Yet California remains governed by AB 32, whose official title is the “Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.” It’s seven years later. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who signed AB 32 into law, is long gone. And the environmental movement, sensing that “global warming” wasn’t selling any longer, now calls bad weather “climate change,” as President Obama did in his Inaugural Address.
The prestigious Nature Journal recently published a major climate change study, “Orbital Forcing Of Tree-Ring Data.” It provided a thorough analysis of more than 2000 years of tree-ring evidence that showed current climate models substantially underestimated ancient Northern Europe temperatures levels during the Roman and Medieval Periods.
That temperatures have trended downward for the last two centuries debunks theories that anthropogenic (man-made) global warming is caused by a rising CO2 gas levels associated with industrial burning of “fossil fuels.” The main part of AB 32 mandates the reduction by 25 percent of California greenhouse gases by 2020.
The United Nations-endorsed Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore for interpreting studies of ice cores and ocean sediments to “conclude” that Europe was about to suffer catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.
Cooling trend
But the new tree-ring data allow precise measurements of annual climate variability. The 0.3°C (0.54°F) every thousand years “due to gradual changes to the position of the sun and an increase in the distance between the Earth and the sun.” - See more at: http://calwatchdog.com/2013/01/31/tree-ring-studies-confirm-global-cooling-cast-doubt-on-ab-32/#sthash.ETSSj8or.dpuf0.3°C (0.54°F) every thousand years “due to gradual changes to the position of the sun and an increase in the distance between the Earth and the sun.” - See more at: http://calwatchdog.com/2013/01/31/tree-ring-studies-confirm-global-cooling-cast-doubt-on-ab-32/#sthash.ETSSj8or.dpufreveal there has been a cooling trend of -0.3°C (0.54°F) every thousand years “due to gradual changes to the position of the sun and an increase in the distance between the Earth and the sun.”
- See more at: http://calwatchdog.com/2013/01/31/tree-ring-studies-confirm-global-cooling-cast-doubt-on-ab-32/#sthash.ETSSj8or.dpufThe results reveal there has been a cooling trend of -0.3°C (0.54°F) every thousand years “due to gradual changes to the position of the sun and an increase in the distance between the Earth and the sun.” - See more at: http://calwatchdog.com/2013/01/31/tree-ring-studies-confirm-global-cooling-cast-doubt-on-ab-32/#sthash.ETSSj8or.dpuf
But the new tree-ring data allow precise measurements of annual climate variability. The results reveal there has been a cooling trend of -0.3°C (0.54°F) every thousand years “due to gradual changes to the position of the sun and an increase in the distance between the Earth and the sun.”
- See more at: http://calwatchdog.com/2013/01/31/tree-ring-studies-confirm-global-cooling-cast-doubt-on-ab-32/#sthash.ETSSj8or.dpuf
Well, thanks for posting that TD, I actually went and looked some stuff up. Interestingly, I found a correlation of articles claiming global warming is bullshit on "money" sites. Nonetheless. When I went to "the prestigious nature journal" and did a search on global warming, I found an article there that kind of supported it http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html. Admittedly, I did not pay to read in it's entirety the article you posted here, but that lead to finding some other interesting stuff like the "hockey stick"climategate and the tree ring divergence problem wherein tree rings in far northern climates stopped being effective barometers of temperature after 1960.
ReplyDeleteIt was interesting. I can't begin to claim I understand the science jargon in just the snippet of the article you posted here. In general, it seems to support your belief that global warming is bullshit. Fair enough I guess. As a liberal, I of course have to blindly believe in global warming, because as you well know, none of us fucking liberals can hold an independent opinion. Be that as it may, my worry of outright pollution is bigger then my worry of global warming.
A proclivity of "the market" is to act on doing whatever is cheapest. If there is a choice between doing something cheaply but generating a ton of pollution versus making less profit but also less pollution, the choice is obvious. Year after year, the world population grows, the use of fossil fuels grows, air quality gets shittier. Unless the buyers in the market demand less pollution, manufacturers will not create less, see China and what a shithole it is becoming.
In order to keep burning fossil fuels, the fossil fuel lobby leans on governments to give them tax breaks and to generally help keep prices cheap enogh to keep alternative energy from becoming competitive. I have a problem with that. I don't believe global warming is bullshit, but I'm not going to wage a cock fight with you wherein we both post articles containing shit neither of us really understands. Even if global warming is not real, what harm is it to us to use less fossil fuel and reduce C02 emissions?
I do and did not imply "global warming" is real or not. It would be obvious to anyone beyond age 10 that in the 6 weather cycles witnessed by the 10 year old each was different. What troubles me is that organizations around the world steal from the... Masses, voters, children, and every single human that thinks one thought about this issue.
DeleteDo you really think the hundreds and millions of the starving poor care about a cause celeb? Hell no! In a 70 year life weather warming and cooling peak and valley, yet folks still starve and die obese! Nothing, nothing what so ever matters except loving your children and trying to raise them with core values that are modeled after the core of good laid out by every religion around the world.
I posted this global cooling sh_t for fun, it's the same joke heard round the world, ya think they are worried about this bs in the Middle East, Russia, China,anywhere but the u.s. and English press?
"ya think they are worried about this bs in the Middle East, Russia, China,anywhere but the u.s. and English press?"
Deleteyou have a point there
Max,
ReplyDeleteI'll limit my post to just a couple of points. "The______ lobby leans on government . . ." can be said for "green" manufacturers and just about ANY entity that has a self-interest.
Alternative energy sources are not financially or economically competitive in large part because of the laws of chemistry/physics/thermodynamics. Not completely, but quite significantly. That, per se, has little to do with validity or nonvalidity of the notion that the globe is warming up primarily due to the generation of (primarily) CO2.
What harm is it to use less fossil fuel, you ask? No much, that I can envision, but the first step for that reduction would be for people to use a little less, the same elimination of waste, fraud and abuse approach that our wonderful central government seems reluctant to embrace, no? Personally, I would like to see a slow, measured step toward renewable alternative souces of energy, since even the conventional carbon-based fuels, coal, natural gas, and oil, are in fact finite, even if that means several hundred years' worth of supply. "Slow", because going too quickly could be just as much a shock socially, politically and economically, as stopping a car by slamming on the brakes instead of gradually depressing the pedal.
My view is in part based on my academic credentials, in case you're wondering.
Jean
Point taken on lobbying, with an exception. Oil is a long established source of energy. A source, as you mentioned, that appears finite and contributes to pollution. Oil is also something that keeps us chained to many unpleasant geopolitical nightmares as well as gouging by traders. Continuing to subsidize something in limited supply to encourage more use of it seems a bit silly, no?
DeleteAs I have said before, I feel like there is a theme for many posters on this topic, it's the all or nothing theme. IF global warming isn't real like Gore says it is, we MUST cease and desist all measures to get off fossil fuels. There is a liberal view of this as well. In regards to your second para, I am not an engineer, but I do have a quite conservative leaning family member who is who has explained to me the rather substantial gains that have been made. The irony that he used the government subsidy to put solar panels on his house though remains lost on him, regardless, the REAL effect of being nearly at zero in electricity consumption is not fantasy for him.
We started a gradual approach under Jimmy Carter and Reagan condescendingly laughed and said, "Fuck you". Had we stuck with what Carter started, we would be in a very different position today. THAT is the political problem. I can understand the desire to not want a "shock" solution, but are we really avoiding that? At best, we are simply pushing the shock to future generations so that we can keep consuming cheaply now. Without political will to change, we will keep doing what we are doing until we run out of oil and then go into a panic. I think we owe it to future generations to make at least one sacrifice in our extremely selfish lives.
We don't even have to go all the way back to Carter.
DeleteThere was a period of time after 9-11 of about 6-18 months where we were all united as people and totally behind our leaders. The Bush admin could've asked for any sacrifice of us and we would've fully backed it.
Imagine if President Bush came out after 9-11 and gave a Kennedy-esque address: "This tragedy occurred in large part because of our dependence on fossil fuels. I am making it my mission as your President to eliminate the US's dependence on fossil fuels and foreign sources of energy by the end of the decade."
Imagine where we'd be if we invested just a quarter of what we've spent on Iraq & Afghanistan since 9-11 (some estimates have the tab near $6T including Vet bennies) into solar and renewables.
But we doubled down on oil and basically surrendered a budding, potentially very lucrative, renewable industry to our "friend" in China.
We'll pay for it, no doubt, within the next generation or two.
Soooo',,after thousands are killed by a Muslim extremist our leaders are suppose to respond with calls for solar panels.
DeleteWelcome back moonbeam.
Hey, it's the Monsanto Pitchman! Howya been, Shilliam?
DeleteLet's see ... The 9-11 attack was planned in a hotel in Hamburg or Belgium - somewhere in Western Europe. 15 of the hijackers were Saudi nationals. The other 4 were from the UAE, Egypt, and Lebanon.
So the most obvious and appropriate response would be to launch a military attack and a decade-long occupation of the oil-rich sovereign nation of Iraq.
Huh?
Oh, and while we're at it, let's have our military simultaneously fuck around in the demented moonscape of Afghanistan for a decade plus. After all, it's worked out just peachy for every nation that's tried to play Empire there over the last couple of centuries ...
Right ...
Do you really believe you got your $6 trillions' worth, Shilliam? You, who constantly howl about our crushing national debt? You realize that these little Middle Eastern ventures of ours were all put on the nation's credit card, right?
As for an appropriate response to 9-11, I would steal a page straight from the Israeli Secret Service handbook. International Death Squads & assassins to hunt & kill Al Queda wherever they are in the world. No place on Earth would be safe. I would kill each of them, plus 10 of their friends/family. I would've made it more a police/detective/black ops thing. I would not have opted for two full-scale military invasions/occupations. After all, there is no nation of "Al Quedia".
And yes, I would've opted to disassociate the U.S. from the tinpot oil-sheikh dictators in that part of the world as much as possible and as quickly as practical as a matter of national security.
That would mean developing energy independence for the U.S., which yes Shilliam, would probably include solar panels. Again, we probably could've done it for a quarter of what we're borrowing to fund our oil wars in the sand.
But alas, Shilliam, we did what we did and we are where we are.
Nice chattin' with ya, Shilliam. Say "hi" to the boys at Monsanto for me ....
Max,
Delete"Continuing to subsidize something in limited supply to encourage more use of it seems a bit silly, no?"
Subsidize in what way, and to what extent? And, if you back that up, how did you determine the intent is to encourage more use of it?
"As I have said before, I feel like there is a theme for many posters on this topic, it's the all or nothing theme."
I'll take that as a generalization, not specifically directed to me.
"IF global warming isn't real like Gore says it is, we MUST cease and desist all measures to get off fossil fuels."
I think you meant "is", not "isn't". Not picking, as I am guilty of typos, but your sentence wouldn't make sense otherwise. That said, if you meant the 'cause of' global warming is the increasing amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, then the case could be made to reduce the use of fossil fuels at an accelerated rate
"I do have a quite conservative leaning family member . . . at zero in electricity consumption is not fantasy for him."
Political ideology on science, especially when it is verifiable by testing virtually anywhere in the world, is irrelevant, in case you meant to bolster your view by pointing out your relative's conservative perspective. The fact that the installation is subsidized is a rather significant factor, yes? That is, if one evaluates the cost/benefit, sans ecological considerations, over the life of the system. Further, it would be interesting to know what the life-cycle cost turns out to be (for example, repairs for damage from hail, or replacement cost if and when a panel fails). Finally, I'm a bit skeptical about the zero electricity usage. It isn't impossible, but he must have other strategies in place, because unless he has a significant surface area for his panels, his house demand for electric energy must be relatively low.
"We started a gradual approach under Jimmy Carter and Reagan condescendingly laughed . . . Had we stuck with what Carter started, we would be in a very different position today. "
That is speculation, and you know it, yes?
"I can understand the desire to not want a "shock" solution, but are we really avoiding that?"
I don't know. I liked the Pickens concept of utilizing as many forms of energy as we can while we develop alternative, and preferably renewable sources. I've been reading lately about Throium-based nukes in place of the conventional design, but I'm not a physicist, and I am more interested in any potential violations of the TANSTAAFL axiom, because on the face of it, Th-power seems a bit too good.
"Without political will to change, we will keep doing what we are doing until we run out of oil and then go into a panic."
It's a bit more complicated than that, no? Wind Power is grossly inefficient, meaning you would need gazillions of acres and a huge array of batteries, for openers. Solar is higly limited in capability. Both of those issues mean that the world needs to consider all of us fairly significantly reducing our living standards, based on models, well or not so well established. A good argument for the Pickens approach, wouldn't you think?
"I think we owe it to future generations to make at least one sacrifice in our extremely selfish lives."
I could agree with that, but that depends.
Jean
"Subsidize in what way, and to what extent? And, if you back that up, how did you determine the intent is to encourage more use of it?"
DeleteDo a google search for "do we subsidize oil". I'm not going to post 50 links. From Forbes proclaiming why subsidies shouldn't end to lefties spelling out how we subsidize, there is plenty there. As to the second part of your question, it's simple to me. If you are subsidizing something to make it cheaper then market price, you are encouraging more consumption of it. Why do grocery stores put things on sale.
The nitpicking over that sentence, which you tell my you aren't nitpicking while you nitpick it, is a nitpick to far. The alleged cause of global warming is the burning of fossil fuels. Liberals want us to burn less fossil fuels. Ergo, if global warming is BS, we must stop efforts aimed at burning less fossil fuels. I don't think that sentence was too complicated. And no, I'm not aiming the all or nothing on you.
When you get to the para where I mentioned a family member, you cherry picked. I never said he was at zero energy consumption. You need to be careful lifting partial quotes. I said near zero and that is true. Very few technologies have been created and delivered cost effective results from day one. What keeps technology improving and getting cheaper is for people to keep buying it. In essence, to subsidize the manufacturer to keep producing and keep improving.
Jimmy Carter- it's speculation and I know it, yes? Actually, no. In just the recent pass, the improvement in solar panels has jumped dramatically. Why should I doubt that we wouldn't be farther along now if we stuck to it back then? Carter also beat the drum loudly to flat out use less. Once the price of oil dropped, the size of cars and engines, again, increased. As did our consumption of fuel. ?
As for T. Boone and the third or fourth time you created a statement question ending in an ivory tower yes or no?, political will is not complicated. It's simple, the only political will we have is to keep drilling, which Boone said is not good enough. The logical conclusion to what Boone is saying is not only do we need to develop other forms of energy, we need to build a grid that can use it. THAT, takes political will. At a time when the Republicans vote nearly every day to pass a meaningless bill to defund the ACA, there is no will.
Your last comment sums it up. We will consider making a sacrifice as long as it really isn't a sacrifice.
Max,
DeleteI really did not understand the 'isn't' vs 'is' sentence. Given that, you may not that I said if the evidence is nearly incontrovertible that the increasing presence of man-made CO2 is the singularly main reason for rising temperatures, a case could be made to reduce CO2 emissions. I just happen to think we don't have enough modeling accuracy to account for natural drivers over earth's history. That includes solar activity. I speak from skeptical ignorance.
The lifted quote included dots. "Zero" or "nearly zero" is close enough for me, as all I was interested in was how he was able to reduce to nearly zero. It was not my intent to misquote you. I am simply surprised that a dwelling with normal electrical demand can get nearly all it's electrical energy from solar panels in a practical way.
The Carter thing IS speculation. A major change such as you say he espoused would quite likely have risked unintended consequences. Not necessarily good, not necessarily bad, but you can't imply that unquestionably we would be better off, and defend it.
Ivory tower yes or no? Ivory tower? I would much appreciate less of a fixation on how I express things. As far as Pickens's statement, I looked upon it more generally, i.e., develop and use (whatever it takes) more forms of energy ("all of the above" was a popular phrase) until better, renewable systems could be developed or improved.
My last comment, "I could agree with that, but that depends.", meant that if the evidence is stronger than it currently seems to me, I could agree. That's because the changes, if necessary, are a lot more far reaching than you might think, and to decide to walk down that road is not something I'm personally inclined to do at this point.
One last comment: I don't care how you guys get along or don't get along, including the insulting (you seem to get more than you give), but how about chilling a little and cutting me a break? If we disagree on things, we disagree. I don't think I've been especially mean or underhanded in my conversations with you. OK, maybe a little sarcastic or snippy on some things, but on balance, I think I've behaved.
I'm not going to proof what I wrote. I'll just hope it makes sense.
Jean
Now that we have cleaned sentence structure up. I;ll try to make context.
DeleteWhen I read what you say about Jimmy Carter, here is what I hear, " Since we didn't do what Carter said, we can't make any wild speculations that we would be better off. Since we can't make that speculation, let's not NOW get hasty about making changes" That may not be specifically YOUR message. However, by my own admission, I am frustrated and tired of hearing we should just keep kicking the can down the road. You seem willing to hear about the science, and that's fair enough. But further to the right of you are a legion who say we should do nothing until we have a 100% guarantee the new thing is the perfect replacement. In short, I believe we will continue to just bump along and do nothing until it will be very costly to make change. Costly and painful. George Bush himself said we are addicted to oil as did Boone. So did Jimmy Carter. Carter called it a crisis then, and these guys are calling it one now. ARe we better off to have completely ignored Carter?
IMO, we are not going to get a perfect solution that comes without sacrifice and yes, occasional failures. Many are inclined to not go down that road. My experience in learning is that I learned quite a bit while my intentions were to learn something entirely different and I believe similar things will happen once we make a REAL commitment to start getting off fossil fuels. The internet was not created to give us all a chance to yell at each other over great distances. Yet, once the government got that going, a lot of people made a lot of money on it and a lot of good things have happened. To the extent that he has been allowed to, Obama has made some investments. Some of these, I believe, will pay off. However, for the next 20 years, we will also have to listen to complete freaking idiots bitch about solyandra and make the argument that since that failed, ALL government investment is a failure waiting to happen.
A brief note about my relative. He didn't install the full battery setup, so he can't really live off the grid. That said, during the day, when he is at his peak energy usage, his electric meter is running backwards when the sun is out. That is a benefit of living in Nevada. Even if he is not running on battery power, I would consider an electric bill of zero to be sorta the same thing. His setup is not gigantic. Their house is a ranch and he has panels on one side of the house only and it generates a decent amount of power. Now that the initial outlay has been provided, when and if more efficient panels come along, he can just switch them out. I am not directly benefitting from my tax dollars going to reduce his electric bill. But I feel like it is an investment in my future. Now that the secondary market is starting to put these together on houses, they can start to innovate as can manufacturers.
In general, you are indeed far less feral then myself or my usual sparring partners.
What are Obama's "investments"? Are you speaking of legislation or...?
DeleteJust for the record less than ten states have or get decent sun for solar power, Hawaii is one of them and I had solar installed on that house, I can put money where my mouth is. Having said that, aloha!
Deletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_policy_of_the_Obama_administration Obama sends an Aloha from his home state!
DeleteThere may be only ten states, but here in Nevada, I see a lot of empty space that no one is using. One of many issues is not having a grid in place to make effective use of the energy. Even starting to build such a thing is going to take enormous political will. I think it's fair to say right now that there is a serious divergence between parties to get something done. Part of this is because of lobbying. Much, IMO, is purely because of partisanship. I believe the all or nothing attitude I keep harping on is important. It's not just that there is disagreement on global warming, it's gone to the point wherein we can't even consider common sense alternatives because if we do, it's a tacit acknowlegement that global warming is real. If Republicans do that, then Tinker Bell dies and her light goes out.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOh, and "global warming" and "climate change" are two different things. Global warming's the cause. Climate change is the effect.
ReplyDeletepfunky2222,
DeleteFunny, I had thought Global Warming was the whole issue, and Climate Change was the replacement name to be able to include and account for, in some mysterious way, other weather anomales, like cooler temperatures, as well as incidents of violent weather.
Jean
Jean,
DeleteI've heard the phrase (or some variation thereof), "climate change brought on by global warming" used by scientists and politicians alike many times.
Those that are using the terms interchangeably are either doing so in error or, as you suggest, doing so to advance an agenda.
It's sorta like using the words "cancer" and "tumor" interchangeably.
"As for an appropriate response to 9-11, I would steal a page straight from the Israeli Secret Service handbook. International Death Squads & assassins to hunt & kill Al Queda wherever they are in the world. No place on Earth would be safe. I would kill each of them, plus 10 of their friends/family. I would've made it more a police/detective/black ops thing. I would not have opted for two full-scale military invasions/occupations. After all, there is no nation of "Al Quedia"."
DeleteRemind me never to argue with you again moonbeam.
I hated to see you go last time, but loved to watch you leave.
Be nice boys and girls, be nice...
DeleteGiven the way you respond to any woman here who disagrees with you William, I have to wonder if you drive a sports car and wear Drakar. LOTS of Drakar. Maybe Hai Karate.
DeleteAs for your Israeli death squads, I'm not sure how Obama's drone strikes are really any different. He didn't start either engagements in Afghanistan or Iraq. He hasn't really any discrimination about who else is killed on the ground. I mean, it seems like he is acting right out of the playbook. No place on earth IS safe and Obama has shown no hesitation to stomp on the concept of sovereignty let alone the concept of fair trial for American citizens, something your friend Rand Paul was upset with.
Max, please read above. I give full credit to moonbeam for the death squad coments.
DeleteI was just responding to her feminine touch.