Global Warming

“T*lt needs to post more Mother Jones stories to prove his silly points. LOL”

“Peps is going to have to hate you now, rosey.”

“hey stove stomper,did you'r parents have any children that lived?”

“ROTFLMAO

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/6118113/Britain-facing-blackouts-for-first-time-since-1970s.html

The gap between Britain’s energy needs and demand throws fresh doubt on the Government’s assertion that renewable energy can make up for dwindling nuclear and coal capabilities.

Over the next 10 years, one third of Britain’s power-generating capacity needs to be replaced with cleaner fuels. But last night the Conservatives said that Labour had refused to face up to the problem.

The admission that Britain will face power-cuts is contained in a document that accompanied the Government’s Low Carbon Transition Plan, which was launched in July.

Ed Miliband, the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, outlined the plan amid much fanfare.

Under the plan, 40 per cent of the UK’s electricity will need to come from low-carbon energy sources including clean coal, nuclear and renewables.

Accompanying the report is an appendix, only published online, which warns of power shortages. It details supplies and expected demand between now and 2030.

It highlights the first short-fall in 2017. The “energy unserved” level reaches 3000 megawatt hours per year. ”

“It's a good thing why2 fled from that place.”

“The pound is beating the U.S. dollar 2-1.”

“
Begin forwarded message:

USTREAM CHAT LIVE FROM GODDARD: What’s going on with Earth’s ice and snow cover? Today, from 12:30-1:30 p.m., join Goddard’s own Michelle Thaller as she chats with NASA polar scientist Tom Wagner about our planet’s frozen regions, changes to ice sheets, and sea ice in the Arctic and Antarctic. Plus, get an up-close view of the brand new HD video, “Tour of the Cryosphere 2009.” Visit: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/nasa-television to view the chat.

”

“Rosey...got news for ya...in 1980 the Pound was ahead of the dollar.

Tilty is worried about the KIDS who inherit the planet (I am thinking his only "kids" are what he flushes in the morning)

Well I am betting the CHILDREN will be more worried about the EXPLOSION of DEBT the liberals have given us.”

“What caused the financial crisis in the first place. You're blaming the paramedic for the heart attack again, WackO.”

“(I am thinking his only "kids" are what he flushes in the morning)

LOL - yeah it's pretty obvious he's too self-absorbed and bitter to want children. Or a wife, for that matter, I imagine.”

“Rightwing vapor-lock.”

“Liberals have flushed many a baby down an abortion drain.”

“Ref...one gay guy (not tilty) walks around back one evening and sees his S.O. in a the hot tub pushing a "floater" around.

Shocked he asks,'What the HE!! are you doing?'

His friend (not tilt) replies,"Just teaching our child to swim."”

“Tell us the story about your crazy friend with the gun again.”

“Crazy friend with a gun.....? Sorry see if these people will get a giggle about the plan to "relocate" the private entertainment entreprenuers from Harrisburg.”

“SoCal sure is warming things up in the valley of the smoke. How would your rite coasters like to pay for some of this?---HA! Don't worry you will.”

“You're not working for Augusta-Richmond County again are you?”

“LOL..remember a decade ago when we were approaching Sept 9, 1999 all the nut job "experts" were telling us that 9999 was the shut down code for computers....THE END OF THE WORLD was prophesied.

Then ZIP ZERO NADA happened?”

“Zip Zero Nada, is that the combination code to your brain?”

“I don't blame you for asking. You are sorely in need of one, even if you have to steal it.”

“I need no lock, I walk the walk.”

“oops, I just farted again....so sowwy”

“Damn i just thought that Marko had wandered through...”

“LOL...another nail in the coffin of this false Cult.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6179713/New-hockey-stick-graph-on-climate-change-under-fire.html

A number of readers wrote in to express surprise at the recent letter from the US scientist Dr Michael Mann claiming that his famous "hockey stick" graph, showing temperatures having suddenly soared at the end of the 20th century to unprecedented levels, had been endorsed by the US National Academy of Sciences. Neither of the two Congressional inquiries involving the NAS did anything of the kind. Both found that the computer model used to create Dr Mann's "hockey stick", completely rewriting climate history, was fundamentally flawed.

This is one reason why, despite all the efforts made to defend Dr Mann's graph by his academic colleagues (describing themselves as the Hockey Team), I have described it as "one of the most comprehensively discredited artefacts in the history of science".”

“Poor t*lty will have another hissy fit.”

“and that concerns you how?”

“Fed judge says grizzlies still threatened

BILLINGS, Mont. – Facing the combined pressures of climate change, hunters and lax protections, 600 grizzly bears in and around Yellowstone National Park are going back on the threatened species list under a federal court order issued Monday.

The ruling highlighted climate change's devastation to whitebark pine forests, which produce nuts that some grizzlies rely upon as a mainstay.

With hundreds of thousands of the trees dead or dying over the last two decades, bears striking out in search of new food sources increasingly are being shot in conflicts with humans.

"There is a connection between whitebark pine and grizzly survival," U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy wrote in Monday's ruling.

Hunting for grizzlies is illegal. But at least 20 were killed last year by hunters acting in self-defense or after mistaking them for other animals.

The greater Yellowstone area of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming has one of the densest concentrations of grizzlies in the lower 48 states. The animals were declared recovered in March 2007 after bouncing back from near-extermination last century.

At the time, the grizzly bear program was touted by the Bush administration as a model framework for restoring at-risk species, successfully balancing conservation and the pressures of human development.

But in his ruling, Molloy sharply criticized the rationale behind the decision and ordered the Obama administration to immediately restore the animal's threatened status.

The 46-page ruling resolves a lawsuit brought by the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, a Bozeman, Mont., group that had argued the bruins' recovery remained tenuous. A separate lawsuit in federal court in Idaho still is pending.

Molloy cited as a key factor in his decision the decline of whitebark pine, which has suffered widespread damage from forest fires, pine beetles and other factors that researchers say are exacerbated by a warming climate.

Government researchers have made similar links. However, those results were downplayed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in its 2007 decision.

"There is a disconnect between the studies the agency relies on here and its conclusions," Molloy wrote.

Molloy also said that state and federal conservation plans meant to protect Yellowstone-area grizzlies were inadequate. He said the government relied too heavily on population monitoring and failed to spell out what steps would be taken if grizzly numbers started to fall.

A Fish and Wildlife spokesman said Monday that Molloy's ruling was under review. Grizzlies were first listed as endangered in 1975. The government has spent more than $20 million on its effort to restore the species.

"We're going to take some time with this ruling because it's so significant," Fish and Wildlife spokesman Matt Kales said. "This is obviously a pretty big policy matter for us. Our first and foremost concern remains with the status of the bear."

Wyoming U.S. Rep. Cynthia Lummis, a Republican, called Molloy's ruling an "abuse" of the Endangered Species Act.

"Subverting the Endangered Species Act through judicial activism under the auspice of climate change would be laughable if the impacts weren't so dire for Wyoming's public land users," Lummis said.

Prior to Molloy's ruling, the concern in Wyoming had been that there were too many bears, not too few, Gov. David Freudenthal said Monday.

The conservation director for the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, Craig Kenworthy, said threats to grizzlies "are likely to accelerate" as climate change intensifies and more tree-killing beetles survive milder winters.

It's unknown how many of Yellowstone's grizzlies are heavily dependent on whitebark pine, said Gregg Losinski with Idaho Fish and Game.

"Yes it was a concern, but as far as a food source it never was found universally across the ecosystem for all the bears," said Losinski, member of a federal-states coordinating committee that oversees the region's grizzlies.

Four other groups totaling about 900 grizzlies — all in the Northwest __ have never lost their threatened status.

Full grown male grizzlies can weigh 800 pounds and stand 8 feet tall. Most are omnivores, meaning they eat both plants and animals.

As many as 50,000 of the animals once ranged the western half of the United States — striking terror in early European settlers who routinely shot, poisoned and trapped grizzlies until they were reduced to less than 2 percent of their historic range.

The Yellowstone-area population has grown from an estimated 200 animals in 1981 to more than 600 today.

Environmentalists said Monday's ruling underscored the need for government agencies to pay more heed to the damage climate change can cause.

Climate change was cited in the 2008 listing of polar bears as a threatened species, because warmer temperatures has melted sea ice that the bears depend on. And in 2006, concerns over climate change led to the listing of two species of coral, staghorn and elkhorn.

"The decline of the whitebark pine is one more wake-up call that we urgently need to address the cause of many species' impending extinctions," said Michael Robinson with the Center for Biological Diversity. Robinson's group is a plaintiff in the Idaho grizzly lawsuit that remains pending.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090922/ap_on_re_us/us_threatened_grizzly_bears”

“Didn't the whole "early European Settler" thing happen BEFORE the industrial revolution?”

“http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/22/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5329380.shtml

So how much of a problem is there REALLY? I mean if the CLOWNS looking to socialize the world over it can't seem to stick to the script...


(AP )To hear world leaders and others addressing the United Nations Summit on Climate Change, the threat could not be more real and the need more urgent to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

But in stark contrast to the earnest statements is the carbon footprint associated with their gathering.

It happens every autumn: midtown Manhattan becomes the motorcade capital of the world. Each foreign leader in town has a convoy of vehicles. Some of them, like President Obama's motorcade, are 20-to-30 vehicles in length. It's so long - it seems that when the front of it reaches the U.N., the back end is still back at his hotel. ”

“Everyone wants the results, but no one wants to suffer the pain of initiating the change.

The early settlers did one great thing, they accounted for a negative population rate until they killed of all the bears and indians.

If we did have a world manager, he would stop all immigration to the US and force birth control until our consumption pulls further back in the motor convoy, instead of being three towns north of the rest of the consumers.”

“Cutting carbon emissions won't stop climate change, expert says

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4711770,00.html

Bjorn Lomborg says the world faces more pressing problems than emissions.

As world leaders meet at the UN to discuss climate change, Bjorn Lomborg tells DW he expects little to come from the talks. He tells politicians there are better ways to spend billions than on fighting climate change.


The author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist," Bjorn Lomborg, has had public disagreements with climate activists including Al Gore and Sir Nicholas Stern. Lomborg's harshest criticism, however, is aimed at the international community for spending billions on what he says are ineffective measures intended to fight climate change.



He talked to Deutsche Welle about ongoing climate negotiations and how economists at the Copenhagen Consensus Center, a think tank he heads, suggest spending aid and development money.



Deutsche Welle: What do you think will emerge from the climate talks taking place at the United Nations on Tuesday?



Bjorn Lomborg: First of all, I think it's important to recognize that probably nothing will come out of this, simply because they are so far away from the different nations on what they want to achieve.

It's always good to talk about the problem, and I think it's good to reaffirm to everybody that we need a deal in Copenhagen by the end of this year. The problem is the focus on cutting carbon emissions is actually one that both makes it very hard for everyone to agree because the Chinese and the Indians don't want to cut and while the Europeans and the Americans claim they want to cut, they actually also know that it's going to cost them a lot, and it's going to have very little benefit even in the far-off future. That's why they are all playing for the gallery but nobody is actually willing to really commit.



The Chinese leader has said he will present China's new plans for tackling global warming at the summit. Isn't that a positive signal?



It could be. But let's remember that the Chinese have been doing a lot of posturing on climate change and coming out and suggesting that we might even see China's emissions maxing out in 2050 or maybe even in 2040. But let's not base our hopes for a climate deal on things that will happen in 20 or 40 years.



If you had to give tips to the participants, what would you advise them to talk about?



We've run what we call the Copenhagen Consensus for Climate, where we ask top economists, including three Nobel laureates "Where do you do the most good for climate with the money you're going to be spending?"

What they told us was don't focus on cutting carbon emissions. It's very expensive and does very little good for the climate even 100 years from now. In the short and medium-term, we should recognize that nothing we do will change the temperature development except looking into geo-engineering, essentially making the planet cooler - for instance by spraying up salt particulates in the atmosphere, which will amplify natural processes, make more white clouds and hence make the world a little more reflective - especially over the South Pacific. That would be very cheap and could potentially avoid global warming for the next 100 years.



This is still a Band-Aid, so what you also need to do is more toward a situation where we can actually get people to not just talk about cutting carbon emissions but actually doing so, and we will only do that if cutting carbon emissions and green energy technologies become much, much cheaper. That's why their second solution was to focus on making much cheaper green energy technologies - cheaper solar panels, cheaper windmills - that will actually work.



Those two in conjunction is what I would like to see world leaders focus on a lot more, if we actually care about fixing climate change not just making beautiful speeches.



At the moment we also have to concentrate on adaptation to climate change. Its effects are already becoming very visible. Where would your priorities lie in that area?



I'm referring to top economists, rather than my own private opinions. What they found is we are very often being told that there is a huge amount of impacts from climate change right now, and it's certainly true that there are a lot of good pictures out there where you can show here's a catastrophe.


But what we fail to recognize is that the vast majority of the impact that we are seeing right now - climate impacts and other impacts - are impacts that have been there for hundreds of years. Most of this world's population is poor and they're ill-prepared to deal with any contingency that the world throws at them. What we need to focus on is not just adaption specifically for climate change, which is a small part of the problems most people live with right now, but simply making better lives for people that is focusing on getting them more food, getting them better healthcare and making sure their kids get educated.



The world's doctors have said failure to tackle climate change in Copenhagen could be catastrophic for health. Is it possible to separate climate change from issues like health, food security or a safe water supply?



We don't need to separate them in the sense that we probably all agree we should tackle some of the really big problems that are out there right now. I'm simply concerned that many people latch on to talking about global warming and that the most important this is spending money on adaptation to global warming.



But the main problem in Bangladesh or Myanmar is not future sea-level rises, it's the fact that the countries are so poor right now that they are already getting inundated. It's not about climate-proofing it in 100 years, it's about dealing with the vulnerability to climate right now, which has nothing to do with climate change but simply something to do with them being very poor.



It's more about an emphasis on focusing where you can actually deal with real problems right now rather than a possible problem in 100 years.”

“You mean be reactionary, rather than futuristic?”

“You mean a furistic Global poncy scheme in the name of redistributive social justice?

Every one look social justice and see what pops up.....

Global warming is a scam”

“Dude..its a simple matter of envy by those who were too damn lazy to do the hard work necessary to succeed.”

“I didn't get one government check in my life, anyone else?”

“U.N. climate meeting was propaganda: Czech president
Tue Sep 22, 2009 6:28pm EDT ]


By Louis Charbonneau

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Czech President Vaclav Klaus sharply criticized a U.N. meeting on climate change on Tuesday at which U.S. President Barack Obama was among the top speakers, describing it as propagandistic and undignified.

"It was sad and it was frustrating," said Klaus, one of the world's most vocal skeptics on the topic of global warming.

"It's a propagandistic exercise where 13-year-old girls from some far-away country perform a pre-rehearsed poem," he said. "It's simply not dignified."

At the opening of the summit attended by nearly 100 world leaders, 13-year-old Yugratna Srivastava of India told the audience that governments were not doing enough to combat the threat of climate change.

Klaus said there were increasing doubts in the scientific community about whether humans are causing changes in the climate or whether the changes are simply naturally occurring phenomena.

But politicians, he said, seem to be moving closer to a consensus on climate change.

"The train can't be stopped and I consider that a huge mistake," Klaus said.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon organized the climate summit to help create momentum before a U.N. meeting in Copenhagen in December to reach agreement on new targets for reducing so-called greenhouse gas emissions.

However, new proposals by China and a rallying cry from U.S. President Barack Obama did little to break a U.N. deadlock about what should be done.

Klaus published a book in 2007 on the worldwide campaign to stop climate change entitled "Blue Planet in Green Chains: What Is Under Threat -- Climate or Freedom?"

In the book, Klaus said global warming has turned into a new religion, an ideology that threatens to undermine freedom and the world's economic and social order.”

“It really is just a vast, vast conspiracy. Uh huh...

WASHINGTON – New satellite information shows that ice sheets in Greenland and western Antarctica continue to shrink faster than scientists thought and in some places are already in runaway melt mode.

British scientists for the first time calculated changes in the height of the vulnerable but massive ice sheets and found them especially worse at their edges. That's where warmer water eats away from below. In some parts of Antarctica, ice sheets have been losing 30 feet a year in thickness since 2003, according to a paper published online Thursday in the journal Nature.

Some of those areas are about a mile thick, so they've still got plenty of ice to burn through. But the drop in thickness is speeding up. In parts of Antarctica, the yearly rate of thinning from 2003 to 2007 is 50 percent higher than it was from 1995 to 2003.

These new measurements, based on 50 million laser readings from a NASA satellite, confirm what some of the more pessimistic scientists thought: The melting along the crucial edges of the two major ice sheets is accelerating and is in a self-feeding loop. The more the ice melts, the more water surrounds and eats away at the remaining ice.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090923/ap_on_sc/us_sci_big_melt”

“But Ice was thicker in the Arctic last year than ever before....YEAH that pin point survey to gain GENERAL Estimates is always a CRAPPY method.”

“The wingnuts finally got tired of spewing crazy #&%!$ about fluoridation.”

“yeah, 50 million readings sounds like a "pinpoint" to me...”

“I think he meant pinpoint as in "precision" and then comparing that to less accurate measurements made in years past.”

“The cowboys tried to stop the motorcyle also.”

“

Here's how we have to deal with "your" kind of wingnuts, tilt....G20 riots

These are the influences of the left, folks.”

“I don't think they can read a thermometer.

Consequently one would reasonably expect the concepts of scientific methodologies to be out of reach.


Actually, I think it's like so many of their other arguments ---- motivated by some paranoia and feelings of helplessness exacerbated by the election. So they lash out.

”

“What's the history of routine record keeping on antarctic ice melt? Does it even go back before the 70's? Satellite monitoring wouldn't even go back that far. So the ice is melting, but what does it mean? Got an article addressing that which is NOT based on computer modeling? Is there a historic precedent to assume that this is the result of GLOBAL warming rather than localized factors and cycles, and that it will contribute to a climate disaster?”