Very interesting - OT

I'm happy to see they all don't follow the herd.

"More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate

1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age"

Seems to me I heard someone in this group say something very similar to this, eh?

Equally interesting:

Avery's a shill and Singer's a crank. It's a marriage made in heaven.

Oh, well....wikipedia.

Earthtimes has nothing on wiki.

whether or not man has anything to do with global warming, man should not bombard the atmosphere with CO2.

Here's a new fuel source. Radio Frequencies Help Burn Salt Water, something to read about.

There's 25% more CO2 in the atmosphere today than prior to 1850. Singer's work is a simple projection based on the historical record.

When the inputs change, the outputs change. It's pretty simple.

Singer doesn't accept that. That makes him a crank.

As for the seas not having risen significantly, I'd call .2m/century AND ACCELERATING (during the '90's, it became .3m/century) to be significant. They start the handwaving right away in that PR blurb (PRNewswire, by the way, isn't a news service, it's a press release distribution service).

As for Wiki, it's sourced. Singer really did say that glaciers were advancing based on 15-year old documents that no one can find and he was entirely and thoroughly wrong (most are, in fact, retreating and many are doing it dramatically). Avery accepts this unflinchingly because his diet of petro-dollars has ruined his eyesight.

Singer also fingers the sunspot record, which is, in fact, NOT consistent with temperature variation since the '80's.

We know:

1. CO2 traps IR radiation. This physics goes back to the 1800s.
2. There's 25% more CO2 in the atmosphere than there was before we industrialized. We have good evidence from ice cores going back thousands of years and we have direct measurements since 1958 (Mauna Loa records).
3. That 25% comes from burning fossil fuels (simple isotopic analysis).

None of those three facts are in the least arguable. Even Singer will not try to tell you that the extra 25% CO2 in the atmosphere is from any source other than Man. Nobody bothers to discuss these three items any more because the evidence for them is bulletproof.

Now, while it's reasonable to say that we can't be certain what effect the increased CO2 will have, it's absurd to say that there's no effect. The expected primary result of additional CO2 in the atmosphere is warming. Lo and behold, we're warming.

Now, of those 500 scientists who reported evidence contray to AGW theories, how many of them will tell you that Singer misunderstands, misinterprets or misrepresents their work?

Why don't you go buy his book, let us know what's in it, and we'll start working on his "evidence?"

I think I struck a nerve.

As I said weeks ago, DH, I'm confident that articles like this and many more to come will be proven correct.

With or without knee-jerk economy-devastating reactions.

And I'm quite confident Singer is wrong. Go buy his book; that's all he's really after. Read it. Post what you find. I'll read it. It will all be crap. Avery's just interested in making sure his corporate masters have a good 4th quarter this year.

We're going to have economy-devastating changes but not from attempting to forestall CO2 increase and global warming; these changes will come from an overstressed world changing to meet our demands.

If anybody's around to write the history of the West in 100 years, they'll have some choice remarks to make about our choices in the late 20th and early 21st Centuries.

If there's 500 scientists who have written papers - good papers - producing evidence that AGW is crap, why are the AGW proponents firmly in control of the IPCC? Membership is open to anyone who shows up with a pulse. Answer: because Singer misunderstands, misinterprets or misrepresents their work. That's the norm for the deniers. There are a few skeptics with real credibility (everybody respects that guy at MIT - what's his name - Lindzer, I think) but most of the people doing the research, on top of the current state of the art and in a position to really understand what's going on agree that something bad is coming our way and it's our own fault.

Look at what we were discussing a week or two ago... Marc Morano's post on a Senate web site showcasing experts coming out of the woodwork telling us that AGW is crap science. But... wait... one of his sources, a "scientist with the University of Alberta" is not an advance-degreed researcher in climate science but guy who teaches energy efficient homebuilding nights for $55 for an 8-week class at the UA extension school and probably works for an oil company in the daytime. That would be like calling me a leading computer scientice researcher because I teach 4th graders to use PCs. I'm not saying this guy's a dummy but he's hardly a class-leading scientist with the credibility to debunk AGW. Yet, Morano's got his name listed in lights. Why? Because there isn't anyone else. That Israeli astronomer? He's a kid who's annoyed that we aren't paying more attention to his pet theory. He's probably a good astronomer but he's hardly an atmospheric physics authority.

So, finding no science to back up the denial, people like Avery will often talk darkly about the AGW "industry" ... Scientists are all on the AGW payola... It's a giant conspiracy to tear down Western Civilization... For what? To whose benefit? If that's the case and scientists succeed in tearing down Western Civ then, when we lose our economies and have nothing to eat as we sit in the dark, do the conspiring climate scientists get whisked away to Beijing to live in coal-fired, air-conditioned comfort and boink cute Chinese girls for the rest of their lives? What a lot of crap.

Scientists like to 1) figure stuff out, discover something new and be famous for it, 2) be right, 3) tear down each others' work. If there was a credible way to attack this AGW, other scientists would be all over it and you wouldn't have a few cranks like Singer trying to make a fast buck catering to the denial crowd.

The fact of the matter is, there's a lot of talk about consensus not because this is some sort of vote but because the proponents of AGW are able to make persuasive cases for their science all across the board and, as far as the pieces are known, the pieces all fit.

And there are a shitload of pieces. There are a lot of scientific disciplines involved, which is more fields available to put the brakes on the AGW theory. I was looking into an aspect of this a couple weeks ago and found an obscure article by marine biologists that was relevant (using what turned out to be AGW compensations to explain discrepancies in populations of marine something-or-others). If AGW was hooey, this paper would have been yet another opportunity for an alert researcher to say "Hey! Wait! Something doesn't add up!" There would be many such opportunities.. the entire AGW theory would be like a house of cards.... But the marine biologists didn't say that, their research 1) explained puzzling changes they'd seen in the something-or-other populations and 2) provided more confirmation of what the AGW proponents have proposed because it's real and it makes sense...

... or the Chinese got to them and the marine biologists are all on the take, too. There's always that.

And, of course, it's just too damned bad that we don't mobilize to clean up our act, develop new, clean technologies and build entire new industries around them and make a shitload of money (remember the dot-com boom? m-o-n-e-y from new technology. have a GPS? m-o-n-e-y from new technology. lasers? m-o-n-e-y from new technology). We'll wait and dither and then the Chinese will develop all the new tech first, industrialize it and then that will just be one more thing they export to the US. If we have any money left to buy it with.

By the way, Honda's developed a bug that eats cellulose and pees ethanol. Amazing. They'll make some money on that. GM could have done that but they'd rather take the sure route to next-quarter profits by lobbying politicians to leave their gas-hogs alone.

snip for space only / / / /

Here's an angle that hasn't been mentioned much (global dimming) but is quite intriguing: (nice slide show)

Do you really want to convince me you're confident?

Stop driving, using public transportation, and heating/cooling your home, or machine washing your clothes. Hell, stop using the electricity to run your computer.

Until then, you're part of your problem.

I can't do it alone but I do what I can.

I live 3 miles from work. Today, I biked (I've put a lot of miles on the bike this year). Sometimes, I walk. We live in a modest house, to which we added insulation. We switched to CFLs years ago, wash in cold water as much as possible, dry the clothes in the back yard, drive relatively small cars and we reduced our consumption of meat (tonight's dinner involved no meat - and it was quite good). We probably used air-conditioning no more than four days this year.

And, bear in mind, while I'm happy to conserve and I think it's important, I didn't say we had to suffer. I said we should 'mobilize' and that we could make m-o-n-e-y.

Unfortunately, everybody else is part of my problem.

How many SUVs or 4WD pickups go by every day carrying nothing more than the driver and his lunch? How would they suffer to be driving a compact car? When I'm riding by myself, I only care about how much space is right around the driver's seat. Everything else is irrelevant. The driver's seat in my

2700 lb car offers as much room to the driver as a 5000 lb SUV offers to its driver.

When the weather's bad, I won't switch to the bus because bus service around here, like pretty much everywhere else, sucks.

In the town where I live, over half the houses have been built since the Carter Administration. Use of solar energy for space and water heating is close to non-existent. This town's energy consumption would be dramatically reduced if each house had been built with more insulation plus solar space or water heat, getting the money for it by shrinking each house 10%. Gosh - that would be SUCH a huge lifestyle hit, wouldn't it? The poor bastards owning those houses would now be suffering from overstuffed pockets since their energy bills would be lower and they'd have more cash on hand.

What's also interesting is how little coverage, if any, other than attempt to falsely discredit those who don't agree with the "agenda", the (non-biased) mainstream liberal programming media give these scientific articles.

Interesting? Try "expected".

Sounds pretty much like what I do. I just don't think it matters in the end, except for the contents of my wallet.

But I do it for the economics, not warming. It's just common sense.

O=2ET. Here's a one economic tip you may want to consider. Get rid of satellite or cable TV subscription and use an air antenna. That's if you only watch the local channels and none of the HBOs. I get HD signals from my Terk=AE Amplified Directional Indoor Antenna. (Tried the RCA and Radioshack brands but wasn't good and back in the store the next day) But before you do that check your signal from

according to the site I'm only 9 miles away from the major TV stations but I still get those stations which are 20 miles away. I get free HD and I can use the money saved to purchase another HDTV. =3D)