Earth Day 2013

John Kerry says climate change is the most serious threat to national security today. He is right, but not for the reasons he states.

Climate change belief has the potential to drag the world back to the stone age. That constitutes a serious threat to all of humanity.

We enjoy a standard of living people in the Dark Ages could not even imagine. Humans feed, clothe and house 7 billion of their own. Hunger and lack of services are often due to politics—oppressive governments, wars, etc. Third world nations are rising up out of poverty and joining the US, Europe , Canada and others with warm houses, plenty of food, and a high standard of living. India and China are catching up to the US with their industries.

Lifespans are long, diseases can be vaccinated against, medical care handles complex surgeries and organ transplants. We have very fortunate lives in comparison to past generations.

All of this comfort and gains are the enemy of the climate change promoters. Modern life, based on fossil fuel usage, is killing the planet. Some say it is too late—but wait, it’s too late to avoid all climate change but we can limit it. We just need 90 mpg cars (remember when Ralph Nader lamented selling of dangerous cars like very lightweight, high mileage cars? Not anymore—now it’s save the planet, not the person), wind turbines, solar panels, water rationing, less consumption of goods—you get the idea. Radical activists go so far as to say humans are a blight upon the earth.

The major component for fixing climate change is money—billion, trillions of dollars redistributed by the UN most likely. Kerry says the US needs a carbon tax (one supposes he does understand what damage this will do to an already weak economy but does not care). Money—that’s how we fix climate change.

Considering the astronomical cost of wind and solar, and the physical limits of such power, a loss of industries and home electrical use is the inevitable outcome if these methods are continued. Wind and solar are variable at best. Storage is being explored, but has not been successful large scale. There are no replacements, short of nuclear power, that are practical to replace fossil fuels. Ending fossil fuel usage means ending modern society, unless a reasonable replacement is found very, very soon. Currently, there is mostly a push to use the marginal wind and solar and live with limited power.

Many will argue such drastic measures are not necessary—moderate changes are enough. This does not go with the climate change apocalypse predicted by Hansen if we don’t take drastic action now. It seems drastic change is our only choice now. Hansen is again saying Earth could end up like Venus if we don’t take drastic action.

Whether or not ACC is “real”, current calls to drastic action represent a far greater threat to humans than climate change itself—or at best, the prospects for good resolution are equal for both ideas. Driving the world down to pre-industrial levels will be devastating. Massive wealth redistribution will be devastating,. Will waiting be devastating? Maybe, but it seems less dangerous than applying the “cure” of stopping fossil fuel usage completely. Humans have been remarkably adaptable for thousands of years and will continue to be.

We have an obligation to use our resources wisely and to keep our rivers, forests and land in the best condition possible. This does not mean declaring resources off limits or preserving huge chunks of land free from human habitation for posterity. We are part of the earth, not a parasite that needs to be destroyed. We are adaptable and resourceful. Trying to destroy the gains made by technology won’t save the planet nor the human race. The nobel savage was never truly noble. Celebrate Earth Day by being thankful for the world we live and thrive in today.

51 comments on “Earth Day 2013

  1. Gail Combs says:

    The other non-nuclear forms of energy that need attention are:
    1. Geo-thermal –

    This is where I would put a lot of development dollars and advertising dollars. It has already been proven, knocks a large chunk of energy cost off the household BTUs adds A/C and best of all have double the life of normal heat pump systems. (Yeah, I am looking at it for my house)

    2. The other idea I like is Biogas from Manure and I am talking human ‘Manure’ as well as animal.
    Methane is supposed to be a much stronger Green house gas when compared to CO2 so why manure digesters for city sewer waste as well as farm use has not been pushed I do not know.

    Of course neither Geo-thermal or Biogas from Manure have the return on investment and the subsidy dollar lure that solar wind and carbon credits does.

    The neat thing from the point of view of the greedy corporations is Wind and solar disrupt the power grid making smart meters and smart appliances that can be shut down by the power company necessary.

    The Department of Energy Report 2009

    A smart grid is needed at the distribution level to manage voltage levels, reactive power, potential reverse power flows, and power conditioning, all critical to running grid-connected DG systems, particularly with high penetrations of solar and wind power and PHEVs…. Designing and retrofitting household appliances, such as washers, dryers, and water heaters with technology to communicate and respond to market signals and user preferences via home automation technology will be a significant challenge. Substantial investment will be required….

    These controls and tools could reduce the occurrence of outages and power disturbances attributed to grid overload. They could also reduce planned rolling brownouts and blackouts like those implemented during the energy crisis in California in 2000.

    The Financiers are jumping for joy over CAGW :

    We see an attractive long-term secular trend for investors to capitalize on over the coming 20–30 years as today’s underinvested and technologically challenged power grid is modernized to a technology-enabled smart grid. In particular, we see an attractive opportunity over the next three to five years to invest in companies that are enabling this transformation of the power grid.

    Click to access Thomas_Weisel_Demand_Response.pdf

    World Bank Carbon Finance Report for 2007
    The carbon economy is the fastest growing industry globally with US$84 billion of carbon trading conducted in 2007, doubling to $116 billion in 2008, and expected to reach over $200 billion by 2012 and over $2,000 billion by 2020.

  2. Gail,

    that was all quite refreshing, as i agree with almost everything you just posted, and appreciate the time and attention to detail you are putting on this.
    thank you for correcting me about EROEI. i misunderstood you, and thought you were talking about the total cost of “extraction” of energy, and I was not considering the lifetime energy costs.
    this IS an issue that is being very much highlighted in environmental and other groups concerned about ACC.
    What i WAS talking about is the fact that cude oil has been an almost miraculous source of energy, because of the extraordinarily high energy density.

    I am ALL for pointing out the various problems and challenges with transforming energy usage from high carbon emmitting sources to renewables that do NOT have unintended consequences which cause worse problems than trying to be solved.
    But I firmly believe that this transformation has to happen and that there will need to be money and resources spent in the development process. Science and technology just do not happen perfectly and there needs to be concrete attempts made with many different approaches. ESPECIALLY when there is a serious global problem that we are charging toward at full speed.
    So in theory, I would defend the development of corn ethanol, even though it is not a finished solution, just becuase it is a proof of concept and a part of developing an infrastructure for more effective biofuel.
    However because of many of the problems you raise that have been well documented make it not a lesser of two evils, but just a money making deal with corporate and goverment interests only interested in making a profit at any cost. What is encouraging to me about this is that the reaction of environmentalsists and ACC uspporters has been the opposite of the characature of the right wing. I saw attacks on corn ethanol from environmentalists LONG before I saw any form anti-ACC activists complaining.

    Again, I am not convinced with your figures for other sources of Biomass conversion. They might be accurate for the present time, which just makes me think we need to explore more.
    I just listened to a podcast about hydrogen from most plant material. Surely it is completely uneconomical now, but if enough effort is expended, we will get not only new sources of energy, but develop new types of technology that can be part of many areas that will likely revolutionize in unexpected ways.

    As for thorium, I am not averse to considering new forms of nuclear energy, but many of the objections you have forrenemables apply in ways that are not going to be publicized by those with an agenda to support it. I want to see ALL the info postiive and negative, and try to make decisions on how to proceed in ways that are economically realistic and consider all the consequences.
    I personally think conservation is the most immeidate way to cut back on CO2. there is a tremendous amount of unnecesary waste in many different areas. Much of th problem is social habit and irrrational behavioral bias.

  3. Gail Combs says:

    The second reason I absolutely HATE corn=> ethanol biofuel is it has caused starvation while the fat cats pocket the profit. (some of the links are old.)

    Amstutz was VP of Cargill. He wrote the WTO Agreement on Ag in 1995. (Even Clinton admitted that agreement lead to starvation and riots of 2008) Amstutz then wrote the Freedom to Farm act in 1996. This law was later called the Freedom to Fail act as US farmers over produced and grain prices dropped like a rock. Grain traders used the surplus of very cheap grain to bankrupt farmers around the world. This was actually a KNOWN US policy as Clinton has just admitted.

    President Bill Clinton, now the UN Special Envoy to Haiti, publicly apologized last month for forcing Haiti to drop tariffs on imported, subsidized US rice during his time in office. The policy wiped out Haitian rice farming and seriously damaged Haiti’s ability to be self-sufficient.

    Amstutz was also responsible for wiping out the US grain reserve system. How to fight a food crisis: To blunt the ravages of drought and market greed, we need a national grain reserve… the 1996 Freedom to Farm Act abolished our national system of holding grain in reserve.

    Amstutz then went to work for Goldman Sachs. This has always puzzled me until I finally ran across the last piece of the puzzle.

    That is where things get really interesting. This is stolen from WANTtoKNOW. Info: Excerpts of Key Financial News Articles in Major Media

    The first articles states:

    Commodity Futures Trading Commission judge says colleague biased against complainants

    ..Painter said Judge Bruce Levine … had a secret agreement with a former Republican chairwoman of the agency to stand in the way of investors filing complaints with the agency. “On Judge Levine’s first week on the job, nearly twenty years ago, he came into my office and stated that he had promised Wendy Gramm, then Chairwoman of the Commission, that we would never rule in a complainant’s favor,” Painter wrote. “A review of his rulings will confirm that he fulfilled his vow….

    Levine had never ruled in favor of an investor. Gramm [wife of former senator Phil Gramm (R-Tex.)], was head of the CFTC just before president Bill Clinton took office. She has been criticized by Democrats for helping firms such as Goldman Sachs and Enron gain influence over the commodity markets. After leaving the CFTC, she joined Enron’s board.

    NOW we know WHY Goldman Sachs hired Dan Amstutz!

    The second Article states:

    How Goldman gambled on starvation

    This is the story of how some of the richest people in the world – Goldman, Deutsche Bank, the traders at Merrill Lynch, and more – have caused the starvation of some of the poorest people in the world. At the end of 2006, food prices across the world started to rise, suddenly and stratospherically. Within a year, the price of wheat had shot up by 80 per cent, maize by 90 per cent, rice by 320 per cent. In a global jolt of hunger, 200 million people – mostly children – couldn’t afford to get food any more, and sank into malnutrition or starvation. There were riots in more than 30 countries, and at least one government was violently overthrown. Then, in spring 2008, prices just as mysteriously fell back to their previous level. Jean Ziegler, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, calls it “a silent mass murder”, entirely due to “man-made actions.” Through the 1990s, Goldman Sachs and others lobbied hard and the regulations [controlling agricultural futures contracts] were abolished. Suddenly, these contracts were turned into “derivatives” that could be bought and sold among traders who had nothing to do with agriculture. A market in “food speculation” was born. The speculators drove the price through the roof.

    Here is the real attitude of these sons of syphilitic jackals:

    In summary, we have record low grain inventories globally as we move into a new crop year. We have demand growing strongly. Which means that going forward even small crop failures are going to drive grain prices to record levels. As an investor, we continue to find these long term trends…very attractive.” Food shortfalls predicted: 2008

    Recently there have been increased calls for the development of a U.S. or international grain reserve to provide priority access to food supplies for Humanitarian needs. The National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA) and the North American Export Grain Association (NAEGA) strongly advise against this concept..Stock reserves have a documented depressing effect on prices… and resulted in less aggressive market bidding for the grains.” July 22, 2008 letter to President Bush

    Dan Amstutz was president of the North American Export Grain Association.

    They even named an award after the B@$t@rd!

    The Amstutz Award is given by the North American Export Grain Association in honor of Dan Amstutz and in recognition of his outstanding and extraordinary service to the export grain and oilseed trade from the United States. Appropriately, the first recipient of this distinguished service award was Mr. Amstutz…

    More on Biofuel, starvation and profit:

    Biofuel starvation wasn’t “unforeseen consequences”

    The U.S. corn crop, accounting for 40 percent of the global harvest and supplying nearly 70 percent of the world’s corn imports…

    Congress required that biofuel use increase five times…

    wheat prices have tripled, corn prices doubled and rice prices nearly doubled…

    …. there were real warnings about possible starvation as a consequence of the law Sarasohn refers to [the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 ].

    The possible consequences were clearly communicated in a Senate briefing a week before initial passage of the Senate bill and 6 months before final approval of the final House-Senate bill.

    Here’s a bit from a June 13, 2007 Senate briefing given by Lester Brown from the Earth Policy Institute:

    The U.S. corn crop, accounting for 40 percent of the global harvest and supplying nearly 70 percent of the world’s corn imports, looms large in the world food economy. Annual U.S. corn exports of some 55 million tons account for nearly one fourth of world grain exports. The corn harvest of Iowa alone exceeds the entire grain harvest of Canada. Substantially reducing this export flow would send shock waves throughout the world economy.

    In six of the last seven years, total world grain production has fallen short of use. As a result, world carryover stocks of grain have been drawn down to 57 days of consumption, the lowest level in 34 years. (See Data.)

    To add insult to injury Congress did not even see if biofuel actually saves on the use of oil. It does not! David Pimentel, professor of ecology and agriculture at Cornell found it takes more fossil fuel to produce biofuel than is recovered:
    * corn requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced;
    * switch grass requires 45 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced; and
    * wood biomass requires 57 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.
    * soybean plants requires 27 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced, and
    * sunflower plants requires 118 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.


    Being Like Soros in Buying Farmland Reaps Annual Gains of 16%

    [US] Farmland reaps high investment returns

    Credit Suisse: The Hunt for Land Has Already Started

    Rothschild cashes in by Investing in Farmland


    Archer Daniels Midland Co (who capitalized on ethanol manufacture)
    Starvation, Obesity, and Corporate Welfare: Archer Daniels Midland and U.S. Policy

    ADM’s Largess Preserved Ethanol Break, Study Says
    Agribusiness giant Archer Daniels Midland Co. (ADM), the single largest beneficiary of a controversial federal ethanol tax subsidy, contributed more than $3 million in unregulated “soft money” to Republican and Democratic national party committees during the past 10 years

    Mother Jones: Dwaynes World
    …For all ADM’s size, the question now is not whether the government can survive without ADM but whether ADM can survive without the government. Three subsidies that the company relies on are now being targeted by watchdogs ranging from Ralph Nader to the libertarian Cato Institute.

    The first subsidy is the Agriculture Department’s corn-price support program. Despite ADM’s close association with corn, this is the least important subsidy to the company….

    Of more benefit to ADM is the Agriculture Department’s sugar program. The program runs like a mini-OPEC: setting prices, limiting production, and forcing Americans to spend $1.4 billion per year more for sugar, according to the General Accounting Office. The irony is that, aside from a small subsidiary in Metairie, La., ADM has no interest in sugar. Its concern is to keep sugar prices high to prevent Coke and all the other ADM customers that replaced cane sugar with corn sweeteners from switching back. “The sugar program acts as an umbrella for them,” says Tom Hammer, president of the Sweetener Users Association. “It protects them from economic competition.”

    The third subsidy that ADM depends on is the 54-cent-per-gallon tax credit the federal government allows to refiners of the corn-derived ethanol used in auto fuel. For this subsidy, the federal government pays $3.5 billion over five years. Since ADM makes 60 percent of all the ethanol in the country, the government is essentially contributing $2.1 billion to ADM’s bottom line. No other subsidy in the federal government’s box of goodies is so concentrated in the hands of a single company…..

    The grease–or perhaps oleo–that helps keep these kinds of programs going is the money Andreas, his family, his company, and his company’s subsidiaries provide politicians who have influence over agricultural policy.

    More on ADM: So You Want to Buy a President?

    Ethanol: The latest Incarnation of Snake Oil

    Analysis: U.S. bankers say, love or hate it, ethanol here to stay

    ADM profits soar 550 percent as ethanol margins improve

    Cargill (Privately held Grain Trader)
    Record profits for Cargill


    New report shatters GE crop myths
    The study carried out by the UK Soil Association, shatters industry myths that GE crops produce higher yields, reduce herbicide use and benefit the economy. Included in the report is the revelation that between 1999 and 2001, GE crops actually cost the US economy up to US $12 billion dollars.

    Monsanto (85% held by mutual funds)
    Monsanto Extortion Letter

    2012: Monsanto posts record $8.6B in sales

    2012: Monsanto posts record second quarter, sales jump 15 percent

    2012: Monsanto 3Q profit soars, maintains year view

    Food fight: The business of biotechnology

  4. Gail Combs says:

    Tony Duncan (@tonydunc) says:
    May 2, 2013 at 10:03 pm


    Typically for propagandists you spout all sorts of facts and present a very one-sided set of them. making sure to ONLY present facts that support an extreme mischaracterization of the views you are attacking. You clearly have an agenda that paints environmentalists or tthose who are concerned about ACC as being either ignorant fools or malicious sociopaths…
    I also want to address this point.

    I drive people nuts because I often side with progressives instead of conservatives. I did quite a bit of research into the possibility of windmills or solar panels (and a water reservoir ‘battery’) for my farm. Geothermal for heating and cooling plus methane fuel generation and organic waste recycling is for me the best bet.

    The “renewable” I really really hate is Corn => Ethanol. Why? For two reasons.

    The simple one is because corn is very very hard on the land. My farm had over two feet of top soil (1940’s soil survey) but by 1995 it had NONE so soil conservation is a real flame button for me.

    The Earth’S Crust #13 Saving The Soil: #2 Corn (really hard on soil – takes a lot of nutrients out of the ground)

    Peak Soil: The Silent Global Crisis
    .. In the past 40 years alone, 30 percent of the planet’s arable land has become unproductive due to erosion, mainly in Asia and Africa. At current erosion rates, soils are being depleted faster than they are replenished, and nearly all of the remaining 11 billion acres of cropland and grazing land suffer from some degree of erosion…. Most of this erosion is simply due to plowing, removal of crop residues after harvest, and overgrazing, which leaves soil naked and vulnerable to wind and rain….

    Erosion largely goes unnoticed by farmers as it “nickels and dimes you to death,” says David Pimentel, an ecologist at Cornell University who has conducted extensive research on the subject. Even if there were no humans on the planet, soils would still erode. The soil formation from the weathering of rock and the breakdown of plants, however, would be faster than the erosion rate; it takes roughly 500 years to create one inch of soil….

    Dry and windy conditions blew nearly two inches of topsoil off Kansas farmlands during the winter of 1995–96. Contrary to common belief, the topsoil loss in Kansas didn’t end up being neatly deposited on farms in neighboring states. More than 60 percent ended up clogging ditches, streams, rivers, and lakes. That makes waterways more prone to flooding (further exacerbating erosion) and contaminates them with fertilizer and pesticide residues, Pimentel says.

    Every rainy day or windy night steals a thin layer of soil from any exposed piece of ground until there is little left but sand and rock. “Iowa has some of the best and deepest soils in the world,” Pimentel says, “and they’ve lost nearly 50 percent in the last hundred years.”

    Bad News Biofuels

    It’s all the more discouraging because American farmers had reduced soil erosion by about 40 percent between 1985 and 1995, largely due to government policies like the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). But CRP programs are now taking a back seat to the desire to cash in on the biofuel bonanza. Erosion is ignored while the US government provides billions of dollars in subsidies for biofuels. “Biofuels and climate change are real threats to America’s soil health,” Cox says.

    Farmers are eagerly plowing up CRP lands, pastures, and highly erodible land to grow corn — 12 million additional acres of corn in 2007 alone — so they can profit from the ethanol boom. Ethanol is mainly made from corn, and the federal government hopes the US will be producing 35 billion gallons of the stuff by 2017. Reaching that goal would turn much of the US into a giant cornfield and has already doubled the price of corn in the past two years. Corn is particularly hard on the soil, requiring plenty of fertilizer, water, and pesticides. Cox says ethanol has sparked a “gold-rush mentality” among farmers who are mortgaging the future health of their soils for short-term profits. “There’s no question that the ethanol boom is increasing erosion.”…

    I have managed to add 4 inches of topsoil in 15 years by turning cropland into pasture and letting the organic matter accumulate. Now the guy who ‘mined’ the soil in the first place wants to rent my fields to plant corn again. GRRrrrrr

    The Cost of the Biofuel Boom: Destroying Indonesia’s Forests: The clearing of Indonesia’s rain forest for palm oil plantations is having profound effects – threatening endangered species, upending the lives of indigenous people, and releasing massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

    Corporations and the financiers are taking advantage of the progressive/environmentalist mindset to make loads of money and the HECK with the actual cost to the environment and to the little guy.

  5. Gail Combs says:

    Tony Duncan (@tonydunc) says:
    May 2, 2013 at 10:03 pm


    Typically for propagandists you spout all sorts of facts and present a very one-sided set of them. making sure to ONLY present facts that support an extreme mischaracterization of the views you are attacking. You clearly have an agenda that paints environmentalists or tthose who are concerned about ACC as being either ignorant fools or malicious sociopaths….

    But to your shock and amazement i axcept most of what you have posted at face value.

    there are two problems with what you have posted even with the facts being accruate.
    ONE is that we are discussing new technologies that have an inherent differences from fossil fuels…..

    Yes gail the EROEI of renewables is not close to the incredible energy density of fossil fuels. But what are the TRENDS for that issue?

    the lack of belief in technology and human ingenuity is quite amusing to me, when people have an agenda that needs for it to not exist….

    “…the EROEI of renewables is not close to the incredible energy density of fossil fuels….”

    I am afraid this shows you do not understand what I was saying. EROEI has absolutely NOTHING to do with the energy density of a fuel, it is the amount of energy used to produce the energy generating plant verses the amount of energy you get out over the life of the plant.

    Take for example wind power.

    If outside engineers go to Africa and show the people there how to build and maintain a wooden and cloth wind mill of the old Dutch or American farm variety, then yes you are talking actual renewable energy. This energy can then be used to grind grain or pull water out of a well and place it in a reservoir. If you have a hill you can move the water with windmills to the top of the hill and let the water flow to the bottom there by turning a wooden paddle wheel whose gears can be used to motor various equipment. (No electricity required) There is a working (as of 1995) wheel wright shop in Topsfield MA that has equipment powered directly from river power. (This is the type of aid I would like to see where the people are given the tools to better themselves instead of a handout that makes them dependent.)

    This is not the type of modern wind mill in use for power generation.

    The modern windmill requires tons of cement just for the base.
    The average primary energy intensity for cement production ranges from 3.4 to 5.3 gigajoules per tonne (GJ/t) across countries with a weighted average of 4.4 GJ/t.

    Then you have the Iron ore used for the concrete reinforcing bares and the rest of the structure.

    62 mines produce at least 75% of western world iron ore and virtually all internationally traded iron ore. link Unfortunately you have to order the report to get the CO2 emissions for the mines.

    EU Commission Report: Prospective Scenarios on Energy Efficiency and CO2 Emissions in the EU Iron & Steel Industry

    ….Iron ore production is highly concentrated in certain countries, with the most significant iron ore reserves being in Brazil and Australia….

    The iron & steel industry is one of the biggest industrial emitters of CO2. It is estimated that between 4 and 7% of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions originate from this industry in EU-27 [5], which generated 252.5 million tonnes of CO2 emissions on average during the period 2005 to 2008….

    A typical integrated steelmaking plant consists of a coke oven, a sinter plant, a blast furnace and either a basic oxygen furnace (BOF), which is also called basic oxygen steel (BOS) plant, or an open hearth furnace (OHF)…. The energy intensity of this route ranges from 9.1 to 12.5 GJ per tonne of steel….

    On top of that you have to mine the clay and sand used to make the ceramic molds for the turbine blades. These molds have to be very carefully quality controlled. If it is anything like aircraft turbine blades you have a whole bunch of people with magnifying lenses and dental picks carefully removing every bit of flash from those molds to make them absolutely perfect. (Yes I did work in such a plant producing turbine blade molds) Each mold is used ONCE and destroyed after use.

    Since China makes these turbines you have the transportation of the ore and coal to China and the finished goods to the USA, EU and Australia.

    Transport of Iron ore:
    …2007/2008, current BHP Billiton Iron Ore’s Port Hedland port operations, with an export capacity of 155 Mpta, emit approximately 1.65 kg CO2-e per tonne of iron ore exported.

    And yes COAL is being used to produce those wind mills: GRAPH: World Bank Lending for thermal generation and World Bank coal funding hits record high… World Bank funding for coal power stations has soared 40-fold over the last five years to hit a record high of $4.4 billion in 2010, new figures reveal.

    These are the type of figures used to determine if more energy is used then is produced. Again the amount of energy produced can not be ‘Name Plate” (Do you REALLY trust a corporation to tell you the truth???) but the actual amount produced during the life of actual windmills.

    Do I support burning oil for fuel? Well no. As a chemist I consider it a wasteful practice. Oil can be used for making so many very useful things. I am hoping we move to the use of thorium nuclear which can even be used for airplanes, cars, trains and ships.

  6. Latest reason for acting on climate change:

    Whereas food insecure women with limited socioeconomic resources may be vulnerable to situations such as sex work, transactional sex, and early marriage that put them at risk for HIV, STIs, unplanned pregnancy, and poor reproductive health.

    Climate change will lead to prostitution.

    I only wish I had made this up. Sadly, it’s very real.

  7. very interesting and seemingly thoughtful. Look forward to reading more of the link. I always like to get both sides of an issue however, but thanks for the link

  8. Gail,

    Typically for propagandists you spout all sorts of facts and present a very one-sided set of them. making sure to ONLY present facts that support an extreme mischaracterization of the views you are attacking. You clearly have an agenda that paints environmentalists or tthose who are concerned about ACC as being either ignorant fools or malicious sociopaths. Again. as I know many people involved in environmentalism and ACC i know this chracteriation to be completely ridiculous.
    As to your specifics I do not have the time to respond to each one, and Reality does not like that anyway.
    But to your shock and amazement i axcept most of what you have posted at face value.
    there are two problems with what you have posted even with the facts being accruate.
    ONE is that we are discussing new technologies that have an inherent differences from fossil fuels. They are actually renewable. A key element in resource allocation is access and limitations. Renewables have high access and that access basically does not change and as per their name no chance of loss of the source. They also have not been concentrated by millions of years of chemical processing.
    TWO is that ACC is real and is potentially a devastating threat. One could easily have been horrified at the idea that we would spend billions of dollars on nonproductive activity for years. that we would cause the murder of almost half a million american men. and that we would then spend billions more to help the people that killed all of them. But very few make that argument about going to war in 1941 ( except Pat Buchanon of course).

    it is important to keep all these facts in mind when considering the question of energy use. and the arguments made for policy. Generally anti ACC propagandists just ignore point two. And pro ACC activists overly rely on the first part of point one.

    The thing that amazes me about this issue is that the Anti ACC propagandists also just ignore tiem and technology. the analogy I like to use is the state fo the internal combustion engine in 1880. The costs associated with changing the entire energy production, distribiton and utllization foe the entire country wold have seemed preposterous. Horses could travel over almost ANY surface. their “fuel” was reedily available and their waste was FERTILZER! it was an ideal system and the new fangled technology was really totally incapable of replacing the transportation needs of the country.
    Yes gail the EROEI of renewables is not close to the incredible energy density of fossil fuels. But what are the TRENDS for that issue?
    the lack of belief in technology and human ingenuity is quite amusing to me, when people have an agenda that needs for it to not exist. After all it cost many many MANY billions of dollars to develop the technology just to make deep wells in the ocean economically feasible and complicated fuel bitumen extraction possible. What is the EROEI for those processes as opposed to Saudi or Texas Crude?
    I don’t doubt that there will be many mistakes made. I actually think the politicization of the issue will make these mistakes to be larger and mosr damaging then they otherwise would have been.
    I do not know how things will turn out, and as i have faith in technology for solving the many issues around energy, i also think technology and ingenuity will help to mitigate the effects of ACC.

    gail i ALSO find it funny that you talk about failed enterprises that were not ready or well thought out. Solyndra was actually quite ready and well though out. What killed them was Not bad technology or incorrect understanidng of the problem. What killed them was state subsidized production of silicon solar from China that cuased prices of solar cells to take a nose dive and actually has made solar MUCH more feasible economically.

    All this said, the problems are serious in all directions, and I am fully in favor of taking a balanced approahc that does not ignore economic reality, but it should also not ignore climate reality

  9. Tony-
    Hansen: “If we burn even a substantial fraction of the fossil fuels, we guarantee there’s going to be unstoppable changes”. (He wants to tax the use of these fuels out of existence)

    Some of the ideas presented are reasonable. I have noted that I am for conservation of energy and nuclear power. I am against the government mandating these things, because as you noted, government is not very good at these things.

    Climate change policy is made in the political arena, not the science one, as you noted. After the past couple of decades, I hope people are not foolish enough to try and implement many of these “radical” ideas, but I don’t think the evidence on the side of choosing well. There are many things in politics happening today that those in their 60’s and 70’s would never have believed could happen. It is important to pay attention to those “radical” voices because they are willing to shout for as long as it takes to get their ideas implemented. Ignoring them is not option. Which is why I choose to write on this–as a warning of what happens when people are not vigilant.

  10. Gail Combs says:

    So what is The Energy Returned On Energy Invested (EROEI) for Solar and Wind Power?
    Charles S. Opalek, a Professional Engineer who wrote the book Wind Power Fraud answers that question.

    Charles S. Opalek, PE
    April 26, 2013 at 8:39 am · Reply

    The Energy Returned On Energy Invested for a typical solar panel installation is 0.48.

    An EROEI rating of less than unity (ie: 1.00) means the alternative energy will never return more energy than went into its design, manufacture, installation, operation, maintenance, and decommisision.

    Why would you burn two barrels of oil to find one barrel? This is the legacy of solar pv power.

    Wind power is worse. By my calculations the EROEI is 0.29 at best.

  11. Gail Combs says:

    Tony Duncan (@tonydunc) says: @ April 24, 2013 at 6:58 am

    ….even though i completely disagree with hansen’s suggestion that a runaway effect is possible, I am quite sure that he proposes NOTHING remotely like what you are suggesting. I know of no one except on the extreme fringe that promote waht you say supports of action becuase of ACC say, and thye have absolutely no impact on policy. There is absolutely no way that the type of economic disruption you are suggesting would ever be implemented.
    It is sad that you are not interested in exploring realistic scenarios…..
    Unfortunately the economic disruption depicted is EXACTLY what is planned and it was planned years ago.

    President Barack Obama’s Science Czar, John Holdren and the the Ehrlichs wrote in their 1973 book Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions.:

    …A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States,… De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation…

    So that was the beginning of the plan published in 1973 while the United Nations launched ‘Global Warming’ in 1972 at the First Earth Summit, Maurice Strong chair.

    Roadmap 2050: EU Plans To Cut Emissions By 80 Percent For the USA it is the 25X25 Resolution and the Energy Act of 2007 under BUSH.

    We get all types of “Soothing” crap from the propaganda machines and economic model projections about how it really is going to be “painless” to cut our Energy Emmissions by 80%. So Let’s look at what real facts tell us.

    The average energy usage for the USA is 335.9 million BTUs per person. (Total population: 246,081,000) or

    In 1949, U.S. energy use per person stood at 215 million Btu.

    The U.S. in 1800 had a per-capita energy consumption of about 90 million Btu. (Total population: 5,308,483)

    If the USA reduces its energy consumption by 80% it equals 45.18 million Btu. per person IF THE POPULATION WAS THE SAME. Given the increase in technology and hydro/wind/solar power lets use the 1800 consumption level of about 90 million Btu. per person. At present hydro/wind/solar power is 5% and nuclear is 9%. The other 86% of our energy sources are carbon based. link

    So what does that actually mean?
    This site,, helps us figure that out.
    Farmers made up about 90% of labor force  in 1790 and 69% of labor force in 1800. (2.6% in 1990)

    About 250-300 labor-hours was required to produce 100 bushels (5 acres) of wheat with walking plow, brush harrow, hand broadcast of seed, sickle, and flail in 1830. (1987 – 2-3/4 labor-hours was required to produce 100 bushels but that takes lots of petroleum.)

    1810-30 saw the transfer of “manufacturing” from the farm and home to the shop and factory. It wasn’t until the 1840′s that we saw factory made farm machinery, labor saving devices and chemical fertilizers became at all common. It was in the 1860′s that kerosene lamps became popular.

    Also up until the 1850′s dung and wood were the major source of energy. link In other words for the USA to use HALF the energy per person that was used in 1800 we must abandon ALL factories and 90% of the population must return to subsistence farming using animals. That is if animals are not also be forbidden.

    Remember in 1800 there was only 2% of the current population in the USA. Solar and Wind just are not going to produce enough power to keep us in anything but a few lights and if we are lucky a refrigerator or two per village. FACTORIES use a huge amount of power and that is why cotton mills and other primitive factories were built on rivers. Anyone who tries to tell you differently is talking baffle gab because at present less than 9% of the US labor force is in manufacturing. The USA got rid of most of its really energy intense industry like smelting the ores to make machines. Recently the USA shipped what was left of its factories to China and India.

    As Obama Promised: Energy Prices to Soon Skyrocket

    Obama’s war on coal hits your electric bill
    The market-clearing price for new 2015 capacity – almost all natural gas – was $136 per megawatt. That’s eight times higher than the price for 2012, which was just $16 per megawatt. In the mid-Atlantic area covering New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and DC the new price is $167 per megawatt. For the northern Ohio territory served by FirstEnergy, the price is a shocking $357 per megawatt…. These are not computer models or projections or estimates. These are the actual prices that electric distributors have agreed to pay for new capacity. The costs will be passed on to consumers at the retail level.

    So the cost of energy in the USA will sky rocket. In the UK ‘Fuel Poverty’ is killing 65 people per day in the winter. Article: Fuel poverty deaths three times higher than government estimates and science paper: Fuel poverty and human health A review of recent evidence

    The EPA and Department of Energy drastically underestimated the effects of the new EPA rulings. Many more plants are closing than anticipated. This means electricity prices will sky rocket and the electric grid could become unstable New Regulations to Take 34 GW of Electricity Generation Offline and the Plant Closing Announcements Keep Coming… According to EPA, …. these regulations will only shutter 9.5 GW of electricity generation capacity. OOPS, I guess the government miscalculated.

    So what about the “Green Energy companies funded with tax payer dollars that are supposed to replace these coal fired plants? They are going bankrupt at an alarming rate So far, [thats] 34 companies OOPS, I guess the government miscalculated.

    A power systems engineer commented on WUWT:

    “Letting non-professionals get involved in the power grid is like giving the keys to the family car and a bottle of whiskey to a 14 year old boy and his pals. If the renewables were viable, we’d adopt them by the train-load and build them so fast your head would spin.”

    What the politicians neglect to say is their plan for making this work is to install Smart Meters, an attractive opportunity for Investors This theoretically allows residential electricity to be turned off so the system can be balanced as wind and solar power surges and declines. Of course with renewables bankrupting, smart meters not installed and coal plants closing at three time the rate expected, this put a real big kink in that plan. OOPS, I guess the government miscalculated AGAIN so we are looking at rolling blackouts. Heck they have already started.

    Energy InSight FAQs

    ….Rolling outages are systematic, temporary interruptions of electrical service.
    They are the last step in a progressive series of emergency procedures that ERCOT follows when it detects that there is a shortage of power generation within the Texas electric grid. ERCOT will direct electric transmission and distribution utilities, such as CenterPoint Energy, to begin controlled, rolling outages to bring the supply and demand for electricity back into balance.They generally last 15-45 minutes before being rotated to a different neighborhood to spread the effect of the outage among consumers, which would be the case whether outages are coordinated at the circuit level or individual meter level. Without this safety valve, power generating units could overload and begin shutting down and risk causing a domino effect of a statewide, lengthy outage. With smart meters, CenterPoint Energy is proposing to add a process prior to shutting down whole circuits to conduct a mass turn off of individual meters with 200 amps or less (i.e. residential and small commercial consumers) for 15 or 30 minutes, rotating consumers impacted during that outage as well as possible future outages.

    There are several benefits to consumers of this proposed process. By isolating non-critical service accounts (“critical” accounts include hospitals, police stations, water treatment facilities etc.) and spreading “load shed” to a wider distribution, critical accounts that happen to share the same circuit with non-critical accounts will be less affected in the event of an emergency. Curtailment of other important public safety devices and services such as traffic signals, police and fire stations, and water pumps and sewer lifts may also be avoided.

    As problems with an unstable grid due to Solar/wind becomes worst expect Smart Meters to become mandatory:

    Don’t want smart meter? Power shut off
    The rollout of smart electric meters across the country has run into a few snags: one woman doesn’t want one, and ended up in the dark as a result.

    You might not think that would be an issue. But it is, because Duke Energy is now beginning to disconnect any homeowner who refuses a new electric meter.

    Other electric companies are not pulling the plug…yet…..

    The Department of Energy Report 2009

    A smart grid is needed at the distribution level to manage voltage levels, reactive power, potential reverse power flows, and power conditioning, all critical to running grid-connected DG systems, particularly with high penetrations of solar and wind power and PHEVs…. Designing and retrofitting household appliances, such as washers, dryers, and water heaters with technology to communicate and respond to market signals and user preferences via home automation technology will be a significant challenge. Substantial investment will be required….

    These controls and tools could reduce the occurrence of outages and power disturbances attributed to grid overload. They could also reduce planned rolling brownouts and blackouts like those implemented during the energy crisis in California in 2000.

  12. Actually, I have found information/professional studies from 2000 and 2004 on the effects of the AO and the NSO on the movement and melting of arctic ice. There are also more recent papers, too. Thus far, I have found only one reference to it on a questioner’s blog, in 2009, but it did not specially address the melting of arctic ice. You might check out NOAA–they actually have a lot of information on how the AO and NSO affect arctic ice. There are studies listed or just look up “AO and NOAA” on google. So far as I can see, there has been considerable study. For now, I am reading through four or five papers to better understand the phenomena. It’s very interesting.

  13. as for the Arctic adn AMO, I have not done a rigorous comparison, and it is possible I am wrong. But i have been following the arctic issue especailly closely the last four years and don’t remember anyone ever mentioning it as a possibility. it seems like it would be a very oimportant thing to consider if it did effect arctic SIE to this large a degree, and it would have saved a tremendous amount of embarrassment. So I am assuming it was not discussed as an explanation. And i am assuming that becuase I believe there was a storng ideological incentive to have the Arctic recover after 2007. the fact that it wouldn’t be used support that view. If there were people suggesting that, i would have to revise my view of their motivations.

    your desription of the disagreement regarding ACC and reasons to act I have no objection to.

  14. but I find it interesting that two of the major figures who have attacked Mann have been found to be involved in fraudulent activity, whereas he never has.
    The idea that Cuccinell recused himself a YEAR after he was involved is pretty hard to explain the fact that he recussed himself Now kind of implies that being involved was wrong. Again if some of the facts turn out to be wrong I could be mistaken. Would not be the frist time someone was hung before they were tried.

    • None of this has any relevance to the accuracy of climate change science. It’s simply trying to impugn the character of those who disagree with a theory and has no bearing on the theory itself.

  15. interseting article related to the smell test. This was a leading story today, and i noticed near the edn that it gets to some prety smlly stuff about one of the zealots attacking Michael Mann.
    Cuccinell presented himself as a christian wiht high morals, and now he appears to have his hands a bit dirty. Of course i don’t know how accurate the facts are, but if they are it paints a character that might be willing to misuse his office for political gain.

    • It is best to wait for the actual outcome. However, I could list pages of liberals, republicans, libertarians, etc who were investigated for and convicted of crimes. Some were even re-elected after serving prison time. A dishonest politician is hardly new in any party.

  16. reality,

    the difference between the Arctic AMO excuse and the Deep ocean’s excuse is that the oceasn are a basic part fo ACC theory, whereas the AMO is something championed after the fact and totally ignored beforehand. As i told you I had seen a number of years ago other scientists reference the possibility of natural variation temproarily hiding the impacts of ACC and that being used by Anti ACC groups to decry the theory. there are a number of reasonable proposals that explain the current lack of signficant increase in surface temps,a nd ocean heat has always been one of those>
    the fact that the aerths temp has increased and decreased over time should worry you becuase we know CO2 increases impact global temps. ALL cliamte scientists accept this as true becuase the science is pretty unassailable. the only issue being argued is the degree of change and the specific impacts> if you question this then you are outside the bounds of science completely.

    the “smell test; does not apply to science, it is only a factor of my having studied philosophy of science and the sociology of ideological fanaticism, pretty seriously a number of years ago, and being a follower of many areas of science in a non rigorous way since I was a teenager.

    • I am still trying to verify that the arctic AMO was not part of the climate change questioner’s views before. Do you have any information on that–that it just suddenly appeared? I am checking my books and articles to find where it first appeared.

      I understand that the majority of scientists agree there is a greenhouse effect, though there are papers out there that do not. I have tried reading through them and am not convinced at this time that the greenhouse theory should be discarded. While interesting, they are not compelling at this point.

      The disagreement comes from how much CO2 increases the temperatures and how serious a rise in temperature is. The disagreement also comes from ideas on whether this needs “fixed” and whether or not it can be fixed. I should only worry if humans are indeed the driving force of climate. I should only worry if as drivers we are careening out of control. Therein lies the uncertainty and disagreement, even among the climate scientists themselves.

  17. reality,

    No, we do not “know” what is going to happen with temps. I see no reason to think that there is any change in direction, again unless there is some other major forcing. I have yet to see any reasonable theory that coul dlead one to believe there would be a change in direction. As far as i know all previous hypothesis, including lindzen, Spencer and Christies’ have either turned out to be wrong or do not have any significant validating evidence. And I know of no theories that counter ACC that can explain current and past temperature variations outside what is accepted in ACC as natural variation based on orbital variations, solar radiation, our understanding of ocean and air currents. Why should I think that temps would go down, when there is no scientific basis for tht belief?
    No, by realistic, I don’tt mean you must agree with me, i mean that you must present some verifiable source based on science that is not a one sided uncriticized position. That is my basis for reality. looking at all sides of an issue and basing reality on what actually has evidence to back it up and a theoretical framework that is consistent and based on known physical principles.
    It is possible that the AMO is somehow responsible for Arctic sea ice levels in imortant ways that have not been understood by arcitc scientists. But it does not pass the smell test becuase of HOW this idea was arrived at. it has been picked up becuase of the total failute of all the anti ACC blogs to predict the precipitous fall off. But it could turn out to be right. But if it IS right why was this never brought up before?

    • Look at the “Fun with graphs” article. There are three pieces of graphs that show drawing a line of best fit leads to the wrong conclusion. This all occurred in a period where climate change is supposed to be happening. You can draw a line that assumes the temperature will keep increasing and it is accurate if you choose the right number of years and the proper ending point.
      Also, the temperature of the earth has gone up and done always. Why should I assume it will stay hot? Unless I believe CO2 is the problem and that we somehow caused the world to behave differently (i.e. humans are the driving force of climate on earth). I see the climate always changing and no extremes,etc. I am not going to post “sources” on this as it can be covered in various posts in the future. This is a blog, not a book. It is ongoing and will cover many topics. Be patient.

      Again, I have explained that I am not yet satisfied with my research on the Arctic. I am not going to go into discussing this yet. That would be wrong.

      Actually, in response to your last question, I was wondering what “the smell test” amounted to in science. If it’s what I think you mean, then my responses that you object to are my “smell” test saying ACC fails. Who do we do by?

      I wondered why the oceans holding heat did not come into public view before the atmosphere stopped heating up. I suppose it could be for the same reason the AMO causing a change in the Arctic sea ice did not come up. Whatever that is.

  18. I have repeatedly told you the concrete empirical things that would seriously challenge ACC theory. Many of them are quite unambiguous and concrete. And again being a historical science about a very complex series of processes your objections about “extreme” and “change” while on the surface could be reasonable questions, you compeletely undermine that legitimacy by making absurd correlations.
    If indeed the arctic SIE went up markedly over the next few years, and there was no obvious cause (I.E. a volcano, or a huge decrease in solar radiation, etc), then it would STRONGLY call the theory into question. ACC does NOT allow for reversal of the effects of global warming in areas predicted to be strongly effected without some major forcing event.
    So here you have in fact provided a strong metric that would go a long way to invalidating the theory and instead of acknowleding it, you turn it inside out to pretend it actually means the theory is not falsifiable.
    All your question are, as above, Valid questions, but one needs to have a “realistic” judgement of them, and look at specifics and consider the science for each specific.

    A “pause” in the increase of global temps has NEVER been a standard for falsifiability. For in spite of some that have an agenda agaisnt ACC, natural variability has always been understood as a big factor in the short and medium turn. I actually remember a youtube I saw maybe 5 years ago where a scientist was concerned that natural variability would eventually cause a small downturn in global temps for a few years, maybe as long as 10 or more, and that those with an agenda agaisnt ACC would wave that as proof.

    Is the lack of surface warming evidence that the theory MIGHT not be accurate? Yes, of course it is, because we do not know exactly why it is happening. Are the various hypothesis that explain the pause reasonable and based on science? Yes they are, because they are not brand new additions that had to be hastily patched on in the hopes they would explain it. But given another few more years with no warming and they become less and less tenable.
    again I bring up the issue of Arctic ice because you have never once addressed this point that I think is crucial. ALL the blogs that I have read inthe last 5 years that have had an agenda agaisnt ACC predicted a recovery of the Artcic SIE after 2007. NOT ONE that I ahve read offered the idea that it would keep getting worse until the middel of this decade or later because of ocean current cycles. it is only AFTER the tremendous collapse last summer, that this idea became popular among those sites. that fits perfectly with the epicycle argument, that ideas are fabricated to fit the ideology instead of basis science on falsiable hypothesis.

    • How do you “know” this is a pause in temperatures rather than a change in direction? That is not clear–the only way I can see is we wait, right? That seems to be what you advocate later on and I am okay with that. We wait to see if the “pause” is really a pause or a change in direction.

      Okay, I understand your example on the SIE. Thank you. That’s something I can watch for. I also appreciate your saying we really don’t know what is happening exactly. That answers some of my objections on the “Proxies” section.

      I assume by “realistic” you mean I must agree with you, right?

      I am still researching the Arctic ice. I am being thorough so please be patient.

  19. My problem is I cannot conceive of any change in weather or climate that the ACC crowd would consider proof their theory wrong. If the Arctic froze over and stayed for X number of years? If they could not find heat accumulation anywhere like the ocean, land, flora or air?

    It is also hard to scientifically gauge what “extreme” means or “change” means in relation to natural versus ACC. The climate has never been stable (yes, I have SkS on this and I don’t buy it). So at what point, empirically, does the change become significant? How many years are necessary for this? It all goes back to the “what would prove ACC wrong”?

  20. and as to your questions about local VS regional vs global and weather VS climate those are both easy and nuanced. Global effects are going to have specific regional and local effects. As you say the jet stream changing has both regional and local causes and effects. Globally, the increase in temps has caused the Arctic to melt (regional) which is having an effect on the atmposphere (regional) which is changing the Gulf Stream (regional and local). this will ahve local effects and actually make certain areas colder at certain times becuase it is bringing “weather” form different places to other places.Saying cold winters in Europe don’t count is of courser totally innacurrate. the exlanation is the result of regional efects from a global phenomenon. this has been stated about ACC for many many years, though of course those who oppose ACC use the idea of places having colder winters of proff that ACC is wrong. That is why many people now use “Climate change” instead of global warming becuase the efffects will be different in different places even though the global temps are increasing.
    But you surely know all this. The ISSUE woul dbe if Scientists were fraudulently inventing caveats to prop up the theory of ACC. If that is the case then these ad hoc adjustments to the theory would quickly llead to increasingly inconsistant and contradictory results that would cause the whole framework to fall down. Much as the epicycles of celestial motion fell apart. If this starts to happen then scientist who are honest will clearly see it and start condemning the whole thing.
    So far the arguments I have seen aroudn these isues make scientific sense and confrom to the empirical reality that current research is showing. That does not mean that it is perfect, but I see no problems with the basic theory of ACC form any events that are happening now

  21. I am seriously asking the questions. I need to know what the definition is. My confusion does lie with inconsistent definitions–though I don’t know if the scientists or the media or the IPCC caused the confusion. The confusion exists and I want to clarify it.

    I’m not sure I agree with your assessment of climate change advocates lack of “certainty”. Many of the studies lack that quality, yes. However, I have not seen climate science as a whole saying “we just don’t know enough to act right now”. We need more research before we can say things definitively. Most of the time, the saying is “the science is settled”. That sounds very final to me. What am I missing?

  22. the most compelling link is tisdales. he is a fervent anti ACC commentator and I do not know nealry enough about this sort fo thing to assess his very technical explanation. When i read the actual paper, there is nothing in it that does not make any sesne and I wonder how Tisdale manages to say pretty muc the opposite of what all the authors in the paper say.
    the carbon sense link is a mish mash of one sided arguments that portray environmental groups of having a simplisitc view taht is totally irrational. Unfortunately I actually read what groups like Greenpeace promote and it seriously undercuts the arguments made here.
    The greenie watch link you posted is making tha targument that a graph is invalid because it uses a scale of tenths of a degree.
    the C3 site has so many accusations that it is impossible to come away with any conclusion excpet that the authors are fraudulently mistating the conclusions. The only possible conclusion I can come to is that all these people are part of a conspiracy to distort science for some nefarious purpose. As I have stated previously, i know actual cliamte scientists and read waht they actually say it I find this possiblitlty to be vanishingly small.
    On reading the conclusions of the actual paper, it does NOT say what Tisdale and C3 are saying. It points to a clear GLOBAL increase in temps with various regional variation.It undemines the argument that the WMP was a global phenomenon, though it does show there was a overall warming from the trend to decreasing temps from the last 2,000 years. It shows ALL areas of the globe EXCEPT antarctica being warmenr now than almost any time since the range of the study.And it is shows a clear and large change of global temps for ALL regions from the 19th century to today. As a layman these points seem very clear and obvious and clearly support the idea that CO2 is a very likely cause of that change.
    Again what I see here on the anti ACC side is a frantic attempt to twist science in a way that looks like propaganda becuase the conclusions provide evidecne that CO2 is an important factor. This goes agaisnt the ideological goals of the people who oppose ACC so they have to find any way that they can to undermine ALL evidence that goes against their belief.

    • Seriously, conspiracy theory?????? Come on. I might as well through in Agenda 21 as proof of the environmentalist’s conspiracy ideation. Conspiracy theories have no place in any of this.

      As noted, I am reading the paper and studying it thoroughly before commenting on the material.

  23. Reality,
    the problem I see is that you link to sites that have an agenda against ACC and you do your best to defend their reasoning as opposed to critiquing the analyses of ALL sources of info. There are numeorous assertions made on both I check Anti- ACC sites and the analysis and compare them with the “pro-ACC sites and analysys and then I often see what the actual researchers say.
    The point of the current research is that anti ACC sites have been howling for years that the WMP was global and had higer temps than today without enough data to make that claim. this has been a huge source of the fury over the MBB “hockey stick”. Whereas pro ACC sites have maintained that we do not know if WMP was global. Do you see the difference? One side INSISTS with insufficient evidence that something MUST be real, the other insists that we do not know enough. When more data comes in that provided more evidence suggesting the WMP was not a coninuous global increase in temps, what is the reaction of those who insisted that it WAS? IS there any re-evaluation of the belief? Your 5:35 post on 4/28 seems awefully like someone looking for excuses as a way out of accepting the possibility of their views being wrong.
    Your questions about local versus global and weather vs climate imply acccusations of inconsistant use of terms by scientists in order to fool people inot believing ACC. yet the specific points you raise have been pretty clearly and consistantly spelled out by scientists. I would explain them more clearly but then I might be breaking your rule of only one issue at a time. Hard to know what you will accept, so I will post the responses on my next comment.

  24. Note to all who give me links to read: I do read the links and then I search for other sources of the same data. If your link is to a site that is pro ACC, I do read it and I look for additional information on whatever that phenomena. Just because I don’t agree with a site does not mean I won’t read your links. Also, if I read a site I agree with, also research further. I don’t take one study or one site’s word for things.

  25. Northern HEMIsphere would be half global.

    Actually, I am very interested in the jet stream. It has begun to dip down again as it did in the late 70’s and 80’s when we had -40f winters. As a lover of cold, I am hoping the southerward dip means our colder winters are returning. I have searched for patterns in the regional temperatures but so far have not found a predictive algorithm.

    I generally do read the links provided if I have the time. One should understand one’s “opponent”.

    So you’re listening to me and will adjust your beliefs accordingly? That’s good!

    • pendantry says:

      “So you’re listening to me and will adjust your beliefs accordingly? That’s good!”

      I’m sorry, you are again mistaken. You made your choice when you named your blog. If you want a discourse, you cannot expect me to ‘adjust my beliefs accordingly’ when it is clear that you, even while attempting to maintain the pretense of an open mind, will not.


  26. Okay, I need to know: Why are the MWP and LIA (existing in literature long before climate change came into the picture and accepted as global) regional and the changes now are global. Define clearly what a global phenomena and a local phenomena are. Arctic ice melt is now important yet it’s local, not worldwide. There were bitterly cold winters in Europe, but those don’t count because they were local. Explain local versus worldwide with a hard and fast definition. (Yes, black and white, is or is not. It applies here.)

    Also, define what climate is and how it differs from weather. Weather is now a part of ACC after years and years of saying weather is not the same thing.

    Two simple definitions that would help a lot. How about it?

  27. You are correct. I will study it further. Perhaps if you had used the link you do now, I would have gotten the point more clearly, rather than an article that contained the link and started out with Marcott’s graph and paragraphs on his study. I will be more careful in the future. (Marcott’s data is reportedly included.)

    I am curious how the MWP and LIA were deemed “regional”. The only answer I can find is that is was convenient for ACC. Perhaps you can explain further. Also, there was one study that did say there was a MWP when the scientists had figured out how to attribute it man. Which only confused me more–MWP if we blame the methane releases by society, no MWP if we can’t blame humans. Yes, I am soooo confused. It’s there when it’s convenient, not if it is not convenient.

  28. reality the link is not to Marcott, but to a new study that was just published. You should actually read more than the first paragraph or two before making an innacurate assessment of something I post. Though I imagine you are rather busy and it doesn’t mention the study immediately.
    The study is from Nature Geoscience
    confirms all the other studies that show global temp over the last few hundred to few thousand years, including the Marcott study. Not only that but it does not give support to the idea that there was a significant globally continuous MWP or LIA. It is a paper by over 70 authors and concludes that current temps are already above any time over the last 1400 years or so. Of course this is jsut one study and it uses proxies, so you can just disregard it. But it is more EVIDENCE that contradicts the assertions of those with an agenda against ACC.

  29. “Yet I would never consider posting such a bizarre scenario” and you just did……

    Actually, I consider ACC to be a bizarre scenario as presented by many different groups. I will wait for your additional comments and go from there.

  30. Reality,

    well if you were just saying that if some policy is followed to a completely irrational point then your story is an interesting flight of fancy. One could of course do this with anything. I imagine a story, which is at least as likely, where Amercians rise up against muslims and there are pogroms killing thousands of them around the country, then retribution in the muslim world leading to another big terrorist attack in the US and the US nuking Sadi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, and then mass detention of millions in concentration camps as various other immigrant groups protest these actions, but it is martial law, and the security of America is considered more important than the Constitution.
    Yet I would never consider posting such a bizarre scenario becuase it so completely ignores the social forces that would prevent such an outcome. It is “unrealistic”, and therefore not worthy of being considered.
    You are insisting on only bringing up one issue at a time, so I will address the other main one in my next comment. I assume you can accept me commenting on another issue in the same post if it is in a seperate response.

  31. Try reading:
    or Jo Nova’s blog for Australian political commentary

    I said “potential to drag the world back to the stone age”. I did not say it was certain, only that if we continue to try to stop the use of fossil fuels with no reasonable replacement, the outcome will push us into the dark. Are we supposed to wait till the economic collapse to take action?
    I will see if I can find a suitable economic article, but I will not tell you where I got it from so you can’t categorically reject the source.

    The article you reference IS Marcott’s graph. Read my section on Graphs for further commentary.

    I have no need of a reality check. I have provided valid information–you simply refuse to accept it. Perhaps you are the one who needs the reality check? (Question: How many of the articles you save are defending climate change and how many are from the skeptic side? Just so you know, my files run 70% pro-climate change.)

    Thank you though for getting me researching solutions for climate change (which run from Socialism and demolishing capitalism completely to England being told fracking is acceptable). I found the EPA carbon footprint estimator and found I have a footprint that is only 70% of average. Belief in ACC is not a requirement for not exploiting resources.

  32. Please back up that assertion. Australia instituted a carbon tax and I have read nothing indicating an economic collapse back to pre industrial levels>
    DOn;t you find it ironic that you call people alarmists who are actually basing some of their ideas on a well established theory whereas as your doomsday scenario appears to be based purely on ideological bluster.
    I find it fascinating how you can make such outrageous statements when there is absolutely no policy being advocated anywhere in the world that could conceivably lead to what you are suggesting. I mean we have had two world wars that killed tens of millions of people and completely wiped out the infrastructure of a huge part of the developed world. We have had a huge depression that wiped out incredible amounts of wealth, and we just had a large recession that wiped out trillions of dollars of wealth, and you are convinced that a carbon tax and efforts to use renewable energy are going to cuase devastation orders fo magnitude worse that any of those things>
    I think you need a reality check.
    I wonder if you had not had some people who reasonably challanged you and insisted you provide valid information for your assertions, if you would not have become so extreme. .
    I am wondering if you saw this new meta study that just came out. I don’t frequent Thinkprogress but a link form FB showed me that Romm just posted this.

    I assume it will be attacked as having some minor thing worng with it and blown up as if it means something, like was done to Marcott.

  33. Maybe you should read more English and Australian blogs. It can and is happening.

  34. Reality, you really have gone over the edge.
    It has been interesting trying to interact with you, but apparently when your beliefs are challenged you through any sense of reality away and just alow your emotional desires to run rampant.
    even though i completely disagree with hansen’s suggestion that a runaway effect is possible, I am quite sure that he proposes NOTHING remotely like what you are suggesting. I know of no one except on the extreme fringe that promote waht you say supports of action becuase of ACC say, and thye have absolutely no impact on policy. There is absolutely no way that the type of economic disruption you are suggesting would ever be implemented.
    It is sad that you are not interested in exploring realistic scenarios.

  35. pendantry–I like your “About” statement!

  36. pendantry says:

    Oh, this is great. More, please! (You really do believe the crap you’re spouting, don’t you?)

Agree? Disagree? Leave a comment!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s