WunderBlog Archive » Category 6™

Category 6 has moved! See the latest from Dr. Jeff Masters and Bob Henson here.

NASA tries to silence its top climate researcher

By: Dr. Jeff Masters, 2:11 AM GMT on January 30, 2006

NASA�s top climate researcher has been told by his superiors to stop voicing his opinions on climate change. Dr. James Hansen, director of the agency's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said in a New York Times interview that the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out since a Dec. 6 lecture at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco. In the talk, he gave his personal views that significant emission cuts could be achieved with existing technologies, particularly in the case of motor vehicles. Furthermore, he expressed his opinion that without United States leadership, climate change would eventually leave the earth "a different planet."

Dr. Hansen is one of the world�s foremost climate researchers. He has published hundreds of papers and testified numerous times before Congress on the issue of climate change. He said that NASA headquarters officials had ordered the public affairs staff to review his coming lectures, papers, postings on the Goddard Web site and requests for interviews from journalists. He was warned of �dire consequences� if his public statements continued. Hansen said he would ignore the restrictions, noting that NASA's mission statement includes the phrase "to understand and protect our home planet."

A public affairs official at NASA said that government scientists were free to discuss scientific issues, but that policy statements should be left to policy makers and appointed spokesmen. Since Dr. Hansen�s December 6 talk, NASA has rejected several media requests to interview him, including one by National Public Radio (NPR). According to Leslie McCarthy, a public affairs officer responsible for the NASA Goddard Institute, a NASA public affairs official appointed by the White House, George Deutsch, rejected the NPR interview request. He called NPR �the most liberal� media outlet in the country, and that his job was �to make the president look good.� Deutsch denied making the statements. McCarthy disagrees, saying she has no reason to lie.

The effort to control information coming out of NASA echoes similar directives issued last Fall in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, when on September 29, a memo aimed all National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration employees (including those in the National Weather Service) ordered them not to speak to the national media unless the interview request was first approved by public affairs personnel. I talked to a contact at NWS who confirmed that the memo was indeed sent out, and was likely done in response to the political fallout from the Katrina disaster.

Both NASA and NOAA have emphasized that the rules preventing scientists from speaking freely to the media had always been in place, but that the rules were being enforced more rigorously now. I say the new enforced restrictions are ridiculous. Our scientists have never needed these restrictions in the past. Our tax-payer salaried scientists should be free to speak out on more than just their scientific findings without the chilling oversight of politically-appointed officials concerned with �making the president look good.� Climate change is of critical importance to all of us, and we should hear the opinions of those scientists who understand the issue the best.

Jeff Masters

Climate Change Politics Climate Change Politics

The views of the author are his/her own and do not necessarily represent the position of The Weather Company or its parent, IBM.

Reader Comments

Yea, heard about that today Mr Masters. What a load of garbage eh? Talk about limiting free speech and opinions. Its a theory MANY top scientists hold and for our government to surpress someone such as an affiliate of NASA who they give millions and maybe trillions of dollars to each year is pretty bad.

What are they trying to hide...?

Thanks for the update Mr. Masters and thanks for your continued information on these very important topics.

A good day to you all.

Giants in 06
Well a lot of things affect our response to change.. unfortunately, economics, and the political process seem to affect it alot more the science
That's the bad thing about a democracy... but as churchill said, "democracy is the worst form of gov't, except every other form that has been tried"
Heh. I don't care who you are, climate change is happening. It might be human caused, it might be the fault of the obviously evil Bush Admin, it might be caused by my last trip to the bathroom, but it IS happening.
5. F5
The following was taken from Link

Conspiracy theory? "Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him" - "The top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out since he gave a lecture last month calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming. The scientist, James E. Hansen, longtime director of the agency's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said in an interview that officials at NASA headquarters had ordered the public affairs staff to review his coming lectures, papers, postings on the Goddard Web site and requests for interviews from journalists. Dr. Hansen said he would ignore the restrictions. "They feel their job is to be this censor of information going out to the public," he said.

Dean Acosta, deputy assistant administrator for public affairs at the space agency, said there was no effort to silence Dr. Hansen. "That's not the way we operate here at NASA," Mr. Acosta said. "We promote openness and we speak with the facts." He said the restrictions on Dr. Hansen applied to all National Aeronautics and Space Administration personnel. He added that government scientists were free to discuss scientific findings, but that policy statements should be left to policy makers and appointed spokesmen. Mr. Acosta said other reasons for requiring press officers to review interview requests were to have an orderly flow of information out of a sprawling agency and to avoid surprises. "This is not about any individual or any issue like global warming," he said. "It's about coordination." (New York Times)

Losin' it, Jim? NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) is one of the world's leading AGW promoters, with GISTEMP, which bases it's guesstimations of global mean temperature on the same met. station data as everyone else, usually deriving anomaly figures that are 50%, sometimes 100% higher than other climate research groups and frequently triple that derived by UAH from satellite-mounted MSU data. GISTEMP is basically a product of the Hansen show and differs from other researchers' in that GISS extrapolate temperatures 1,200Km (750 miles) from recording points - some would call that ambitious, others dubious. Regardless, with NASA's GISS vying with EU Greens and misanthropic enviros for the catastrophic AGW cheerleading crown the claim that anyone is censoring the Hansen show strikes us as somewhat bizarre.

My .02...Hansen has always been outspoken, so I find it difficult to believe there are suddenly "restrictions" on what he can say. Obviously, I'm not part of the organization so I have no first or even second-hand knowledge of the situation. That said, no one has stopped James Hansen from making public appearances, and no one has stopped him from discussing his position on global warming. This type of reporting is just another example of introducing politics into the issue and attempting to make the current administration look bad. The story is always the same. They are covering up something, or they are beholden to big oil, or (insert favorite liberal conspiracy theory here)...If Hansen disappears from the scene and is never heard from again, then I'll believe it. Otherwise, sounds to me like much ado about nothing.

Frankly, as a scientist, Hansen should know better than to proclaim as fact that global warming is human induced. If he wants to state that as a hypothesis and use that as a discussion point, that's one thing. But to proclaim it as fact is just pure non-sense.
Unless i'm missing something, I don't think he was trying to proclaim anything as a fact.. he was giving his personal view on the topic.
This is the equivalent of controlling the media in communist regimes. If you are an American citizen or here legally, you should be able to speak your mind. Period. End of discussion.
9. F5

First off, that's not really true. Your employer can put any restrictions it want's on your ability to discuss the things they pay you to do, when you represent them. Speaking as a private citizen, you would be correct, and NASA has stated that so long as it isn't a policy discussion, there are no restrictions on what he can say.

If what Hansen was saying were really true, they would likely be censoring the reports that are published at GISS, since that is the group that Hansen works for. He is a global warming alarmist, has been for decades, and yet he claims they are now trying to muzzle him? Sorry, but that just doesn't cut it.
10. F5

I wasn't speaking about his supposed issue with NASA, but maybe I'm confused on your comment. For several decades, Dr Hansen has been claiming that anthropogenic activity is the primary driver behind the current global warming trend. He has stated this as fact. That is what I'm referring to.
11. F5
For an interesting read on one climate scientists view of climate models and their reliability, read this..


Here's another great article. I've extracted one paragraph
"Unfortunately, the corrective mechanisms in science are failing. Public reservations with regard to the standard evidence of climate catastrophe are often viewed as unfortunate within the scientific community, since they harm the "worthy cause," especially because, as scientists claim, they could be "misused by skeptics." Dramatization on a small scale is considered acceptable, whereas correcting exaggeration is viewed as dangerous because it is politically inopportune. This means that doubts are not voiced publicly. Instead, the scientific community creates the impression that the scientific underpinnings of climate change research are solid and only require minor additions and adjustments."

Gosh, that sure sounds like what goes on in Dr. Masters blog as well. Here's the link..


The whole article sums up the debate quite nicely.

For those interested in a really good climate blog, let me recommed


Whether you agree with the opinions of the authors or not, I hope you find it intellectually interesting.
Hey Dr. Masters,

I guess you have chosen to also make your apparent liberal political persuasion known as well by quoting something you can't personally know to be true as an apparent FACT when the source sited in the article denies the so called limitation on it. I also wanted to know when you chose to use the weather site you created to become a political platform to bash the Bush administration as you have done in the past as well.

Would you have a problem with someone making unsubstantiated claims that you are doing something you very well MAY not have done. Since when has the media been the sounding board of TRUTH?

Once again, we see those who support the ALARMIST perspective that you nor any other scientist can EVER conclude as fact, interjecting politics into the debate in order to build momentum on an issue that can only find its success in the political arena, rather than in the scientific community. Although, the scientific community could certainly form a consensus without factual evidence since much of it is based upon the subjectivity and the majority opinion (which can also be swayed by ones personal political views). With such a low standard, how can any objective person subscribe to an unsubstantiated GUESS that is completely UNPROVABLE making subjectivity the only possible way to ascribe to this human induced global warming perspective.

The simple yet truly undeniable FACT is that NO ONE can ever prove that the increased temperatures around the globe during the past century is DIRECTLY related to human induced greenhouse gas emissions. Likewise, the same is true that NO ONE can ever completely rule out the POSSIBILITY that human activities such as the aforementioned has actually had some effect. Therefore, simple logicalical analysis concludes that this issue will ultimately come down to subjectivity rather than any undeniable substantial FACTS.

Moreover, it is truly undeniable that NATURAL climate variability has happened countless times over thousands of years and will do so again whether we were living here or not. Therefore, the basic odds as to which theory seems most credible would logically fall back on the undeniable reality that Natural climate change is still occurring today. This doesn't discount the possibility that human activities are also having a VERY MINIMAL effect on global warming as well. As we all understand in the scientific community, the models are only as good as the information put into them. That being said, I believe you and I both are aware of the CSU report that through reanalysis discovered that there was indeed faulty and unreasonable information which distorted the climate model data from the study that has been repeatedly sited in order to suggest a definite correlation between greenhouse gas emissions and more frequent and intense hurricanes through 2080.

This is simply just another attempt by the alarmists, supported by their stronghold on the media outlets to misguide the general public into accepting as FACT something that can NEVER be anything more than a consensus view of scientists based strictly upon subjectivity. As we have seen by these blogs, it seems impossible for most to keep political loyalties out of the debate.

I am most disappointed that you too have chosen to encourage the continued politicalization with the contents of your latest blog posting. No where did you offer any credible scientific arguments to support your apparent view of human induced global warming. Instead, you made a politisized argument to try and substantiate the UNPROVABLE.

I am certain that my own personal decision to challenge your viewpoint and the contents of your blog will no doubt turn some against me for they would not dare challenge the founder of this excellent website. However, I cannot nor wouldn't ever sacrifice my principles and the need to challenge such irrelevant and obvious politisized comments that in my personal opinion have no place in this debate.

To put this debate back into its proper perspective.

Do you honestly believe that any increased temperature trends around the globe can ever be proven that they are a DIRECT result of greenhouse gas emissions? If so, please explain how this could ever be possible when there is NO WAY we could ever know how much a difference if any, there would have been without such human activities.

Furthermore, how can you or anyone else ever PROVE that such Global warming trends(as it should be correctly defined)are not a DIRECT result of the proven Natural climate variability that has occurred for thousands of years? Please keep in mind, the debate has been focused around the idea that human activities are the DIRECT cause of the current warming cycle NOT a secondary affect upon it. In other words, the alarmists as you well know want to frame the debate as suggesting that the current warming cycle would NOT have occurred without greenhouse gas emissions.

Regardless of ones personal perspective, no one can circumvent the obvious FACT that global warming(by my own logical definition)can NEVER be proven and will always be based upon the subjectivity of the scientific community as a result. For me, that standard is truly unacceptable and cannot be regarded as anything remotely resembling TRUTH.

Consequently, the alarmist response will always refer back to the undebatable(because we are not debating anything observable)"WHAT IFS" of the most extreme scenarios that play on peoples fears rather than their objectivity. In addition, the alarmists will continue to appeal to ones emotions by politisizing the issue rather than allowing people to objectively review the evidence from both a logical as well as an intellectual perspective.

All of the aforementioned just goes to support my argument that there will NEVER be an end to this undeniably subjective debate regardless of anyone's personal opinion.


Seem like pretty solid facts. I don't know how effective it is to argue with a scientist using straw man arguments, ad hominems and red herrings. Lots of words, hurricanechaser, very little substance.
Tony (hurricanechaser):
I actually happen to agree with you, scientifically - the evidence of rates of change in present climate are not at all out of line with the historical record, as near as I have been able to surmise from my reading.
Nevertheless, I am disturbed by any quashing of scientific opinion for political reasons, which I believe is what Dr. Masters was pontificating. I may not agree with the alarmists and their shouting, nor do I like their popularity with the press, but I strongly believe that their opinions should get an open hearing.
The present administration doesn't have a very good record in that regard....
- Jeff

And as I have said before, you are only seeing the tip of the iceberg with respect to the censorship, propoganda and outright lies that the Bush administration has perpetuated agasint the American people. It's Enron on a mganified scale.

Drink some more of that kool aid. It's grape I heard. And I have a nice bridge to sell ya too.
i this like to say that i have my new blog up and you would no some in new on there to so come on by and take a look and say wow
c'mon F5, are you serious?

The world's top scientists (a vocal minority consisting mainly of crackpots and industry lapdogs aside) are convinced that our atmospheric emissions of greenhouse gases will cause or contribute to global warming. This was the case when I was taking climatology courses in the 1980s and its the case now (only now the evidence is much more compelling). They are convinced because their best models are all pointing in the same direction - global warming will occur due to increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

The only question is how much of what we've seen so far (ie. in the last 100 years) is natural fluctuation in climate, and how much is human-induced.

Going forward, if our best scientists using their best models are predicting human-induced global warming, then why would we not act on their advice to do what we reasonably can to reduce of greenhouse gas emissions and thus reduce the predicted climate changes?
19. F5

Sources please? Or perhaps you are your own spinmeister?

Every administration engages in attempts to shape and transform discussions to follow their agenda. This is nothing new. That's what politics is all about.

Nice of you to throw in the "Enron" comment as well. I could supply a laundry list of political activities of the Clinton administration too, many of which were unethical and likely some of which were illegal, but what would be the point? If we head down that road, we'll spend eternity slinging mud and never actually discussing the important issues before us.
20. F5
snowboy, you bet your life I'm serious. Your comments exactly mirror what several of the links I posted stated. Anyone who disagrees with your position is simply a crackpot and/or associated with the energy industry). Did you even bother to read the articles. Your comments are prima facie evidence to their veracity, and the likelihood that you didn't bother to read them because you knew they were presenting an opposing point of view.

Why is it that some of the top climatologists in the world who disagree with the anthropogenic alarmist view are viewed as crackpots or on the dole of industry, yet those who espouse the viewpoint you've adopted are revered and held in above reproach?

"The only question is how much of what we've seen so far (ie. in the last 100 years) is natural fluctuation in climate, and how much is human-induced. "

The fact that you have to ask this question is one of the primary reasons why we should not attempt to take drastic action to attempt to modify something we aren't even sure if we are the cause of. Other important factors include the fact that since we really don't understand the earth's climate very well, how can we have any faith that taking such action will a) achieve it's goals and b) not do something even worse...

Our "best" models may be nothing more than complete claptrap, so why on earth would I want to take actions based on outcomes that are highly dubious as to their veracity.

I could supply a laundry list of political activities of the Clinton administration too, many of which were unethical and likely some of which were illegal, but what would be the point? If we head down that road, we'll spend eternity slinging mud and never actually discussing the important issues before us.

Wow, sounds like American poltics in a nutshell; slinging mud and never really doing anything.
Chaser, I was wondering when Dr. Master's article would get a rise out of you.

Of course we can't prove how much or little of the observed changes in climate we're causing (not sure why you needed such an extended riff to get that across)..

But Chaser, our best climatology scientists making predictions based on their best models are concluding that human emissions of C02 will lead to global warming. Could you tell me, do you as a scientist disagree with their predictions? If so, please point me to the flaw in the science.

F5, I did read the articles. Read the one in the Spiegel in the original German. They were not persuasive, nor are you.

If you're going to opine that the global climate models are "claptrap" and "highly dubious as to their veracity", try actually learning about and studying these models (rather than just searching the web for those with similar points of view to yours) and you may learn something of lasting value.
ok all i got a Dumb Question for you all if you want to go to sleep and wake up in oh say in the year 2080 to 2371 year would there be a way to do it like i say be for it is only a Dumb Question
I dont see how this turned into a global warming debate... regardless your stand on global warming, you should be able to say what you want to about it. What's wrong with this scientist saying what he believes? and on a side note to chaser...you are basing your thoughts on global warming with other people's research and opinions... unless i'm mistaken and you've spent your life researching the topic??? which is very unlikely, but the great thing for you is... you get to voice your opinion about it anyways, but you are saying a man who has spent his life researching global warming shouldn't voice his opinion?
I think it's hilarious that someone can write so much on how dr. hansen shouldn't voice what he believes, but then goes on a 5,000 word essay about what he believes is FACT! I dont know about everybody else but it sounds a little hypocritical to me??
We have only 200 years of true records when it comes weather. The rest is all theory. I for one do not believe in gobal warming. We are in a cycle. Weather has done extremes from day one.
F% see snowboy's post. No this admin borders on being fascist. WPE says it all.
It's too bad that Limboob is such a siren for the addle minded and invincibly ignorant. A real shame. Hope you freepers have made lots of dough in the last 6 years. If you can't pick out the sucker at the poker table it's you.
This country does way more for the enviroment then any other country. I am so sick of everyone saying we need to do more. Its BS. If you think that Bush is destroying our planet you are the fool and the idiot. Why don't you guys that bash Bush get mad at the rest of the world, I mean at least be fair. China creates 38% more pollution then us..why don't you bitch about them? Or how about all of Africa?
Being America & all, There is no reason we should be muzzling climate info, be it a top researcher in the feild or info gathered during a hurricane.

Termination of IWIN is in line with planned consolidation of NWS web farms ~This tuesday is the last day to comment to NOAA on their planned termination of this site.
Has anybody bashed Bush on this board for destroying our planet???? NO!!!!! They are bashing him for not letting some one speak out on what they beleive!!!
I don't get to vote in China. Do you?
And you're right, we are the leading country when it comes natural resource conservation... and we must continue to set the example. The only problem i have with Bush and the environment is the fact that he allocated 250 million dollars to restore the wetlands around New Orleans, yet it's gonna take 14 billion dollars to actually implement the plan that will bring the barrier islands back. But oh yea i forgot we can control mother nature, and make strong enough levee's to hold back storms, as bush said. "we will succumb to the whims of nature!!"-that is the most ignorant thing i've ever heard a president say
whoops i meant to quote "we will NOT succumb to the whims of nature"
Yet why do we rebuild what nature destroys? Nature nows how to handle its self and earth better then we do.
rmh - what are you talking about?
We can spend 14 billion dollars in Iraq like it's not a big deal... But god forbid we spend 14 billion dollars to creat barrier islands around N.O. so that we dont have to spend 50 billion dollars 20 years from now when another hurricane hits new orleans.
weathermantrey - estimates are in the TRILLIONS for Iraq. TRILLIONS. Think about that. For 1/2 of the cost of the Iraq war we could have fied Social Security. WPE. Worst President Ever.
weathermantrey, and a good part of that is being laundered into Neocon friendly lobbyists who will use YOUR taes to contribute to perpetuate the criminal enterprises started under this administration. If you have tome have a look at the Abromhoff scandal and then look into the K Street Project. But don't eat any food before you do, it will disgust you.
This is off topic to the original blog, but if anybody's interesting in the stuff about New Orleans, here's a link. www.katrinanomore.com
rmh9903, I am curious about the basis for your statement with respect to the USA that
"This country does way more for the enviroment then any other country."

Up here in Canada, our normally clear blue skies turn a brown milky shade as soon as the wind swings around to the southwest and the air comes from the Ohio Valley and mid-west. We had dozens of smog alerts last year, in most cases worst air quality was measured closest to the American border.

Acid rain from American factories and power plants has killed tens of thousands of Canadian lakes.

American pollution just about killed Lake Erie, and dioxins and many other organics from the Buffalo (Love Canal) area are polluting the Niagara River and Lake Ontario.

Seen from up here, your track record on the environment is not impressive...
wannabe long time no see hows it goin
I read that article yesterday and meant to comment on it but
Dr. Masters beat me to it. I don't no that voting would change anything. Didn't we have Bill and Al in the white house for eight years. Al the environmentalist. The same time period saw the SUV explosion in sales and the end of increasing car fuel economy. Corporations run the world behind the scenes. It won't matter who is in the White House. Is it a suprise to anybody the current administration wanted to muzzle Dr. Hansen. Come on people.

hey boldman - good been quiet here until tonight LOL
wow snowboy is it really that bad i thought there were laws againsted all that stuff.
Say all you want but I personally guarantee you can call anyone across the country and they will tell you they are experiencing abnormal weather. And no guarantee cause I have not looked lately but good chance that statement holds true worldwide.
As posted earlier, America's track record on the environment is far from stellar. But until this administration, one could at least take comfort in the fact that there was a wide spectrum of opinion in the US and that dissenting opinions could be heard. Preventing scientists from speaking on important issues of the day is simply unforgiveable.
lol yeah you know how to stil the pot lol
arc is the closest to the correct answer yet. Nice job.
snowboy, talk to me when you quit using any product manufactured in an American Factory!
and yes we have produced a lot of pollution in the 70's and 80's, but the EPA has turned 90 percent of that around. Grant it, there's still some things that need addressing. But we are getting it done
i think here in cali we have the toughest regulations on emmissions thats why the gas is more expensive here they tax it a bunch for enviromental money
so i would have to say cali is doin their part
Bush is bush.
Just speakin my mind Boldman. Not trying to cause any problems.
heavysnow ?
oh i dont care wannabe just playin with ya
Snow is that some arcane reference to the speach at the end of Team America World Police? That is really funny if it is.
yes boldman?
Progressive, that's what's so funny about the posts from F5, Chaser and others - the weather is clearly abnormal but they're absolutely insistent on making the lame point that it can't be PROVEN to be caused in any way from human activity. As if the lack of proof matters.

It's meant as that and as truth of course.
snowboy thats internesting i think california the part im in is pretty normal for this time of year we have bee around average all winter and last summer i think as well. well at least for my little town so not everywhere is experiencing abnormal weather.
Don't forget snowboy, Darwin was wrong too. Let's teach that science is crazy and intelligent design caused that strange weather.
oh nope was just wonderin what that meant bush is bush but ya explaigned it so never mind (:
please wannabe not takin sides but dont start somethin you will reget later (:
An upper hierarchy of elite composed of the wealthiest familes
and heads of corporations etc. runs the world. Politicians nothing more than mere figureheads to give the population the delusion that they have some control. Follow the money.

crackin' up here wannabe. He's a pricker bush or is that cheney?
bold I start things I regret on a daily basis. lol
Here, here, Arcturus!
They took our jobs! And our SNOW!
I am just referring to the look out the window meathod. Proof is in the pudding, same reason they are not making a catagory 6 hurricane. Wilma was a 6 - it is time to accept what is happening and react. Government goals across the board, local goals across the board. I said it before and I will say it again, I am dreading next years cane season.
cheney is definately in the closet. Anyone who is that angry has to be repressing some serious sheeeeeeet. Rove might be his boy toy

Weathermantrey the US was improving (like other countries) on the environment until the current admin came into power, you're decades behind now. On air quality in particular, which we notice so strongly up here, all the progress of the 80s and 90s has been undone...
agree arcturus i always though politicans were people that got their position by tellin a bunch of lies thats how they make it in life by lyin
lol wannabe at least we can add some humor and laughs o this convo
It does not matter Democratic or communist, behind the facade
the ruling elite laugh at the public cattle they control.

Arc is close but he sounds a little tinfoily. It's not simple but arc knows that.

Dubya never really wanted to be Pres anyway. He just wanted to keep the ball rollin' in Texas with the 'good ole boys.' They really hogtied him and took him to DC against his will. That's really not as facetious as you might think.
Human nature resists change, we need stability... yet nature changes and we can't do anything about it.... so we need to cope with it... right now, we can not sustain life with the use of CO2 emission. so we have to cope with it... unless somebody on this board doesn't drive a car or buy virtually any product made b/c most require some kind of of CO2 emission
Snowboy, what can i say i didn't vote for him... :)
global - I dont think there is a day on the ranch that Bush isnt happier than an old bull that he the Pretzledent of 'Merica.
I voted for Pretzledent Bush 25 times and I live in Ohio!
I think it's funny when ever single time there's a disaster or emergency, bush "flies in from his vacation at his ranch in texas to survey the damage" Does he ever leave that d*mn ranch?
Look out the window meathod = I look out my window in West Palm and see warmer than normal temps in the high 70's to low 80's. My father in Southern Micigan looks out the window and see's a lake that has never been unfrozen this time of year (lived there 20 years). My aunt in St. Paul Minnesota is seeing Ice Sculptures melting for the first time, temps in the 40's. Friend in Ancorage Alaska is in one of thier coldest winters ever -40 to -60.
for snowboy lol
here it is the real explanation for politics

Republican Vs. Democrat
Actually, the political parties only bash each other for public consumption.
Right. It's like a big sitcom .

global get the second gold star
Polarize and distract the public. Thats entertainment.

anyone call for a gold star lol
Boldman, if you're really Canadian, get that Maple leaf outta my face. We're comin' up there real soon to dig us out some cheap oil. Hear that!?
And it will be easier when its warmer. We are getting close to manageable warm temperatures up there.

no im not canadian that was for snowboy who is
Now that we've got the ice caps melting, we can sink those rigs like straws in a milkshake. And I heard there's shale oil on the mainland too. Here we come.
Sorry Boldman. Watchout Snowboy!
In ten years give or take, Canada's climate will be similar to the US. We are already tracing the 48 replacement states on your map. Cause its going to be a little too Africa like hot down here.

That's for sure. Mayor Nagin should have said New Orleans will be 'chocolate syrup' in the end.
That's why Canada shifted to a more republican like govenment
Making more sense now Arc
Doesn't Bush have some French Canadian relatives up there.

If I were a smart investor, I would buy up land outside flood levels in New Orleans.
French Canadians hate the US lol
Hey Weatherwannabe,

You know your screen name suits you very well, wannabe.

Yes, there are alot words written in my previous post which is simply a continuous reiteration of the same FACTS that are cast aside, because they can't be denied nor are appreciated by the alarmists like yourself, snowboy, and too many others.

I specifically chose to be redundant in hopes that repetition of these obvious facts might be successful in freeing yourself from believing everything you hear coming out of the scientific community and the main stream media which are very liberal as a whole.

One more time for you and the rest who can only resort to political attacks and personal ones as well, with those you can't intellectually debate on the merits, or in your case, the lack thereof.

It is impossible for anyone(this includes every scientist)to ever know IF the current warming trend globally was even affected by human induced causes much less the absurd alarmist view that says that this warming was a DIRECT result of it.

Please, someone, anyone, tell me how you can PROVE your unsubstantiated GUESS of human induced global warming as the DIRECT cause of it?

The FACT is you can't and never will be able to do so. Simply put, we have no idea whether the current temperature increases wouldn't have occurred(or to what degree)had we never released any greenhouse gas emissions, plain and simple.

Those like snowboy who keeps believing in the computer model predictions, that in reality, are only as good as the knowledge we currently have and the speculative information we put into them don't PROVE anything other than what could be possible according to the erroneous data put into them. The real travesty is that the computer models predicting this unrealistic future warming have given results based upon information that was intentionally unreasonable(using the idea of more than double the current CO2 releases which have not risen but have decreased since the 1990s)and other skewed data. This has led to the assumption by those like yourself who have accepted such uncredible modeling data at face value, because it fits into your own political desired point of view.

In contrast, other computer modeling data and studies suggest a completely different result and those are ignored because they contradict what the liberal minded scientific community and main stream media want others to believe.

As a result of all of the aforementioned, no computer model, scientist, politician, janitor, car salesman, or any other person for that matter can ever PROVE the concept of human induced global warming. It still comes down to nothing more than a consensus subjective opinion of a majority whose natural allegiance is to a liberal political perspective.

Moreover, this is why you will never see anyone ascribing to this alarmist point of view, being able to provide any substantiated proof, because it is inherently impossible to prove it in the first place.

I personally believe in the undeniable and FACTUAL cycles of NATURAL climate variability for which no one can or has denied has actually occurred numerous times in the past and will NATURALLY do so again. This is a FACT not simply based on subjectivity, but observed FACT. Therefore, it seems far more logical for any objective person(without a distorted view based upon political loyalties)to expect that we are in a current warming phase of these NATURAL climate cycles.

That being said, I have not once said that it is impossible that human induced greenhouse gas emissions have had ZERO effect on our climate. On the other hand, I believe that any such effect has been and will continue to be relatively insignificant and possibly unnoticeable(if we could've compared today's temps with those of the past century without any greenhouse gas emissions)in comparison with these NATURAL observed climate changes.

If you will notice one thing about my posts, I don't suggest anything is FACTUAL that is not undeniable nor has not already been proven (does my BEST EDUCATED GUESS sound familiar to anyone). In my personal opinion, a simple majority of peoples subjective opinions is a very poor standard by which to declare anything, much less this issue, as fact.

Please let me clarify, I personally believe we are in a warming phase of NATURAL climate variability that has occurred many times before and that human activities MAY have had a very minimal effect upon this NATURAL climate cycle. Please notice how I didn't say that it is IMPOSSIBLE that greenhouse gas emissions have had some effect on global temperatures, but simply that it is highly likely that whatever effect if any, has and will be minimal at best.

The biggest problem I have with those like you, snowboy, and the rest of you alarmists is that you are accepting the idea that human activities are the DIRECT cause of it,and not simply a secondary effect upon it. This is not only unprovable and completely unsubstantiated, but defies common sense to be quite honest when one considers the obvious effects of NATURAL climate variability.

Now, I want someone here to PROVE that there is NO WAY that NATURAL climate variability is not the actual DIRECT cause of this global temperature increase. Simply put, you can't no matter how you try to manipulate this debate.:)

Ok, I have purposely chosen to once again be repetitive so that you may actually use your God given common sense rather than your self appeasing blind faith in something that is completely unprovable and illogical when assuming it to be the DIRECT cause of global temperature increases.

However, you have the absolute right to believe that humans are the DIRECT cause of it if you like, just as you have the right to believe in the tooth-fairy, Easter bunny, and Santa Clause as well.:) In other words, the TRUTH (whatever it may actually be)will not and cannot change regardless of anyone's personal opinion of it.

Please don't mischaracterize that statement to suggest that I am saying I know the TRUTH (in this case), but rather that none of us do and it is absurd to read such articles and posts suggesting that human induced global warming is indeed factual, when objectivity and simple logic alone suggests it's at the very most a secondary effect on the NATURAL climate changes.

One more thing, I have spent the past nine years studying and researching on this very topic and that is why I am so adamant about my beliefs on this issue. It is important to note that I too began my study by simply accepting what has been the popular alarmist view being propagated by the main stream media and other various sources for the past couple of decades. I look back and wonder why I could've blindly accepted something at face value, that is not only unprovable but very illogical in regards to it being a DIRECT result of greenhouse gas emissions.

I also want to take a moment to say that I won't be able to post for a few weeks as a result of my current living situation and that I believe F5 does an excellent job of sharing my point of view and the logical reasons for it. Therefore, I hope each of you have a great week and I look forward to talking with you again when I am able to do so.:)


The French dislike anyone less French than themselves. But you have to admit, they know how to live.
I think Mayor Nagin was talking about the color of the water that was and should be flowing through the city.
Will you acknowledge a catagory 6 Hurricane Chaser? Wilma was and I have a hunch at least one, maybe two more were this year.
There is little of the area of greater New Orleans which is not prone to flood. Most of the property has little value, especially now that the instability of the levee system is known.
I would love to see the levee to withstand a CAT 5
I say in ten years we will know if its normal climate variability. If most of us are dead, we will know without any doubt.

40 feet high and sheesh the depth of it would cut into the french quarter.
Wow, I wish I could focus like Hurricanechaser. I'd write my book.
i hope my little graphics arnt bothering you guys if they are ill stop
Wow, I'm shocked. I never expected to see the weather afficianados who frequent this board (some of whom are quite knowledgeable in meteorology and frequently post valuable information) in such denial over talk of greenhouse gas emissions.

Weather is not a political issue, no matter who tries to use it as such. It just demonstrates how far the current administration will go to further its politically, not policy-driven, agenda.

What's so hypocritical about this denial by the administration of greenhouse emissions and their contribution to global warming is the fact that the Pentagon has a contignency plan for abrupt climate change. The paper itself mentions "human influence on the climate" as a factor(link below).

As to the suppression of scientific data and quieting the voices of those who dedicate their lives to studying disciplines that affect our literal existence, we're in big trouble folks. As someone mentioned earlier, this is not a Communist regime.

The issue of human influenced global warming brings to mind Bob Woodward's interview with President Bush when he asked, "What will future historians say about you?" To which the President replied, "Who cares? We'll all be dead by then."

Check out the Pentagon link at:
No Boldman. Graphics are cool. Was that my gold star back down the road? Multo Grazzi!
yeah globalize it was for you thanks
The atmosphere is, to put it lightly, a big place. Doesn't matter if its normal climate variability or us. Either way we
arent going to stop it or it's too late to stop it. We either have to adapt or create an easier way to get into space so we can build the carbon nano tube plants on the moon to construct the giant sun shade the earth needs. Simple.

126. F5
Well, clearly we see now the difference between those who actually want proof and those who want action, regardless of cost, regardless of knowing the possible repercussions, regardless of any facts whatsoever, so that they can satisfy their moral superiority.

Let's see what we've got. We've got posts by hurricanechaser, myself, and a few others who claim there is no proof that humans are inducing global warming, stating the FACT that global warming/cooling is a natural climate variability, and stating that the discussion should really be centered over reducing pollution, vs a bunch of name calling posters who demand action despite a lack of proof.

From snowboy's own comment..

"the weather is clearly abnormal but they're absolutely insistent on making the lame point that it can't be PROVEN to be caused in any way from human activity. As if the lack of proof matters."

As if a lack of proof matters? A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts. Anthropogenic causation of the current global warming trend is NOT a fact. It is a theory. It will never be a FACT. And the theory itself may or may not be true. No one will every be able to prove it without having a duplicate earth identical in history to the one we live on, but never having humans on it, and comparing the differences, if any, between the two. Since that can never be done, you can never prove anthropogenic global warming. Ever.

As I said before, I won't be dragged into a political debate. The fact that you all have been reduced to ad hominem attacks simply proves that you lack support for your point of view, and are now attempting to distract attention by changing the subject entirely. How sad really.

As for learning something snowboy, I learn new things every day. That's the beauty of life. I will freely admit that I am no master on the subject. I read what I can in the time I can spare. I've read from both sides of the debate, and found your position to be lacking. The links I provided summed it up pretty neatly. You yourself posted exactly the same way that the alarmists always do. Instead of trying to provide additional insight into why you believe what you do, you (and the other posters here tonight who I don't even recognize) simply attack the dissenter. We are both better off when we are open to discussion. It pushes the topic to the forefront so that people can become more informed and help push forward the research. I've tried to post my thoughts on the subject and I'm open to continued discussion. You do not appear to be open to discussion. The only thing you do appear to be willing to do is to dismiss and denigrate those who do not agree with you. That is a popular tactic taken by those who are in your camp, but not one that is productive for science and humanity as a whole.

As always, you are free to post whatever you like. But if you think that the personal attacks will stop me from posting my opinions, you would be incorrect in your assumption. I'm only sorry we can't seem to have a civilized discussion on the topic.
The same evil corporate empires that control the world can build those moon factories. Isn't it funny how everything
works out.

Right Arcturus, that could be finished by mid-March if we could start next week.
Especially if we contract out to Haliburton.

lol guys dont let cyclone get a wif of this
tunnels is enough dont neeed moon factories lol
The US is in the Denial Phase, we need to skip the Acceptance Phase and React. Reguardless if it is Humans or not, it is proven that greenhouse gases are not healty for the enviornment. Be it a wake up call, last ditch, who cares! Pass it off again as a climate change, the greenhouse buck has been passed for several years now. Yes there were climate shifts in the past and active Hurricane seasons, but none to justify Katrina and Wilma in the overnight hours away from observation. And the formation of our last 3 storms in conditions unforseen that are irrelavant because no recon was performed.
134. F5

There have been a number of suggestions put forth for responding to severe climate change. I don't know that any of them are truly workable, nor do I believe that anyone knows the repercussions of attempting to control the climate. One such suggestion was to put a series of mirrors in space that could be turned to reflect some of the suns energy away from the earth. An interesting proposition, but not really workable, at least with today's technology. Tomorrow, who knows. I've read a number of articles about the carbon nanotubes as well. The last was about building space elevators with these unqiue, remarkably strong tubes. Again, the technology isn't there yet, but could be in the near future.

The real question is, should we be more prepared to adapt to whatever changes the earth is going to go through regardless, or should we attempt to exercise control over the earth's climate, regardless of whether we know or understand what such an undertaking really means. What if doing so solves the problem, at least temporarily, but then causes greater problems down the road? Or, what if it solves it for most places but causes greater issues or doesn't solve it for a few areas. If that area is Antarctica, maybe no one cares. But what if it's China, or India, or the USA, or some other populus region. Who gets to decide who will be the sacrificial lamb?

What we should be doing is pushing forward with research into new technologies to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources, and reducing pollution to help preserve our water and air quality. Those are areas we know we can affect with advanced technology.
Yeah Arcturus, you may have hit on something with the lunar earth shade. If Congress were to authorize forty billion to Halliburton, that would mean Halliburton would cut a check for at least $28.50 to the builders. Think we could do it for that?
Hey snowboy,

It is a shame that you can comprehend the obvious points I am making that not only is your alarmist view completely unprovable but that we ONLY have two hundred years of weather records to compare to in understanding what the norm truly is.

Therefore, this global warming trend(whether NATURAL or human induced as you want to believe)would NATURALLY change climatic events, but not to the absurd degree that you and other alarmists expect.

In short, it is truly ridiculous to insult others intelligence by suggesting that any weather events that take place now or in the future that are seemingly abnormal in comparison with an incomplete two hundred year record is DIRECTLY the result of human activities when it can and most likely the DIRECT result of NATURAL CLIMATE VARIABILITY.

The fact is you can't deny that the current warming phase could actually be DIRECTLY caused by NATURAL CLIMATE VARIABILITY. Since it can't be denied(to your displeasure of course), you can't HONESTLY say that ANY and ALL seemingly abnormal weather events aren't be DIRECTLY caused by NATURAL CLIMATE CHANGE.

Honestly, you all are showing your true liberal colors and why you can't look at this issue objectively and the personal attacks on President Bush, conservatives, Christians, and the like eliminates any credibility you have on this issue.

You have succeeded in encouraging me not to associate with such mean spirited people who can't have an intelligent debate on the merits of an issue without name calling and questioning another's honesty as Dr. Masters himself has done by publishing something he can't prove is fact that demeans another's character and has encouraged this mean spirited political forum that should've never have taken place in my personal opinion.

In my humble opinion, life is too short to spend it associating with people who get so much pleasure out of attacking others personally with name calling as seen below.

I will post the comments I referenced from Dr. Masters blog and I'm done trying to rationalize with the irrational.:)


F*&( those daym tunnels lol
Even a vehicle emmission reduction of 50% in five years, if such a technological achievement was possible, wouldn't be close to enough with everbody and their mother wanting a car
in China.

But it helps!
Vienna's subway tracks cracked, German authorities shut a key canal to ships after it iced up, and a zoo moved its penguins indoors Tuesday as a deadly deep freeze tightened its arctic grip on much of Europe.

You know it is bad when you are moving freaking Penguins indoors lol.
Smart Germans lol
lol penguins normall can survive sub zero temps at least then do in the wild (march of the penguins)......... LOL
That is the funniest story I have read in a while, haha.
Media is always there for a good laugh every once and a while.
Sophisticated Penguin's
Temps aren't so cold for Europe this time of year. Paris high 44, Vienna 33, etc. Check them out.
At the zoo in Dresden, Germany, 21 Humboldt penguins were moved from their minus 6 outdoor environment into a building where the temperature was a more comfortable 32 degrees to ensure their feet didn't freeze, zoo director Karl Ukena said.

Thier feet didn't freeze! for gods sake it is a freaking penguin.

Posted By: ProgressivePulse at 7:17 AM GMT on January 30, 2006.

...it is proven that greenhouse gases are not healty for the enviornment.

There are several different types of greenhouse gasses. The major ones are carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, and nitrous oxide.

While we could certainly get by without methane or nitrous oxide in the atmosphere, the other 2 are not only "healthy", but downright "absolutely necessary".

All plant life needs carbon dioxide to live, and that represents both the basis of our food chain, and the only source of oxygen in our atmosphere.

And just where did you read that said water vapor is not healthy for the environment?

Here is the central premise of Dr. Masters blog and I for one find it inappropriate to write a blog on it when the veracity of it is left in doubt as noted in the comments below. Keep in mind, Dr. Masters continued to shape his blog by expounding upon this topic as though it is an undeniable fact (since when has that stood in the way of liberals).

"A public affairs official at NASA said that government scientists were free to discuss scientific issues, but that policy statements should be left to policy makers and appointed spokesmen. Since Dr. Hansens December 6 talk, NASA has rejected several media requests to interview him, including one by National Public Radio (NPR). According to Leslie McCarthy, a public affairs officer responsible for the NASA Goddard Institute, a NASA public affairs official appointed by the White House, George Deutsch, rejected the NPR interview request. He called NPR the most liberal media outlet in the country, and that his job was to make the president look good. Deutsch denied making the statements. McCarthy disagrees, saying she has no reason to lie."

Notice that Mr. Deutsch denies making the aforementioned statements in the comments above while Ms. McCarthy says she has no reason to lie. Ok, we can obviously derive from the aforementioned that someone is indeed lying, how can Dr. Masters, the articles editors, or anyone else say unequivocally that Ms. McCarthy isn't the one lying? In reality, none of us can and I find it inappropriate that Dr. Masters chose to post derogatory comments that are suspect which has major implications upon the character of others including the Bush Administration.

Ms. McCarthy says, "she has no reason to lie", and she may very well be telling the truth. On the other hand, there is the same likelihood that Mr. Deutsch may actually be the honest one. They both would have obvious motives in doing so. In Ms. McCarthy's case, shes a reporter that does her job by breaking the big story and is it not possible that she could also have her own personal political reasons to be less than honest with such a story.

In reality, only Mr. Deutsch and Ms. McCarthy know the truth and I for one would not attack another's character when there is doubt as to the veracity of the information outlined above. Then again, I thank God that I have enough respect for others than to engage in this kind of smear campaign at the expense of another's true character.

This will be my last post in Dr. Masters blog for I have very little respect for this blog nor those who get such pleasure out of attacking others.


I was talking about the harmful gases Cali, should have been more specific, sorry.
Must have been a german penguin theBold lol
give al the credit to aucturus he found it i just made it easier to see
Funny S*&*!
Gotta love those penguins. I hope the earth gets colder for those poor lil guys.

Moon bases by when, mid-March ?

People might actually start claming the stars they purchaced.
Yeah, if we can get the $28.50 funding from Halliburton.
My head hurts from lol I gotta go

Posted By: ProgressivePulse at 7:48 AM GMT on January 30, 2006.

I was talking about the harmful gases Cali, should have been more specific, sorry.

Heheheheheh. That's cool.

CO2 is the main one though... oxygen takes out the methane. If we look at historical records over hundreds of millions of years, or billions... , we see that CO2 is related to the warmth of the planet.

As ice covers more area, fewer plants can live, and the CO2 falls, the planet cools more, more ice forms, more plants die, etc., until (and this has happened) the planet is frozen over to (or nearly to) the equator.

That kills all the plant and animal life except for pockets around thermal vents in the ocean.

Then, over millions of years, volcanos slowly put some CO2 back into the atmosphere and the continents re-align themselves (I'll explain that some other time) and the planet gradually starts warming and reversing the ice age.

So the CO2 is needed for even more than my original post suggested.

Great video Arc lol! have to scroll down every once in a while!
So the harmfull emissions I was speaking of, namely from vehicles, is good for the enviornment, right Cali?
i think cows pollute more then cars lol
well guys has been a fun night goin to bed now

Living here in California I can say that smog is not good for the environment.

However, if cars can be made to run cleanly with CO2 and water vapor being the exhaust, then there's no problem.

Remember, we'll be out of oil in 50 years or so anyway, so in the long run it won't make much difference.

The Oil Crash

Sourcebook on Hydrogen Applications
Why Hydrogen?
Hydrogen is the simplest, naturally occurring atom. The most abundant of all the elements, it accounts for three-fourths of the mass of the universe. On Earth, it is mostly found chemically bound to other elements. Hydrogen can be extracted from many materials natural gas, methanol, coal, biomass and water. Over the next 20 years, the impact of global climate change on our society, energy scarcity and the improved efficiency of hydrogen-based technologies will create new opportunities for hydrogen. The idea of something so ubiquitous as hydrogen replacing diminishing fossil fuels has been a subject of interest and intrigue for social visionaries from Jules Verne to an army of modern day technical and environmental proponents.

I posted earlier in the day of this type of alternative fuel that is discovered but supressed by the govt. due to the almighty dollar
Imagine exaust you can drink, sounds to logical right.

Plants actually use CO2 during photosynthesis and converts it into O2.
Animals like us convert CO2 the other way, the less plant life means higher CO2 levels.
And CO2 is obviously not the sole source of oxygen in our atmosphere, O2 is and is at around 21% of the air we breathe.

High CO2 levels will kill animals and at fairly low concentrations, but the relative amount to our atmosphere is way to high globally.
As for hydrogen cars, great idea but how dangerous? Imagine crashing a car with a high pressure hydrogen tank. kabooooom
Bravo, Bravo Hurricaneshaser!!! Those last two post were the best answers to these leftist global warming alarmist!!! Thanx keep up the great responses...
What's your opinion of Link ? Seems this guy has got a great idea of whats been going on.
sorry corrert link to Weather Wars is Link
As for hydrogen cars, great idea but how dangerous? Imagine crashing a car with a high pressure hydrogen tank. kabooooom

Its not much different then driving a car filled with gas. Hydrogen and gas are both very explosive and doesn't take much to go off. Hydrogen power has hurtles like any technology, but I dont think its anymore dangerous then driving with 20 gallons of gas underneath you.
Just noticed this and a quick note:

Hydrogen can now be safely stored in a solid fuel matrix, making it MORE stable and safe than gasoline. The technology exists to do this utilize it and realize a clean-burning fuel. Even augmenting existing systems would realize savings on fuel and would be the first step to eventually weaning us all off of fossil-fuel driven automobiles. MY OPINION, but the first sentence is fact.

if i may this pop in for a bit look at this


well back to bed lol
Hey Crab, your on the brac aren't you, good to meet you

I agree with the solid fuel matrix, being safer, but using hydrogen as a fuel is still too expensive compared to petrol and a lot of hydrogen of this hydrogen is produced as a byproduct from propane production. So still using fossil fuels.
If we are going to ween ourselves off fossil fuels we need more R & D in reducing these costs and producing hydrogen from cleaner sources, solar, wind power etc. Using it as way of storing renewable energy.
Of course we also get plastics, etc from oil, so we would need to increase recyling also.
law, theory, hypothesis

I'm not going to belabor the point, but scientifically you may not be able to prove global warning as a fact (law), but it is more than a hypothesis. Events that have been happening were PREDICTED by global warming experts years ago. We know that global warming is happening. Scientific modelling shows that human behavior should cause global warming. The only argument left is what % of 20th century global warming was human and what % was natural. Even so, with the climatic shifts that global warming WILL cause, a 10% contribution from human activity should be enough to take action. Global warming may not destroy the earth, but it may destroy the current ecosystem in such a dramatic way as to destroy our ability to survive as a species.

The Bush administration's argument against Kyoto to Blair was ECONOMIC, not scientific, because there is no scientific debate. We are already fighting with Canada over the territorial status of Arctic waters because even the administration knows these are going to be open to navigation (and oil exploration?) totally over the coming decades.

And remember, life has caused major alterations of the planet's ecosystem before:
Remember, the existence of oxygen on our planet owes itself to biological processes...without plants (etc.) there would be no animal life. If plants can create an atmosphere that is able to support animal life, is it that far fetched to assume that animal life can influence the environment as well?
Tony Blair (UK Prime Minister)states his views

To F5 and chaser... you go out of your way to make it seem like human induced global warming is highly unlikely and it is ovbiously a natural occuring event. Couldn't anyone bash you in the same way you bashed the "alarmist" by saying you have no solid proff that human's have not induced global warming??? Yes, they could. My point is, dont get so fired up and bash somebody just because somebody is making a point and stating what they believe. If you disagree, tell why you disagree and leave it at that... they'res no need to have an attitude and act like you are the god of the atmosphere and know everything
Then again, I thank God that I have enough respect for others than to engage in this kind of smear campaign at the expense of another's true character.

This will be my last post in Dr. Masters blog for I have very little respect for this blog nor those who get such pleasure out of attacking others.

well tony, to have little respect for attacking others you sure are doing a lot of it..????
Just to further my point.... The simple yet truly undeniable FACT is that NO ONE can ever prove that the increased temperatures around the globe during the past century is DIRECTLY related to human induced greenhouse gas emissions. Forgive me if i'm wrong, but aren't you stating a "FACT" that is actually your opinion? How do you know 50 years from now we find some way to directly prove human induced global warming? The FACT is that you dont know for sure. You are merely stating your opinion which you claim is an UNDENIABLE FACT
I guess it's ok for you to state a FACT, since you've done so much research and all, but it's not ok for Dr. Hansen to state a fact, when he's spent his whole life on the subject
188. F5

You must have me mistaken for snowboy and the others. I have repeatedly provided links supporting my position, as well as why I hold my position. I never called anyone any names. I have used general terms to describe a viewpoint held by those who deem action to be immediately necessary. Just as their views are alarmist, my views are those of a pragmatist. If you consider that bashing, then so be it. I can't do anything about what you feel. On the other hand, I notice you don't have a similar post for snowboy and the others who really are calling others names and denigrating them. So I think we can tell what your position is...

Anyway, I hardly pretend that I am the god of atmospheric science or anything else. If that's what you've taken from my posts, then you didn't really read them very carefully.

To recount, there is no proof that anthropogenic global warming is a primary, secondary, tertiary, or non-factor in the current natural climate variation warming trend. There can never be proof because there is no control group to compare to. Humans ARE a factor. I've never denied this. I have denied that there is PROOF that we are a primary catalyst. Therefore, I do not approve of actions taken to drastically curb human activity that have no basis in fact that they will resolve anything, other than cost a lot of money and jobs. I have advocated more research. I have advocated taking action to reduce the pollution we put into the air and the water. In short, I have been very straight-forward about my thoughts on the subject. If the only thing you can get out of that is that I used the term alarmist and that because of using that term I am bashing people, then you have failed, either purposely or otherwise, to comprehend what I have been saying.

I'm not talking about the Global warming debate, and if i really had to pick i side, i'd probably go with that it's more natural than human induced.. That's not the point i'm trying to make... I just don't understand how you can say it is wrong for someone to state their belief's as a fact, but yet you did the exact same thing in your post.
190. F5
No weathermantry, that is a theory, not a fact. A fact is something that can be proven. A fact is a piece of data. For example, the average temperature at the D/FW airport for 2005 was X degrees F. That is a FACT. If the average temperature at D/FW has risen by 2.0 F over the past 10 years, that is also a FACT. If you state that the temperature increase is due to CO2 emissions from anthropogenic activity, that is NOT a FACT. It is a theory.
191. F5
Dr. Hansen isn't stating a FACT, he's stating a theory. Unfortunately, he is stating it as though it is proven, which it is not. There can be no proof.

Let me ask you these simple questions.

1. Has the earth warmed and cooled in the past?
2. Is the earth warming or cooling now
3. If the answer to #1 is yes (it is), and the answer to #2 is warming, how can you prove that anthropogenic activity is responsible for the current warming vs what has occured naturally throughout history. Is it not entirely possible that the current warming would be occuring if there were no humans at all? And if that is true, then where is your proof that humans are responsible for it?

I await your answers.
well is it a FACT that no one will ever prove that human have been the direct cause of global warming???
(done flame retardant suit with hot dog and marshmellow spikes)

..Okay now I am ready to throw my two cents into the field of battle.

1st what is a scientist - a person who uses observation, experimentation and theory to learn about a subject.

Okay with that in mind, looking at the subject matter at hand. Global Warming is a THEORY. It has yet to be proven in a manner that is accepted by all scientists. Yet theories are dangerous, think about how many people have died for theories (large case in point is God/Allah/Jevoah are all Theorically cases however millions of people have died for this theory). Note the previous statement is not a attack or dismissal of one's personal views but was made to may a statement.

Okay 2nd Dr. James Hansen, has good street cred. So we know he is not some crackpot. His views on the theory of global warming are sound. So why the sudden clampdown on Dr. Hansen, its not excatly him but what he respresents. In the post 9/11 world the USA has given the US and congress more power and sway than any other time in history. And in the name of protecting the American people the goverment is finding ways and reasons to sideline any way of thinking that is not supportive of the current leadership in the US (remenber we are free because we fail to see the chains that bind us).

So the goverment is putting pressure to censure the Dr via NASA and NOAA (which IMHO are better uses for my tax money than bailing our the airlines or the Anti-Missle Shield).

Lastly like the good doctor, we all are caught between living the dream and towing the line for our families or standing up against the raging torrent to speak our minds.

So in closing do I believe in globabl warming, not completely however I will readily agree that humankind has vastly altered the natural state of our lifeboat in the cold void of space.

Is Dr Hasen in the wrong or a pawn of a political climate change of it own. Ever person birthed onto US soil has 10 rights given to them when the US itself gave its first cry of birth. They haven't never gone away or been taken away from us (yet). The problem is the goverment has steadily made it harder and harder to take what we should have freely given to us.
194. F5

You completely misunderstood the point. I did not say that humans were not responsible for some or even most of the current global warming. I don't believe we are, but that's not what I said. What I said was you couldn't prove that humans were responsible because there is no test and control group to compare results. Without humans on the planet, it is entirely possible, and highly likely, that the earth would be warming anyway, just as it has done for millions of years.
I have no proof, and as I said before I would probably side with you on the debate.... but I will not be so arrogant to say that there isn't any way in the near future someone will prove that we have in fact caused global warming. And another note... I would side with your argument, but to be fair... I'm sure if Dr. Hansen was here right now he could probably back up his beliefs above and beyond anything that we could do.
rmh9903- "This country does way more for the enviroment then any other country. I am so sick of everyone saying we need to do more. Its BS. If you think that Bush is destroying our planet you are the fool and the idiot. Why don't you guys that bash Bush get mad at the rest of the world, I mean at least be fair. China creates 38% more pollution then us..why don't you bitch about them? Or how about all of Africa?"

Are you kidding me?
We don't bitch about China because we can't control what they do....? We can only do our part and hope to lead the world in the right direction so hopefully they will follow in our footsteps
198. F5
If NASA wants to take a political position and shape discussions to that position, is that a problem? And if it is a problem, wouldn't it be a problem both ways? Do we know if there were scientists who felt pressured not to speak a certain way when the Clinton administration was in power? I don't see an issue with an administration attempting to speak in one voice, from a policy perspective. After all, dissent internally is one thing, but dissent in the public simply undermines the position those in charge have taken.

Dr. Hansen is free to speak his mind as a private citizen. He is also free to leave GISS and work for a private institution, where he can also speak his mind according to the wishes of his bosses, when it's on their dime.

I stated awhile back, and I repeat again, if you are concerned about things like this, then perhaps we should be discussing whether government should be in the reasearch business at all. There's no guarantee that their research will be an more or less biased than any private research facility.

Didnt mean to hit the enter key. For one, China is 3 times the size of us, its a borderline 3rd world country in many places using coal as their main fuel, and they simply do not have the means to use a cleaner fuel for a billion people. The United States being a world leader in itself should be leading the way to cleaner fuel sources considering how much money floats around this country. We SHOULD have the lowest pollution rates as far as I am concerned considering how technologically advanced we are. And as far as this country is concered, I think we need to do a far better job with waste. George Bush is the opposite of a president we need right now. I am not a strict liberal, and I am not a strict conservative, but the for wellbeing of this country and world, we imo need to get things turned around before the mud is too deep to walk through . I'm not going to shift this debate into a political one, so that is all.

Giants in 06
200. F5

I'm sure Dr. Hansen could. He has spent a good portion of his life studying the issue. But that doesn't what he believes true.

If you believe it's arrogant to think that in the future no one will be able to prove anthropogenic global warming, then so be it. That doesn't make it arrogant. Nor does it make it false. No matter how much research is done, nor how much the probability may approach 100%, it will never be 100%. It may move from uncertain, to likely, to highly likely, but it can never be completely, 100% proof positive.
Trouper-- I've seen your post ...China makes 38% more pollution... twice on this forum. I hope you don't think any educated person believes this assertion. Do you wish to cite the origin of your statistic? The US is by far the worst polluter in the world. Additionally, most of the polluting industry in China produces goods with American labels.
202. F5

The only way that is going to happen, is when the economics dictate it should happen. When oil reaches a certain price and stays there for whatever reason(s), money will begin to flow into alternative technologies. It doesn't now because there's real incentive right now. That's just the way capitalism works, and it's worked pretty darn well for the duration.

You say they Dr. Hansen should be able to speak his mind as a private citizen. However, he wasnt appointed and does not get paid the money he does, which comes from the government to speak like a private citizen. When one speaks out such as he did, he is speaking for many scientists who share the beliefs he does. It only happened to be him speaking out because he has the credibility to do do. If another scientist from an elementary school spoke out, it would be more a joke rather than a national concern as they dont have credibility, thus no one would listen to them. I would take it as a concern that someone at this level spoke out, rather than dismissing it and continually saying that we have no facts to back it up. For as snowboy said, if a majority of our top researchers/scientists believe that global warming is in fact human induced, than why argue with it? Instead, believe what they say or dont, but try and make a difference cleaning up this place. For if 100 years downthe road we find this global warming is a spoof, we would have at least made the effort to make the earth a more enjoyable place for our children.
Yep , if US citizens would stop buying chineses goods cause their cheaper, then the energy inefficient chinese wouldn't be polluting and producing as much.
Keep your trade deficit under control.
The tunnels would prevent all this and bring world harmony
dear hurricanechaser, happen to agree with you.i took serious issue with our socialist buddies onthis site when they dumped on the gov. over the katrina response.it seems that our leftist friends rarely let facts or logic get in the way of a good argument.later,bob
Drifter aren't you a bit young to be on a computer?
Yea, I agree w/ F5 in that aspect. Our nation has a capitalistic economy, and it will decide how much oil is used, but gov't regulations can change and affect the economy... all be it minimally. Hopefully in the near future someone will find a way to generate power at a cheaper rate that that of oil, coal, etc.. i think ethanol can be producedat like 3 or 4 dollars a gallon right now... which isn't cheap enough...but maybe we'll get there one day

To clarify what I said about how china creates 38% more pollution. I was actually quoting that from someone who said it earlier. I didnt make that statement, just as you are, I was commenting about it. Sorry for the mix up.
The UK government just made public a report that says that as little as 2 degrees C of warming may be enough to cause the Greenland icecap to melt in as little as 1,000 years Link
Ethenol maybe a bit expensive to produce right now. However, whatever the cost, fuel is on the verge of being very very expensive in the next 5-15 years anyways so researching that and other alternative energy sources right now I think would be our best bet.
Hey St Simons, hows it been? Very intersting how it is mainly the USA who does not believe that global warming is actually happening. Pretty bad if you ask me. And someone who is as close an allie as the UK and a world power with the USA who firmly believes that global warming is taking place is not right either. Someone want to turn on the light bulb?
As for pollution, it depends on what you count as being pollution--lots of authorites dont count CO2 and methane as pollution because they are not directly toxic to people or the environment

An excellent site for comparing CO2 emissions is www.geohive.com In 2003, the United States was still the greatest emmiter of CO2, with China at about 55 % of the US level. But just give it time.
213. wxfan
NASA ought to explore space and leave climate change to government WEATHER agencies.
The USA unfortuantely has a hard right side, (e.g intelligent design, preemtive war, etc) that I find difficult to understand. Ethanol may not really be a good solution--I have read reports that when counting the energy required to make the ethanol; power the tractors and trucks and trains used to produce and ship the corn used to make it; the impact of larger areas of land being used for agricultural production, and ESPECIALLY the energy used to manufacture fertilizers for the corn and the impact of the fertilizers in the environment. Most of the conclusions I have read say that ethanol has a worse impact than gasoline on the environment.
Hey I have a great idea that may help end the great global warming debate! Could we agree that it makes sense for governments, businesses and individuals to seek to do what we reasonably can to:
- insulate our homes better;
- drive more fuel efficient vehicles;
- improve the efficieny generally of our machines and factories;
- develop alternative energy sources (like wind, solar, etc.)?

If it makes sense to do these things (and I think it does) then why not just do them and never mind if they will or won't affect the world's climate?
Of course China's building that super dam on the Yangtze, which is estimated to produce 84 billion kilowatt hour of power per year by 2009 and is costing them $29 billion to build.
This should put a dent in future increases in emmisions.
Of course there are huge other factors as cons to this project.
interesting was just reading that chevy has come out with a new tahoe that you can change it when you need power to 8 cl and then when you need a gas saving suv then you can have it only use 4 cl interesting

plus ford might be comin out with a new truck that runs on gas ethanol and hydrogen.

just thought i would post that.
It is interesting how when scientists from government agencies speak the truth, the conservative right wants to shut them up.
If anyone can name even ONE example of govt scientists being censored by a Democratic administration for advocating a 'conservative' view I have yet to hear it ;-)
unfortunately, Cregnebaa, the vegetation from the thousands of miles submerged in the lake behind the three gorges dam will generate megatons of methane, which is 30 times as powerful a greenhouse gas as CO2 is
I think everyone agrees on that snowboy. Its saying they will help global warming, or attributing global warming to humans that seems to get people fired up. `
Like I said some whopping cons. Having to move 1.2million people is another one.
Chinese coal consumption more than doubled between 2000 and 2004 from 455 million tons to 957 million tons. Since coal is essentially pure carbon, and carbon has an atomic weight of 12 and oxygen of 16, CO2 has an atomic weight of 44 and 3 2/3 tons of CO2 are generated by burning 1 ton of coal

US coal consumption declined slightly between 2000 and 2004 from 569 million tons to 565 million tons
Hey HurricaneMyles, only in the US does the theory that human greenhouse gas emissions will contribute to global warming get people fired up.

In the rest of the first world, people have stopped denying the obvious and are developing solutions. The US admin approach of attacking or silencing the messengers and ignoring the obvious just means that other nations will develop the technologies of the future (kind of like what happened with the US car industry). It's too bad.

I remember a time not that long ago when the US was a respected leader in the world community, on issues like human rights, the environment, world trade, foreign aid, etc. I am hopeful that it will be again in the future.
I hope so too snowboy
I think the Chinese point on the Dam, was there were more enviromental pros than cons in the long run, especially as most of their power stations are coal powered and the dam will supposedly produce the same amount of power as 18 nuclear power stations.
I hope you are right about that Creg.
boy those coal stats are amazing, with China now burning close to twice US amounts..
If that dam ever fails, is the scary thought.
Personally I think it's a terible idea that will adversly affect millions of people.
An interesting conundrum for environmentalists is that the logical implicating of global warming theories is that we should be shifting significantly toward nuclear energy, due to their minimal greenhouse gas emissions.
I dont think it's the theory that gets people fired up, but how some people say it is a fact. Which it is not, its a contested, but generally accepted theory with huge implications in all areas.

As far as the US leading the way on the issues you mentioned, lets be serious, the US has never been about the environment or world trade. We're isolationists until the early-mid 1900's that logged and mined our country to death. However, we still do contribute more foreign aid then anyone else, and you can whine about %GDP and whatnot, but I dont think the people getting the money care. As far as human rights go, I'd say we're up there. You can bring up gay rights, but that wont go away until people get off their religious horses and get over it.

All in all, I'd say the US aint all the bad. We get a lot of bad stuff thrown at us from the rest of the world, but I'd rather live here then 95% of the other nations of the world, and the other 5% have thier problems, too.
as far as oil goes, oil consumption in the US rose fom 898 million tons in 2000 to 938 million tons in 2004, China rose from 208 to 309 million tons during the same period.
Very intersting stats there. And the Yangtze Dam will generate as much power as 18 nuclear plants? Thats amazing. How much does the average coal power plant produce compareds to that damn? I think we will once again be a world leader who other countries respect and look up to for morals and ways of life, it will come with time.
Its amazing nearly every other developed country is willing to sign the Kyoto Treaty and reduce green house emissions, except America.
Are all the scientists advising their governments in these countries wrong and only the US ones right, even when some are saying the same thing like Dr Hansen.
Or it is a big conspiracy as chaser and drifter appear to think against the US and its great economy, as all other countries willing to sign must be liberalist..? Now that is alarmist and paranoid!!
Its amazing these countries like the UK and Japan are willing to do this on no proof isnt hit.
Time to pull your head out of the sand and stop listening to the government propaganda. You dont live in a communist state.
just a theory? the problem with calling global warming that is that in science, theory means a lot more than a guess, as it does in popular usages. Gravitation? just a theory. Relativity? just a theory. Electricity and its behaviors? just a theory. A theory in science means a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
236. F5

I have been advocating those things as well. But there is a difference between advocating things that make common sense and adopting radical rules/restrictions that will cause severe economic harm and provide unknown effects. The Bush administration has been quite up front about continued research, and letting business develop the technologies to curb pollution, etc. Unfortunately, for those on the other side of the debate, those kinds of actions are unacceptable. The only acceptable action is the immediate implementation of rules/restrictions such as those mandated by the Kyoto protocol. That is why there is fierce debate in the US about climate change.

Otherwise, I think we all agree that reducing pollution, reducing energy consumption, etc., are good things. I don't know anyone who is FOR pollution or spending more than they have to on gas, electric, etc.

My house that I built last year had an energy star inspection prior to completion. I have Techshield radiant barrier on the underside of my roof to reduce the heat in my attic, which lowers my cooling costs. I have a ridgevent system on the roof as well, which provides more efficient transfer of heat from the attic to the outside. My builder uses addition insulation on the outside with a R value of 4 (compared to the standard .5), providing additional insulation. Also, they caulk around every piece of insuation/2x4, outlets, etc. Where my neighbors have summer cooling bills over 400, or 500, my cooling bill in TX is usually under $300.00. I keep my summer thermostat set at 78deg, have ceiling fans in most rooms, etc. I drive a Toyota Camry that gets 35mph on the highway. I pay close attention to the traffic to avoid congestion so I'm not buring gas while idling and making no progress, etc.

I think these things are important. I think we can do more, but the incentive to do more has to economic and people have to see the benefit of doing so (just saving money should be sufficient benefit).

I don't think we are so different in our opinions, other than I will no be forced to accept rules/restrictions that don't make sense for something that can't be proven and is still questionable at this point. Maybe that is also a unique American trait, given our history.
St Simons- good statistic, but hold on. Look at practically every item produced in China. Do you see Yung Tau Ming toy company on the label, or Toys R Us. Do you see Lo Mei Shek tool company or Black & Decker? The increase in fuel consumption in China is primarily due to the transference of production facilities from the US to China. Just pick a headline every day. How about today:
Dell plans to hire 5000, in India!!
globalize, that is a fair point. You can look up the stats for yourself at www.geohive.com and scroll down to the lower right and see the statistical links there, and draw your own conclusions.

So why are the majority of other developed countries willing to sign the Kyoto, with as you say 'no proof'.

Are they are just stupider than Americans?
Who said the dreaded 'its just a theory' because if that last post in response to my post StSimons, it was never said.

Human induced global warming is a theory. Its a contested, but generally accepted theory. And theory's you mention, gravity, electricity, ect, are more accuratly described as laws. They are accepted by everyone(almost, their are some of course that disagree)

Please dont compare global warming theory to Newtons Law's our anything like that.
F5 what level of proof do you need to convince you that human caused global warming is real?
There is newton's theory of gravitation and Einsteins theory of relativity. There is no such thing as a law in science.
fair point on the 'just a theory' comment Myles
According to coolwx.com we have the fastest falling barometric pressure in the country right now. Look for the purple on the south GA coastLink
Oops try this Link
No such thing as a law, Ok? If you say so, but it is still rediculous to put the theory of global warming next to the theorys/laws of gravitation.
myles, why is that?
If it is rediculous, explain why please :)
Because of the amount of proof to support gravity vs the amount of proof the supports human induced global warming. In other words, unless I'm wrong, we've never seen an object defy gravity. We dont have that same kind of proof for global warming.
Do we have two St.SimonsIslandGAGuy? I've seen 4 strange posts by what seems like the same guy.
well the planet is getting warmer not cooler, so it is not defying global warming.
With gravity is it known as observed that objects attract each other and this force has been measured and documented.
But why do they attracted that's where the theory fits in.
I guess STSimon is comparing the theoritical reasons why to that of Global warming, where we know's it's happening, but can only theorise why.
There is a very important point that all of you are missing regardlesss of you view of whether or not humans causing global warming. Let's say that there is a CHANCE that humans ARE causing global warming...just a chance. Are you willing to ignore that chance in order to perform the uncontrolled experiment we are currently performing on the environment? Ignore that chance just because you think you need to drive that oversized SUV or need your house one degree warmer or cooler? Earth is all we have, let's treat it nicely if only to enjoy its beauty.
254. jeffB
Skyepony, in regards to your reminder about the IWIN shutdown (remember that reminder, a few hundred posts back?):

Termination of IWIN is in line with planned consolidation of NWS web farms ~This tuesday is the last day to comment to NOAA on their planned termination of this site.

I had commented to them earlier today, and received a reply within an hour or so pointing out the IWIN alternatives that are already available:


True text only products are here:

http://www.weather.gov/data/ - but I suspect that isn't what you are looking for :-)

An alternative is also here:


If IWIN is not terminated, it will pick up the banners/footers and the tables; as that is dictated by policy now.

Finally, the alternative product pages, here is an example:


Does not have menus or back grounds and a very light banner/logos.

So, this action has nothing to do with making weather info less accessible. It's just termination of a service that's been rendered obsolete by newer, better services. In a followup, they mentioned that IWIN has gone from 350,000 users per day to around 100,000, while weather.gov (after many improvements) is up to 6-10,000,000.
In the human community there should be the sensitivity to begin reversing the causes of global warming, even if there is no impirical evidence to prove these causes. What normal soul wants the polar regions to melt or the rain forests defoliated? Who wants the earth littered with human refuse and urban sprawl?
Heard you, shauntanner.
Listen cyclone...I put a pot of water on to boil. If I throw in an icecube, it delays the boil a little while.
To keep the water from boiling I have to turn down the heat. Are your tunnels going to do that?
Cylone, I haven't read the specifics of your tunnels solution. I think you must have posted that earlier, before I started reading this blog. If I'm correct, you somehow see forcing the upwelling of colder ocean waters to lessen tropical storm development. But even if such a project was realised, how long before the colder waters heated up as well?
Global warming really isnt that bad for the Earth has a whole. Plants do better in a warmer, wetter, more C02 rich environment. Animals adapt, and with Antartica melted it gives plants animals more room to live.

Global warming is bad for humans, or so it's proposed. I dont really know. It could open up places like Greenland and Siberia as places that are decent places to live. Now I'm not saying we shouldnt stop polluting or not to move to renewable recources, we just cant say the global warming is all bad, their will be vast impacts of global warming around the world.
LOL, cyclonebusted, I was already there. What were you trying to say? Besides that "Newtons Laws"(quote from that source) work for things on the small scale(things on planets, planet to planet gravity, solar systems) and Einsteins theory of relativity describes the large scale, things like galaxies and the bending of light by gravity.
I will respond once to this argument, and then I will ignore it.

The Bush administration has certainly made some policies I disagree with. He has brought some laws up which I feel threaten my personal liberties. But that being said, facists? Come on. Which of your personal liberties is so infringed on that Bush is a facist?

Personally, I believe that Hansen was very foolish to state as fact what is unproven. As an employee of NASA, they have every right to tell him what he can and cannot, as a member of NASA, say. He can say whatever the heck he wants as an individual, but he's coming out and saying these things and basically saying "and I work for NASA so you should listen to me". NASA isn't telling him he can't speak, they're telling him he can't use their name as leverage. It's not like they can arrest him, but if he wants to keep his jub he needs to keep in line with their official positions.

Do we really think building barrier islands in front of NOLA would help anything? It was Cat 1 winds from Katrina that caused New Orleans to flood. The levees were undermined by water that was already there in the lake, and all the barrier islands in the world wouldn't have stopped that.

I do feel that protecting this planet's resources is important - but it is not politically viable. Don't go out and exaggerate things about how Bush's spending on the Iraq war could have saved New Orleans, because if, for the sake of arguement, he had tried to build barrier islands, he would have gotten STOMPED ON by Democrats and enviornmentalists.
Oh boy, lets not bring this back up.

Globalize, if you want to understand the whole issue you'll have to read through a few blogs. The really long ones are the ones that have debate over the tunnels. Probably the last 5-7 blogs or so.
268. F5

Well, that's a mighty big IF, especially if you are one of the estimated 1 - 3.5 million Americans who would lose their job if Kyoto protocals were adopted by the US. Are you willing to lose your livelihood over something that may or may not be happening? Are you willing to force someone else to lose their livelihood over something you aren't sure may or may not be happening? Again, to make sure, I am not referring to whether global warming is happening or not. It is, that is a proven fact, so far as our measurements are accurate. There has been some debate over the amount of warming. GISS temperature measurements are a fair amount higher than UAH MSU temps, and there are reasons for that. Does that make the GISS temps correct? Dr. Hansen works for GISS BTW...

check out Link
269. F5
Interesting response to the NASA/Hansen controversy...

"Over the weekend the media has been abuzz with claims NASA is trying to censor James Hansen - the "father of Global Warming" (see special "weekend edition" below) - In January, 1999, Hansen wrote The Global Warming Debate

The only way to have real success in science ... is to describe the evidence very carefully without regard to the way you feel it should be. If you have a theory, you must try to explain what's good about it and what's bad about it equally. In science you learn a kind of standard integrity and honesty. Richard Feynman

In my view, we are not doing as well as we could in the global warming debate. For one thing, we have failed to use the opportunity to help teach the public about how science research works. On the contrary, we often appear to the public to be advocates of fixed adversarial positions. Of course, we can try to blame this on the media and politicians, with their proclivities to focus on antagonistic extremes. But that doesn't really help.

The fun in science is to explore a topic from all angles and figure out how something works. To do this well, a scientist learns to be open-minded, ignoring prejudices that might be imposed by religious, political or other tendencies (Galileo being a model of excellence). Indeed, science thrives on repeated challenge of any interpretation, and there is even special pleasure in trying to find something wrong with well-accepted theory. Such challenges eventually strengthen our understanding of the subject, but it is a never-ending process as answers raise more questions to be pursued in order to further refine our knowledge.

Skepticism thus plays an essential role in scientific research, and, far from trying to silence skeptics, science invites their contributions. So too, the global warming debate benefits from traditional scientific skepticism. ... By James Hansen January 1999.

So, James Hansen is a supporter of pure science, values scepticism and has no position of advocacy, right? Perhaps not. Consciously or not, Hansen promotes diddled data and actually did so in the above article ostensibly promoting impartial science. Perhaps the most egregious example is the "Common Sense Climate Index" (Hansen et al, 1998) where the front page of the web portal promotes a completely fabricated warming trend (page contains data captured prior to the removal of pre-1880 data from public access). Hansen has a history of embellishment and overstatement and is viewed as squarely in the political advocacy camp. Is NASA "censoring" James Hansen? Somehow we doubt it, although perhaps it would be better for science generally if he were to return to science and refrain from straying into policy. We are a tad dubious that Hansen will abandon advocacy but must admit some curiosity over his raising such a large and smelly red herring now. What's going on Jim, departmental budget review coming up or something?"

This found on Link

However, for all of you talking about "are you willing to continue that experiment"...what if it ISN'T human caused? In that case, you're experimenting with artificial cooling.
What was New Orleans? Demographically, it was a sprawling impoverished southern American city. Of course like any other city in states worldwide, there was a wealthy elite.
It was perhaps one of the most decadent and lazy cities in the US. And no, God didn't punish New Orleans for its 'voodooism'. But it is symptomatic of a non-progressive city, with an ignorant population to experience what they eventually experienced. The levee problem in New Orleans was known for fifty years, and it was primarily the city's problem to deal with. They never did.
And they elected people like Ray Nagin mayor...can you say "natural selection"?
Back to Kyoto and a rare British attack on Bush's administration.

globalize, the levees in New Orleans were built by and the responsibility of the US Army Corps of Engineers. So the levees were federal built with some local oversight (or not) by local levee boards. And to suggest that a mid size city should have the resources on hand to cope with a $200 billion disaster like katrina is absurd.
Cyclone, do you realise just how many people died in the little ice age? Our crops are not able to handle extremes of cold very well at all (if they could, do you think Farmers would be worried about early frosts?)

If you push the climate cooler, then humans have to burn things to warm their homes or freeze to death. Hardly a way to promote a reduction of emissions.

Not to mention the small fact that it's the cold water current (La Nina) in the Pacific that helps Hurricanes, not the warm water current (El Nino). If you cool the earth, wouldn't you be more likely to cause conditions that could possibly allow a hurricane to grow? (Admittedly, not year-round, but more likely to have more of them in their normal season?)

This is precisely why I keep telling you that you need to research the subject before making claims. The weather is one of the most complex systems out there. We need to certain of what we do before we try to purposely change it.
Ray Nagin was actually the candidate of the white population of New Orleans, and was accused by some of being a Republican in sheeps clothing during his campaign. He actually did some good things with police corruption, but he sure aint ready for the big time.
I thank you for your response to my question. But you answered the question with a question. I can't take that as a true answer. I will, however, answer your question to the amount of people who would lose their jobs if the Kyoto Protocol was adopted.
There is a vast new untapped industry in this country and worldwide. It's called renewable energy. If we put an equal amount of our jobs into producing renewable energy than we do into producing the current non-renewable energy sources, we could employ millions of MORE people instead of having people lose their jobs. We have a completely renewable energy source in the sky that we aren't using optimally. And I know that solar energy is not optimal right now because it isn't able to be stored. But that is exactly the point. We could make solar energy just as viable as our current dirty sources of energy if we just put the same amount of manpower in it. But, we don't. Primarily because of money...and that simply is not a good enough reason.
There is one serious weakness in global warming that I have not seen addressed in here (although it may have been)
All I can say is some cities do well with public works projects.
yeah but a levee system that costs tens of billions of dollars is beyond the reach of all but the biggest cities like LA or NYC
Anyway, one thing global warming alarmists can't explain is why hurricane activity is rising so much in the north Atlantic and not really changing much in the other ocean basins.
284. jeffB
The weather is one of the most complex systems out there. We need to certain of what we do before we try to purposely change it.


So, we shouldn't "try to purposely change it", but our ongoing activities that accidentally cause change are okay?

Besides, we've received repeated assurance here that our activities can't possibly lead to significant climate change. :-)

Finally, I (personally) don't think we have the luxury of waiting until we're "certain" to act. As you and others have correctly said, certainty isn't an option at present.
Be back much later.
JeffB, what happens when by purposly trying to change the weather you radically different results then planned?
287. jeffB
F5 wrote:

Well, that's a mighty big IF, especially if you are one of the estimated 1 - 3.5 million Americans who would lose their job if Kyoto protocals were adopted by the US.

On a slight tangent, I do a little double-take when people say that it's hopeless to model global climate change (a product of relatively simple and well-understood physical processes), but are happy to accept predictions from models of global economic change (a product of individual, presumably free-willed, behavior). I don't mean to say that economic models are garbage -- I don't understand economics deeply enough to so presume -- but I don't see so much traffic questioning their assumptions.
Katrina only brushed New Orleans. The destruction of New Orleans was caused by an antiquated, ill-maintained 'fascade' of a levee system.

The city took in revenue by a variety of sources, most unavailable to other cities; ie. sugar, rice, spice trade, tourism, port and barge traffic, sports, ad infinitum. But no money to even elevate pumping stations.
289. jeffB
HurricaneMyles, you potentially get lots of unexpected damage and victims, just as you do if other activities lead to radical change. Given that any path can have unexpected consequences, it seems the prudent choice is to select the path whose expected consequences are best. Disagreement over these consequences is, of course, one of the main drivers of this debate.
Which is why instead of trying to change the weather we should simply do as much as we can to leave it alone. Stop adding C02, and do as much as possible to reduce pollution. However, do that on a large scale in a large economy like the US is very costly, hence the reason the President has not signed the Kyoto agreement.
JeffB~ that is interesting~ They replied to you with that? First i know of that replies were being sent back on any NOAA comment request.

I have yet to comment on it~ I used to use the site more often, but shortly before the comment period opened months ago, links started leading no where. It has grown steadily worse during the comment period.

I maintain my blog on political issues conserning the disemination of weather info & weather related bills, worse than IWIN's site has been maintained:) Others had been upset to see the site up for removal, I was just reminding them ~ comment period almost up.

The fact you got that reply amazes me. There's a law that states NOAA has to open to comments from citizens, private industry & universities any proposals that could change the way we recieve weather info & then seriously consider the comments. Seems like it's a done deal & comment phase hasn't even ended.

I really wasn't even planning on commenting myself. Though I don't like to see that there is plans to reduce NWS info web farms, IWIN is a bit outta date. Sometimes it is more effecent to teardown to rebuild. But now that their sending back replies so fast...I just might. I'll post a link in a few weeks where we can read the anonomous comments. As well as action taken.
how do we know that this isnt another cycle the earth is going though, maybe it is going to warm up, then cool down again, we are living in a grain of speck on the sands of earth's life

"However, do that on a large scale in a large economy like the US is very costly, hence the reason the President has not signed the Kyoto agreement."

and yet the EU countires with an economy basically the size of the US are willing to do it.

EU GDP 13.31 trillion (2005)
US GDP 12.77 trillion (2005)

It will cool down sometime, probably not for another thousand years or so, but who knows, we could have another little ice age.
And thier spending lots of money to do it. The President would rather spend money in Iraq. I never said I agreed, I just said thats what happening.
296. F5

If someone wants to question the economic numbers, by all means, they should. However, note that I said estimated, and also provided a fairly large range (that's the range that has been estimated by a number of studies). I did not state as fact, and would never do so. Those numbers could be wrong, and I am open to that possibility. However, economics is no more difficult to model than the earth's climate. There are a multitude of chaotic inputs which interact in ways that sometimes are poorly understood, and of course, can be thrown off at any time by unanticipated actions.

And, I never said it was hopeless to model the global climate, I've never advocated stopping research, etc. We should continue to refine the existing models as our understanding increases.

However, one difference between the two is that BOTH sides of the global warming debate agree that there are economic consequences, they just disagree on the extent. The side that wants to reduce GHG emissions believes that the economic losses will be reduced by job gains provided by new technologies. That may or may not be true, and goes to the heart of the post by shauntanner. At least a portion of any job losses in the energy industry (coal miners, oil workers), chemical industry, etc., may never be recovered. Now, that in and of itself isn't necessarily a bad thing. Technological advances constantly displace workers, and require them to find alternative employment. Think of the advances in the phone industry and what happened to all the old-time phone operators. However, being replaced because of technology advances and having your job eliminated by rules/restrictions on emission outputs that may not even solve the problem they supposedly create, while having the same end result of a job loss, bring about an entirely different set of emotions to the equation.
On the jobs front, you know who will have the next wave of jobs of the future? The car companies that build cars that can run a decent distance on an electrically-charged battery. The electricity could come from solar panels or windmills, either way we can have our cake and eat it too.

Just need someone to design and build those cars. Will it be Ford or GM? Nope, it will be a German or Japanese company because those countries are forward looking and thinking, have tight emission standards and high fuel taxes, pushing their car companies to innovate...
298. F5
They are spending lots of money and still not meeting their targets. Money that could be spent solving issues we know to be a problem, like diseases, hunger, etc.
299. F5
They can build them, but that doesn't mean people will buy them. And if not enough people buy them, they will stop building them, at least for the locations around the world that aren't buying them.
And money that could be better spend in wars to get control of more oil
F5, that was the argument used by American car companies to stop building decent fuel efficient cars and put all their eggs in the SUV, minivan, pick up market. And now that (surprise, surprise) oil prices are way up and no one wants the big gas-guzzlers, Ford and GM are on the ropes.

Like I said, it won't be American workers getting the jobs of the future, and that's in significant part because the US admin is so stuck in the past.
In most EU countries they have had cars capable of doing 60-70mpg for about 14 years.
It seems most of the rest of the world where their vaible are buying them.
From his forward to a report outlining how small an increase in global temps it would take to melt the Greenland ice sheet within 1000 years (triggering a 20 foot rise in world sea levels), British PM Tony Blair:

"It is clear from the work presented that the risks of climate change may well be greater than we thought," British Prime Minister Tony Blair wrote in a foreword to the report.

"It is now plain that the emission of greenhouse gases, associated with industrialization and economic growth from a world population that has increased six-fold in 200 years, is causing global warming at a rate that is unsustainable."
I see lots of discussion of Natural Climate variation here. What is the evidence that we are currently in an upward trend for the natural climate variation, that you (F5 or hurricanechaser) are basing your theory on?

The simple fact that warming has happened before so natural variation must be the explaination now rings hollow.

What are the main causes of natural climate variation?
The Asian populations have increased at a rate quadruple the rate Blair referred to.
globalize, what pray tell is the point to that last comment?
SB- Many nations have recognized the necessity of restricting population growth. Many have not.
Sorry Snowboy, won't abbreviate in future. No offense meant.
310. F5

It's not my theory, and in fact, it isn't a theory at all. The upward trend in temperatures began in the late 19th century, and seemd to accelerate after 1940.

There are number of causes of the fluctuation.

"Since our entire climate system is fundamentally driven by energy from the sun, it stands to reason that if the sun's energy output were to change, then so would the climate. Since the advent of space-borne measurements in the late 1970s, solar output has indeed been shown to vary. There appears to be confirmation of earlier suggestions of an 11 (and 22) year cycle of irradiance. With only 20 years of reliable measurements however, it is difficult to deduce a trend. But, from the short record we have so far, the trend in solar irradiance is estimated at ~0.09 W/m2 compared to 0.4 W/m2 from well-mixed greenhouse gases. There are many indications that the sun also has a longer-term variation which has potentially contributed to the century-scale forcing to a greater degree. There is though, a great deal of uncertainty in estimates of solar irradiance beyond what can be measured by satellites, and still the contribution of direct solar irradiance forcing is small compared to the greenhouse gas component. However, our understanding of the indirect effects of changes in solar output and feedbacks in the climate system is minimal. There is much need to refine our understanding of key natural forcing mechanisms of the climate, including solar irradiance changes, in order to reduce uncertainty in our projections of future climate change.

In addition to changes in energy from the sun itself, the Earth's position and orientation relative to the sun (our orbit) also varies slightly, thereby bringing us closer and further away from the sun in predictable cycles (called Milankovitch cycles). Variations in these cycles are believed to be the cause of Earth's ice-ages (glacials). Particularly important for the development of glacials is the radiation receipt at high northern latitudes. Diminishing radiation at these latitudes during the summer months would have enabled winter snow and ice cover to persist throughout the year, eventually leading to a permanent snow- or icepack. While Milankovitch cycles have tremendous value as a theory to explain ice-ages and long-term changes in the climate, they are unlikely to have very much impact on the decade-century timescale. Over several centuries, it may be possible to observe the effect of these orbital parameters, however for the prediction of climate change in the 21st century, these changes will be far less important than radiative forcing from greenhouse gases." Taken from Link.

Hope that answers your question.
311. F5
Here's another link to some great research and blogs on climate studies.


This is run by Colorado State University
Growth rates per year (2005)
India 1.40%
USA 0.92%
China 0.58%
EU 0.15%
Russia -0.37%
South Africa -0.31%
globalise seems you are right, but US still seem high
Globalize, for the most part, population growth rates decrease as standard of living increases and world population is pojected to peak this century.

Atmospheric greenhouse gases on the other hand will continue to climb inexorably year by year with every tonne of oil, coal, gas, peat or wood we burn...

Assuming the climate is otherwise stable (not cooling or warming for other reasons), the addition of the greenhouse gases is projected by every substantive global climate model to cause warming of the atmosphere - the only open question is by how much.

F5, HurricaneChaser and others on this blog distract from the real issue and make much of the fact that the climate changes we are currently seeing (or that we are projected to continue seeing) can't be proven to be caused by human greenhouse gas emissions. So what? Such proof is impossible to deliver.

Relevant to the issue is the simple fact that our best models are projecting a warming of the climate, and the more fossil fuels we burn the greater the projected warming.

What is causing the discussion to heat up (if you'll forgive the pun) is that we're starting to see global warming on a planetary scale, making it suddenly personal. The droughts, the extreme storms, the melting polar sea ice and permafrost, the receding glaciers, the missing winter in North America etc. have gotten people concerned.

Thus the arguments rage about whether the warming observed to date is human induced or not. That misses the point. The point is that we're projected (by our best researchers using their best models) to experience more of the same (ie. continued warming) for the forseeable future...

And for those who have studied the history of civilizations, many of the world's great civilizations ended due to a combination of self-induced environmental degradation (eg. deforestation) plus externally caused climate change.

Our civilization has the unique distinction of being the first to both degrade its environment AND to make changes in atmospheric composition which are predicted to change the climate.
Busted--think there may be a blurb in that population growth statistic? Of those countries cited, which statistical result might be most skewed by immigrant population increase?
I'm issuing a topical storm warning for this site.
Snowboy--using a rational, western, traditional line of thinking I would say you are right. But as we consider the genuine face of the cultures of other nations we begin to
perhaps see otherwise. The male domination in these Asian cultures is so radical, I believe these assumptions will not hold true.
317. F5

"F5, HurricaneChaser and others on this blog distract from the real issue and make much of the fact that the climate changes we are currently seeing (or that we are projected to continue seeing) can't be proven to be caused by human greenhouse gas emissions. So what? Such proof is impossible to deliver.

Relevant to the issue is the simple fact that our best models are projecting a warming of the climate, and the more fossil fuels we burn the greater the projected warming."

Distract from the real issue? That is the real issue. If anthropogenic causation of global warming is not true, then all the reduction in the world, at a huge economic cost, will reap no benefit. The world benefits from enhanced economic output. It's what feeds the world, creates new technologies, etc. Diverting money from where it should be going to attempt to fix something that may be beyond our control could have much bigger implications.

I for one, am more concerned about another H5N1 flu pandemic than about a minute rise in global temperatures, that may or may not even be accurate, and even less concerned about the climate models with unverifiable output. We simply have to make choices about where our money goes. Check out the clock on the Junk Science site. Compare the costs of malaria to those of Kyoto. Imagine what would happen if H5N1 suddenly became easily transmittable to humans like the 1918 version. It's estimated that 19 million to 38 million people worldwide were killed by the "Spanish" flu. Today, it could be hundres of millions, maybe even a billion people. Imagine if 1/5 the worlds population suddenly died. That would have a heck of a lot greater impace than the miniscule warming we've experienced and may continue to experience in the future.
Snowboy- when you refer to our civilization, if you mean the 'American civilization', the Americans haven't done so much damage, and none which can't be corrected. This country is the great laboratory. The insanity of environmental disregard which took place here in the 60's was corrected in large part. But it seems to be beginning again, and this time on a world scale. What kind of pollution controls do you think exist in the flowering industry of the orient? Looser environmental controls is the second most important reason western capital is there right now, the most important reason being cheap labor.
While there may be a long-term warming trend, the Earth has been much warmer in the past than it is now, and there were no factories, cars, or power plants back then. To think that human activity is the primary cause of global climate fluctuation is to take human arrogance and hubris to whole new level. If the climate is changing, then there is precious little we can do about it other than adapt and move away from either the advancing oceans or the advancing glaciers.

Those people who like to point to the recent very active hurricane seasons as evidence of global warming do not understand the fundamental difference between weather and climate. Like the old saying goes, "climate is what you expect, weather is what you get." Short-term fluctuations in weather patterns do not equal long-term climate change.

We should be concentrating on reducing pollution (without destroying the economy, of course), and reducing our dependence upon Middle East oil...those two things have consequences that are very real and well documented.
Globalize, I agree with you on all points except for one - I am concerned that our civilization (by that I mean the industrialized world) is much more fragile than people think and that it will not be able to withstand the shock of significant changes in climate (such as are predicted to occur). Think for example of how the US is reeling from the hurricanes of the last few years, and then consider that these impacts are small compared to those which may occur in the future if the model predictions bear out (and there is no reason to think they won't).
cyclonebuster- why don't you scan and throw up a diagram?
Got a design patent yet? I notice you refer to the tunnels as 'yours'. You better have the design patented at least before you start handing out ideas.
F5 where do you get your statistics? In case you ahven't figured it out yet, Bush lies.

cyclonebuster- US patent office is screwed. Do this: Flesh out your design, scan it and email it to yourself.

Additionally, print a hard copy, stick it in a sealed manila envelope. Put a wax seal on the flap, and mail it to yourself. When you receive it, don't open it. It is your proof that the idea was yours by the postal registration date. This is the way novelists sometimes prevent their manuscripts from being stolen.
umm why are we worried about global warming again?
i mean really,the movie day after tommorow is so screwy, a major climate change happening in 2 days cause the northern hemisphere to freeze over, that is a bunch of crap. then there is the truth that the earth has been around for billons and billons of years, this has probally happend so many times, and then just cool off. We could just be living in one of those time periods!
also stop blaming the bush adminstration for this, the fact is, clinton really didnt do much either to stop this, thank goodness we arent in the kyoto protocal.
stormchaser77 wrote:

"TampaSteve...The KEY To The Accuracy of Your Statement
Are The Words "Short Term". You Are InAccurate. El Nino
Would Be a Good Example."

How is El Nio a good example? Are you saying that El Nio causes, or is caused by, global warming? If so, please present your verifiable, objective evidence to support that claim. If not, then what the hell are you talking about?

El Nio is not evidence of global warming.

Besides, I merely said that an active hurricane season last year does not equal global warming, much less anthropogenic global warming. Get real.
i want proff the global warming exists right now!
But really, has any major events occured because of this global warming, and yes i am getting real by NOT believing this
Gatorboy, its just a movie. Calm down.
Dont ask rhetorical questions that cant be answered, Gatorboy, it only makes things worse.

The fact is we cant prove or disprove global warming or human induced global warming because we dont have a control group. We cant clone the Earth and run expirments and test variables, its simply not possible. So instead we go with the best data we have, which some of us feel is reliable on some of us dont.
The weather is one of the most complex systems out there. We need to certain of what we do before we try to purposely change it.


So, we shouldn't "try to purposely change it", but our ongoing activities that accidentally cause change are okay?

Besides, we've received repeated assurance here that our activities can't possibly lead to significant climate change. :-)

Finally, I (personally) don't think we have the luxury of waiting until we're "certain" to act. As you and others have correctly said, certainty isn't an option at present.

JeffB, That was a response to Cyclonebuster's tunnels, which is an active attempt to moderate the weather. While I personally believe that this warming cycle is natural, I have repeatedly stated that I am for cleaning up our world.

I just believe it is a separate issue that should not be muddied with the Global Warming issue. We need to clean up our world. Period. It doesn't matter if the temperature is going up or down, it needs to happen.

While the public transportation system sucks here in Tucson, I have a Van that gets 28 mpg in the city and I take to and from work everyone that I can that is along my route (usually 5 to 6 other people). I set my heater to 68 in the day time and 65 at night and my swamp cooler (an already more environmentally more friendly piece of equipment than an AC) to 82. There are lots of little things people can do every day that help, and are cost effective as well (I get gas money for the people I give rides to and I spend less on my heating and cooling bills).

Will cleaning up the planet stop the rise in temperatures? There's only one way to find out. But personally I don't think it will help much. We were in a ice age during the first century and change of the industrial revolution and I don't see how with no controls in place we could have stayed the ice age for so long after the start of the industrial revolution if the emissions were the biggest cause of global warming.

The year with no summer was well after factories started pumping smoke and other nasties into the air. (Yes, I know that was volcanically based, but shouldn't have all the "greenhouse" gases we had in the air then countered it if factories are causing global warming?)

folks, Dr. Hansen is apparently being interviewed on CBC radio in the next few minutes - if you're lucky you may be able to tune in on NPR (which sometimes carries CBC's "As it Happens" program, the one he is being interviewed on).
well look like dr jeff did a good blog we are up to 340 post so good blog dr jeff and hi ever one
The great thing about the tunnels is that they can Regulate SSTs and be turned off if to much cooling is happening way before starting an ice age

Cyclone, please show me hard science (and not a principle that doesn't occur in nature) that your tunnels will work as you claim. Everything you have said implies a system that would have vast repercussions every time we used it. Repercussions that quite likely would compound upon themselves every time we used it.

It's one thing to have an idea. Right now you are acting like someone who has this great plot idea that wants to sell it to an author for half the profit. You haven't done anywhere near half the work yet to get half the money. The idea is the first 5% of the job. Get the hard science worked out. Then you will have something to actually pitch to folks like MIT. And we will have something that can be actually be modeled so we have a chance of seeing what will happen if they are used.

Making wild claims about how your tunnels will save us from "insert disaster here" before you have the hard science is not going to help your cause.
I dont think you're understanding what he saying at all. He said that you cant conclude either natural or human induced global warming with short term events like hurricane seasons or El Nino.
And as far as I knew the only hole in ozone was located over Antartica where the cold temps play a key role in ozone depeletion.
Is it proof enough they sent it back to via postal service?

Cyclone; No, if you opened the letter (which I assume you would have to read the results), it's no good. You have to keep the envelope you mail yourself sealed. That way, should someone try actually work out the hard science based off of something you've said on a blog, you would have legal proof of what you had worked out. The the courts could compare the processes and determine if there was thief involved.

Another way (though unless you know one, it can get expensive) is to have each pages of your plans notarized. They date their seal.
Typing on cold meds is fun... that should have read: Another way (though unless you know one, it can get expensive) is to have each of the pages of your plans notarized. They date their seal.
Jim Hansen from Nasa just finished an interview on Canada's national radio (CBC). He gave the impression of a thoughtful sincere scientist, cautiously trying to get people to act on what he has identified as a concern for the future of the US.

What must have the US admin so irritated is that he is not content to make climate predictions, but that he is also willing to make sensible recommendations on measures that could reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Like using energy more efficiently and insulating homes better... pretty radical, eh?

cyclone, the appropriate thing to do would be to start your own tunnel-focussed WU blog rather than tying up this general interest one which is one of the portals to the whole WU blog network...
cyclone, the appropriate thing to do would be to start your own tunnel-focussed WU blog rather than tying up this general interest one which is one of the portals to the whole WU blog network...

Us lurkers would REALLY appreciate it!
wow lots of talk while i was gone

BTW dont listen to gatorboy hes only 15 i know him (:
i agree cyclone start your own blog with designs and plans for yuor tunnels ok
How about the copy my patent attorney has?

If it is officially dated and contains the exact specifications of what you are trying to build, then that should protect your ideas from thief (or at least give you a chance of suing the person who stole them).
Okay... I need to get to bed since my ablity to spell is out the window now with this cold.....

Cyclone, I second the idea that you need to set up your own blog about the tunnels. It really isn't fair to keep hijacking Dr. Master's blog for them, and on your own blog you can post some of the hard science you have for others to help you work out some of the difficulties that may be there.
hey theboldman mail for you
I researched the ozone hole thing and found that the only major 'hole' is in the Antartic during winter when 60% or more of the ozone disappears. The Artic has a much smaller and much weaker 'hole' in which ozone losses about 15-20%, the rest of the artic and mid-lattidues there is around 10% loss of ozone. 10% is still pretty serious, which is why CFC use had been banned in most countries, they contribute most to ozone depeletion.
365. F5

Check out this link regarding the ozone layer...

cyclone- if you have a sealed, unopened package with a registered mail date, then whatever is in the package originated with you, whether it is a design for a machine, or a novel. I'm just saying it is one way to protect your idea should someone try to steal it. It is highly unlikely that you will ever get a design patent from the US patent office, unless your design is presented according to accepted design drafting codes, etc., and then after waiting in line for several years.
Some things from Chemisty class ~ Quoting the the Enviromental Protection Agency.

The global warming potential (GWP) represents how much a given mass of a chemical contributes to global warming over a given time period compared to the same mass of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide's GWP is defined as 1.0.

A link to the table of non-ozone destroying chemical compounds their GWP, atmospheric life & use. The winner here is Sulfur hexafluoride
(SF6), with it's GWP over 23,000 (remember CO2=1) & atmospheric life a stagering 3,200 years. It's still in use~ Cover gas in magnesium production, casting dielectric gas and insulator in electric power equipment fire suppression. Also used as a discharge agent in military systems and formerly an aerosol propellant.

A link to the ozone destroying chemicals, their GWP & atmospheric life. CFC-13 the biggest contributer at 12,000-14,000 GWP & a atmospheric life over 600 years. This one takes the prize over any in section 2 type ozone depleting chemical compounds (a whole other table).

Before the ozone hole was discovered, GWP #'s were around, scientist that won international awards, used them in the models that predicted the hole in the ozone. Yes the models were off, most pointed to a hole opening in the ozone way on down the road. The models had predicted the end result, but the hole came much faster than predicted.
Tony Blair on Global Warming...Link
Australia had its warmest year ever in 2005 Link
so will it be the end of you no what by the year 2100?
what do you mean katrinaritawilmazeta?
raise sea levels by 16 feet dos any one no what this will mean or do to the usa and ever where
between 2.5 degrees and 10.4 degrees by the year 2100 what dos this means dos it mean its the end
Not the end, just very different
if there was a way could i be put to sleep then wake up and find out its the year 2,100 or what put it this way then if you want to be put a sleep for a vary long time oh say from the year 2006 to and then wake up in the year 2,100 well any way you may all no what i am talking about thats ok if this tell would there be a way?
I dont think sea level will rise 16 feet by 2100, the icecaps are huge but they will take centuries to melt. Maybe 2 or 3 feet.
is there a way that you can be put a sleep for 100year or so then wake up to a oh new year
i would love to be around by the year 2,100
So would I.
but if I tie the record for the longest lived person so far, I will make it to 2091.
The hole is over the Antartica, with a hole predicted by NASA in 2002 to begin seasonally forming over the North Pole sometime in the next 30 years, due to N. Hemisphere volcanic activity. A big volcano event would cool the atmosphere enough to allow the clouds needed to destroy ozone. Hence~ the volcanic ozone hole .

A big volcano eruption would give us a cooler summer, a chance for a slack hurricane season. It could open up a hole in the already thinning Northern Hemisphere ozone. Look one,s waking up in Alaska right now. Wonder if it's gonna blow...
For all the people who constantly disagree that global warming is indeed human induced, I ask you whats the point to disagree with whats going on? Whats the worst that could happen if this is indeed just a trend and cooling will again take place in the near furture and our efforts of cleaning up the planet are indeed not for the reason as originally intended? A cleaner place to live with less polution, cleaner eco systems and a better place to live for our children.

For, I enjoy the fact that people natually have different beliefs as they make the world a more diverse place. However, when the argument such as the one being discussed has such a possible negative result if one side of the picture comes true, what is the reason to argue against it?
389. F5

What is the reason to argue against it? Just because something can happen doesn't mean it will happen. Given that there are a finite amount of resources, they have to used where they are best fit seen to be used. We could spend billions of dollars, lose potentially millions of jobs, and yet have ZERO effect on the current global warming trend. And all the resources used to combat the this potentially phantom menace could have been used to combat real problems, like disease, starvation, etc, cleaning the environment, etc.

And that's why we have the discussion.
390. F5

The already thinning northern hemisphere ozone? Can you explain what you mean? It's not as if ozone only exists and once it is destroyed, it never returns. Ozone is created and destroyed every day by solar activity, in combination with temperature, angle of the solar rays, etc. Ozone 03 when destroyed becomes O2 and O1. Those O1 particles are free to reform with O2 at any time, so I'm just not sure what you mean by already thinning.
F5 you said, "And all the resources used to combat the this potentially phantom menace could have been used to combat real problems, like disease, starvation, etc, cleaning the environment, etc."

All of those worthy causes you just stated are predicted to happen DUE to global warming/climate change.
392. F5
Well, last night and today certainly offered some spirited debate. However, I clearly spent way too much time on this site today, to the neglect of other things that I need to get done. Guess I'll need to make up for some of that time...

Take care all.
Here's a Fact:

"...a study has been done of the available scientific literature on the current state of scientific knowledge. The scientists gathered up nearly a thousand peer-reviewed articles that purported to examine the issue and picked at random, ten percent of these to read. They found a grand total of zero actually challenged the existence of the phenomenon.
394. F5

All of those things exist apart from global warming. They are not DUE to any global warming. They could potentially be exacerbated by global warming, but that is no given. Should we return to a global cooling phase, disease, starvation, pollution would still be with us and would still be a problem, and they cost us much more in terms of wasted potential than the miniscule warming we've experienced so far.
Very true F5,

I believe that in this situation the positives (if the effort is put in to reducse c02 emissions) outway the negatives (spending billions of dollars, and somehow losing billions of dollars; I take it you mean the lose in economic power, however my answer to that is millions of jobs would also be created with all the new technological fields). And global warming, which I believe can be reversed if we make the effort would save lives as millions of people would be displaced and also possibly killed by these more violent storms that could be created. And the obvious ecological benefits that we would see by reducing pollution etc.

As always, its great descussing these issues with you all, and have a good evening.
Posted By: StSimonsIslandGAGuy at 8:16 PM GMT on January 30, 2006.
Anyway, one thing global warming alarmists can't explain is why hurricane activity is rising so much in the north Atlantic and not really changing much in the other ocean basins.

Table 1. Change in the number and percentage of hurricanes in categories 4 and 5 for the 15-year periods 19751989 and 19902004 for the different ocean basins. Period


Basin 19751989



Number Percentage Number Percentage


East Pacific Ocean 36 25 49 35
West Pacific Ocean 85 25 116 41
North Atlantic 16 20 25 25
Southwestern Pacific 10 12 22 28
North Indian 1 8 7 25
South Indian 23 18 50 34

Saw this post & had to comment!!!! It says there are more storms that are cat 4 & 5 intensity WORLDWIDE!!!! I had to point that out.

More polar stratospheric clouds than anticipated are forming high above the North Pole, causing additional ozone loss in the sky over the Arctic, according to Dr. Azadeh Tabazadeh, lead author of the paper and a scientist at NASA's Ames Research Center in California's Silicon Valley. link

Dr Masters had pics & a blog on how the rarely seen stratospheric clouds (atleast for the northern hemisphere) was seen alot more than normal this year. Perhaps I could have said slightly compermised instead of thinning.

As for you don't understand the thinning all together ~ The amount of ozone required to shield Earth from biologically lethal UV radiation, wavelengths is somewhere from 200 to 300 nanometers. It's been this or more since the snowball earth around 2.5 billion years ago, the time after which the creatures crawled out of the ocean, until the late 1980's. There is now a hole over the Antarticia. Yes, nature makes & loses ozone naturally, but it was a balance, until we combined chemicals in an unnatural way & released it in the air. Some of these things love to bind & bind with oxygen & it gets crowded which impedes on the process to create more 03 as well.
F5 is now apparently in denial (or just doesn't get) that there is a problem with the ozone layer as well. Credibility at an all-time low.
... and Fshhead, wow that is amazing with the Cat4 and Cat5 storms - hadn't seen that before.
Fshhead~I ran across & posted some about that a few weeks ago, cat 4 & 5's up about 50%. ~interesting that # of canes greatly increased in N Atlantic, while slightly to dramatically dropped proportionally in the other cyclone producing oceans. This was cool ~click on the hotter oceans fiercer storms. I would have posted some of the graphs in there, but copywrited. The segment was good too, caught that on TV.
note that the increased Cat4/Cat5 storms observation is consistent with what is expected from global warming - not necessarily more storms, but more severe storms...
403. F5

Challenged what? Global warming or anthropogenic global warming. No one is disputing that we are in a global warming trend. Skeptics are disputing whether it's causation is anthropogenic or not, or to what degree.

"A survey of climatologists from more than 20 nations has revealed scientists are evenly split on whether humans are responsible for changes in global climate. The findings refute a widely reported study by a California Gender and Science professor who claimed that, based on her personal examination of 928 scientific papers on the issue, every single one reached the conclusion that global warming is real and primarily caused by humans.

Professor Claims Scientific Unanimity

In December 2004, Dr. Naomi Oreskes of the University of California at San Diego received widespread media attention for claiming her review of scientific literature showed scientists were in unanimous agreement that global warming is occurring and is being caused primarily by humans.

In an article titled Undeniable Global Warming, Oreskes wrote in the December 26 Washington Post, There is a scientific consensus on the fact that Earths climate is heating up and human activities are part of the reason. We need to stop repeating nonsense about the uncertainty of global warming and start talking seriously about the right approach to address it.

Climatologists Dispute Oreskes

The May 1 London Telegraph, however, noted Oreskes unequivocal conclusions immediately raised suspicions among other academics, who knew of many papers that dissented from the pro-global warming line.

The newspaper reported that Dr. Benny Peiser, a senior lecturer in the science faculty at Liverpool John Moores University, decided to conduct his own analysis of the same set of 1,000 documents [cited by Oreskes]--and concluded that only one-third backed the consensus view, while only 1 percent did so explicitly.

The London Times then reported on Professor Dennis Bray, of Germanys GKSS National Research Centre. Bray surveyed hundreds of international climate scientists, asking the question, To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes? Bray received 530 responses from climatologists in 27 different countries.

With a value of 1 indicating strongly agree and a value of 7 indicating strongly disagree, Bray reported the average of the 530 responses was 3.62, almost right down the middle. More climatologists strongly disagreed than strongly agreed that climate change is mostly attributable to humans.

The results, i.e. the mean of 3.62, seem to suggest that consensus is not all that strong, Bray reported in his findings. Results of surveys of climate scientists themselves indicate the possibility that Oreskes conclusion is not as obvious as stated.

Journals Swayed by Politics

Lorne Gunter, a columnist for the Canadian journal National Post, was more blunt in his assessment of the survey.

Its a long way from a consensus backing the most extreme global warming scenarios, as environmentalists and UN officials would have us believe, observed Gunter.

Interestingly but hardly surprisingly, Dr. Bray has had trouble getting his findings published. Science magazine turned down even a letter-to-the-editor from him, Gunter added. Thats doubly galling because back in December Science didnt hesitate for a second to print a discreditable paper by Dr. Naomi Oreskes of UC San Diego in which she claimed that in her analysis of 928 abstracts from peer-reviewed climate research papers, Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Concluded Gunter, Actually, were Dr. Oreskes assertion of unanimity true, it might only prove how totally co-opted the peer journals have become by enviro group-think and how willing they are to censor dissenting views in an effort to preserve and polish the notion of worldwide scientific consensus."
well good night talk more soon
405. F5
Sorry snowboy, you are incorrect again. The only problem with the ozone layer occurs over a portion of the far southern hemisphere and occasionally over the far northern hemisphere, and is directly related to the north/south polar vortex. While it may be true that CFC's play a role in the destruction of the ozone during that period and at that location, it is also true that this "thinned" layer, which occurs only at certain levels of the stratosphere as well, is replenished when conditions change.

In addition some studies have shown that natural releases of bromine, also a destroyer of ozone, may be occuring over the N/S poles, which may be more or almost entirely responsible for the ozone depletion that occurs over those areas.

See Link

We spent tens, maybe hundreds of billions of dollars to eliminate a substance that had no feasible replacement, and quite possibly isn't even the source of the ozone depletion. And even if it is, because it only happens at the N/S polar areas, it holds little concern for the vast majority of the world.
c'mon F5, just because you can maybe find some reference asserting that all of the scientific work done over three decades on the ozone layer is full of holes (please pardon the pun), doesn't mean that that is the case. It just means you've been trolling through some dubious sites.

The ozone layer is being steadily degraded, through the action of various chemicals (in particular CFCs and halons) which act as a catalyst in promoting that degradation. These chemicals are broken down by UV light high in the stratosphere, liberating chlorine and/or bromine atoms which then catalyze a reaction which destroys ozone.

Yes, ozone is constantly being created and destroyed through natural processes, but the human-induced destruction through CFCs and halons is superimposed on those natural processes. At the poles, "holes" in the ozone layer have been forming (this is where the CFC and halon catalysis reactions take place) with losses in the winter of up to 70% of the total ozone over the Antarctic and 30% over the Arctic. These losses are made up during the rest of the year through mixing with less depleted areas, but this has led to observed 5% depletion of ozone levels worldwide between 1979 and 1990.

Why on earth you would term this issue to be "of little concern for the vast majority of the world" (when the world community in a rare show of unanimity has decided it is of great concern) is beyond me. As said, the credibility of the stuff you're dredging up is now at an all time low.
407. F5

My credibility is the same now that it always was. For people like yourself, as soon as I posted my position on global warming, I had no credibility anyway. Frankly, I don't give a rat's rear whether you think I have any credibility or not. It doesn't change anything. But since once again, you have nothing to offer but ad hominem attacks, I think I'll let people judge for themselves as to what they think of you.
408. jeffB
TampaSteve wrote:

To think that human activity is the primary cause of global climate fluctuation is to take human arrogance and hubris to whole new level.

Well, there are those who think that the real "arrogance and hubris" is the assumption that humans can continue to do as we will, dumping whatever we want into the atmosphere, and the planet will always take care of it.
jeffB wrote:

"Well, there are those who think that the real "arrogance and hubris" is the assumption that humans can continue to do as we will, dumping whatever we want into the atmosphere, and the planet will always take care of it."

From a pollution standpoint, I can agree with you, but from a global warming standpoint, I cannot. Fair enough?
410. jeffB
Fair enough, certainly.

Out of curiosity, and without any claim that it's relevant to the current discussion, do you think the theory of "nuclear winter" -- that a sufficient number of nuclear detonations could significantly reduce solar flux and lead to widespread climate change -- is also implausible? We don't hear as much about nuclear winter any more, thank goodness, but it raises some of the same issues.
jeffB: If you envision a full-scale nuclear exchange like was talked about during the Cold War, with thousands of nuclear explosions and all the major cities in the United States, the Soviet Union, and Europe burning in massive firestorms and throwing enormous quantities of thick, black smoke into the atmosphere for days or weeks, you'd probably cool the climate off a little bit, but I don't think you'd chill the planet that much. The total area of all major cities in the world is still tiny compared to the total land area of the planet. I'd be more worried about an asteroid impact or the Yellowstone supervolcano. Now those are two things that could seriously alter the climate on a global scale.