Writing about journalistic treatment of the superstorm and climate change, CJR's Curtis Brainard (10/30/12) criticizes the New Yorker's Elizabeth Kolbert for the wrong reason.
He takes issue with her statement (10/29/12):
As with any particular "weather-related loss event," it's impossible to attribute Sandy to climate change. However, it is possible to say that the storm fits the general pattern in North America, and indeed around the world, toward more extreme weather, a pattern that, increasingly, can be attributed to climate change.
He's unhappy with the second part–retorting that you can't attribute a trend toward extreme weather to climate change. But it's actually the first part that's most obviously problematic: Contrary to Kolbert, it's possible to attribute every weather-related event to climate change.
As Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research says, in a paper quoted by Brainard:
All weather events are affected by climate change because the environment in which they occur is warmer and moister than it used to be.
In other words, all weather that we will experience from here on out will be a result of human-caused global warming. There will never be natural weather ever again–at least not on a human timescale.
That's not to say that there wasn't any bad weather before humans started messing with it–of course there was. But we can look back and compare the weather we used to have with the weather we have now. For example: Did we used to have hurricanes hitting New Jersey in late October? If not, that's a difference between the old kind of weather and the weather we've made.
How do we like our new weather?
About Jim Naureckas
The new weather sucks harder than a BP oil well.
I don't believe that the people on this planet are changing the weather as much as you say. This has already been debunked by more than a few meteorologists and scientists. If we are raising the temperature then how do you explain the last warmup of the 1400's. Oh, yeah it must have been all the cow and sheep farts. Whatever. 1 volcano puts out more stuff in the atmosphere than we can in decades. I believe that God knows what He's doing and He is in control. And if you don't believe in Him, then take it up with Him when you die.
I hope it will wake this nation and the world up. Convenient ignorance and denial has gone far enough. Yes, we created this disaster, each of us is contributing. There are so many simple things we can all do as individuals and communities to turn this around.
no, this is probably BS… not to say that climate is not effected by human activity… however, the storm was NOT an anomaly that can be attributed to warmer climate, apparently… check out rt.com for a very robust discussion of such… 3 experts arguing, with a moderator …http://rt.com/programs/crosstalk/franken-climate-sandy-us/
As a Staten Islander, I don't like the new weather at all.
As a human being who gives a damn, it's the same response.
Whether or not someone is personally affected or not, we should all realize this pattern will continue to worsen an already crippled biosphere.
Ed Soja: I just spoke to God and She said that She gave humans (including you) brains with which to think. She hates it when people waste Her gifts, and said She expected more of you.
I'm not sure why people seem to get hung up on saying "We can't say for certain that this storm is linked to climate change." That's not the point. The point is that the record clearly shows a change in weather patterns with stronger hurricanes, more severe rainfall events, more droughts, etc. If anyone needs to 'look it up,' it's thoroughly documented (among many other places, like weather records) in Joe Romm's essential blog http://thinkprogress.org/climate/issue/ and his recent books. Just say: "Hurricane Sandy is part of a pattern of significantly altered weather which we can expect to continue or worsen."
From Scientific American:
Munich Re, one of the world’s largest reinsurance firms, issued a study titled “Severe Weather in North America.” According to the press release that accompanied the report, “Nowhere in the world is the rising number of natural catastrophes more evident than in North America.” …
Huw: And well-deserved, too.
David: As I don't live in North America, I didn't think it would be diplomatic for me to say that, but yes, I agree.
Over here in Britain, we are seeing increasingly extreme weather, too – though nothing like the US gets: unusual heatwaves, unprecedented amounts of rain, colder winters than we have seen for a long time. It's all very disturbing.
Insights from George Lakoff:
Yes, global warming systemically caused Hurricane Sandy — and the Midwest droughts and the fires in Colorado and Texas, as well as other extreme weather disasters around the world. Let's say it out loud, it was causation, systemic causation.
Systemic causation is familiar. Smoking is a systemic cause of lung cancer. HIV is a systemic cause of AIDS. Working in coal mines is a systemic cause of black lung disease. Driving while drunk is a systemic cause of auto accidents. Sex without contraception is a systemic cause of unwanted pregnancies.
There is a difference between systemic and direct causation. Punching someone in the nose is direct causation. Throwing a rock through a window is direct causation. Picking up a glass of water and taking a drink is direct causation. Slicing bread is direct causation. Stealing your wallet is direct causation. Any application of force to something or someone that always produces an immediate change to that thing or person is direct causation. When causation is direct, the word cause is unproblematic.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/sandy-climate-change_b_2042871.html
Not to mention the clearly measurable carbon-related toxins in our air that are clearly measurable as byproducts of the combustion of fossil fuels, and linked to a 66 percent increase in asthma over the past 20-30 years. We ought to think about cleaning up our environment just for our own health – for selfish reasons! Or would you rather have your grandkids all running around with inhalers?
Dear Ed Soja: I also spoke to God, and I found a note from him under my pillow this morning. It says that He is blaming YOU for Hurricane Sandy. Really. "Sandy is Ed Soja's fault, and I will not take care of it." He also referred you to one of his commandments and asked that you PLEASE stop taking His name in vain.
What an idiotic sidestep into politics.Fair should worry more about what this president could of done to effect a military rescue of our embassador (who pleaded for help for hours).And the press trying to ignore the growing furor over his lack of action till after the election.Instead of what change this man may be able to effect 100 years from now.
"ambassador"
"…it's possible to attribute every weather-related event to climate change." To 'attribute' is to say that climate change is 'responsible' for every weather event. This would only be possible if the current weather events have never been seen before: hurricanes, temperature changes from day to day, etc. Climate change may be a factor, but it is not solely responsible for the weather we are currently experiencing.
If we take a broader perspective, looking at trends instead of particular instances, then we can make a statement about that trend and the direction it is most likely to take. But looking at individual instances, or even groups of instances, is like assigning significance to the day-to-day fluctuations of stock market changes. You'll lose your shirt if that is your investment strategy.
It is meaningless, and foolish, to look at the weather with such a narrow focus.
There's evidence that the sun is hotter than it was. The polar ice caps on mars have been melting just like here on earth. Mars is farther away from the sun than the earth. There is evidence of the ice on some moons around Jupiter starting to melt. I would certainly be opposed to any sort of global warming tax. Like some people say they finally found a way to tax the air.
Looks like we will just talk this problem to death. The comment here are a microcosm of how the world is dealing with it. Everyone has their own set of "facts" which they hold onto jealously. Nothing ever changes with us humans. We all know it all.
I personally believe things are changing and human industry helped push it along. I also believe we will never change things in time to save this planet for human habitation. That said, I just wish we would respond to the changes in better ways to help those living now. I live in Northern Florida and we were caught off guard with a storm that was not even given hurricane status. This storm did tremendous damage nonetheless. I don't know how they arrive at declaring the status of a storm, but the criteria needs to change to reflect the stronger intensity of all storms now. I think also we are foolish to keep rebuilding some of these coastal communities. The cost of insurance alone makes this property accessible to the super rich only now, but will companies simply stop offering insurance at all when it is always a losing proposition? But how are we going to look for practical solutions to our new problems when so many won't even admit to a problem in the first place…that is until it happens to them. We hear it said again and again by more and more people that they have never seen anything like this. It is not going to get better and sticking our head in the sand piled at our front door is not going to help.
I'm sorry to say I agree with you, CCrown. I don't think human beings are capable of understanding the consequences of their behavior. I don't believe we can end life on this planet, but I do believe we can end the life of Homo sapiens sapiens on this planet.
Many thanks to the people who replied to Soja! Your replies were clever and to the point!
I don't believe that the people on this planet are changing the weather as much as you say. This has already been debunked by more than a few meteorologists and scientists. – Ed Soja
And if you don't believe the moon is real but made of green cheese is that going to mean the NASA never went. First off your "Debunking" was done by people who either had an Agenda (cause we all drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes can't cause any harm since the Corporations who produce them say so Right?) or they were about as qualified to speak on the subject as pigs are qualified to fly a 747 jumbo jet. And secondly your 'more than few' are being well outvoted by the large Majority of the rest of the scientist who are qualified to speak on it.
If we are raising the temperature then how do you explain the last warmup of the 1400's. – Ed
Again, pure artificial stupidity per the america way; do you think the industrial revolutions only began in the 1920's (like most fools who listen to the Fux Snooze network). So according to your theory no life on earth can cause such a change as to wipe itself out; then please explain who 'killed' the algae some3 billion years ago. This why we have the massive amounts of Oxygen in the atmosphere due to an algea that essentially shit itself to death (Oxygen was the by-product and toxic to the algae itself).
Also according to your foolish belief, since the temperatures fluctuated in the past, then some how it's all magic if the temp and climate changes. Using that logic, since man dies naturally, he can never be murdered, so we should just do away with all the laws and let man do as he pleases.
I believe that God knows what He's doing and He is in control. And if you don't believe in Him, then take it up with Him when you die. – Ed
And since (according to you) God knows what he is doing, did it ever occur to you in your deficient logical thinking that perhaps he actually put us in charge down here and what we do has a significant impact. Did you not bother to read your own Bible, where it says "and he gave MAN dominion over all life over the earth". So, if you so believe in him, then maybe YOU had better get your head on straight and stop messing up the planet with childish immaturity, because when you face him YOUR going to have to explain why YOU screwed up the planet that he left us in charge of.
I am enthused by the mix of perspectives on this story.Can this really be FAIR im reading?Great story recently out of the UK pointing to the FACT that global warming ended 16 years ago.Beyond that….This fight began, and ended ,with government trying to use the idea of global climate change(global warming)to gain power.
Amen
michael e … and what 'story out of the UK' are you referring to? what 'government' used global warming to gain power? /// and to all and any… why are polar bears finding it hard to get around the neighborhood these days? does it really matter what YOU think, when the current rate of ice cap melting will have us living in a global ocean in a single generation? (those that are left alive, that is) … good luck! good luck to your children!
I can't believe none of you mentioned the militarisation of the weather – which is actually what this all is attributable to. All I'm hearing is some "left" of the "left vs right paradigm", as forever played out by both (false) sides under the same governance. Illusion of choice/change, anyone? The Roman Empire's U.S.A. has almost run its course. Many strategic wars have been fought and victories claimed, and who really cares about the sacrificial soldiers [sol(sun)+diers]? but there's still a good amount of useful land mass there. Shame about the unneeded people! The Roman Empire's U.K. runs the U.S.A. but that doesn't mean we don't get hit too. We're all get hit, to move us closer to ruination. The thing is, those well connected within the structure are still garnering more power through the perceived wealth of the valueless monetary system [everyone's belief in it continues the bondage and servitude as YOU ALL work for the Roman Empire] as they insider-trade based on knowing who will get hit and when, and which crops etc. will be affected. There is NO climate change as referred to by liars such as Jesuit Al Gore [the weather warfare is all conducted by the Jesuit military order of the Roman Empire - as are ALL wars and acts of "terrorism"], only change which is natural with, possibly, the tiniest bit of negative industrial influence. Btw, CO2 IS NOT BAD. MY PLANTS ARE BEING DESTROYED by the anti-life toxins being injected into our atmosphere as a global ACT OF WAR conducted by the Empire as part of its greatest power-grab yet. I've remedied this to a certain extent by spraying them with natural carbonated mountain water [that's a CO2 boost] and they're beginning to thrive again, despite the daily onslaught. The mission: disease and food scarcity = more victims, more fragility of the populace and more control over them. ps. If you're sick, don't go looking to the Medici[ne] Mafia for help. Another grand deception, and how folks slowly and miserably die, whilst making monetary contributions to those killing them. This isn't conspiracy. If you want any honesty you're going to have to dig – dig deep, more than 2,000 years deep, into the intentionally obfuscated annals. [I didn't use the word, "history", as it breaks down into his+story - which is the version of events we are fed. Yes, even our language is a construct; it's being going on THAT long]
Duncan the story is called "global warming ended 16 years ago",,,google it.As for polar bears they are exploding.Their population that is.Mostly due to the same thing happening to their favorite food…seals.And the icecaps are not melting.Al Gore once said exactly that to a crowd when he told them that within 10 years their homes would be under water, in the seaside resort area he was speaking from.He them bought an 8 million dollar house there- 15 yards from high tide.So far the houses are just fine.He was on his way to being the first "green" billionaire.Scare the people,make a boatload of cash.As old a trick as the hills.You can thank we conservatives for stopping his little march.
You asked what power Obama wanted from the great global warming hoax.I will quote his mentor, and former green czar."We will use the idea of global warming to take over a huge part of the economy by enacting a carbon tax.Another step in the redistribution of the wealth of this country"He is a self avowed marxist by the way.Almost got his hands on one sixth of the economy.Now of course this nincompoop (Obama)has crippled coal.Attacked our gas,oil,and nuclear energy development.Spent billions on hair brained green companies.But regulations are always his best friend.If he wins he will try try again,to control the output of this country
Kevin P we have been taught for years that Mars goes through its own seasons. But as for it warming more on Mars you gotta show me because there is no basis for it. And can't blame the sun since its output has actually been reduced as of late. Nope, humans are the main cause because we can do so very much that no other species can do. We can alter the earth. And as a Type Zero Civilization we can accomplish Type One events but do it stupidly and unwittingly and uncaringly so it is detrimental to us. Institute global changes. We are in the Anthropocene Period where we have been killing off whole ecosystems and species faster even than some of the past Major Extinction Events. We are Number 6. We are out of control. We will pay for our carelessness. Only the poor who hasn't really contributed much to it will pay most of it first, then us. Maybe the rich oligarchs are already preparing to protect their own and their countries when the hordes come of the displaced, dispossessed and starving leave their waste areas to find what they need.
Harsh environments produce harsh govt's as in iron fisted dictatorships. We and others aren't far behind since some of the super rich understand the implications of a drastically changing world and are going to make the best of it. Think of flat, hot and iron fisted. As in only the high citadels of the super wealthy elite rulers, their thick ring of blue of their military/police/spy apparatus with no human rights for us and slow death if you aren't a slave to a corporation or a quick one if you dare to rebel. It may happen far faster, Global Warming, seems to be moving even faster than previously predicted. That is bad, it means that there are factors that were missed or miscalculated. What was predicted for 2100 may be with us in 2050. And things that were expected by 2030 is now on target for 2020 and so on. We are running out of time. We don't want a scenario similar to the Permian Extinction followed by the Hot House Earth of the Smithian-Spathian Thermal Maximum (251-246 mya),/b> or even more recent Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (55 mya) caused by a sudden release of hydrates frozen suddenly thawed pitched the climate so very hot that it kept the next Ice Age from coming for 150,000 years. The present calculation is if we do reach into the same range of temperatures (50˚-60v C/122˚-140˚ F) and at one hundred forty degrees F photosynthesis stops. Fish can no longer survive in the ocean etc. Trees die.
The tundra is melting in East Siberia; this area holds a lot of methane, which will escape and that is not good for life on the planet. Flowers and animals are moving north because the warm temperatures of their previous habitats are changing their life cycles.
The ocean is warming and that effects all life in the ocean, which will impact human life every where. When the oceans die, we die too. People can say there is no climate change, but plants, fish, birds, insects are showing otherwise.
Of course humans impact the environment. Remember the Olympics in China? The air was thick and dirty, but by limiting the use of cars and industrial pollution, China was able to clear its skies —for a while.We all saw the changes that came about by limiting human pollution.
Corporations all over the world are trying to privatize water now. How scary is that, when we saw the damage that Embridge and its 12 leaks in a year did to the people and environment in America? Humans really are fouling their nest and the future doesn't look bright or promising at all. for this planet.
michael e, your perverse responses always leaven these threads with a bit of unintended humour!
You seem to be referring to a story "broken" by the Daily Mail (otherwise known as the Daily Fail or, as in "1984", the Daily Hate), a mass-market rag which is not much more than a (very skilfully produced) propaganda sheet which invariably twists the facts to fit its agenda. Not surprisingly, the story was picked up by Fox, which seems to be your equivalent in the US.
The British Meteorological Office subsequently said (in a typical British understatement) that the Mail report was "misleading". See http://bit.ly/OCvbxX.
Huw , it matters little who is reporting the latest results from the studies being conducted worldwide.Or does it???In this -your "perverse"response has leavened this thread with a bit of humor.You point out that the studies findings have not been carried by major media.In the same way major media outlets are failing to fully report fast and furious and the Benghazi nightmare?Why do you think that is Huw?Think real hard
Elizabeth and Gloriana we must move in every way to make our street….our city…our country, and our planet a less polluted place.You will get no argument from me.Government can even help.By enforcing good regulations, and rewarding compliance.But in the end the question will still be what have YOU done in that regard today.Obama set us back years in his power grab.Americans react viscerally to any attempt to tax them into compliance based on political considerations.
michael e, I did not "point out that the findings have not been carried by major media" – sadly, both the Daily Mail and Fox *are* major media, even if they are totally discreditable.
Perhaps you didn't read the link I posted – if you did, you would have seen that the Met Office indicated (in its very understated, British way) that the Mail had reported its figures in a "misleading" way. Likewise, the particular scientist the Mail "quoted" said that she had been misrepresented. In anyone else's terms, the Mail twisted the MO's figures outrageously – as many of the head-in-the-sand persuasion do. That is why no serious media outlet in Britain carried the story – it was the usual rubbish.
Can you provide a link to substantiate that Obama is "a self-avowed Marxist"? That sounds fascinating!
The data is not the sole domain of this or that scientist, the Daily Mirror or the MO. They are not the first, nor will they be the last, to see the primary warming trend ended at that point. The interpretation of the information is, of course, open to honest speculation and further research.
I was not calling Obama a Marxist. I was referring to Van Jones, the defrocked green czar, who was thick as theives with Obama in the immediate planning stages after Obama's inauguration. His moves (and Obama's) to cockle the US economy to their designs are well known.
[...] Jim Naureckas, Fairness Accuracy In Reporting: How'd You Like That Hurricane We Made? [...]
You're a slippery chap, aren't you, michael e? I was responding to your original post, which spoke of "the FACT that global warming ended 16 years ago". Now you've changed that to a matter of "interpretation [and] honest speculation"!
But nothing the Mail (or, so I hear, Fox) says is ever honest. Read the link I posted and you will see: the Mail said that the Met Office had "quietly slipped out a report", when all it had done was routinely update its published figures; the Mail cherry-picked a set of dates, even though climatologists have endlessly discredited this way of "interpreting" data; and the Mail put words into the mouth of a scientist (who *is* critical of the IPCC) which she says she never said. And this is the usual modus operandi of the Mail, and of the head-in-the-sand tendency in general.
As for Al Gore… It isn't news that a politician is a bit hypocritical! When I hear of a world-class *climatologist* investing in beach-front property, then I might have second thoughts.
I guess you know, michael, about the Thames Barrier, which was built in the early 1980s to protect London from the danger of storm tides. It cost £534 million in 1983/4 – that would be billions today – so I suppose they did their best to make it "futureproof". Well, from 1984-89, it had to be raised four times to protect London. In the 1990s, it had to be raised 35 times. In the 2000s, it had to be raised 75 times. However, it has not had to be raised even once in the last two years. No doubt you'll say that that proves it's a FACT that the danger of rising sea-levels and/or more extreme storms is OVER. Most sensible people, however, can see that the underlying trend is upwards, and quite alarming.
Blah, blah, blah…
As I type this using my laptop ( built in Malaysia to take advantage of cheap labor, lax labor laws and little if any environmental regulation ) powered with electricity from a toxic coal fired power plant, I find it hard to believe that people still think humans will do anything differently from what we've done since life began. How can any species do other than what it is programmed to do.
I assure you we will go on consuming every available resource as quickly as possible for as long as possible and it will continue this way until we are stopped by force (e.g., drug-immune disease, catastrophic sea-level rise, nuclear holocaust, etc…).
I am however, pleased to see that hope still flourishes and people are trying to end the madness. This at least may slow the descent.
Notice that the most important ingredient in our demise is also the least discussed. Over-population is at the root of our consumption and waste problem and until we solve it, the rest is so much,,, blah, blah, blah.
Certainly over-population is an important ingredient, and especially the population levels in the most developed countries, which consume (and waste) way, way, way more per capita than the populations of the least developed.
Another important factor (which really is never discussed) is the way that the West – and the US in particular – insists on advertising its ridiculous over-consumption to the rest of the world, to make them think that this is the thing to emulate. So many studies have shown that today we are less happy than our parents/grandparents in the Fifties, despite our much higher "standard of living", and yet, via MTV, Hollywood &c &c, we insist on telling the rest of the world: If you want to be happy, if you want to be hip, you've got to live like this!
(The irony is that our only hope of being able to go on consuming at the levels we do is if the rest of the world *doesn't* try to emulate us…)
Huw we can go on all day bringing out stories about how this place or that place has lost ice, or gained ice.Gained sea levels , or lost sea levels.In fact we could of had theses arguments for the last 100 million years.You know the models have been flawed and in essence you have an eternity to think up new ones to prove your point that man is a pestilence upon the earth.You also seem to want to play endless semantics.So lets come to the point.You don't believe the world stopped warming 16 years ago after a roughly 50 year warming trend -as has been stated in numerous reports(of course open to interpretation)You believe man is responsible for Global warming trends,and you believe those trends are not healthy for the world. You would say Lord Monckton and his trashing of the whole theory (twice) as a expert witness before Congress is a bad choice.Without the necessary credentials, or the "lordship".So you want everyone to agree the science is closed.Well it is a free country and you are welcome to believe as you will.We dont agree with the lefts summation of the problem.So really the seminal question is….what do you want to do what about it?
michael e, I was responding to your declaration that such-and-such was a FACT – but now you've wriggled away to say: "We"ll just have to agree to disagree"! ;-) But truly we don't need to "go on all day" citing this or that – we can simply accept what the *vast* majority of serious, qualified climate scientists say and have been saying for several decades now.
No reputable report has said that the warming trend has stopped, and no reputable statistician, looking at the graphs, would say so.
Lord Monckton – well, if you regard him as an "expert witness", that really does say it all. The man is an egomaniacal charlatan – very clever, no question, but not a scientist (and not a member of the House of Lords, as he may still claim). No one in Britain takes him seriously – believe me, sceptics are given plenty of airtime here, but no one gives any to him because he's bonkers!
My guess is that your problem is that you see this whole thing as a left/right issue – ie you are trying to politicise science. I find that truly bizarre. Did you see the controversy over whether Aids is caused by HIV or not similarly in political terms? "Oooh, the left is saying it is caused by HIV, so… they must have an agenda to redistribute wealth / create a world government / steal all our freedoms, so I'm going to say that Aids *isn't* caused by HIV!" I mean, that would be bonkers, wouldn't it?
And the fact is that in a democracy every politician, left or right, wants to be popular, to attract as many votes as possible; and people simply do not vote for austerity and do not vote for bad news. That's why the plain and incontrovertible fact of the matter is that every report by the scientists gathered from every nation in the IPCC has been watered down, not hyped up, by the diplomats and politicians!
What do I want to do about it? Well, there are so many sensible measures we could take, and so few are being taken. When the United States and Britain decided we needed to develop an atom bomb as a matter of urgency in the Second World War, we didn't say: OK, let's leave it to private enterprise and hopefully someone will come up with one eventually. When the US decided it wanted to land men on the moon, it didn't say: Let's leave it to private enterprise – anything else would be socialist! Maybe it sounds dangerously left-wing to you, but in both cases governments said: We need to do this, we need to do it quickly, so we're going to pour resources into it. And both things were done, in remarkably little time.
The amount of solar energy falling on the Sahara desert every day is a hundred times more than the total amount of electricity currently consumed by humankind. According to your own Department of Energy, at the start of 2010 land-based wind turbines in the US had a capacity of nearly 35 gigawatts but on paper the total 'resource' of exploitable wind in US coastal waters and the Great Lakes is good for 4,150 gigawatts! There are unimaginable amounts of kinetic energy in the tides off the west coast of Britain and Ireland. I don't know how much money is being poured into developing renewables technology, but it's peanuts compared to the money that was poured into designing the atomic bomb, landing men on the moon – and, today, searching for yet more hydrocarbons to burn. Joseph Stiglitz has estimated that the 2003 Iraq war alone will in the end have cost the US $3 trillion. If we put even a fraction of that money and effort into research and development of technologies to harness the truly vast quantities of *renewable* energy in our world, we might crack the problem. But the oil and gas industries don't want us to spoil their very lucrative business, and they have bought much of your democracy, sadly, and they have far too much influence in mine.
I have tried in good faith to answer your points and your final question, so I hope you will have the courtesy to read this.
[...] weather system results from climate, so all the weather we observe now is the result of the changed climate caused by human-made global he…. Natural weather — weather not influenced by global heating — no longer [...]
Haw you really have bought into this hoax hook line and sinker.You suffer from second hand liberal claptrap desease.Anyone who disagrees with you is not qualified.Not reputable.In writing several articles on the subject I have talked to many top people(scientists) who feel the models are not proving the hypothesis.In fact some who believe their must be a correlation to humans are mystified. The only reason I am not dumping reams of information on you is because I have done so for ages to your type.It is hopeless.Hopeless hopeless hopeless.It is like a religion to you.Whether it is warm or cold,dry or wet you already know it is the fault of man.So I try to be considerate and say you are welcome to your opinion.And like a good little lib you retort…Well you damn well are NOT welcome to yours.Typical.Always trying to tell people how they should live.And hopeful that government will take the lead and force it on you.And if you are wondering who called Lord monckton an expert witness…that would be your OWN Congress.Twice they called him.The third time he was blocked(unprecedented)by the Dems who called him" a very dangerous man to the idea of climate change, and carbon taxation." Face it,he has been a train wreck for those who have faked numbers and changed data.He sights endless facts that show the nonsense that is the global warming hoax.He asks to take on all oncomers anytime…anywhere in open debate.This is no shrinking wallflower.Few want to face him.Al Gore and his padre of scientists never would..He has already destroyed a number of top people in these debates.Simply discounting him is not enough.Old liberal trick that.And your idea of pouring in resources toward new developments does say it all.Sir we have no resources.We are 17 trillion in dept.Heading toward complete collapse within 12 years.We are printing money unfettered.Borrowing and spending at astronomical rates.When medicare goes, and drags SS with it our dept will top 200 trillion.The folding of divestitures will bring the debt to one and one half quatrillion.China does not want to lend you any more money sir.You are a lousy risk.Pour money in indeed!On tuesday we will decide whether we want to go over the economic cliff at 100 miles an hour or 60.You seem hellbent on 150 miles per hour.Write it on the chalkboard 100x.WE ARE BROKE!!!!!Learn it.Repeat it.Live it.No money for war.No money for a little red wagon with bells on it.Broke.Flat busted.So Im afraid private business is your only Ave forward.
@Huw- Very well said!
Btw, you'll find (if you stick around FAIR long enough) that debating michael e. is like banging your head against a brick wall. Nevertheless, your substantial and meaningful contribution to the conversation is very much appreciated. Cheers.
TeeJae, I know – I have been reading Fair's posts for a couple of years now – but I thought it might be amusing to try to reason with him. I wonder how he manages to type when he has his fingers stuffed in his ears!
Does anyone know anything about him? In his last post above, he did seem borderline hysterical.
For the record, in case anyone in your country is in any doubt about the character of Monckton, here are some facts:
He studied classics and journalism – not any of the sciences.
Monckton has asserted that he served as science adviser to Margaret Thatcher during his years with the Number 10 Policy Unit, and that "it was I who – on the Prime Minister's behalf – kept a weather eye on the official science advisers to the Government, from the chief scientific adviser downward." However, John Gummer, who was Environment Minister under Thatcher, has said that Monckton was "a bag carrier in Mrs Thatcher's office. And the idea that he advised her on climate change is laughable." Thatcher's memoirs, "The Downing Street Years", do not mention Monckton and credit someone else with the role of science adviser.
Monckton has referred to himself in a letter to US Senators as "a member of the Upper House of the United Kingdom legislature". The House of Lords authorities have said that Monckton is not and never has been a member. In July 2011 the House took the "unprecedented step" of publishing online a "cease and desist" letter to Monckton from the Clerk of the Parliaments, which concluded: "I am publishing this letter on the parliamentary website so that anybody who wishes to check whether you are a Member of the House of Lords can view this official confirmation that you are not."
Monckton makes a lot of money (and gets a lot of love) speaking to gullible audiences in Australia and the US. In Britain, he has very little profile – I have never seen him on television – and I would say that almost no one takes him seriously. The fact that your Congress called him as an expert witness says a lot more about your Congress, I'm afraid, than about Monckton. He is a charlatan.
Even the accountants are now saying, "Business as usual is no longer an option": http://ind.pn/XcYE53
Haw your idea that Monckton has no right commenting on the open ream of facts concerning global climate change is really strange.As if no-one without a Doctorate can understand the data.Would that not also leave out you and I?And the President of the United States?And in fact no one on the UN board that is deciding these things has a doctorate on the subject.So who is allowed to take this data- and have an opinion?Gore?Economists?Your answer seems to be simplicity personified.All those who use data proving the global climate change(this time around)is due to man, are to be reported,believed,and immediately acted on.All those who are not sold on the idea are to be attacked,shunned,and ridiculed.To me it sounds all too familiar.Page one in the liberal playbook.So I hold out my hand and say we all must do our best to clean up our world.You say not enough.And of course what is enough?Hand over power to a central authority(surprise surprise yours?)so that they may save us all from ourselves.Ho hum the one trick pony runs on.Who wrote this?????"Create a falling sky scenario(using global warming)and use that fear to take control of government. Bring in funds through taxation to alleviate the danger, cementing Federal power over the debate.""We will do this by allowing scientists to create their own circle of peer group contentions.Funded by grants.Soon it will take on a life of its own"……..That would be Van Jones
Tonight people in New York have no gas,water,or food.Temps will unseasonably will drop into freezing.In your world that is global climate change too.We here in the east are praying for a little global warming about now(I just got some power back)So you are angry that what you have been "allowed" to read on the subject has enfolded you into this religion.Angry that there are those who have not bought into it…. because that makes one question ones own judgement.Classic.I would say get over it.We may all agree that research must go on , to determine how to do things in a better way.But you are so suspect at this point in your grasping for power;and Americans so viscerally against such things -that I think you need to educate instead of dictate if you want people to listen.The funny thing is this is the only country that did not sign the protocol ,yet we are again on line to cut our emissions and clean our own house.America leads again.That must make you at least a little happy?Want to get China in tow?Invasion may be your only avenue.And why would we go to war with our bank :)
Look I enjoy your contribution.As for me…I believe WE DO impact our environment.Im a butterfly flaps its wings in China ….effects the wind in America kind of guy.I live my life own in a very low impact way.You would i think approve.As far as my being hysterical……Wow is that how you see someone who simply is saying that your leaders are lying to you?In this I include Mitt Romney.Things are far worse that they would have you believe my friend.They talk as if they can tweak the system.One maybe better than the other.Like me putting a bandaid on a patients little finger who has been decapitated -and flattened by a tank.Maybe I am hysterical.Calm on the outside.But stunned into deep introspection as I watch you ready to re-elect a man who thinks 4 more years of printing ,spending,and borrowing is the way to go.
Haw…I am replying to you(at length)It simply is not going through.Fair gremlins?????hope they let this in
Well that did go in.Seems the powers that be agree with what you are saying.
I wrote you a long winded,lengthy response.Seems I must keep it under 35 words.So here it is.I do not agree with you.Thanks for contributing to the conversation.
michael e, I get the impression that that is the nub of all your posts on Fair, to be honest – so why don't you just save yourself time and limit yourself each time to saying: "I do not agree with you"?
Michael believes he is right ALL the time and anyone who disagrees with him is just one of those crazy people who think they are right all the time. This pretzel logic is his forte. We recently discussed another poster who people accused of needing to be first to post. I think we should all wonder a bit that Michael, on the other hand, simply needs the last word. I just tried going though his posts on this thread to find information that would prove to me once and for all that Micheal is a fact man who needs to be contended with! There was little substance however. He clings to the one study alone and dismisses all the others, yet we are the rigid ones. His main points were simply nasty digs at Dems which as long as I have been following FAIR posts is the main reason he chimes in. My God his first post on this thread was not even about the topic but a rant on the murdered ambassador.
Thanks Huw for the information on Michael's main man on the environment. And being a guy who seems willing to look at the whole picture I'm sure you know that many people in the U.S. think a great deal of Van Jones. As soon as the opposition showed their deep need to kick him to the curb as fast as possible, he had my interest. He really is a man willing to stand with a healthy environment and a healthy society. That was enough to get some green-oiled corporations hot under the collar.
Thanks. I've not heard of Van Jones, but then I don't follow US politics. In Britain/Europe, merely saying that someone is a socialist or even a Marxist does not anyway automatically mark them down as malignant or stupid!
Here is a useful sketch of Monckton: http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=544 The man has no integrity. There was a very amusing BBC documentary last year which did little more than watch him at work, talking nonsense to adoring and (frankly) not very bright audiences in Australia and North America who clearly loved his posh, aristocratic style and (even more) loved the fact that he assured them that it was perfectly all right to go on consuming and wasting resources without a second thought.
I can't think of a single scientist of real substance in Britain who has expressed any doubt about anthropogenic global warming. Almost all of our prominent sceptics/deniers are right-wing journalists.
As Haw has eloquently stated, the Daily Mail article discussed here has been soundly refuted by the UK Met office itself. (For a good discussion of how the numbers are manipulated by the Daily Mail's David Rose see http://earthsky.org/earth/uk-met-office-responds-global-warming-did-not-stop-16-years-ago. This apparently is not the first time Rose has done this.)
More disturbing is that sensible minds here (Haw again and others) are engaging with those who feel ad hominen arguments trump all. Calling someone a "self-avowed marxist" and a "nincompoop" as part of an argument for or against global warming should be a signal to ignore that person's viewpoint and engage more challenging arguments. The same goes with the introduction of god/God etc. into a secular discussion.
That said, thanks to those who did engage and further the initial FAIR post.