High-profile global warming skeptic changes position

Cell Theory.
Atomic Theory.
Electromagnetic Theory.
Evolutionary Theory.
Just theories. Nothing more so.

 

So...did GM drop Frank Luntz from the payroll, then?

 

Here is ANOTHER right-wing blogger no longer able to maintain the neocon status quo of silence and misleading, but he's worrying that junior's stable of scientific 'experts' (read: Yes men) will once again thwart the scientific community's consensus:

THE NEW REPUBLIC | Blogs
No Need to 'Wait and See'

Looks like we won't have to wait 50 years to see the effects of rising global temperatures, after all. According to a new study by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, those changes are already well underway across the country:
"Climate change is currently impacting the nation's ecosystems and services in significant ways, and those alterations are very likely to accelerate in the future, in some cases dramatically," the report says. "Even under the most optimistic CO2 emission scenarios, important changes in sea level, regional and super-regional temperatures and precipitation patterns will have profound effects." ...

In addition, the number and frequency of forest fires and insect outbreaks are "increasing in the interior West, the Southwest, and Alaska," while "precipitation, stream flow, and stream temperatures are increasing in most of the continental United States" and snowpack is declining in the West.
Also, one other footnote here: Back in 2005, the CCSP turned into something of a hornet's nest when one of its senior associates, Rick Piltz, came forward and accused a White House official of editing government climate reports in order to emphasize doubts about global warming and downplay the downsides. (The appointee in question, Philip Cooney, ended up resigning and scurried back to the oil industry.) Anyway, it's probably never safe to assume that the White House is being totally hands-off on this stuff, but the latest report does sound a lot more severe than anything else the administration has released to date, so maybe the appointees are finally backing off, at least on this front.

 

Not that it matters in this thread any more, but I will respond to an early post from Marinjohn:

"The lefties still see corporate abuse, national single payer health care, social security fund raiding, nuclear waste storage, shrinking middle class, discrepancies between highest paid and lowest paid as a problem, money influencing politics, ...oh, you get it, all as serious concerns which need to be addressed. Why oh why are the righties so slow to acknowledge what is so obvious? Sooner or later they will buckle under, why not now?"

Because you can see that future by looking at Europe now, and most Americans don't want to live under that kind of slow decline-by-government-imposition you see there.

 

Did you just lump all of Europe together under one political ideology then proceed to assume all of Europe is delcining in the same way and for the same reasons?

 

Isn't that what we just had for 8 years, America's future has been turned into the support terrorism and do it by debt nation, we are unprepared for any disaster or catastrophic situation, because we are $60 TRILLION in debt.

 

The irony is killing me.... Our children will be polishing diamonds for the Chinese and East Indian to make up for our debts.

 

Nope, what we'll do is inflate away our debt. We've been doing it for years now...

 

You can only do that to a certain extent until inflation catches up with you. Like it is currently happening.

But going back to global warming; here is a link to an excellent podcast from NPR's science friday. It is an interview with a government scientist from the national center of atmospheric research. They looked at the estimated biological and financial US cost of the certain to come, and already observed, effects of global warming:

Science Friday Archives: New Government Report Tackles Global Warming Effects

 

Not all, just those that believe that government should try to control the economy and social direction of their society.

 

When has being in debt stopped us from dealing with a disaster or catastrophic situation?

 

Maybe Katrina?

 

There were a lot of things wrong with how that storm was dealt with, but a lack of money or resources was not one of them. Mismanagement, lack of planning, stupid development policies, etc. But when needed the money and resources were available. They were even available before hand if government at all levels had been more proactive and willing to stand up for what should have been done all along.

 

Yes, money was not the problem. The New Orleans civic government and Louisiana state government were astoundingly worse in the pre and post-landfall actions than either Florida or Texas ever was. For example, in FL, there is a continous set of escalation actions executed at the county level (Establish manning for evacuation personnel, stage the opening of centers, clearly state what decisions will be made when, etc.) The state level supports the counties but does not take over the local actions. Support at the state level is working with utilities to swarm in afterwards to restore services, deliver water, route transportation accross the state, mobilize National Guard, etc. The federal government is expected to provide military resources and FEMA resources after the event. While it is easy to point the finger at the national government, the more significant problem was the extremely poor actions at the state and local governments.

 

Well--yeah. Clinton policy-wise was an excellent President (who else balanced the budget?), but was hounded by the Republicans until he finally cooked his own goose with his reckless private indiscretions. A lot of the voters would agree with you-- Bill's policy record is probably a source of Hillary's support, along with the women. But Bill Clinton is probably also the reason why a lot of the top Democrats and yuppies prefer Obama over Hillary. They are still ticked off at him.

Reagan and Bush Jr are responsible for 70% of our national debt--by cutting our tax base and spending printed money. And Bush, Jr was even foolish enough to try to fight a war at the same time. Tax cut and spend
doesn't work.

 

Clinton benefitted from a lot of ole fashioned luck. Insanely cheap oil and the tech boom helped gov't revenue. To his credit, he didn't to anything stupid, but he wasn't the catalyst.

 

"Heck of a job, Brownie!"

Really ... need I state more?

... Brad

 

Nope. However, Brown was an appointed official, so the ultimate responsibility for his failures need to be focused on the one(s) who selected such a poor performer.

 

Global Warming is a freakin hoax. It's just like somebody saying the world is going to end next Thursday. It's a propaganda swindle to just take more rights away from you.

Here, Read this link. The potential cooling of global warming - TwinCities.com

Of course, I will probably get slammed by a few people but I don't fall for it.

 

Some recent noise about "isoprene" and a quick search reveals this April 2007 reference:

Fascinating discussion and somewhat humorous as the signatures of these 2007 posts show the current signatures that have references to 2012 (unless F8L found that 'time travel', flux capacitor in his 2013 Volt.) It was also funny to see the echoes of past political points of view spoiling to fight the science. So why is this 'Rip Van Winkle' wake-up important?

"Isoprene" in a recent paper: Unravelling New Processes at Interfaces: Photochemical Isoprene Production at the Sea Surface

Aerosols and low-altitude reflective clouds in the marine boundary layer have been shown to impact the climate system as a whole,1,2 triggering substantial research on the origin and chemical composition of marine aerosols. While primary sources originate from bubble bursting (producing sea-salt), secondary sources are believed to derive from the gas-to- particle conversion of phytoplankton-emitted trace gases such as dimethylsulfide (DMS) and various organic precursors such as isoprene and other terpenes.3−10 While global modeling tends to identify a possible missing source of organic aerosol in the troposphere,11−14 the nature of the chemical compounds and their source fluxes remain poorly characterized.
. . .​

I never studied organic chemistry other than a smattering of references in the freshman and high school chemistry classes. So this paper is addressing ocean plankton contributions whereas past (and current) isoprene often cite terrestrial sources. New to me, isoprene helps terrestrial plants deal with 'heat stress' by mechanisms not fully explained in the Wiki.

Not unexpected, some claim this paper provides a global cooling effect. The reported effect has to do with cloud formation, a link that seems somewhat obscure. Regardless, I was amused to see the tone of this 2007 thread and a summary:

In essence, The Register, Express, and Breitbart seemed more interested in promoting a specific political cause – undermining efforts to implement climate policies – than in getting the facts right. . . . ​

Regardless of opinions, the Arctic subsequently has supported commercial navigation for the past 4-5 years. The Russians are building up their navigation infrastructure and the USA/Canada are realizing Arctic sea ice melting will lead to more commercial navigation. The ocean isoprene effect seems to have no effect on Northern ice melt.

Bob Wilson

ps. One interesting claim from the Wiki, "A second major effect of isoprene on the atmosphere is that in the presence of nitric oxides (NOx) it contributes to the formation of tropospheric (lower atmosphere) ozone, which is one of the leading air pollutants in many countries." Given what VW recently accomplished with their TDI products, timely too.