Investment and other financial matters

Why Are Republicans Climate Skeptics?

Maybe that’s because the Republicans come from more rural states that haven’t
had any warming, man-made or otherwise.

The rural data set shows no warming since 1890!

27 Oct 2010

The New York Times marvels editorially that none of the Republicans running
for the Senate accept the "scientific consensus that humans are largely
responsible for global warming."

Maybe that’s because the Republicans come from more rural states that haven’t
had any warming – man-made or otherwise.

My colleague Ed Long, formerly a NASA physicist, has found a severe problem
with the "official" US temperature records from the Goddard Space Institute
and the National Data Collection Center.

Both data sets deal with the inevitable gaps in station-by-station data by
averaging the gap station with another nearby station. Supposedly, this
works because "stations in the same latitude bands tend to share a more
similar climate."

Too often, however, this has led to averaging rural and urban temperatures
together. Inevitably, that means the blended temperatures will be higher.

Due to the Urban Heat Island effect, a big city can raise its own
temperatures by 5 C. Even a small city can be 2 C warmer than the
surrounding countryside. The rural population of America has stayed roughly
the same since 1950, but the urban population doubled from 1950-1960 – and
has continued to grow twice as fast.

Long says GISS "adjustments" over ten years have progressively lowered
temperatures for far-back data and raised the temperatures in the recent
past.

This "adjustment" increased a 0.35 C per century uptrend in 2000 to 0.44 C
per century in 2009 – a 26 percent increase.

NCDC, meanwhile, has shifted the "official" rate of temperature change for
1940-2007 from 0.1 C per century in the raw data to an "adjusted" 0.6 C per
century – a 600 percent "adjustment."

To assess the real size and meaning of the rural-urban divergence, Long
selected one rural station and one urban station per state; the rural and
urban station trends were then averaged separately.  The results are
startling.

The rural data set shows no warming since 1890!

The temperatures have trended up and down, but there’s no overall increase.

The urban stations show a strong warming, especially after 1965. Are these
two "skeleton sets" of raw data more representative of reality than the
urban-polluted "adjusted" data sets in the official records?  Long says
 "Yes"

* The raw data is that measured at the time, so, simply stated, those were
the temperatures.

* The two sets had strikingly similar variations, with the rural set having
more variability. The cities were warmer, but less susceptible to short-term
changes in air temperatures due to their retained heat.

* The medium-term trends are similar up to about 1965, but the cities warmed
much faster after that year. That’s probably not global warming, but rather
the in-filling of the cities: higher populations, more and taller office
buildings, more streets and parking lots, more lost trees.  The airports
have poured more concrete, and become "development hot spots."

Both data sets show that public opinion has been heavily impacted by the
continuing 30-year phases of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

Temperatures rose strongly 1915-1940 during a Pacific warming, but World War
II was scarier than any theory about man-made warming.

When the PDO trended downward from 1940-1975, newsmagazines and "experts"
predicted a new Ice Age.

When the temperatures and the Pacific rose strongly again from 1976-98, the
man-made warming scare was born and flourished.

Now that earth has failed to warm for a decade, public fear of global
warming has waned dramatically.

We have clearly been polluting the official temperature record with Urban
Heat.

Have none of the global warming scientists, cap and trade millionaires, and
media folks noticed?

Or have the billions and billions of dollars spent to "save the world from
pending disaster" clouded their vision?

Source:

Edward R. Long, "Contiguous US Temperature Trends Using NCDC Raw And
Adjusted Data for One-Per-State Rural and Urban Station Sets. SPPI, February
25, 2010

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/temperature_trends.html?I…

DENNIS T. AVERY, a senior fellow for the Hudson Institute in Washington, DC,
is an environmental economist.  He was formerly a senior analyst for the
Department of State. He is co-author, with S. Fred Singer, of Unstoppable
Global Warming Every 1500 Hundred Years.

http://newsbyus.com/index.php/article/3321

Warmest Regards

B0nz0

"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."

Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville

"It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you
have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your
side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is
wrong. Period."

Professor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics

"A core problem is that science has given way to ideology. The scientific
method has been dispensed with, or abused, to serve the myth of man-made
global warming."

"The World Turned Upside Down", Melanie Phillips

"Computer models are built in an almost backwards fashion: The goal is to
show evidence of AGW, and the "scientists" go to work to produce such a
result. When even these models fail to show what advocates want, the data
and interpretations are "fudged" to bring about the desired result"

"The World Turned Upside Down", Melanie Phillips

"Ocean acidification looks suspiciously like a back-up plan by the
environmental pressure groups in case the climate fails to warm: another try
at condemning fossil fuels!"

http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/threat-ocean-acidification-great…

Before attacking hypothetical problems, let us first solve the real problems
that threaten humanity. One single water pump at an equivalent cost of a
couple of solar panels can indeed spare hundreds of Sahel women the daily
journey to the spring and spare many infections and lives.

Martin De Vlieghere, philosopher

"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that
it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of
mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible."

Bertrand Russell

.
posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comments (19)

19 Responses to “Why Are Republicans Climate Skeptics?”

  1. admin says:

    No 0 Z BN wrote:

    > Maybe that’s because the Republicans come from more rural states that haven’t
    > had any warming, man-made or otherwise.

    > The rural data set shows no warming since 1890!

    They are obviously deficient of heat islands in which to place their
    thermometers. Their temperature records must therefore be clearly wrong.


    Labor-Green open borders plan in action…

    Number of illegal aliens in detention:

    Jan 2005 __________
    Jul 2005 ________
    Jan 2006 _________
    Jul 2006 ______
    Jan 2007 _____
    Jul 2007 ____
    Jan 2008 ____
    Jul 2008 ___
    Jan 2009 ___ Rudd stops TPVs
    Jul 2009 __________
    Jan 2010 _________________
    Jul 2010 ______________________________

    Where to next?

  2. admin says:

    In sci.skeptic NxOxOxBxY <?…@zzz.com> wrote:
    > Maybe that’s because the Republicans come from more rural states that haven’t
    > had any warming, man-made or otherwise.
    > The rural data set shows no warming since 1890!

    [...]

    I had a penny that showed heads 3 times in a row. Or it may have been
    3 heads in 5 throws. Or maybe it was 2 heads in 4 throws. I forget.
    I *knew* it was a bum one as soon as I took it from the one-eyed sales clerk.


    R Kym Horsell <k…@kymhorsell.com>

    If your ideas are any good you’ll have to ram them down people’s throats.
      — Howard Aiken

  3. admin says:

    On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 15:25:37 +1100, "No 0 Z BN" <?…@zzz.com> wrote:

    >Maybe that’s because the Republicans come from more rural states that haven’t
    >had any warming, man-made or otherwise.

    >The rural data set shows no warming since 1890!

    That is completely untrue.

    You couldn’t get any more rural than the Arctic regions of Alaska and
    Canada, and warming there is proceeding apace.

    Just look at how sea ice extent is decreasing
    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires.png

  4. admin says:

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 23:55:51 +1030, Surfer <n…@spam.net> wrote:
    >On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 15:25:37 +1100, "No 0 Z BN" <?…@zzz.com> wrote:

    >>Maybe that’s because the Republicans come from more rural states that haven’t
    >>had any warming, man-made or otherwise.

    >>The rural data set shows no warming since 1890!

    >That is completely untrue.

    >You couldn’t get any more rural than the Arctic regions of Alaska and
    >Canada, and warming there is proceeding apace.

    >Just look at how sea ice extent is decreasing
    >http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires.png

    And this page shows Alaska temperature increases
    http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/ClimTrends/Change/TempChange.html

  5. admin says:

    "Surfer" <n…@spam.net> wrote in message

    news:gcuic6d0g0ghitm0bl0m291jkhh9e7n2i7@4ax.com…

    > On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 15:25:37 +1100, "No 0 Z BN" <?…@zzz.com> wrote:

    >>Maybe that’s because the Republicans come from more rural states that
    >>haven’t
    >>had any warming, man-made or otherwise.

    >>The rural data set shows no warming since 1890!

    > That is completely untrue.

    > You couldn’t get any more rural than the Arctic regions of Alaska and
    > Canada, and warming there is proceeding apace.

    Yes, so my history books tell me!

    Arctic Melting More Rapidly Than Expected

    Urgent Action On Climate Change Required.

    2 May 2008

    The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some
    places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the
    Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway. Reports
    from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a
    radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in
    the Arctic zone.

    Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as
    far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters
    showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been
    replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at
    many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.

    Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast
    shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north,
    are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

    A RealClimate blogger?

    No, that was the US Weather Bureau in 1922.

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/pr

    Warmest Regards

    B0nz0

    "It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
    US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
    worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
    from natural variation."

    Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville

    "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you
    have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your
    side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is
    wrong. Period."

    Professor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics

    "A core problem is that science has given way to ideology. The scientific
    method has been dispensed with, or abused, to serve the myth of man-made
    global warming."

    "The World Turned Upside Down", Melanie Phillips

    "Computer models are built in an almost backwards fashion: The goal is to
    show evidence of AGW, and the "scientists" go to work to produce such a
    result. When even these models fail to show what advocates want, the data
    and interpretations are "fudged" to bring about the desired result"

    "The World Turned Upside Down", Melanie Phillips

    "Ocean acidification looks suspiciously like a back-up plan by the
    environmental pressure groups in case the climate fails to warm: another try
    at condemning fossil fuels!"

    http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/threat-ocean-acidification-great

    Before attacking hypothetical problems, let us first solve the real problems
    that threaten humanity. One single water pump at an equivalent cost of a
    couple of solar panels can indeed spare hundreds of Sahel women the daily
    journey to the spring and spare many infections and lives.

    Martin De Vlieghere, philosopher

    "The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that
    it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of
    mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible."

    Bertrand Russell

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    > Just look at how sea ice extent is decreasing
    > http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires.png

  6. admin says:

    "repugliars" <walter_even…@post.com> wrote in message

    news:a3938325-c364-49cb-a02f-db72d15e0aa2@e14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com…
    On Oct 31, 1:02 am, Oy rool out a carbon tax

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    <gillard_l…@nowhere.com> wrote:
    > Surfer wrote:
    > > On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 14:54:50 +1100, "o0N _ B N" <d…@www.com> wrote:

    > >> New Arctic Study published in Climate Dynamics, and the work was
    > >> conducted
    > >> by H kan Grudd of Stockholm University’s Department of Physical
    > >> Geography
    > >> and Quaternary Geology – Published online: 30 January 2008

    > >> Excerpt: "The late-twentieth century is not exceptionally warm in the
    > >> new
    > >> Tornetr sk record: On decadal-to-century timescales, periods around AD
    > >> 750,
    > >> 1000, 1400, and 1750 were all equally warm, or warmer. The warmest
    > >> summers
    > >> in this new reconstruction occur in a 200-year period centred on AD
    > >> 1000. A
    > >> ‘Medieval Warm Period’ is supported by other paleoclimate evidence from
    > >> northern Fennoscandia, although the new tree-ring evidence from
    > >> Tornetra sk
    > >> suggests that this period was much warmer than previously recognised."
    > >> < >
    > >> "The new Tornetr sk summer temperature reconstruction shows a trend
    > >> of -0.3 C over the last 1,500 years." Paper available here: & Full
    > >> Paper
    > >> (pdf) available here:

    > > Natural warming and cooling due to natural cycles is unlikely to be a
    > > problem.

    > > But unnatural warming due to unnatural increasing of CO2 levels could
    > > push temperature outside the range of natural variation, and that
    > > could be a problem.

    > Hypothetical scenarios don’t constitute proof or even evidence of
    > anything.

    Unless they evidence has been used to obtain them.
    ======================================

    Absolutely!

    "It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
    US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
    worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
    from natural variation."
    Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville

    Warmest Regards

    B0nz0

    "It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
    US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
    worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
    from natural variation."
    Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville

    "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you
    have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your
    side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is
    wrong. Period."
    Professor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics

    "A core problem is that science has given way to ideology. The scientific
    method has been dispensed with, or abused, to serve the myth of man-made
    global warming."
    "The World Turned Upside Down", Melanie Phillips

    "Computer models are built in an almost backwards fashion: The goal is to
    show evidence of AGW, and the "scientists" go to work to produce such a
    result. When even these models fail to show what advocates want, the data
    and interpretations are "fudged" to bring about the desired result"
    "The World Turned Upside Down", Melanie Phillips

    "Ocean acidification looks suspiciously like a back-up plan by the
    environmental pressure groups in case the climate fails to warm: another try
    at condemning fossil fuels!"
    http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/threat-ocean-acidification-great

    Before attacking hypothetical problems, let us first solve the real problems
    that threaten humanity. One single water pump at an equivalent cost of a
    couple of solar panels can indeed spare hundreds of Sahel women the daily
    journey to the spring and spare many infections and lives.
    Martin De Vlieghere, philosopher

    "The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that
    it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of
    mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible."
    Bertrand Russell

  7. admin says:

    On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 13:07:56 +1100, "o0N _ B N" <d…@www.com> wrote:

    >The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some
    >places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the
    >Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway. Reports
    >from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a
    >radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in
    >the Arctic zone.

    <snip>

    >A RealClimate blogger?

    >No, that was the US Weather Bureau in 1922.

    Repeating a single report by Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.

    Hardly comparable to the recent continuing decrease in Arctic sea ice
    extent being observed year after year.
    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires.png

  8. admin says:

    "Surfer" <n…@spam.net> wrote in message

    news:hlc1d6p6pt4tr0m6tkhbnqqerhvhlut0cq@4ax.com…

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    > On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 13:07:56 +1100, "o0N _ B N" <d…@www.com> wrote:

    >>The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some
    >>places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to
    >>the
    >>Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway. Reports
    >>from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a
    >>radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures
    >>in
    >>the Arctic zone.

    > <snip>

    >>A RealClimate blogger?

    >>No, that was the US Weather Bureau in 1922.

    > Repeating a single report by Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.

    > Hardly comparable to the recent continuing decrease in Arctic sea ice
    > extent being observed year after year.
    > http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires.png

    So what caused the 1922 warming then?
    Maybe the same thing that’s causing the current warming, viz solar influence
    on cloud cover!

    Warmest Regards

    B0nz0

    "It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
    US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
    worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
    from natural variation."
    Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville

    "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you
    have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your
    side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is
    wrong. Period."
    Professor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics

    "A core problem is that science has given way to ideology. The scientific
    method has been dispensed with, or abused, to serve the myth of man-made
    global warming."
    "The World Turned Upside Down", Melanie Phillips

    "Computer models are built in an almost backwards fashion: The goal is to
    show evidence of AGW, and the "scientists" go to work to produce such a
    result. When even these models fail to show what advocates want, the data
    and interpretations are "fudged" to bring about the desired result"
    "The World Turned Upside Down", Melanie Phillips

    "Ocean acidification looks suspiciously like a back-up plan by the
    environmental pressure groups in case the climate fails to warm: another try
    at condemning fossil fuels!"
    http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/threat-ocean-acidification-great

    Before attacking hypothetical problems, let us first solve the real problems
    that threaten humanity. One single water pump at an equivalent cost of a
    couple of solar panels can indeed spare hundreds of Sahel women the daily
    journey to the spring and spare many infections and lives.
    Martin De Vlieghere, philosopher

    "The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that
    it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of
    mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible."
    Bertrand Russell

  9. admin says:

    Taking Climate Denial to New Extremes

    Kate Sheppard
    Mother Jones Blogs
    Feb 11, 2011

    The spending plan the House GOP was supposed to roll out on Thu included a
    number of cuts meant to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from doing
    anything about climate change. But Republicans had to take that plan back to
    the drawing board Thu night after tea party members claimed the package of
    cuts didn’t go deep enough. And if a trio of House members get their way, we
    won’t ever have to worry about the climate–since we won’t know what’s
    happening with it, anyway.

    This wk, Reps Bill Posey (R-Fla), Sandy Adams (R-Fla) and Rob Bishop
    (R-Utah) called for a budget that would "reprioritize NASA" by axing the
    funding for climate change research. The original cuts to the budget outlined
    yesterday would have cut $379 mn from NASA’s budget. These members want
    climate out of NASA’s purview entirely, however. Funding climate research,
    said Adams in a statement, "undercuts one of NASA’s primary and most
    important objectives of human spaceflight."

    "NASA’s primary purpose is human space exploration and directing NASA funds to
    study global warming undermines our ability to maintain our competitive edge
    in human space flight," said Posey.

    The total budget request for NASA for 2010 was $18.7 billion. Of that, just
    $1.4 bn was for its earth science division. The agency’s climate
    programs–which include modeling and satellite monitoring–are a subset of
    that. They are responsible for monitoring data that is crucial to our
    understanding of how our planet works–ocean temperatures, sea level, the
    ozone layer, sea ice, and, of course, how CO2 emissions are
    affecting the atmosphere. The increase in funding requested for climate
    last y was intended to make up for cuts to the program under the Bush
    administration. But even with that proposed increase, the earth science
    program accounted for a mere 7.5% of NASA’s total budget.

    Here’s the letter the 3 GOPers sent to House Appropriations Committee
    Chairman Harold Rogers (R-Ky) and Commerce, Justice, and Science Subcommittee
    Chairman Frank Wolf (R-Va) this week.

    [84 more news items]


    [Weather is responsible for climate change:]
    And that’s the only reason for the heat!
    Strong northeast winds being superheated desert air from the inland to the
    the southern capitals.
      — BO…@27-32-240-172.static.tpgi.com.au [86 nyms and counting], 31 Jan 2011 13:42 +1100

  10. admin says:

    "Robot" <ro…@kymhorsell.com> wrote in message

    news:4d5920b7$0$3033$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au…

    > Taking Climate Denial to New Extremes

    You can count KRudd and Combet as deniers now!

    Warmists KRudd And Combet Obviously Aren’t Swallowing Their Own Crap About
    Rising Sea Levels

    February 15 2011

    In 2009,

    KRudd claimed global warming could drown 711,000 properties on Australia’s
    coast:

    "KRudd: In New South Wales more than 200,000 buildings along the state’s
    coast are vulnerable. Queensland is at the highest risk from Australian
    states from projected sea level rise, coastal flooding."

    http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2009/s2725653.htm

    In 2011,

    KRudd buys one of those "vulnerable" properties:

    "KRudd and his wife, Therese Rein, have spent $3.2 million on a luxurious
    holiday home on Queensland’s Sunshine Coast. ..  Mr Rudd told The Australian
    last night his new getaway home was at Castaways Beach, tucked between
    Peregian and Sunshine Beach, which are just south of Noosa."

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/executive-lifestyle/rudd-invests

    The Climate Change Minister bought another of the homes his Government
    claims faces inundation:

    "Greg Combet has bought a beach front house in one of Newcastle’s most
    exclusive suburbs…"

    http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/combets-new-luxury-home/2007/11/1

    Warmest Regards

    B0nz0

    "It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
    US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
    worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
    from natural variation."

    Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville

    "If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it’s not going to tip
    now due to mankind. The planet has a natural thermostat"

    Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Professor of Meteorology MIT,
    Former IPCC Lead Author

    "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you
    have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your
    side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is
    wrong. Period."

    Professor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics

    "A core problem is that science has given way to ideology. The scientific
    method has been dispensed with, or abused, to serve the myth of man-made
    global warming."

    "The World Turned Upside Down", Melanie Phillips

    "Computer models are built in an almost backwards fashion: The goal is to
    show evidence of AGW, and the "scientists" go to work to produce such a
    result. When even these models fail to show what advocates want, the data
    and interpretations are "fudged" to bring about the desired result"

    "The World Turned Upside Down", Melanie Phillips

    "Ocean acidification looks suspiciously like a back-up plan by the
    environmental pressure groups in case the climate fails to warm: another try
    at condemning fossil fuels!"

    http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/threat-ocean-acidification-great

    Before attacking hypothetical problems, let us first solve the real problems
    that threaten humanity. One single water pump at an equivalent cost of a
    couple of solar panels can indeed spare hundreds of Sahel women the daily
    journey to the spring and spare many infections and lives.

    Martin De Vlieghere, philosopher

    "The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that
    it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of
    mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible."

    Bertrand Russell

  11. admin says:

    Guess Which State Cuts Peak Fossil Fuel Use 33%!

    Susan Kraemer
    CleanTechnica
    Feb 21, 2011

    In order to delay adding any new fossil-fuel generation until at least 2020,
    an Oklahoma utility is trying a pilot program; pricing electricity based on
    Time of Use (TOU). Oklahoma is very dependent on fossil fuels, (as you might
    deduce from its Senator, Jim "global warming is a hoax" Inhofe). The results
    are staggering.

    It turns out, Oklahomans are proving to be even more responsive to incentives
    to save energy than Californians. Average peak energy use plummeted up to 33
    percent.

    It takes a sharp prod to make it happen, and that is exactly what Oklahoma Gas
    & Electric delivered, in a 2 y pilot program involving 2,500 Oklahoma homes,
    with very sharply higher rates during peak times – intended to curb peak
    demand.

    According to Greentechmedia, the 2,500 homes were 1st set up with a web
    portal that displayed the cost of any energy-related action in real time, to
    help them decide when to use appliances. Then customers were put on TOU
    pricing that encouraged shifting energy use to non peak times.

    Nothing very extreme was required, no delayed action timers and so on, just
    turning the washing machine on late at night or before dawn, loading the
    dishwasher after dinner, but not turning it on till the last person goes to
    bed: that sort of thing.

    The households were divided into 2 groups. The pricing in the pilot varied,
    and proved that a sharp differential is needed.The most extreme peak pricing
    went up to 23 cents a kwh at partial peak, and to 46 cents a kwh at the most
    critical peak times. Or just 4 cents off-peak.

    As you can imagine, it is not that hard to run appliances at another time when
    you have a choice between 4 cents and 46 cents a kwh!

    The pricing was a reflection of the actual cost of electricity at each
    time. The other group in the pilot could save only 19 cents a kwh by moving to
    off peak pricing (pay 4 cents off-peak, or 23 cents at peak).  They did pretty
    well too, reducing energy use, but the 1st group pointed the level of TOU
    differential needed.

    A 33% drop in peak energy use could easily get Oklahoma to the equivalent of
    the Kyoto-Accord levels of greenhouse gas reductions that European
    nations and America’s blue states are able to reach (though mostly by adding
    some renewable energy as well as conservation).

    But even red states like Senator Inhofe’s Oklahoma can help us get there too,
    pretty easily, it turns out, just with time-switching. He should just chill
    out. But don’t turn on the dishwasher till bedtime…

    MYREF: 20110222183001 msg2011022219437

    [106 more news items]


    [Why Are Republicans Climate Skeptics?]
    Maybe that’s because the Republicans come from more rural states that haven’t
    had any warming, man-made or otherwise.
      — BONZO@27-32-240-172 [86 nyms and counting], 28 Oct 2010 15:25 +1100

  12. admin says:

    Framing climate change

    The Economist
    Mar 1st 2011

    Our readers are evidently fascinated by American attitudes toward global
    warming and/or climate change. I say "and/or" because it turns out that
    opinion on the subject is sensitive to the language one uses to refer to the
    putative meteorological phenomenon. A new paper (ungated) in the scholarly
    journal Public Opinion Quarterly by Jonathon P. Schuldt, Sara H. Konrath, and
    Norbert Schwarz examined the websites of conservative and liberal think tanks
    and found that conservatives are more likely to speak of "global warming"
    whilst liberals are inclined to speak instead of "climate change". The elite
    conservative usage seems to be a cause or effect (probably both) of
    conservative public opinion.

    Republicans were less likely to endorse that the phenomenon is real when it
    was referred to as "global warming" (44.0%) rather than "climate change"
    (60.2%), whereas Democrats were unaffected by question wording (86.9%
    vs. 86.4%). As a result, the partisan divide on the issue dropped from 42.9
    percentage points under a "global warming" frame to 26.2 percentage points
    under a "climate change" frame.

    What explains this? "Global warming", the authors note, directly elicits
    thought of rising temperatures, which encourages the anecdotal use of
    unusually cold or snowy weather as disconfirming evidence, whereas "climate
    change" puts the emphasis on the systemic transformation of weather patterns,
    which offers a broader context for the odd cold snap or
    snowmageddon. Additionally, the authors surmise, "global warming" connotes
    human causation and culpability somewhat more than "climate change".

    But why isn’t liberal opinion affected by the choice of semantic "frame"?
    Shuldt, Konrath, and Schwarz write:

    First, Democrats tended to endorse high belief (Ms = 5.94 on a 7-point scale),
    raising the possibility of a ceiling effect. Second, Democrats’ beliefs about
    global climate change might be more crystallized and thus more protected from
    subtle manipulations, consistent with research showing that stronger attitudes
    are more resistant to change.

    I take the upshot of the study to be that Americans are less polarised about
    climate change/global warming than they may appear. Disagreement under the
    "climate change" frame is really fairly mild. And the fact that conservative
    opinion is so susceptible to framing effects suggests a relatively low level
    of confidence about the issue.

    I expect ideological disagreement over climate change will decline further as
    the debate over climate policy takes shape in the public imagination. In my
    experience, many libertarians and conservatives are motivated to deny global
    warming because they think admitting a problem amounts to handing government a
    blank check and a mandate to do whatever it wants to "fix" it. Once it becomes
    clearer that the best policy response to climate change is a tax on carbon,
    which can be entirely offset by cutting taxes elsewhere, those Americans wary
    of opening the door to enviro-fascism will begin to relax.

    MYREF: 20110302100001 msg201103028894

    [142 more news items]


    Check the dates and times when Bozo posts. It’s a 5 day Monday-Friday 8
    hour working week.
    — Tom P, 26 Nov 2008

  13. admin says:

    Liberal vs. conservative: Who has better brain?

    David W Freeman
    CBS/AP
    April 7, 2011 12:04 PM

    Are political leanings hard-wired into the brain? That’s the suggestion of a
    new study that reveals striking anatomical differences between the brains of
    liberals and those of conservatives.

    The brains of people who call themselves liberals tend to have larger anterior
    cingulate cortexes than the brains of people on the opposite side of the
    political spectrum, the study showed. The anterior cingulate cortex is a
    collar-shaped region around the corpus collosum, a structure that relays
    signals between the right and left hemispheres of the brain.

    What about conservatives? Their brains brains tend to have larger
    amygdalas. The amygdala is an almond-shaped structure located deep within the
    brain.

    Based upon what brain scientists know about the function of the 2 brain
    regions, researchers believe the structural differences support the notion
    that liberals are better equipped to make sense of conflicting information
    while conservatives are better able to recognize a threat.

    "Previously, some psychological traits were known to be predictive of an
    individual’s political orientation," study author Dr Ryota Kanai of University
    College London Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, said in a written
    statement. "Our study now links such personality traits with specific brain
    structure."

    For the study, published in the April 7 issue of the journal Current Biology,
    90 healthy young people underwent MRI scans and completed questionnaires
    designed to determine their political leanings on a five-point scale – from
    very liberal to very conservative.

    The study was undertaken following several previous reports showing that
    conservatives are more sensitive to feel threatened or anxious in the face of
    uncertainty, while liberals tend to be more open to new experiences – which is
    just what Kanai’s study seemed to confirm.

    The study didn’t show what causes the structural differences in the first
    place. Are they set at birth? Do they arise over time as a result of
    experiences? And what explains people whose political views change over time?

    Kanai had a diplomatic answer. "It’s very unlikely that actual political
    orientation is directly encoded in these brain regions," he said. "More work
    is needed to determine how these brain structures mediate the formation of
    political attitude."

    MYREF: 20110410040001 msg2011041032128

    [126 more news items]


    [Call me kook:]
    >A scientist cites a data point that is consistent with a trend and
    >says "This data is consistent with the trend; no surprise".
    >A kook cites a data point inconsistent with the trend and says "Surprise!
    >The trend is Wrong Wrong Wrong!".

    Sorry but 1917 invalidates the trend.
      — BONZO@27-32-240-172 [86 nyms and counting], 7 Feb 2011 13:29 +1100

  14. admin says:

    BONZO@27-32-240-172 [numerous nyms] wrote:
    >[something]

    Americans Believe Climate Change is Occurring, but Disagree on Why

    Newswise
    4/19/2011 8:00 AM EDT
    Source: University of New Hampshire

    Newswise — Durham, N.H. – Most Americans now agree that climate change is
    occurring, but still disagree on why, with opinions about the cause of climate
    change defined by political party, not scientific understanding, according to
    new research from the Carsey Institute at the University of New Hampshire.

    Republicans most often point to natural causes of climate change while
    Democrats most often believe that human activities are the cause. The greatest
    polarization occurs among people who believe they have the best understanding.

    "Although there remains active discussion among scientists on many details
    about the pace and effects of climate change, no leading science organization
    disagrees that human activities are now changing the Earth’s climate. The
    strong scientific agreement on this point contrasts with the partisan
    disagreement seen on all of our surveys," said Lawrence Hamilton, professor of
    sociology and senior fellow with the UNH Carsey Institute.

    "However, most people gather information about climate change not directly
    from scientists but indirectly, for example through news media, political
    activists, acquaintances, and other nonscience sources. Their understanding
    reflects not simply scientific knowledge, but rather the adoption of views
    promoted by political or opinion leaders they follow. People increasingly
    choose news sources that match their own views. Moreover, they tend to
    selectively absorb information even from this biased flow, fitting it into
    their pre-existing beliefs," Hamilton said.

    A series of regional surveys conducted by Carsey Institute researchers in 2010
    and early 2011 asked nearly 9,500 individuals in 7 regions in the United
    States about climate change.

    Key findings include:

    o Most people say that they understand either a moderate amount or a great
    deal about the issue of global warming or climate change.

    o Large majorities agree that climate change is happening now, although they
    split on whether this is attributed mainly to human or natural causes.

    o Level of understanding about climate change varies considerably by region.

    o Beliefs about climate change are strongly related to political party.
    Republicans most often believe either that climate is not changing now or
    that it is changing but from mainly natural causes. Democrats most often
    believe that the climate is changing now due mainly to human activities.

    o Political polarization is greatest among the Republicans and Democrats who
    are most confident that they understand this issue.  Republicans and
    Democrats less sure about their understanding also tend to be less far apart
    in their beliefs.

    o People who express lower confidence also might be more likely to change
    their views in response to weather.

    "If the scientists are right, evidence of climate change will become more
    visible and dramatic in the decades ahead. Arctic sea ice, for example,
    provides one closely watched harbinger of planetary change. In its 2007 report
    the IPCC projected that late-summer Arctic sea ice could disappear before the
    end of the 21st century. Since that report was written, steeper-than-expected
    declines have led to suggestions that summer sea ice might be largely gone by
    2030, and some think much sooner," Hamilton said.

    "We will find out in time–either the ice will melt, or it won’t. The Arctic
    Ocean, along with other aspects of the ocean-atmosphere system, presents an
    undeniable physical reality that could become more central to the public
    debate. In the meantime, however, public beliefs about physical reality remain
    strikingly politicized," he said.

    The complete report about this research is available at
    http://www.carseyinstitute.unh.edu/publications/IB-Hamilton-Climate-C….
    pdf.

    MYREF: 20110420030002 msg2011042014093

    [130 more news items]


    "Global warming" refers to the global-average temperature increase
    that has been observed over the last one hundred years or more. But to
    many politicians and the public, the term carries the implication that
    mankind is responsible for that warming.
      — Dr Roy W. Spencer, "Global Warming", 2008

  15. admin says:

    BONZO@27-32-240-172 [numerous nyms] wrote:
    >[coal lobby spin]

    Republicans shift on climate change

    Presidential contenders backtrack on earlier statements about global warming
    and possible government solutions.

    Dina Cappiello
    AP
    May 29, 2011 – 11:35 PM

    Washington – One thing that Tim Pawlenty, Jon Huntsman, Newt Gingrich and Mitt
    Romney have in common: These GOP presidential contenders all are running away
    from their past positions on global warming, driven by their party’s loud
    doubters who question the science and disdain government solutions.

    All 4 have stepped back from previous stances on the issue, either apologizing
    outright or softening what they said earlier. And those who haven’t fully
    recanted are under pressure to do so.

    The latest sign of that pressure came Thu when New Jersey Gov.  Chris Christie
    said he was pulling his state out of a regional agreement to reduce greenhouse
    gases, saying it won’t work. While Christie, a rising GOP star, has said he’s
    not running for president, some in the party continue to recruit him.

    It’s an indicator of a shift on the issue among conservative Republicans, who
    have an outsized influence in the party’s presidential primary elections. Over
    the last few years, Gallup polling has shown a decline in the share of
    Americans saying that global warming’s effects have already begun — from a
    high of 61% in 2008 to 49% in March. The change is driven almost
    entirely by conservatives.

    In 2008, 50% of conservatives said they believed global warming already is
    having effects; that figure dropped to 30% this year.  By contrast, among
    liberals and moderates there’s been relatively little movement, and broad
    majorities say warming is having an impact now.

    Not all Republicans are happy with the party’s trajectory on global
    warming. Former New York Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, a 27-year veteran of Congress
    who was known as a staunch protector of the environment, said he has "never
    been so disappointed all my life in the pretenders to the throne from my
    party."

    "Not one of them is being forthright in dealing with climate science," he said
    in an interview. "They are either trying to finesse it, or change previous
    positions to accommodate the far right. They are denying something that is as
    plain as the nose on your face."

    But opposing mandated solutions to climate change has become party orthodoxy,
    forcing candidates to backtrack.

    Gingrich, who once ran an environmental studies program at a Georgia college,
    now calls for the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency. He also
    said in a recent interview that he doubts there is a connection between
    climate change and the burning of fossil fuels. "The planet used to be
    dramatically warmer when we had dinosaurs and no people," Gingrich told the
    Macon (Ga.) Telegraph last week. "To the best of my knowledge the dinosaurs
    weren’t driving cars."

    Other GOP contenders also have switched on the issue of climate.  Romney,
    Pawlenty and Huntsman potentially come into the race with even more climate
    baggage, since each of them as governor supported a regional "cap-and-trade"
    program to reduce greenhouse gas pollution, like the one Christie bailed out
    of this week. All have since abandoned that stance.

    It’s a marked turnaround for a party that just 3 y ago gave its presidential
    nomination to Sen. John McCain, who long has supported cap and trade to reduce
    greenhouse gas pollution and who campaigned on the issue even though it put
    him on the same side as his opponent, Barack Obama.

    In fact, the whole idea of a market to trade pollution credits came from the
    GOP. It emerged in the late 1980s under the administration of President George
    H.W. Bush as a free-market solution to the power plant pollution that was
    causing acid rain. It passed Congress nearly unanimously in 1990 as a way to
    control emissions of sulfur dioxide.

    MYREF: 20110531090002 msg2011053132278

    [226 more news items]


    [Why Are Republicans Climate Skeptics?]
    Maybe that’s because the Republicans come from more rural states that haven’t
    had any warming, man-made or otherwise.
      — BONZO@27-32-240-172 [100 nyms and counting], 28 Oct 2010 15:25 +1100

  16. admin says:

    BONZO@27-32-240-172 [numerous nyms] wrote:
    >[coal lobby spin]

    Climate is No Science for Jon Huntsman

    POLITICO
    Jul 16 2011

    Jon Huntsman’s unorthodox campaign is having a tough time dealing with his
    unconventional energy and environment record.

    But he’s also courting the middle, suggesting he could come back to the
    controversial climate change policy if the economy improves. By doing so,
    Huntsman is running the risk of being seen as an Arnold Schwarzenegger-style
    Republican who will only antagonize many of the primary voters he would need
    next y to win the GOP nomination.

    The former Utah governor will be the keynote speaker July 28 at the Theodore
    Roosevelt Banquet for the advocacy group Republicans for Environmental
    Protection, an organization that has criticized House Republicans for their
    attacks on the Obama administration’s environmental policies.

    Huntsman also appears to have sent a message with his hiring this m of
    Mark McIntosh, an environmental attorney from the George W. Bush White House,
    as his campaign’s top policy director.

    McIntosh most recently worked for former White House General Counsel C.
    Boyden Gray’s law firm representing industry clients. But what antagonizes the
    right is a resume that also includes stints managing policy operations at the
    Pew Environment Group, handling water and natural resource cases in Florida
    with Earthjustice and ties to a family foundation that supports the likes of
    the Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, League of Conservation
    Voters and the Earth Day Network.

    "To grasp just how significant is McIntosh’s selection, imagine if at the
    outset of his campaign for the 2000 GOP presidential nomination George W. Bush
    had appointed as his top policy advisor Carol Browner, former EPA
    administrator and long-time environmental advisor to Vice President Al Gore,"
    Mark Tapscott, editorial editor at the Washington Examiner, wrote last week.

    Daniel Kish, a former House and Senate GOP energy committee staffer, said
    McIntosh’s role in the Huntsman campaign adds to an existing base of doubts
    among many Republicans.

    "If you believe in more affordable, more American and more voluminous energy,
    then it’s kind of hard to believe a guy who was at Earthjustice, the Bush
    [Council on Environmental Quality] and Pew Environment is going to share the
    same views that most of the people voting in the Republican primary are
    interested in," said Kish, now the senior vice president for policy at the
    Institute for Energy Research, an oil-industry funded group.

    The liberal-leaning Center for American Progress also jumped on McIntosh’s new
    role, gleefully describing him as an "activist environmental lawyer" whose
    hiring helps distinguish Huntsman "from a field dominated by fossil fuel
    interests." CAP is home to both Browner, the former energy adviser to
    President Barack Obama, and John Podesta, the former Bill Clinton chief of
    staff who led Obama’s 2008 transition.

    Tony Fratto, a former Bush White House spokesman, said the McIntosh criticism
    has gotten out of hand.

    "Mark’s views have been the opposite of the way they were characterized by the
    left," Fratto said in an interview. "He’s not a climate activist in Republican
    circles. He’s been a conservative in environmental circles who happens to have
    an interest in the environment."

    But long before McIntosh entered the picture, Huntsman’s climate advocacy had
    caused heartburn for conservatives. Huntsman is forever memorialized in a 2007
    Environmental Defense Fund ad in which he joins Schwarzenegger and Montana
    Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer in trumpeting their state leadership on
    climate while putting the spotlight on Congress to do the same.

    MYREF: 20110717100002 msg2011071714805

    [228 more news items]


    [Even-number day of week:]
    What feedbacks?
    Oh … you mean those mythical feedbacks in GIGO computer models.
    Yeah right.
      — BONZO@27-32-240-172 [100 nyms and counting], 11 May 2011 10:39 +1000

  17. admin says:

    BONZO@27-32-240-172 [numerous nyms] wrote:
    >[coal lobby spin]

    Congress doesn’t believe global warming is a security threat

    CIA climate analysis may be on the GOP chopping block.

    Related Stories:
    * Related Story: Most of the country had record heat in July
    * Roseanne’s running for president–where does she stand on climate change?
    * Turns out Nature, like Wall Street, is also bankrupt

    Sarah Laskow
    Grist.org
    11 Aug 2011 10:30 AM

    Climate change will shift the equation of global power and craziness, and the
    intelligence community is trying to place for those situations.  But Congress
    isn’t interested in that. Mother Jones’ Kate Sheppard gives this example:

    In 2008, [Thomas] Fingar, [former chairman of the National Intelligence
    Council] now a fellow at Stanford University, took the lead in drafting the
    1st national intelligence assessment on the security challenges presented by
    climate change. It found that global warming will further destabilize
    already-volatile parts of the world and should be considered in national
    security planning.  But congressional Republicans dismissed the report as "a
    waste of resources."

    Global warming is enough of a security concern that the Navy has a climate
    change task force, and the CIA has offices devoted to addressing
    climate-related threats to national security. So some members of Congress
    (cough GOP cough) want to shut those down.  I guess if you believe that
    climate change doesn’t exist, then thinking about its impacts does seem like a
    waste of time. But we’re talking about a government that is armored against an
    effort to blow up planes using two-ounce shampoo bottles and souvenir snow
    globes. Even if global warming were merely plausible, it would probably be
    worth looking into.

    straight to the source

    * The CIA’s Weather Underground, Mother Jones
    http://motherjones.com/environment/2011/08/cia-climate-change-nationa

    MYREF: 20110812160002 msg201108124246

    [229 more news items]


    I have never heard a precise definition of what "the earth is warming" is
    supposed to mean.
    Every other science defines its terms precisely. Not "climate science".
    While they all say the earth is warming, I am not aware of a single
    definition of this term, nor a scientific test which shows whether the earth
    is in fact warming, cooling or staying the same.
    — "Peter Webb" <webbfam…@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>, 19 May 2011 14:37 +1000

  18. admin says:

    BONZO@27-32-240-172 [numerous nyms] wrote:

    >[Aussie coal lobby spin]

    Mayor Bloomberg says White House candidates  must believe in evolution, global w

    arming

    Says ‘mind-boggling’ some candidates don’t believe science

    PHOTO: ‘We have presidential candidates who don’t believe in science,’

    Bloomberg said

    Erin Einhorn
    New York Daily News

    Nov 3 2011, 5:19 PM

    Belief in science should be a no-brainer, especially for anyone running for

    President, Mayor Bloomberg groused Thu.

    The mayor used an international economic forum at Columbia University to pop

    off against any candidates who doubt the science behind hot-button political

    topics such as evolution and global warming.

    "We have presidential candidates who don’t believe in science," Bloomberg

    said, without singling out dubious Republican candidates directly.

    "I mean, just think about it, can you imagine a company of any size in the

    world where the CEO said ‘oh I don’t believe in science’ and that person

    surviving to the end of that day? Are you kidding me? It’s mind-boggling!"

    Bloomberg grew coy when asked which candidate he was talking about.

    "I don’t know," he said. "You can check the presidential candidates’

    speeches… I don’t have time to go do it but all their speeches, everything

    they said."

    Only one GOP contender – former Utah Gov Jon Huntsman – has come out full

    force saying he believes in science.

    "To be clear, I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global

    warming. Call me crazy," he wrote on Twitter. He later attacked Rick Perry on

    "This Week" when he said, "The minute that the Republican Party becomes the

    anti-science party – we have a huge problem."

    Republican front-runner Mitt Romney has also stood up for evolution in the

    past, refusing to denounce it, as other candidates did, during a 2007 debate.

    The reality is that the Republican presidential slate is full of candidates

    who doubt evidence that rising world temperature is "unequivocal," as the

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recently noted.

    Texas Gov Rick Perry has said he just doesn’t buy it – and thinks the

    scientists pushing the idea were motivated by greed, not facts.

    "There are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so

    that they will have dollars rolling into their projects," Perry told a New

    Hampshire business breakfast in August.

    Pizza baron Herman Cain said much the same thing.

    "I don’t believe global warming is real," he told CBS in June. "Do we have

    climate change? Yes. Is it a crisis? No."

    Cain said there’s no reason for panic. "The real science doesn’t say that we

    have any major crisis or threat when it comes to climate change."

    Rep Michele Bachmann, who in April voted for a House bill that prevents

    further regulation of greenhouse gases, told a crowd in August: "I think all

    these issues have to be settled on the base of real science, not manufactured sc

    ience."

    Sen. Rick Santorum said the earth’s warming and cooling is caused by a laundry

    list of things: El Nino, La Nina, sunspots and moisture in the air.

    "The idea that man through the production of CO2 which is a trace gas in the

    atmosphere and the manmade part of that trace gas is itself a trace gas is

    somehow responsible for climate change is, I think, just patently absurd," he

    told radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh in June.

    Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich earned some of his political stripes

    helping a 2008 commercial against climate change.

    Rep Ron Paul was quoted in a 2007 interview that "I think some of it [global

    warming] is related to human activities, but I don’t think there’s a

    conclusion yet."

    But by a 2009 Fox interview, Paul said "the greatest hoax I think that has

    been around for many, many y if not 100s of y has been, this hoax on the

    environment and global warming."

    Romney, while serving as Massachusetts governor, introduced in 2004 a

    statewide Climate Protection Plan, billed as "an initial step in a coordinated

    effort to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases."

    But as recently as Sept. 28, Romney told a New Hampshire town hall meeting

    "The planet is probably getting warmer. I think we’re experiencing

    warming. That’s No. 1. No. 2, I believe that we contribute some portion of

    that. No. 3, I don’t know how much. It could be a lot, it could be a little."

    MYREF: 20111104140002 msg2011110423540

    [249 more news items]



    [The difference between "real science" and "pseudo science":]

    So you really, really believe that our universe just came about by

    sheer chance?  I prersonally, find that extremely hard to accept.

      — BONZO@27-32-240-172 [daily nymshifter], 11 Jan 2011 15:02 +1100

  19. admin says:

    In message <4eb35db…@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, AGWJunkScience
    <AGWJunkScience@AGWJunkScience.?.invalid> writes

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    >"Mr Posting Robot v2.1" <ro…@kymhorsell.dyndns.org> wrote in message

    >news:4eb35586$0$22471$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au…

    >> BONZO@27-32-240-172 [numerous nyms] wrote:

    >>>[Aussie coal lobby spin]

    >> Mayor Bloomberg says White House candidates  must believe in evolution,

    >> global w

    >> arming

    >You can’t tie the two together.

    >Evolution has strong evidence for it, but manmade global warming has

    >absolutely no evidence.

    Actually it has rather a lot of evidence, you just deny it exists.  No
    different from the creationists who claim there is no evidence for
    evolution.

    Examples:

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-Scientific-Guide-to-Global-Warmin


    sapient_usene…@spamsights.org  ICQ #17887309      *  Save the net  *

    Grok: http://spam.abuse.net   http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer  *

    Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net  *    today    *

    Kill: http://mail-abuse.com   http://au.sorbs.net  http://spamhaus.org