Comments on: Comments on 8218

Post number 8218

solistrato — Mon, 11 Jun 2001 09:12:23 -0800

Bush to unveil global warming plan. Because our world isn't warm enough.

By: solistrato

solistrato — Mon, 11 Jun 2001 09:13:36 -0800

This quote from the article is priceless: "The president was expected to encourage other industrialized nations to follow the example of the United States." Oh, stop! You're KILLING me!

By: rabi

rabi — Mon, 11 Jun 2001 09:16:11 -0800

(literally.)

By: twistedonion

twistedonion — Mon, 11 Jun 2001 09:18:58 -0800

"The president wants responsible action on global climate change, and he is ready to take responsible action," The funniest and saddest thing I have read all day. This is getting ridiculous. America is becoming the next Rome - just watch out for those barbarians at your borders.

By: samsara

samsara — Mon, 11 Jun 2001 09:31:54 -0800

Aides did not reveal the total dollar amount for the new programs, but said up to $25 million would be used to build climate observation systems in developing countries.

Yep, including $600 toilet seats no doubt ;)

By: Skot

Skot — Mon, 11 Jun 2001 09:33:16 -0800

Aides did not reveal the total dollar amount for the new programs, but said up to $25 million would be used to build climate observation systems in developing countries. $25 million?!? Holy cow! Why . . . why, that's sure a ton of money! We almost spend that much on uniforms for military marching bands! He must be SERIOUS! Especially since we're going to drop it on all those pesky, dumb-bunny, polluting developing countries. Those dumby-dumbs! They've got a lot to learn from us non-global-warming 'Murricans! We'd better observe their climates for a while.

By: Oddsea

Oddsea — Mon, 11 Jun 2001 09:33:32 -0800

The multi-million dollar programs would be dedicated to researching the causes of global warming and developing technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, a senior administration official told CNN. So I guess wanting to withdraw from the Kyoto Accord and disregarding the CO2 regulations signed in by Clinton is a great start to that. Oh don't worry, we can just form another committee. Jesus Christ, I need to leave the country.

By: mrbula

mrbula — Mon, 11 Jun 2001 10:10:59 -0800

The $25 million is an insult.

By: Mocata

Mocata — Mon, 11 Jun 2001 10:19:49 -0800

We'd better observe their climates for a while. That made me laugh out loud.

By: Dzolali

Dzolali — Mon, 11 Jun 2001 10:50:56 -0800

So who's going to donate the $25 million to observe the U.S. climate? It seems to me that if we're really going to get anything out of this, globally, a system of mutual observance should develop...especially if restrictions on emissions are voluntary! And it occurs to me...what if it really ISN'T us? I've always thought it was, but maybe I just swallowed that pill whole. The other day a friend called a lot of this into question (volcanic eruptions, normal planetary climatic cycles, etc), and all of a sudden I couldn't remember WHAT I thought. It certainly isn't popular in liberal circles to bring this up...

By: owen

owen — Mon, 11 Jun 2001 11:23:00 -0800

The whole thing about observing in developing countries is political, not scientific. One of the administration's objections to the Kyoto treaty was that developing nations weren't regulated as strictly as the U.S.-- No fair!, says the Republicans. The idea, of course, is for the developing nations to have a chance to bring their economies up a little before hitting them with strict emissions regulations (we had plenty of time to industrialize without any concerns for the environments).

By: holgate

holgate — Mon, 11 Jun 2001 11:40:15 -0800

It'll be somewhat embarrassing when several European heads of state tell him precisely what needs to be done. And in better English.

By: OneBallJay

OneBallJay — Mon, 11 Jun 2001 11:51:55 -0800

And with those outrageous accents. So-called Bush-president, your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries.

By: dhartung

dhartung — Mon, 11 Jun 2001 11:58:20 -0800

Just remember, any solution to global warming would cost businesses and consumers money. So it can't be happening.

By: owen

owen — Mon, 11 Jun 2001 12:08:15 -0800

Just remember, any solution to global warming would cost businesses and consumers money ...with the emphasis on businesses, of course. I'd like to see how well we could cover the costs of a nationwide efficiency push if we just cut a little corporate welfare here and there.

By: solistrato

solistrato — Mon, 11 Jun 2001 12:13:14 -0800

I wonder what prompted this. Did someone let him watch those "Captain Planet" cartoons? Don't they know he only likes Scooby-Doo?

By: john

john — Mon, 11 Jun 2001 12:19:40 -0800

Actually, I think he likes Scooby-Doo porn.

By: TacoConsumer

TacoConsumer — Mon, 11 Jun 2001 12:47:57 -0800

There is no solid proof of global warming, just hearsay and falderal.

By: mrbula

mrbula — Mon, 11 Jun 2001 13:09:39 -0800

Related: U.S. Losing Status as a World Leader in Climate Science (NY Times link).

By: hincandenza

hincandenza — Mon, 11 Jun 2001 13:10:01 -0800

No solid proof?!? I can only hope you're being sarcastic... There is a mountain of proof- no self-respecting environmental scientist doubts this. The question is no longer that global warming is real, the debate is now whether this is a bad thing or not. And it's not really much of a debate- basically, the f*ck-the-Earth crowd has finally ceded the "Is global warming real" territory and is trying to continue the battle on a different front.

For cripe's sake, the permafrost is thawing. The permafrost. It's been frozen for as long as we know- hence the name, permafrost.

By: jbelshaw

jbelshaw — Mon, 11 Jun 2001 13:12:44 -0800

hincandenza: so where is the link?

By: rebeccablood

rebeccablood — Mon, 11 Jun 2001 13:22:13 -0800

here's one: even bush's scientists admit that global warming exists and is getting worse.

By: UncleFes

UncleFes — Mon, 11 Jun 2001 13:23:38 -0800

For cripe's sake, the permafrost is thawing. The permafrost. It's been frozen for as long as we know- hence the name, permafrost. Uh oh. Thawing? the PERMAfrost?? Well that certainly sounds bad, yesirree. Aren't the global warming henny-pennys the same henny-pennys that were screaming about global COOLING about 15 years ago? Which is it? Ice age BOOGA BOOGA!! Wait, it's summer - Global warming BOOGA BOOGA!! I think the green movement ought to have "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" as required reading.

By: Skot

Skot — Mon, 11 Jun 2001 13:26:16 -0800

Hot enough for ya? Cold hands, warm heart.

By: claxton6

claxton6 — Mon, 11 Jun 2001 13:28:31 -0800

I haven't been following this as much I should be; however, there is this WSJ oped in which one of the authors of the NAS report says that its conclusions are being misreported.

By: jpoulos

jpoulos — Mon, 11 Jun 2001 13:54:17 -0800

Aren't the global warming henny-pennys the same henny-pennys that were screaming about global COOLING about 15 years ago? Which is it? Ice age BOOGA BOOGA!! Wait, it's summer - Global warming BOOGA BOOGA! Fes, it seems never have anything substantial to say. It's all just mockery and hyperbole. P.S. Read the link above yours. Who's the henny-penny now?

By: UncleFes

UncleFes — Mon, 11 Jun 2001 14:06:19 -0800

Sorry, but I like mockery and hyperbole :) Our primary conclusion was that despite some knowledge and agreement, the science is by no means settled. We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 degrees Celsius higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). THIS is the global warming that we're all supposed to be crapping ourselves over? .5 C over a CENTURY? I think the henny-penny assessments are right on the money.

By: holgate

holgate — Mon, 11 Jun 2001 14:18:36 -0800

UncleFes: fill your front room with ice, then raise the temperature half a degree.

By: UncleFes

UncleFes — Mon, 11 Jun 2001 14:23:18 -0800

You do realize that even places like the poles have temperatures fluctuations that amount to dozens of degrees Celsius every year? They're called seasons. Half a degree Celsius isn't even the margin for error in tomorrow's weather forecast.

By: Dzolali

Dzolali — Mon, 11 Jun 2001 14:23:44 -0800

UncleFes: Yup, it's enough to get excited about -- it means permafrost becomes tempafrost, shorelines change, species niches move, weather systems become more volatile. But does it really matter in the first place? I mean, I don't want to lose my harbor, but couldn't it all be human vanity anyway? Maybe we just care b/c of OUR interests, not because the Earth actually gives a shit.

By: rebeccablood

rebeccablood — Mon, 11 Jun 2001 14:29:51 -0800

fes: you realize that during the ice age, the average earth temperature was only 5 degrees cooler than normal? that the earth's average temperature - not one place at one time. one degree is a big deal. rcb

By: UncleFes

UncleFes — Mon, 11 Jun 2001 14:46:19 -0800

Nope, not excited yet. Luckily, I have all that ice in my living room to make cool, tasty, calming beverages with :) My beef isn't with global warming per se - it could be that global mean temp is higher by half a degree celcius (though they really have no idea what the global mean temp was in 1900, since their measurements were spotty and prone to error, and half a degree is way less than the margin for error even here); that atmospheric carbon levels have been increasing for two centuries (apparently time travel is now possible, since atmosphere composites from two centuries ago are, ahem, currently unavailable) and that, yes, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, along with all the other greenhouse gases. My beef is with the greens waving these absolutely meaningless, scientifically flawed, isolated out of context statistics - and worse, projections based on such foolish assumptions and outta-their-butts worst case scenarios - that it gets the panicky herd into an uproar and, the next thing you know, countries like England and France are telling us how we should handle our emissions, which is kind of like the guy next to you in study hall telling you how to handle your spitballs. Hyperbole? I got NOTHING on the UN. They are the all time world Olympic champions of hyperbole. I'm just a snotty amateur wiseass. So, please forgive me if I can't salute this particularly flag without a smirk or two. After this, Butterfly what's her name, the fires of '00 and the stories in the Sacramento Bee a couple months ago, the environmental movement will continue to get my mockery until they start talking sense and acting reasonable.

By: UncleFes

UncleFes — Mon, 11 Jun 2001 15:00:31 -0800

Uh, that's "acting reasonably." darn spelcheker :)

By: benjh

benjh — Mon, 11 Jun 2001 15:04:30 -0800

in the year 2007 this is benj hoppe, reporting for internet news service. we are here on the west coast beach talking with president george w bush. mr. president, how are you today? bush:very well, thanks. ya know, i really didn't not know that iowa was such a nice place.

By: UncleFes

UncleFes — Mon, 11 Jun 2001 15:07:11 -0800

Booga booga, benjh!! Bwahahahahaha.....

By: UncleFes

UncleFes — Mon, 11 Jun 2001 15:14:30 -0800

I have another beef with the environmental movement, but I'm saving it for later :)

By: Mick

Mick — Mon, 11 Jun 2001 16:12:18 -0800

Actually if the rest of the world followed US standards then pollution output with decrease dramatically.

By: Kafkaesque

Kafkaesque — Mon, 11 Jun 2001 16:32:52 -0800

"My favorite solution was when they sent the space shuttle up to study the hole in the Ozone layer...The Space Shuttle is a major cause of ozone depletion! That's like saying 'We're going to use M&Ms to study tooth decay'" --mostly accurate quote from Barry Crimmins

By: dhartung

dhartung — Mon, 11 Jun 2001 17:18:04 -0800

Fes, perhaps you could separate, in your mind, two things which have become confused there. There is an environmental movement. There is also a National Academy of Sciences. Because they say some of the same things is not sufficient to discredit one for the other's actions.

By: rodii

rodii — Mon, 11 Jun 2001 17:22:54 -0800

But they're all part of that vast cultural complex known as the Left. You know, National Academy = scientists = academics = students = media = no good government bureaucrats = bedwetting liberals. It's like the A-List. If you have to explain, you're part of it.

By: norm

norm — Mon, 11 Jun 2001 17:33:58 -0800

Man, Unclefes, you are really spouting some falsehoods in here. I can't believe this statement went unchallenged so long: apparently time travel is now possible, since atmosphere composites from two centuries ago are, ahem, currently unavailable Do you realize we have thousands of years of atmosphere stored in Antarctic and Greenland icecaps? That bubbles trapped in these icecaps have been analyzed with sophisticated spectrometers and analyzed to parts per billion? Or the one about how the temperature is only going to rise .5 degrees in a hundred years? Well, the American Chemical Society says that warming will rise in a range from 1 to 3.5 degrees celsius, and I think that's plainly an enormous figure, especially considering what Rebecca's pointing out. In closing, I'd like to introduce the following quote to summarize your credibility on the subject: absolutely meaningless, scientifically flawed, isolated out of context statistics - and worse, projections based on such foolish assumptions and outta-their-butts [best] case scenarios

By: ljromanoff

ljromanoff — Mon, 11 Jun 2001 17:36:41 -0800

I have another beef with the environmental movement, but I'm saving it for later :) Fes, don't mention beef to these people - that's another Pandora's Box that you're about to open.

By: rebeccablood

rebeccablood — Mon, 11 Jun 2001 17:39:35 -0800

yes, we prefer the *other* white meat.

By: hincandenza

hincandenza — Mon, 11 Jun 2001 18:17:40 -0800

Norm, no point mentioning that clever scientists can use something otherwise non-intuitive like gas bubbles trapped in ice. I believe there are a lot of folks who are part of a subset of Homo Sapiens I like to call Homo Blowhardiens. These are the folks that, because they don't understand something, presume it must be all twaddle and foofarrah. Spek-traw-mitters? Bah, don't understand it- must be egghead mumbojumbo, the usual pinko commie stuff that those lefty granola-eating librals spout off to prevent us God fearin' 'Murrican folk from exercising our Consteetutional right to mumble mumble mumble...

See, UncleFes isn't to my knowledge a trained scientist, so he wouldn't think to check air bubbles in ice- a very clever solution to the problem of finding samples to compare the atmosphere from different times, including thousands of years ago. This is akin to people not knowing about the rings in trees (incidentally, careful study of old trees that have been cut down can show clues to how the environment behaved decades or centuries ago- another non-intuitive solution) and thus poo-poohing anyone who claims to know how old a tree is- just because they don't understand the methodology doesn't make it true.

In the end, good ol' Mother Nature don't give a damn what we think about her, and no amount of Freeping or right-wing think tank agitprop is gonna change her mind or alter ecological trends and patterns. If indeed the effects of global warming could be catastrophic, the worst possible time to engage in that debate is when it's already too late. We don't have the technology to stop a tornado- what would we do in the face of global climatological crisis?

By: brent

brent — Mon, 11 Jun 2001 18:23:55 -0800

So if it is half a degree warmer I guess we had better run the air conditioner a little longer to cool off. What's next, the only way to solve the "problem" is to stop sitting in traffic on the way to work or to give up driving anywhere? It sure is sad that we look to the federal government for all of the answers concerning how to live our lives nowadays.
The government can't control the weather or make it any cooler during the summer months. So what's to say within ten years, the temps actually fall? Wouldn't that prove that global warming has been solved? Wouldn't that also be saying there is a defining action that we can look back on and say, we can control the weather? Is there a happy temperature we can all agree on? I guess another dust bowl must be avoided no matter the costs.

By: hincandenza

hincandenza — Mon, 11 Jun 2001 18:47:40 -0800

Um- again, just because you don't understand why even a half a degree- much less 3 or 4 degrees- makes a potentially huge difference doesn't mean that it won't. If you miss the Hurricane warnings on TV, that doesn't mean the 60mph winds avoids your house...

Ice melts at a little above 32 degrees. There's a huge amount of ice at the polar caps. This melting ice can alter sea level around the globe, and even a couple of feet could drastically alter sealines around the world. Further, the danger isn't so much the 2 or 3 degrees, but the potential for a domino effect, in which things get worse and worse and worse, spiraling out of control- some aspects of the ecosystem reach a gradually fluctuating balance over the eons, and a couple of degrees either way can upset them, radically so.

You're exactly right- the government can't control the weather, or make it cooler; neither can you. Which means extremes of weather are kind of a bitch, no? Your question of whether in 10 years, the temps will fall- well, we could just wait and see, of course. But a lot of highly educated, dedicated scientists seem to think otherwise, or at least consider the possibility pretty likely.

And that's the core of the issue: what would it really cost us to, say, raise mileage requirements 5 miles a gallon for all new cars sold in the US by 2005? To invest in alternate and hopefully cleaner energy sources, you know, just in case? If all the enviros and scientists are wrong, then... well, in the long run you may save money on gas and on the electric bill anyway. Wheee! But if they're right and we do nothing.... ? I can't figure out why people are so resistant to the idea of playing it safe... it's Pascal's wager, basically. The cost of environmentally sound policies aren't economically disastrous, as some want (again, I can't figure out why) to believe. The cost of doing nothing, however, could be huge.

By: UncleFes

UncleFes — Mon, 11 Jun 2001 20:58:15 -0800

See, UncleFes isn't to my knowledge a trained scientist, so he wouldn't think to check air bubbles in ice- a very clever solution to the problem of finding samples to compare the atmosphere from different times, including thousands of years ago. I think someone's trying to hurt my poor barbarian feelings! Now's the time for my other beef with environmentalism - elitism and arrogance. You think that since I'm not a trained scientist, well, then I must be too darn dumb to figger out all those fancy numbers you greenies got workin'! Why sure, that must be why I'm against something as plain to see as global warming! Bush and Cheney gots me flummoxed! I don't know which end is up! Homo Blowhardiens? I'm in good company. You had eight years of the most environmentally active government in the history of this country - what'd you do with it? You counted salmon on the Snake River at a taxpayer cost of about $100,000 per fish; you burned down a couple million acres of timber that any second-year forestry student could have told you (and did, on several occasions) was prepped to ignite; you sank a couple hundred tankers of gasoline additive into the groundwater in the Midwest, and made us pay EXTRA for it; you protested new advances in fertilizer and weed killer in the name of "frankenfoods;" you burned people's homes in the Pacific Northwest because they were criminal enough to want to live in the shade of some of those trees you prize so mightily. Air bubbles in ice? Super fine. Didn't think of that. Did these scientists think that maybe those air bubbles aren't necessarily indicative of what the air contained a couple thousand miles away? Hmmmm.... maybe not so clever, after all. Maybe... worthless. In any event, until the environmentalists decide that they have to bother with such things as people, and power, and money, and accurate, practical science, and all the other things that we barbarians have to deal with every day; until they realize that business simply can't roll over and cough every time the upper Voltean Gruntfish is about to lose it's precious nesting area; until they realize and acknowledge that there is a cost - and not just in dollars - for the things they say the rest of us simply must do right now; until they realize that we are NOT all dumbass barbarians, but people just like them who also want clean water, clean air, plenty of animals, healthy food, and an earth that our grandchildren will be able to live in, the environmentalists will continue to have my scorn.

By: dong_resin

dong_resin — Mon, 11 Jun 2001 21:07:57 -0800

They (environmentalists) do tend to be a wee bit elitist. Not a constructive attitude, when you're trying to get a point of view across. Particularly to barbarians.

By: jpoulos

jpoulos — Tue, 12 Jun 2001 06:53:13 -0800

Fes, you've been running around screaming (literally) "BOOGA BOOGA!" and you're bitching that people see you as a dumbass barbarian? Try presenting an argument grounded in something besides (as we discussed, and you defended, earlier) "mockery and hyperbole" and maybe you'll get some credit.

By: UncleFes

UncleFes — Tue, 12 Jun 2001 06:55:09 -0800

OK, I was a mite peevish last night. Let me praise the environmentalists for some of the things they have done well.... *We've got cleaner air and cleaner water (by and large) than we did two decades ago. That's important, and the environmentalists made it happen. *We've got widespread recycling. In my industry (not science - publishing), we use nearly 75% recycled paper, up from 0% two decades ago. Used to be that was a pain, since the recycled stuff was not very good, but that's changed. *We've got more total forest acreage. *We've got less nuclear waste, especially the kind that gets spilled. *We've got more accountability from businesses toward envionmental concerns. My point being that if we (environmentalists AND barbarians) can find ways to work together for real, discrete, achievable goals that won't bankrupt us, then we can succeed in practical, achievable ways. If you tell me the sky is falling, I'll look up, see it's not, and then ignore everything else you say after that.

By: UncleFes

UncleFes — Tue, 12 Jun 2001 07:01:50 -0800

JP: My Booga Booga's are a mockery of the environmentalist tendency toward, well, not lying necessarily, but let's say exaggerating the facts to better suit their position. I don't care if people see me as a barbarian. I care that they see everyone as a barbarian.

By: norm

norm — Tue, 12 Jun 2001 09:06:14 -0800

Aren't the global warming henny-pennys the same henny-pennys that were screaming about global COOLING about 15 years ago? Which is it? Ice age BOOGA BOOGA!! Wait, it's summer - Global warming BOOGA BOOGA!! One other thing. One of warming's most dramatic effects is that it could cause an ice age, perhaps very quickly, plunging Europe into Siberian climates nearly overnight. Now, I realize you don't care much about Europeans and their concerns, but there it is.

By: UncleFes

UncleFes — Tue, 12 Jun 2001 11:12:43 -0800

Norm, you are cracking me up, dude. It sure was chilly here last night - must be that global warming. But it's certainly hot enough for me today - must be that global warming :) I have a bad feeling the next season of NYPD Blue is going to suck because of the global warming. I had a two light bulbs burn out at the same time in my house the other night - gotta be that global warming. Do I have to say it? C'mon, everyone, all together now.... BOOGA BOOGA!!! Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahah I'm moving on to the thread about Bush's new friend who looks like Hitler.

By: ljromanoff

ljromanoff — Tue, 12 Jun 2001 11:16:56 -0800

Do I have to say it? C'mon, everyone, all together now.... BOOGA BOOGA!!! Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahah UncleFes, I don't know you but you are definitely my new best friend.

By: snarkout

snarkout — Tue, 12 Jun 2001 12:21:22 -0800

Fes, I'm not sure if you read the link that Claxton6 posted, but you might give it a try. I'm happy to read discussion from Kyoto Protocol opponents, whether they're basing their opposition on the economic costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions or alternate explanations of global warming. But as the opinion piece (at that notorious base of left-leaning market-hating socialist writers, the Wall Street Journal) states, "We are quite confident...that global mean temperature is about 0.5 degrees Celsius higher than it was a century ago...and...that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds)." If you want to refute these statements, please do so. If you want to start a thread about sky-is-falling pronouncements by environmentalists, feel free. If you want to making mocking jokes about how Greenpeace will want to outlaw water vapor next, be my guest! If you want to tell us how Bush's environmental policy is a great one that will lead to us all getting candy and ice cream, or a terrible one that will lead to us all having to eat lima beans and watch Cop Rock reruns, that's your perogative. But at the moment, I think your behavior in this thread is somewhere around feces-flinging-at-the-zoo level and, what's worse, it seems to imply that you haven't even done people the courtesy of reading what they posted before replying to it. That's all I'm saying on this thread; if you want to take me to task for marginalizing your contributions, please start a thread on MetaTalk and I'll be happy to follow up there.

By: UncleFes

UncleFes — Tue, 12 Jun 2001 13:09:35 -0800

Sorry, didn't know laughter and making fun of the absurd wasn't allowed. I'll try to discuss things in a properly serious tone from now on. This pretty much sums up my refutation. Even though it's at Cato here, it was first published in yesterday's NYPost, by Pat Michaels, a past president of the National Association of State Climatologists and a professor of enviro science at UVirginia. It says that the NAS science is just as bad as the UN's science, and for the same petty, political reasons. Dissenters, apparently, aren't tolerated in a LOT of places.

By: UncleFes

UncleFes — Tue, 12 Jun 2001 14:09:50 -0800

please start a thread on MetaTalk and I'll be happy to follow up there. okeydokey everyone's welcome

By: ljromanoff

ljromanoff — Tue, 12 Jun 2001 14:34:44 -0800

Sorry, didn't know laughter and making fun of the absurd wasn't allowed. Obviously you're new here. The only allowable topic of ridicule is George Bush.

By: hincandenza

hincandenza — Tue, 12 Jun 2001 17:40:34 -0800

Jeez man, need any help lugging that cross around?