronic Calibration Manager. i.e. in charge of fixing and maintaining their electronic equipment than makes them able to do what No 2 son wants to do.
Ergo we are all in careers that improve the environment. Not stop industry rather make it more environmentally efficient etc.

So please stop with the BS claims and attitude that all greenies/ environmentalists are anti industry jobs violent nutters.
Sadly the MSM doesn't mention the Far greater number of Greenies who actually work with in and to assist Businesses.
Your stereotyping is built on prejudice, ignorance and manipulation of facts by those who simply want more profit and hang the world.

Examinator said...

Tut tut Chad
You can't argue facts and figures so you are attacking a self proclaimed spokesperson and claiming because he's (in you opinion) has feet of clay therefore anything he says must be crap. Come on Chad that is simple minded even given you have acute SAORD.

Al Gore isn't the Jesus Christ of AGW. Nor does any Sane Liberal (sic) claim that.

Real mate it's a red herring/ diversionary tactic to avoid the real issues.

BTW role models are a psychological crutch, a nonsense it assumes that they are someone to emulate... the truth is every hero has clay feet imagine all those who held Lance Armstrong up as a role model? A monumental cheat! Notwithstanding not everything he has doe or said is evil. I'm sure he's a good hubby father(?) certainly his charity has done and is doing good things.

Back to AG what he has said albeit dumbed down, out of context in some cases is largely true. However, only a lazy fool would take his word for it anyway.
I certainly don't. In fact I've tried here to put the whole context in a realistic frame/context. NOT SENSATIONAL.

Examinator said...

Thank you for your comment. I haven't ignored you I just figured that Jon would express it better than I.
I think if you read my responses to Ken you will see how I've built on Jon's sound take on it.
I have indicated that I don't believe that the left is clamoring for the end of life(style) as we know it rather that we dial back on the profligate short term focus on the unsustainable CO2 release levels.
I've outlined how the % relativity makes sense not disadvantaging each country...Again it stands to sensible reasoning that each country allocates where it suits them...just so long as it's real/ measurable and it adds up to the national targets.

As for Jobs/Profits etc. As with computing some jobs will go some will morph and many many more appear.
When I was in high school I left at 16 the industries I spent my life in and SERVICING simply didn't exist nor were they conceived. At the time many were predicting the end of the economy, office workers ad nauseum. 40 years latter there losers But there are far more jobs/business opportunities etc created because of computers.

While the likes of Chad will cry that their businesses may die as it is I would point out that capitalism is based on risk not guarantee.

All these concerns reflect that of the Luddites' violently held concerns by the 'ignorant and self interested' with the invention of the 'Spinning Jenny'.
And we all know how baseless they were. I would ask the current D&G (Luddites)crowd to show me the fundamental different circumstances to either of the historic example to justify their concerns.
Moore's law almost exponential growth in technology and with it the above undeniable opportunities. All that will change will be the methods by which it is done.
As I pointed out a proportional cut as based the an equitable % reduction in their CO2 output to balance the *world's* excess CO2 (as opposed to the seeking advantage BS of different rates for each countries) relativities will be maintained.
When all is said and done it is the World's Climate that is being effected not various countries by different ammouts of CO2 out put. Take Kiribati their pollution is infinitesimal relatively speaking ...a 15% decrease in their CO2 maybe the generator get turned off at 10 PM instead of midnight so to speak. Keep in mind while the rest of the world jockys for advantage Kiribati while being the lowest contributor gets disproportionally wiped out.
Clearly The US's contribution would in actual tonnage would be order of magnitude more than Kiribati but so is their contribution to the problem yet it's will still exist in some different form.
To me its all about User pays based on Equity

Chad said...

Chad said...

Progressive Elites.

And you were saying Ex?

These are leaders in the Democratic parties - Do as I say, not as I do.

Chad said...

It goes to motive Ex - Al Gore is no more worried about Global Warming than I am. What (obviously) is more important to Al Gore is money and power. You dismissed his fuel burning life style as a shame on us for even mentioning it, but he is supposed to be the mouth piece - he tells us you should believe and yet does not adjust his lifestyle in the least. He looks to make the most money and gives far far less to the charitable causes. As a human being he has proven that he has feet of clay as you put it - what ever the heck that means. He is a false prophet to get paid.

At least Republicans are honest about their intention - we want to make money and we want to give our earned money to charity voluntarily. Democrats demonize those who make money at the front door while the Brinks trucks are unloading the cash through the back door then when it comes time to be charitable - $369 a year.

Waiting for the Ex spin cycle of nonsense to begin. Insert quarter here.

Jon said...

Chad, just for the record, nobody here says being rich is bad.

Also I don't think I've ever said anything flattering about Joe Biden, so who cares if he's stingy? Who cares if Cheney and Romney give lots to charity? Does this make all the scientists wrong?

This has nothing to do with anything being discussed here. We just beat the prior heat record by a full 1°F. It's been said that 2°C is the threshold of safety. Exceed that and catastrophe is coming. 1°F is a quarter of the way there. You can just ignore it and run your RV all over the world and enjoy the warmer weather, but for those of us that do feel empathy even for poor people that are out of sight, like those in Africa and India, the first ones to suffer due to this, that's not our attitude. Maybe it depends on how much empathy your mind is capable of.

Chad said...

My empathy has a smaller radius than yours maybe, but I would put my charity for those inside that radius up against just about anyone. When you talk about kids in Africa - is it lip service or are you really attempting to help them? It seems that your heart is in the right place, but just having empathy does very little. If you sent or send money - you could never send enough to affect any real change. It's just lip service to make you feel better in some way. I prefer acting and doing - if I give some money or time it is to affect what is around me that I can touch. You want to help the kids in Africa send condoms and stop allowing them to breed the next batch of children that will immediately become poor and a statistic. I can not lose sleep over what is happening an ocean away when my ideas for change would not be accepted anyhow.

Like I said - having 125 years of temperature records on a mass that has been here for millions of years (according to scientists) is not a very big sampling. What's your scientists explanation for the earth being full of lava at one point? Did man do that - is that our doing? How about when the earth was practically frozen? Climate and the earth is way bigger then 125 years of tracking temps. It's gonna do what it is gonna do Jon so we might as well enjoy the ride!

Examinator said...

I think you meant 4 BILLION years. Notwithstanding, the typo your knowledge of the changing nature of the earth, intensity and therefore impact of the sun, periodic pole reversals and of assorted cataclysmic astronomical events renders most of that time and history largely irrelevant in so much as cogent comparison. Because of subduction, weathering, volcanic eruptions, comet/meteor impact etc their evidence is piecemeal at best. Remember it's only 40 years since tectonic plate movement was accepted.

IN SIMPLE TERMS Geology is the science of what WAS not a road map of what WILL be. Geology is not a predictive science. It is major over reach for a geologist to assert that it is.

To make it perfectly clear :- * The conditions that made geological historic events happen no longer exist in exactly same way* . Change the input parameters in an experiment and you'll get a different result.

Your knowledge of the reality of science, Statistical sampling and analysis seems to be colored my misinformation. Sadly it is a myth that one can become competent in the Science or stats by simply attending a part time limited duration course takes years at uni for a reason and even then there is no guarantee of mastery.

It's be said before and it still holds true Most of those 'scientists' that deny AGW are neither qualified or experienced in the appropriate specializations. Even my daughter who has two degrees, one in science and the other in environmental management isn't an expert in AGW science. Granted she knows more than I but could she contradict meaningfully those who specialize in related topics No!
It also goes to the ,point that not every scientist who supports AGW is an expert in the appropriate fields.
And yes there is some poor science on that side too. BUT the vast majority by a long long way of those who are experts in the relevant fields DO support AGW as the most likely explanations for the current changes in CLIMATE.
Not back to cuddly Al who gives a tinkers damn what his motives were (I don't!) I don't care if he's the world's greatest hypocrite . The point remains as I clearly said all he's done is raise the public awareness.
I actually haven't read any of his books etc. I'm more interested in what the REAL experts are saying.

Chad said...

The same scientists that need to be funded, that is who's computer models we need to believe? They need to find this evidence, they are not inputting factors like soil, sun position, trees, marshes and the positive affect of what essentially is plant food. They need this to be true in order to continue to be relevant.

I very rarely agree with Liberals, but Freeman Dyson is the guy I look to when it comes to the Global Warming Situation. This is a man with degrees growing out of his ears so Liberals can't just dismiss him and plus he is a Progressive.

Chad said...

I have also been following Dr. Idso's studies. We are in a Holocene Period - no scientist worth their salt would disagree with that either. The rise in temparture is predictable. Furthermore Dr. Idso's work is showing scientific evidence that the 380 parts per million carbon is extremely healthy for plants, plant life and crops. They are seeing a 25-30% better yield for crops and they are seeing in their tests the possibility of a much greener world.

As both Dyson and Idso have pointed out cold places are getting warmer, but hot places are not getting hotter. People in Iceland can plant and harvest Cabbage now.

Carbon dioxide is fuel for plant life and suddenly it is bad.

Jon said...

Chad, it's not about Africans accepting your idea of how they should live. I'm talking strictly about the behavior we engage in that affects Africans. We are the ones that burn the most fossil fuel. If they use condoms, this isn't going to change our behavior. Whatever problems they have that they are responsible for I'm not addressing. I'm addressing the problems they have that we are responsible for. Drought. We are contributing to it in a major way. It is up to us to change our behavior if they are going to avoid starvation.

Yeah, the earth has been through some extreme climate conditions. But when it was there weren't 7 billion people on the planet dependent on agriculture. We are in a period where we happen to have a prolonged consistency in solar output. We could potentially have a prolonged period of climate stability that would allow us to get by without mass starvation as agriculture struggles to cope with the heat. We could do it. We must choose to do it though. Continuing on the present course, over consuming, buying things we don't need or want, is going to lead to mass starvation. It's unnecessary.

Yeah, if the sun was rapidly growing and we were doomed due to natural causes, fine, just sit back and enjoy the show. But we are artificially making our planet inhospitable to human life and we don't have to do it. I say we should stop ruining our environment. There are costs. Limits on your consumption. But you can have everything you need for happiness. If you could secure a better future for your children by foregoing an RV, would you do it? That's the choice we face.

Jon said...

And the fact that Idso is funded by Exxon/Mobile and ALEC, the enormous corporate front lobbying group that works hard to re-write our laws behind closed doors in ways that improve the profits of corporations means what to you? It's not hard to find people willing to spew denialist nonsense for profit. You'll find a handful of such people. For every one you find I'll have a hundred telling you he's not to be taken seriously and is positing nonsense for profit. Who are you going to believe?

Chad said...

Goodness it didn't take you long to tie the science to a group you dislike, but you dismiss the motivation of the climate scientist to stay fully funded.

The science is not clear Jon - that is the point. Is their more carbon - yes, do we have something to do with that rise - yes. Is the planets fate (in a negative way) sealed because of it - absolutely not in my mind.

Chad said...

Besides - isn't it against any environmental scientist to even entertain any possibility that industrialization can be positive? Most scientist in my mind who involve themselves in the environment wold have a natural disposition to hate that which alters or potentially destroys it for any reason. I would suspect that their are not many espiring scientists out there right now interested in proving the positive effects of what man has created - that is just not in their narrative. All those fancy degrees, testing devices, computers, labs and resources they enjoy require results. The scientific community needs Global Warming to be true - they need Gore's money and influence to keep them relevant. At the same time the need the stuff produced by the evil they rail against. Ironic isn't it.

Jon said...

The beauty of science, Chad, is that it doesn't really matter what some aspiring scientists may think. Science is a process whereby claims are justified. There is no more effective process. Science is the best tool humans have for answering these types of questions.

You can say "In my mind there's no reason for concern." That's the beauty of science. It doesn't matter what you think. It doesn't matter that this conclusion conflicts with your politics. That's what I think is really happening. Right wing politics and economics just couldn't cope with a crisis like this if it were real, so you pretend it's not. But if my speculation is wrong, so what? We have a process that filters through these kinds of things. It's called science. It doesn't matter what you think or what I think. These questions have been put to the test scientifically. You're wrong.

This is why conservatives generally are more hostile to science. Scientific conclusions lead immediately to policies conservatives don't like (we basically must do something about this, and the free market isn't going to do it). So now what? Deny that it's right. Talk about how we're not sure. That's true. In science you are never sure. So whether it's tobacco and lung cancer or lead and brain function, profit seeking corporations can continue to point out that we aren't sure, and some will go along. The rest of the world is waking up. You can only deny the nose on your face for so long.

Chad said...

May I suggest you read the revised release offered by the Met Office sir. It outlines that Global Warming Forecast models were wrong and in essence Global Warming has stalled. That's your scientists talking - not my radical opinion. Foe some reason I can't post links on my IPads any longer otherwise I would have sent the link.

Chad said...

Professor Myles Allen of the University of Oxford said this on Jan 8 after the Met admitted that Global Warming has appeared to stall and certainly did not meet the scientist predictions.

"A lot of people were claiming, in the run-up to Copenhagen 2009 conference, that warming was accelerating and it is all worse than we thought. What has happened since then demostrated that it is foolish to extrapolate short-term climate trends."

This is a guy on your side of the fence boss and he is now in doubt my friend.

Chad said...

Here is another quote from your scientist buddies. This one from Dr. David Whitehouse who is the science advisor to the Global Warming Policy Foundation. Hopefully you'll take his word on the subject.

He said "the global temperature standstill that could continue to at least 2017 would mean a 20 year period of no statistically significant change in global temperatures. Such a period of no increases will pose fundamental problems for climate control models. If the Met Office predictions are correct and they appear to be so then it will prove to be a lesson in humility.

Is he on Exxon's payroll too?

I'm not a genius, but it certainly sounds like

Chad said...

Their is some holes in the boat that is now taking on water?

Examinator said...

Sadly your funding motive falls in the heap of ignorance at your sources feet. That is spin clearly the brain brain fart that invented that has never *actually applied* for research funding.
Funding requests are like tenders and judged accordingly.
BTW if a smartie like my daughter wanted to get rich she'd go work in the military research industry...Just in case you hadn't noticed 80% research funding is Military or industry based. Less that 10% is pure research and the rest is endowment etc e.g. it must have a $ return to maintain the endowment.
Clearly you haven't looked at NASA's research budget a tiny fraction is AGW related.
The case is even worse in other countries. Australia's premium science organization CSIRO is 99% industry focused

No one said that AGW was a straight line increase Again the misinformation of your sources and your lack of understanding of statistics... they are LONG TERM TREND lines. A single scientist or single line of research proves 2cents of F A ! that is straw grasping.
Also If you read a little more widely you'd realize that the conditions that created the little Ice Age 10000 years ago and the mini freeze 500 years ago simply don't exist today.
e.g. the sun has cycles but over all it is changing again look at the science not MSM and businesses that want to milk their cash cow.
CONDITIONS ARE IN CONSTANT CHANGE ....laws of thermodynamics ...nothing stays the same!

This isn't an opinion it is SCIENCE FACT.
Please please stop regurgitating the misinformation pap

Examinator said...

Sorry for getting terse but Chad is like a stuck record from the 50's it never changes same old half backed misinformation. Most geological research is actually funded by the extraction industries and has a single focus find more stuff to dig up. Palaeontological geology is as I said to understand the past and thereby add elements of knowledge to the mix isn't in and of its self a future predictive discipline.
It's a bit like asking a medieval history scholar to predict the financial state of the world in 500 years...absolutely absurd, the economists cant agree on what it will be like in 2014.
The conservative thinker's (sic) probable is that they believe in stasis, 'no change' is possible despite the incontrovertible evidence to the contrary.
So they project their fears/ monosyllabic motivations on every one else again ignoring the incontrovertible evidence against it.
Survival our key instinct has many caveats and variations on a theme. Chad and his ilk has inserted money into that instinct.
The reality is that the striving for money ISN'T an instinct rather a 4th level hue of a means.
e.g. if shipwrecked on a desert island with only the world's largest box of money/gold is of no use at all.
MONEY like fashion and consumerism is a creation not part of an instinct.
Neither is a belief in Christianity or Islam etc. they are all creations to serve a want not a need.
We inculcate our children with such trivialities to their detriment.
We TEACH them shame as in having an abortion is 'shameful' traumatic.
Some of the greatest cultures in the world practised infanticide but managed to 'happily' exist.
Likewise some cultures didn't believe in warfare. ...the San, the Sammi and the Moriori.
and many variations in between.
As we've said before the most outstanding feature of the 'consecrative' mind set is to exclude and to force others to adopt their views is demonstrably NOT INSTINCTUAL. Fear is instinctual.
Just philosophising. ;-\

Examinator said...

Silly me I forgot to mention.
When 'tendering' for research funding it is hardly (very rarely) to prove or disprove AGW such a research request would be laughed out of the building.
The research objective most likely would be to say "To Measure the fluctuations and causal factors of East coast Antarctic Glacier type 3 ice and its Xxxx specie algae. noting the seasonal patterns in in plankton blooms and associated krill viability as a food source for fish in the surrounding seas"
You may not from this gobbledy gook for the common man there is no mention of AGW ... Although it may get a mention in the conclusion and it THAT the media focus on.
This research brief would involve possibly involve 7 disciplines and 1/2 dozen specialists.
In reality the main beneficiaries of such a brief would be the fishing , processing, marketing industries etc.

Jon said...

David Rose from the Daily Mail has repeatedly falsely claimed that the Met Office says the warming trend has stopped and the Met Office has repeatedly and publicly corrected the record. These are straight lies from the right wing propaganda machine. Please watch this six minute video and do what the creator of that video suggests. We're in a crisis here and it's going to continue if people don't figure out that they need to simply check dubious right wing claims.

Jon said...

Dr David Whitehouse has no expertise in climate science. He has a degree in astrophysicas. The idea is not that anybody with a doctorate can therefore tell us about the climate. You have to have a science degree in the relevant field. Why should someone with a degree in molecular biology or medicine or some other unrelated field tell us about the climate?

The Global Warming Policy Foundation is a think tank that refuses to reveal it's monetary sources. Probably they are on Exxon's payroll, but they don't want us to know. Look, you're going to find people taking money telling us what they are paid to tell us. You're going to have tabloid newspapers making things up. Why you listen to them first and ignore the OVERWHELMING consensus amongst real climate scientists is kind of strange. These are straight scammers, Chad. You can't say the same about all scientists.

And again, if you want to criticize Al Gore, that's fine with me. He's not a scientist. You have been repeatedly lied to and you post info here and I debunk it effortlessly. Are you going to ever consider learning from these mistakes?

Jon said...

Here's a point I don't think you understand. Science is not "whatever a particular scientist says." Science is a process. Hypothesis, test, publication, peer review, repeated independent testing confirming prior test results. Just because a person that is a scientist makes a claim, this doesn't make the claim scientific. A claim (hypothesis) gets put through a process, and it's only after that process is complete, a process that usually takes years, that a claim can be a scientific claim. When I say scientific claims are credible I don't mean that just because a person who is a scientist makes a claim the claim is credible. I mean a claim is credible if it has been through this extensive process. You'll find individual scientists that make claims contrary to accepted science. Some deny the theory of relativity, some deny the germ theory of disease. Their claims only become scientific if they put them through the process and overturn the prevailing theory.

Chad said...

So your claiming that the Met Office report outlining that the projections made were wrong and there has been no significant temperature change is wrong? I understand your frustration, something you bought hook, line and sinker is not exactly going as predicted. For you, it's gotta be like the day I found out that their was no Santa Claus. I was crushed for a couple days for sure.

Chad said...

Ate also dismissing guys like James Lovelock's changed views? He is now admitting to being an alarmist and wrong about Global Warming - he is writing a book to the fact right now I believe. Please admit the worm has turned at least - even one of the founding alarmists is back tracking fast now.

Jon said...

It's not that the Met Office report is wrong. There is no Met Office report. Watch the 6 minute video. The Met Office updated their data file. David Rose took the data and decided that he, as a tabloid newspaper reporter, was competent to interpret it for himself and just make this fantastic claim that there's been no warming. He has the balls to say that his spin on the data is in fact the Met Office's conclusion merely because the data he's using came from them. It's pretty amazing. What's not so amazing is the fact that the right wing takes this kind of nonsense and plasters it all over the place, nobody interested in checking apparently. I'm hoping at some point you'll learn.

James Lovelock apparently used to make crazy claims, such as claiming that by 2100 80% of our species would be dead due to global warming, a claim that is not based on the scientific literature, and now he's flipped like a light switch, now saying it's not much of a problem, again a claim that cannot be sustained in light of the scientific literature. Individuals sometimes make baseless and unsustainable claims. No surprise there. Why you put stock in something like that and ignore the overall scientific community, or again fall for frauds like this so called Met Office report, is what I'd like you to consider.

Jon said...

And I'm not sure if you missed my post about how science is not what an individual scientist says. Science is an extensive process. It takes years to form a scientific conclusion because it requires all the steps in that process I outlined. You can talk about James Lovelock (once again it appears he is not a climate scientist), you can find others, like Roy Spencer, Rush Limbaugh's official climate scientist. A claim from an individual scientist that relativity is wrong or gravitation is wrong does not overturn the veracity of these theories and does not change what accepted science is. Tobacco had individual scientists telling us not to worry about lung cancer, and the fossil fuel industry did the same with lead in gasoline. It's not about what an individual claims but the consensus that develops based on published papers. These people you quote haven't even begun the process. They don't publish papers justifying these claims. They are just making claims. That's the very first step in the scientific process. Hypothesis. There's a long way to go before these claims become scientific, and until they do our best bet is to accept what science is telling us.

Chad said...

We tossed gernades back and forth which is fun for me, but all kidding aside for a minute I am not dismissing any data - I really like data a lot. I also agree with your point that it is going to take a long long time to find out who was right if in fact anyone was right. My guess is that everyone is going to have an "I told you so" moment hunreds of years from now. Partly that is my point here - we get this one precious life that is ultimately very very very very short. When you take out childhood and then you take away the golden years when going to the bathroom on your own is a win - all that is left here is just tiny little window of years to really enjoy. So when you come with the notion that if I didn't buy an RV today that I may (and it is not proven yet) help someone in India or more closer home to say that I may help someone in my family tree hundreds or thousands of years from now is really super difficult to take seriously. Maybe seriously is the wrong word here - let me say it is very difficult to adjust my course of living to accomodate an unproven theory at this point in time. Now evidence is coming in that is at the very least causing some concern for the Global Warming folks predicting a dooms day.

With that said - I respect your wishes to slow down your consumption to possible ease your carbon footprint for someone else today or in the future, but for me - especially right now - my time to enjoy this one life is right here and I plan on riding that bull until it kicks me off.

Besides sir - the technological advances we've enjoyed have really taken place in the last few decades when you get down to it. We are getting smater and more creative so I also have the opinion that in the next few decades there will be some way to scrub the air of all bad things if the data proves we are in trouble - whatever those things might be. Imagine the resources that will be pooled together to 'save the earth' so to speak.

Jon said...

I didn't say it's going to take a long time to figure this out. I said science is a process that takes a long time. One guy making a claim is not science. Science is what climatologists have been doing for the last few decades, and it's already done. We know what's happening, we know where we are going. We don't know the precise timeline, but it's not hundreds of thousands of years. We are looking at major consequences in just years, much worse in a decade or two, and subsequently catastrophic.

Can it be mitigated? Maybe. I'd say probably. But at what cost? How many will die before it is mitigated? The more we consume, and the more rapidly we consume, the more people we consign to death. Not a hundred thousand years from now. Within our lifetimes, possibly well within our lifetimes. Decisions made in the past have sealed the fate of many already, but it's up to you and me to try and mitigate this as much as possible for the others that still have a chance.

Again, this needs to be emphasized. The overwhelming scientific consensus is stronger now that it has ever been. The denial crowd, people involved in these think tanks you point to, people like David Rose from the Daily Mail, these kinds of junk science claims are seen for what they are by more and more every day. All you have to do is look at the polar ice caps. That's an astonishing decline. The science is settled. The question is, are we going to get busy fixing what we've wrecked or are we going to continue on the same path like lemmings off the cliff?

Chad said...

Hold on sir - the science is settled that there is change occuring and that is all. What is not settled in the science is why the change is occuring or occured and what that means in the short and/or long term projections. Another words - you can not and the science can not with 100% accuracy point to humans as the sole reason for this change.

Regressing here, but the earth has been around for millions (billions according to Ex) of years and dramatic changes have occurred with and without humans. Change is the only constant.

Examinator said...

The reality of anthropomorphic Climate change is settled it is happening PERIOD!
What isn't 100% settled is by how much, by when and the sequence of disasters.
It utter BS to say that it's coming unravelled, the boat is taking on water and all the other trite aphorisms you may wish to throw around.
Simply put You can read all (sic) "the data " you wish but it doesn't change the fact
That you are neither qualified or experienced enough to actually interpret let alone assess said data.
Your information (miss) comes from sources that are unreliable and equally lacking and in necessary skills.
You CHOOSE to believe them because it's convenient comfortable for you to do so it has no bearing on the scientific fact.
You are selectively choosing your sources rather that looking at them all and following where the VAST Majority of those with the expertise are pointing.

You are like Thomas Andrews the Titanic's builder.....he believed in his creation and was party to the dispensing with life boats to carry more coal ....he perished with his creation.
Evidence suggests he and other executives ignored the preponderance of advice that the ship wasn't unsinkable. No such ship has ever been built.
You believe that your 'ship' the current way we do things is "unsinkable" sadly you're taking others with you. Try objectively looking at the change in water currents, The measured sea rise,the acidification of the sea (I won't bother telling you the clear and negatively observable demonstrable consequences of that). I will tell you That my daughter and I did some of the local volunteer grunt work collecting samples etc on one of the scientific papers that confirmed the reality.
We didn't get paid but we know the figures are as we found them, because we helped collect them.

Anyway it is a out and out LIE that AGW (as you call it ) hasn't been proved and it's consequences are and will be catastrophic.
Argue about what to do about it by all means that is at least productive to deny it is simply inane .
But then again who cares if 100million plus Americans are killed or displaced ( look at the maps) clearly you don't ....YET!

HispanicPundit said...

Jon writes: The fact is we have a huge problem here. I think a solvable problem. You and me giving up our phones really won't change anything, but organizing and pressing for drastic changes in governmental policy could. So that's what I'm striving for.

But you are just one voter. Just as you are one consumer. I don't see how one voter has, ipso facto, more power than one consumer - especially on the margin.

When you bought the latest and greatest cell phone, for example, you helped drive demand for precisely the cutting edge technology and "consumerism" that is, according to you, dooming us in the long run.

Your political views, and your vote, would have to be weighed against HUGE amounts of corporate lobbying...that is far more powerful.

I just dont see how you could assume, without the need to prove, that the power of you as a voter is more than the power as a consumer. In fact, I would assume the opposite - especially given your views on corporate political power.

Examinator said...

You make a fair point as far as it goes.
However the phone is merely one item, a symbol.I don't think we're talking about giving up your current phone per se
Again that interpretation is standard Right wing obfuscation by reducing the conversation to the ridiculous.
What Jon and I are advocating is a change of attitude... a different thought process. i.e. 'resist whim buying'. Buy on the basis of need rather than want. This clearly applies to a whole range of products.
e.g. when I stopped smoking my pipes (which I enjoyed) we realised a significant reallocation of money. not just in no more tobacco but also in collecting and repairing pipes.
another example of secondary want expenditure... My daughter stopped sending photos on every event and lo and behold she
a. has lasting records of special events .
b. has been able to down grade here monthly cell phone costs.

That didn't mean she became an ascetic but it influenced her friends in the way they used their cell phones (savings) and contacts are now more meaningful, quality not quantity (their words) and she and a few others have not automatically bought the new Iphone (it doesn't have any new features that make the extra expense worth it.
Jon is more diligent than I. But I would put it to you that 'sacrifice' is a very LOADED (spin) word. Sacrifice is only valid when one 'gives up something that they VALUE.
VALUE should equal utilitarian usage (need)
I would point out to you that the clothes I gave to charity weren't in reality neither sacrifice nor real charity. However when I sold my antique Desk and converted it to $ we could have used that but WE chose to sacrifice it for charity. To make the charity ours and real we didn't claim a tax deduction on the grounds that would be getting the public to subsidise our sacrifice /charity.
I figure as a libertarian you would appreciate the difference.
Why should YOU part pay for my generosity?
I'll bet good money that most Republican claim and over claim every cent. To me this is hypo critical especially when it comes to churches and their enterprises. Simply turning the so called logic of resenting Social Security.
As I said my wife keeps good house hold accounts and has informed me that over the last 2 years we have reduced our expenditure on 'discretionary' spending. When I did the analysis math it turns out that conservatively we have reduced our carbon foot print by approx 19%. If you factor in the externalities specifically influence on our daughter and then her close friends the impact starts to become meaningful.
Keep in mind Martin Luther King Jr's impact was neither immediate but it WAS SIGNIFICANT. BTW who,other than the worst borderline sociopathic, narcissistic bigoted imbecile would now claim that we are suffering any 'sacrifice?'
Same deal same objective logic.

Jon said...

I agree with you. I don't think my power as a voter amounts to much. Me voting wont' do much. Nor will me not buying a phone do much. What needs to happen is people need to be mobilized and organized. In my view that's everything.

Examinator said...

Be careful with that defence it was part of the Nuremberg defence.
"I was only one person what could I do ? I had to do as ordered."
I would ask those who are procrastinating waiting for someone
(Someone Else as in Someone Else's problem) to start something "who is there?" the Prez? but he is bound by the ropes he used to GET into office.
A REPUBLICAN PREZ? same deal only the bindings are more obvious.
Every time America has a champion the status quo or some nut with a fire arm or a truck of Nitrate and diesel oil kills them.
The US system precludes anyone with a genius that isn't for business from doing much else.
God Bless You Too, America ( as spoken by a Virginian)

Jon said...

Chad, I forgot to reply to you comment about how the science is not settled on the cause of global warming or the consequences. I think Ex already said this, but just to emphasize it let me also say that you are WRONG big time once again. The IPCC is the largest undertaking ever in the history of humanity that has attempted to evaluate the scientific consensus. Go to Wiki and read the conclusions. Three major points. 1-We're warming, 2-It's caused by man, 3-Serious consequences in terms of the survival of species and the safety of humans will follow. This question is just about as settled as it could possibly be. It's done. The only question remains is how long are we going to allow corporate propaganda to muddy the waters and prevent the kind of change so desperately needed.

Ex, yes, you're right, and you can check my earlier reply to Jonathan and see that altering my behavior is underway in a major way. HP knows I got a new phone, so like you said for me it's not as if I change like a light switch and go from massive carbon emissions to zero. But I have reduced my carbon emissions and have my sights set on much further reductions. I do need to do my part and it is happening.

Examinator said...

chad doesn't understand the weight of probability.
He should think of it in terms of a enormous balance scale
On one side you have 30000 light weight (not in the specific disciplines or specialities) science oriented professionals who oppose AGW on the other side you have 150000 science oriented people most of whom are IN the apposite disciplines/specialities. One or two dissenting papers aren't going to make a lot of difference to the massive preponderance of information, relevant expertise and hard facts that indicate it is real.

Chad can't give anywhere within a bull's roar the sheer weight of evidence or expertise that proves AGW even remotely doubtful as a broad fact.

I would remind Chad that the same nay sayers were among the same group that denied Tectonic plates real for 20 years and that group also denied the meteor strike at the KT boundary (geologists).
They don't have a good track record for new information.
E.g. look at their statement of the 80's about the "not credible" about contamination of ground water because of Nuke leakage in NY and Washington state. They have been proven wrong.
It took Hydrologists not Geologists to discover and prove that.
The same goes for fracking pollution of groundwater.(In some conditions).
Let's talk about say the geologists who said that the fossil water in the Libyan Dessert was self replenishing thus they used it unwisely... They have discovered more recently that it takes 1000's of years and given the change in rainfall patterns (again combination of Hydrologists, ground Chemists, meteorologists, climatologists ) the refilling may probably not happen.
You want America? try reading the data about groundwater depletion in the mid west.
Conclusion if the solution is simple then it would have been done already or its the wrong answer.