The picture that Bush and Cheney didn't want you to see
The picture that Bush and Cheney didn't want you to see
And it has nothing to do with torture:
Graphic images that reveal the devastating impact of global warming in the Arctic have been released by the US military. The photographs, taken by spy satellites over the past decade, confirm that in recent years vast areas in high latitudes have lost their ice cover in summer months.
The pictures, kept secret by Washington during the presidency of George W Bush, were declassified by the White House last week. President Barack Obama is currently trying to galvanise Congress and the American public to take action to halt catastrophic climate change caused by rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
One particularly striking set of images - selected from the 1,000 photographs released - includes views of the Alaskan port of Barrow. One, taken in July 2006, shows sea ice still nestling close to the shore. A second image shows that by the following July the coastal waters were entirely ice-free.
The Guardian notes that the evidence from 2007 through this year has been equally grim -- not that you'd know that if you read conservative Web sites like the Drudge Report, which run banner headlines everytime a cold June front moves through some Heartland metropolis (although I haven't seen any hype on Drudge or elsewhere about the 100-degree-plus weather in Seattle). Actually, a few stray temps, high or low, even the heat wave in the Pacific Northwest, are highly irrelvant. But what is happening to the Arctic ice cover is very serious indeed, which is why this scientific cover-up is yet another high crime of the Bush years.
Because pictures don't lie. We have plenty of politicians to take care of that for us.
Stay cool this weekend.
Comments (259)
Obviously these pictures prove that the receding ice is a result of man-made global warming, right? Cause a picture, by itself, can prove that? You're a joke, Will Bunch.— bdm155
Comment removed.- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
Politically motivated leaks of classified millitary intel - a wonderful "achievement" of the Obama administration. It's admirable of Obama to want to level the playing field, so the American economy will slow down to match the Mexican economy, and so we can let India and China continue to be the engines of the global economy.— Mr. Smith- Sarah would have told us, if this was true.— FJG JR
- Will, got any satellite pictures from pre-1900 so we can measure the change over other time periods? By the way, the ice cubes in my drink withered away while I was reading this. More evidence, I'll post them later.— AngryWhiteMale
- Comment removed.
Ice melts in July, what a discovery! Well, it is Alaska. My guess is Sarah Palin melted the ice because she's so so hot.— jmc- Comment removed.
- Obviously a doctored photo. I think Obama simply put his hand on the 2nd photo, covering the ice.— blackknight
- MEMO TO Editors of the Philadelphia Daily News: you have a blogger for your newspaper, one Wilbur Bunch, who is either a total incompetent or blatant liar. PLEASE go to "conservative" web site Drudgereport.com and type "Seattle" in the search box for Drudge, NOT Google, and you will see the headlines about the record heat in Seattle!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Another lazy liberal liar exposed......— WriteWinger
- You are the best Will - I always start my morning reading your ridiculous post for a good laugh - The ability to alter those photos you copied and pasted from the Huffington Post are so easy, I could get a 5 year old to do it. And Bush is not hiding something when "spy" camera photos are classified information you idiot.— reddog44
- Ice melts? Who woulda thunk it?— RG
- Comment removed.
- I'm actually starting to feel bad for Bunch, he is soooo obsessed— Tom813
- Will c(r)ap and trade get our ice back, or should we just borrow some from the Chinese?— RG
- Global temps seemed to spike in 2008 but have since come back down. How is this a sign of unstoppable global warming? (As you said, individual locales, like the picture you post above, don't mean much in terms of being statistically significant.) http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/7390_large_hadcrut.jpg— Vandy
- spiked in 1998, not 2008; my bad.— Vandy
- Cash for Clunkers just conquered Global Warming, polar bears rejoice.— RG
- Temperature goes up! You know what? It also goes down.
Did anyone notice that Chicago had really low daily high temps for July? And Seattle hit 103?
In 2005 there was probably no ice, there was ice in 2006, and no ice again in 2007. (That's not literal but to help you get the point.)
Climate varies. And none of it proves a man-made origin for the fluctuations. And average global temps haven't risen since 1998 and have fallen from that peak.— geoffrobinson - ---}}} We had the change the name because the earth has COOLED since 1998 (((--- It really is astounding how factually incorrect information gets repeated over and over. While 1998 was an unusually hot year due to El Nino, the long term trend since 1998 is still that of warming. http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm— Talking point sleuth
- --}}} Climate varies. And none of it proves a man-made origin for the fluctuations. And average global temps haven't risen since 1998 and have fallen from that peak. {{{--- As I was saying, it really is astounding the number of people who will simply repeat this tripe without even bothering to do ANY research.— Talking point sleuth
- I mean, seriously, if you're interesting in understanding the issue more deeply than what you can get from reading Drudge and Worldnet - it isn't that hard. Use the Googles. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/mind-the-gap/ or maybe you could read this one: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/uncertainty-noise-and-the-art-of-model-data-comparison/— Talking point sleuth
- Comment removed.
- I repeat: LIAR or INCOMPETENT.— WriteWinger
- Here, try this one: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14527-climate-myths-global-warming-stopped-in-1998.html?full=true— Talking point sleuth
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- ---}}} ... how would Philadelphians ever have known that the Black Panthers voter intimidation case had been dropped and ordered by the No. 3 man in Justice? {{{--- LOL! Just like the "global warming stopped in 1998," yet another erroneous factoid echoing around in the lunatic fringe and in the empty heads of Republican toadies. The Washington Times report that justice officials "ordered" the civil rights lawyers to drop the case was disputed by the DOJ, who said that civil rights lawyers made the decision based on the law. Now, the Washington Times comes back with a deceptive (but apparently true) report that the #3 official was consulted on the decision, it echoes around in places like Drudge, and comes out of the mouths of dolts as the official "ordered" the decision.— Talking point sleuth
- Comment removed.
- Just to recap - originally the Washington Times reported that DOJ officials, who are not civil rights lawyers, overruled the lawyers and ordered them to stop pursuing the case. The DOJ said that the Washington Times report was false. Lawyers made the decision to stop pursuing the case because the only had enough legal evidence to get and injunction against the one defendant. Now the Washington Times comes basic with basically a recycled version of their earlier article. This time, instead of "DOJ officials" stopping the case, it was the "#3 DOJ official." The Washington Times never provides any evidence that the DOJ was lying when the described how the decision was made. And wingnuts proceed to repeat the same unsupported accusation over and over. Where's the evidence that the DOJ lied when they said that the decision was made by lawyers, on the basis of the law?— Talking point sleuth
- I know, I know, "global warming" is a red herring... Well it is, for the right-wingers like Rush Limbaugh. They use the over-hyped geek out by Al Gore as a way to change the subject from Science to left-wing anti-business politics. Truth is, If Bush and Co. didn't believe in the seriousness of melting ice shelves, why spend millions studying then burying results? As much as I think Gore means well with his pitch and focus, he has become a scapegoat for pro industry, scorched earth, head in the sand Republicans / conservatives. The sad part is Rush, and Drudge, and Hannity, and SBVFT, and AngryWhiteMale, will be dead when the real sh#t hits the fan. Their kids and grandkids may not be so lucky.— pagoda
- Will, do some research first. go check out Univ. of Alaska, Floating Ice Group website. they actually observe the ice in the Barrow area and have a specific comment on the photos. http://www.gi.alaska.edu/snowice/sea-lake-ice/Brw09/forecast/ Note the comment: "However, unlike suggested by some, comparing summer ice conditions in July 2006 and July 2007 is not sufficient evidence to verify a trend"— RufusT.Firefly
- 'Clunkers' Program Running Out of Cash... Car dealer: 'If they can't administer a program like this, I'd be a little concerned about my health insurance'... Yes the more people know about this STUPID Obama plan, the LESS then want it.— WriteWinger
- Comment removed.
- ---}}} "However, unlike suggested by some, comparing summer ice conditions in July 2006 and July 2007 is not sufficient evidence to verify a trend" {{{--- Valid point. So, let's look at trends, shall we? --snip-- In the Northern Hemisphere, the average snow extent has decreased by 3.75 million square Km in the last 39 years. The greatest loss of snow cover has occurred in the months of June and July. In the Northern Hemisphere, the average extent of sea ice decreased by 1.5 million square Km during the period 1978-2008, from about 9.9 million square Km to about 8.4. In the Southern Hemisphere in this period, the extent of sea ice did not change significantly. Reduced snow and ice cover changes albedo, increasing the rate of warming. --snip--— Talking point sleuth
- Comment removed.
- How's the ice in July 2009? Shouldn't those pictures be declassified too? Or is there too much ice to support the global warming theory?— CaptainBrophy
pagoda, you are right, what a bunch of dopes. The Arctic shelf melting is like ice melting in a glass. Yeah ok. Why worry about the environment, the Earth is just a stop over on the way to heaven, isn't it? They are suddenly worried about their kids and grandkids paying off this country's debt (as I am now and have been for a decade), but they are not at all concerned about the environment.— one_eyed_jack- I beleive that if the Messiah would have a beer with a few polar bears, he could make this ice recession a teachable moment.— jimmymack
- Comment removed.
- Gee, since both sides can point out how government blows through money (ineffeciently, to boot), shouldn't the solution be for them to simplty spend less? And I'm not talking about the second derivative, where they pass off slowing the rate of growth on spending, but actual spending cuts themselves.— RG
- ---}}} How's the ice in July 2009? {{{--- Valid question. Actually, the data aren't in yet. But predictions are that it will be very much like last year - which would reflect a continuation of a warming trend. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/summer-sea-ice-round-up/#more-606— Talking point sleuth
- Comment removed.
- I saw the baby Jesus on a potato chip.— tr88
"How's the ice in July 2009?" . . . . . . Wankers are so helpless. http://www.gi.alaska.edu/snowice/sea-lake-ice/barrow_webcam.html- Dude, your obsession with Bush and Cheyney is not healthy. Get over it. Perhaps you should focus on how our Great Leader is bankrupting this and future generations with his out-of-control spending.— RonaReagan
- "hmmm, where have I seen similar reports?" Once again gphilly makes the point that Obama = Bush.— legatus
- Seattle has had only one record low temperature in July since 1982 (7/13/01). In that same period, it has recorded 16 record highs, not counting the record temps this past week.
Last updated at 9:50 AM on 16th January 2009 - Americans were today shivering as bitter arctic winds caused temperatures to plunge to record-breaking levels in many parts of the vast country. There are even fears that crowds planning to watch Barack Obama’s presidential inauguration next week could suffer hypothermia and frostbite in sub-zero conditions. This winter has been one of the toughest in decades with temperatures today reaching as low as -38C in large areas of the Midwest and -40C in the coldest place. But even on the east coast – where conditions are typically milder than the fridgid hinterlands – the icy blast was being felt. New York endured a -14C chill today and further south Washington – which hosts Mr Obama’s inauguration on Tuesday – plunged to 11 degrees below zero. Some places have recorded record lows – with the temperature in Flint, Michigan dipping to an incredible -28C. Bone-chilling winds – known as the Alberta Clipper after a Canadian province – have also led to record snowfall Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1118244/Americans-suffer-record-cold-temperatures-plunge-40C.html#ixzz0MqbMKwlW— bird11- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- I lookes at some of the time lapse video on the site linked to by montani. It appears to me that the 2007 photo is the norm for July in Barrow, Alaska. Further research points out that Barrow had an ice surge in 2006. That may account for the ice that was still hanging around come July of that year. About the ice surge: visibleearth.nasa.gov/view_rec.php?id=20447. I think even these bits of information call Will's conclusions about the pictures in doubt.— jmc
- More global warming nonsense. The ultimate irony will be in 100 years when Oslo, the site of Al Gore's coronation as King of Warming, is crushed under a glacier. Read the IPCC data. The northern Hadley boundary is moving north while the cold melt water from the Artic could force the Gulf Stream south. In layman's terms more tropical moisture will move farther north while the main heat pump for Europe dips south. If Europe is lucky it will only be as bad as the 1500-1600s.— Joe Funk
- "I just find it funny how the GOP is full of fiscal conservatives and will not own the last 8 years." BINGO! DING, DING, DING! Conservatives love to assume Obama gets a pass from us. (libs, Dems, Progressives...) I guess since they blindly let GW destroy everything their party was supposed to stand for... that's just their way of thinking. In their defense, they would much rather spend a trillion or two on uselessly killing Iraqis and flexing our "muscle" than assisting uninsured Americans or improving our health with cleaner air and water. Hey, everyone's got priorities.— pagoda
- "correct, both are big spenders and I had disillusion about that. I just find it funny how the GOP is full of fiscal conservatives and will not own the last 8 years." Actually most fiscal conservatives expressed real dissatisfaction over the spending habits of the Bush administration. Presumably, since you had concern over it, you will express similar dissatisfaction with Obama's spending...rather than say "Bush did it too!", as you did at 9:41.— legatus
- "It appears to me that the 2007 photo is the norm for July in Barrow, Alaska." . . . . . Looking at the data, it's a bit disingeuous to use the above photo comparison, because each of the two years represented an anomaly from one extreme to the other. Compared to 1979-2000 averages though, the CURRENT Arctic sea ice extent is about 14% lower for the month of July.
- So let me get this right, you didn't like Bush's fiscal irresponsibility but youre not giving a pass to Obama who is optimistically projecting deficits that are all larger than the largest under Bush for each year for the next 10? And that's if his rosy economic predictions are correct. The ones like unemployment wont get over 8%.— tr88
- "In their defense, they would much rather spend a trillion or two on uselessly killing Iraqis and flexing our "muscle" than assisting uninsured Americans or improving our health with cleaner air and water." Maybe, just maybe these are examples of government invented crises for them to solve at the taxpayers expense? Meanwhile,the connected elite (Halliburton, Blackwater, Insurance Cos, Al gore's carbon trading biz) reap the rewards.— RG
- I'm glad Obama is leaking classified millitary spy photos to mislead the world into enacting his anti-growth economic agenda. Elections have consequences, and this kind of reckless abuse is what we get when we elect leftist idealogues. That's what we were voting for, right?— Mr. Smith
- Love how all the knuckle-dragging flat earthers appear when proof of climate change is produced. These are the same guys who, during the 80s, told us these computer thingees were just a fad.— Phxflyer
- Comment removed.
Where are the pictures of the Antartic shelf...which is at record ice levels?— rudytbone- Drudge is a Conservative website because he reports everything. Maybe if he would link to Will's blog? nah, never happen. Will is what they call "conventional wisdom", you know what he's going to write without reading it.— tr88
- So the work of three scientists out weighs the work of thousands? You flat earthers are just too funny.— Phxflyer
- Yeah, you guys had sooooooo much dissolution. When? 2006??? How many times did Bush veto his disillusioned party members? You Legatus may have had complaints, but your party or fellow conservatives overwhelmingly gave him a blank check. Who voted for all those Republican congressmen looting the treasury? There has been more liberal criticism of Obama in six months than conservative Bush criticism in six years. Liberals see Obama as centrist, conservatives saw GW as puppet.— pagoda
- Comment removed.
- "Love how all the knuckle-dragging flat earthers appear when proof of climate change is produced." Ice melting is far from irrefutable proof of climate change, and even if it were, two questions remain a) is man responsible and b) what are the costs/benefits to implement a solution (assuming, arrogantly, that we knew which solution was best)? Past that, calling people flatearthers is interesting, since there was once that consensus amongst scientists, same with the erath being the center of the universe. Thank goodness they didnt base all economic and policy decisions on those humdingers.— RG
- Genius -- now defined as someone who believes three kooks over thousands of scientists who have proven research. The earth is flat! The earth is flat!— Phxflyer
- Comment removed.
- Where are the pictures of the Antartic shelf...which is at record ice levels?— rudytbone
- RG needs to study. Once thousands of scientists proved the earth was round, and that it revolved around the sun, they believed, as opposed to the knuckle-dragging flat earthers of today who believe the work of proven kooks as opposed to the proven and verified work of thousands of scientists.— Phxflyer
- Comment removed.
- Will, when on earth are you going to apologize for your "error" of saying Drudge did not have the headline about Seattle's record high temps? When??????????? Cat caught your tongue?— WriteWinger
- Genius reports from three Japanese kooks and an American whose studies have been disproven time and again. Can you give us a report from any reputable scientist? I suspect you listen to the few who agree with you, as opposed to the thousands that have proven you wrong.— Phxflyer
TPS-go read some history when you come out of your mother's basement. Google "little ice age". Let me know if you have trouble with the big words. Earth's climate is cyclical. Get used to it. "Climate Change" hysteria is a religion and a hoax. And follow the money-Algore is making a fortune on "carbon offsets". BTW your Reagan fable is down to 97,000 }}lol{{-snip-.Moron.— georgel- ---}}} Ice melting is far from irrefutable proof of climate change,(((--- Huh? Significant drops, over an extended period of time, in ice cover is, irrefutably, an indicator of climate change.— Talking point sleuth
- ---}}} Recent warming has stopped since 1998, ... ((((--- No matter how many times that tripe if repeated, the facts show the statement to be false. Follow the links, Idiot, and you'll see that statement is based on cherry-picking of data— Talking point sleuth
- "RG needs to study." Or you need to read more. Here's a good starting point. Might be smart to read up on opposing views before reworking our entire economy (while India and China laughs) and making us poorer as a whole. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming— RG
- "Significant drops, over an extended period of time, in ice cover is, irrefutably, an indicator of climate change." I'd say its evidence of a climate cycle. How do you define an extended period of time?— RG
- Global Warming has been decided. Oprah told us it was true and isnt that enough?— tr88
- Resignation letter from IPCC member who felt political pressure: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html— RG
- "Actually most fiscal conservatives expressed real dissatisfaction over the spending habits of the Bush administration." . . . . . Bryanc, that really doesn't explain why such dissatisfaction was never expressed by the "conservatives" we hold so dear here at Attytood.
- Anyone interested in a reputable scientist who thinks man made global warming is a a myth. Before you dismiss and slander him as being in the pocket of oil companies, or being a conservative or any of the other smears lefties like to use, he voted for Gore in 2000. http://www.phillymag.com/articles/science_al_gore_is_a_greenhouse_gasbag/— tr88
- Comment removed.
- Elements in the Obama administration argue for giving legal standing to trees and ice burgs, so they have the right to petition their grievances to the court. This is brilliant – with legal rights must come responsibility. The Obama administration will order trees to absorb more carbon dioxide, thereby mitigating global warming. Trees can also be taxed for every ounce of water they consume in the respiration process, so we can balance our federal budget! All by giving trees the legal standing of a person or a corporation. Thank goodness we’ve elected really smart people to lead our government.— Mr. Smith
- "But not on this board, because I didn't really discover this board until late last year." It's been all uphill since then, huh?— RG
- Comment removed.
- The IPCC Synthesis report from 2007 shows that CO2 levels have been rising for 5000 years (page 38). Flat earth = socialized medicine works.— Joe Funk
- ----}}} I'd say its evidence of a climate cycle. How do you define an extended period of time? {{{--- Indeed, RG. Planets forming and dying are also part of a cycle. There is no clear dividing line between what is a cycle and what is a "change." What we know is that over the past 25 years there has been a reduction in ice cover, a reduction that has accelerated dramatically as you get closer to today. That has been accompanied with far more changes in natural cycles (growing seasons, migratory patterns) that indicated warming temps, worldwide, than indicate cooling temps. To say that there have been cycles in the past is irrelevant to the evaluation of whether or not the recent trends are due to human activity. As far as I'm concerned, the data aren't 100% conclusive, but certainly indicate that the far greater probability is that human activity is accelerating change.— Talking point sleuth
- Comment removed.
Yeah yeah yeah it proves we are all doomed , lets ignore the fact greenland was once green , the south pole was once a forest , the globe was considerably warmer , the British isles had temps more like southern italy and the polar bears are not in decline whats left ? . oh yeah more liberal spin and downright lies .— PAEnglish- Comment removed.
- ---}}} Yeah yeah yeah it proves we are all doomed , lets ignore the fact greenland was once green , the south pole was once a forest , the globe was considerably warmer {{{--- And there we go. So, because the Earth has been warmer in the past leads people to ignore data about recent trends and conclude that recent warming in merely a reflection of natural trends irrespective of human activity. If people bring science to the table, fine. There are some skeptics who bring real science to the table (although they are in a distinct minority). But inane statements like that one show nothing more than simple-mindedness - which, unfortunately, is deliberately promoted by frightwing media. Take a look at the clip on this site, and you'll see a good example of what some "conservative" lunatics are passing off as "scientific" analysis. It completely debunks of the recent falsehoods promoted by "conservative" media that was picked up and repeated endlessly by partisan hacks like our beloved ARTs: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/jul/30/climate-change-deniers-monbiot— Talking point sleuth
- ---}}} lets ignore the fact greenland was once green , the south pole was once a forest , the globe was considerably warmer , ...{{{--- Why don't you show us where ANY climate scientist "ignores" any of that, PAEnglish? I mean, seriously, do you really believe that scientists who study climate change "ignore" historical data? You guys are hilarious.— Talking point sleuth
- Comment removed.
- How gullible can people be? It's all about making money. Obama could release pics of Big Foot and Bunch would run a story the next day.— brian2706
- And here's a nice article that pretty-well summarizes the simple-mindedness I was talking about: The notion that because climate science is, by nature uncertain, therefore we should dismiss painstaking data analysis.— Talking point sleuth
- Sorry - the link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/jun/25/climate-science-uncertainty— Talking point sleuth
- What a bunch of flailing morons posting in here. I cannot believe you idiots don't believe in global warming. ITs only proven and accepted by scientists around the globe.... oh but wait, that babbling hubbalah on sqwak box tuned to 990 & 1210 AM tell me that its not anything out of the ordinary ... must be another devious plan by Obama right guys and girls? You people need your heads examined. Take a course in thinking for yourself and not regurgitatin everything you hear from the right winged wacka-doos you worship. Im serious here. Get an education already and open your eyes.— Pantaphobia
- "The notion that because climate science is, by nature uncertain, therefore we should dismiss painstaking data analysis." But if you admit the uncertainty of it, along with coordination issues, does it make sense to engage in massive, costly reduction measures?— RG
- Hey Genius... those "400 prominent scientists" you mentioned. Funny how you can't name them eh. I would love to see theri names and, of course, their corresponding political affiliations. Im sure none of them are associated with the constituents of the former regime. nice work Genius.... nice. Got anything else u wanna regurgitate?— Pantaphobia
- TPS , uh yeah they are ignoring history thats the point stupid , you doomsayers scream on and on about how 2 degrees is going to kill us all blah blah blah , history shows the globe has warmed as much as 18 degrees in a decade more than once , get your facts straight first dope— PAEnglish
- Will Bunch = fool— Kaiser Sosa
- Why won't Al Gore debate any climatologists? I wonder.— Kaiser Sosa
- pantophobia, unless you are doing this research yourself, you are just as guilty of regurgitating what someone else says— spags
- One photo is probably from summer and one from winter... I was watching deadliest catch and in the episode, the processing plant was almost closed due to pack ice at St Paul Island. Currents and weather have just as much to do with the ice pack than overall temp in a specific location. According to the logic of these guys, we are all going to die! At 5AM it was 55 degrees, at 3PM it was 80 degrees. If we do not all bike to and from work, a week from now, it will be 475 degrees! Please save us with carbon credits.— chrisrr
- ---}}} But if you admit the uncertainty of it, along with coordination issues, does it make sense to engage in massive, costly reduction measures? {{{--- Accepting your presumption, for a minute, that depends. It depends on a careful cost/benefits risk analysis. Depending on the level of uncertainty and the nature of the "massive, costly measures." Now let's look at your presumption - that efforts to reduce global warming will be massively costly measures. In making that assumption you assume certainty there. Personally, I believe that seeking out and supporting methods to reduce CO2 will be be a net positive, economically as well as environmentally. That doesn't mean that ALL such methods will bring net benefit, but as a country we have engaged in massively expensive efforts that have proven to be economically beneficial. Take a look at the studies done by economists of the net benefits of early childhood education, for example, which have proven to bring a net 18% return on the money invested. And RG, don't fail to account for the massive investment on the part of vested interests that have been made to (1) create opposition to environmental initiatives and (2) actively block the progress of scientific knowledge by ridiculing the role of government to promote change, promoting falsehoods, and outright killing initiatives. America is quite capable of reducing CO2 emissions in ways that prove beneficial financially, as well as in terms of geopolitics (by reducing dependency on ME oil). The longer we wait to fully engage in such initiatives, the less likely they will be to bring a net positive return.— Talking point sleuth
- "Funny how you can't name them eh." Can you name all the scientists that participated in the IPCC studies? "I would love to see theri names and, of course, their corresponding political affiliations." You could do this research yourself, but past that, what does their political affiliation have to do with their scientific research? What about the afifliations of the IPCC scientists?— RG
- Lets get this straight , The fact vikings grew crops in greenland , romans grew vineyards in northern england is history thats discounted by global warming , I mean climate change supporters . They claim climate change is man made , but the most radical changes to the earths climate came while man was still evolving now unless they were already using some otherwise undiscovered V8s it was caused by the sun . What amazes me is when a scientist supports the theory of climate change hes labeled by the left as an expert , but if an equably gifted scientist disagrees hes labelled in the pocket of big oil or hes not even a proper scientist . Why is there no debate ? why does the left feel the need to silence any sceptic ? . global warming , climate change or whatever new name it gets is mostly caused by the sun m, thats it simple , the debate is over . ( now where did I hear that before ? )— PAEnglish
- Go ahead, PAEnglish. Show one climate scientist that "ignores" historical data. Your certainty that the do only reveals an ignorance of the processes of scientists. In reality, climate scientists account for historical data. Projections of global warming take them into account. It's like with the "skeptics" who point to the role of the sun in affecting the Earth's climate - laughably thinking that climate scientists aren't aware of that phenomenon. In reality, climate scientists account for that phenomenon in making their projections.— Talking point sleuth
- "The longer we wait to fully engage in such initiatives, the less likely they will be to bring a net positive return." The government doesnt have the money nor the knowledge to do so, so that leaves it up to private enterprise. If they can do it at a profit, then so be it.— RG
- No wonder Palin can see Russia from her house - all the ice is gone!!— TheDog
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Hey RG, you're a real brainiac! Yeah, ice melts in July. The point is there's way more of it in one July versus the other. Am I the only one wondering why spy satellites were taking pictures of ice? Why would they be classified?
- "The point is there's way more of it in one July versus the other." So one observance of year over year data is enough for climate change proponents to claim victory? As others have already mentioned, do we know if other factors are at work? I know these questions are hard, but its called burden of proof. Before you go hampering the economy in the name of saving us from ourselves, you better know what the heck you are talking about.— RG
- Global warming arguments bore me. Let's revisit why fiscal conservatives were mute or unable to reel in Congress when they had control and GW was in the White House. Now they suddenly care about spending. It's really easy to talk the talk when you know there is no chance to walk the walk.— pagoda
- Pantaphobia - the entire global warming argument is based on simulations that are merely extrapolations of the current climate trend. They are not proof of a theory's correctness. Correction factors are added to the calculations without regard to their real world revelance. The only goal for climate researchers is to get an equation that matches the recent past climate. Earlier posts point out that the 1960s cooling trend was extrapolated to the next Ice Age by the climatologists of that era. The IPCC data (Synthesis report, 2007, page 45) shows how bad these projections are from an accuracy standpoint. The error range (4.4 C) is nearly twice that of the predicted temperature increase (2.4 C). That is a cr@ppy correlation. These simulations are just analyzing noise in the climate data.— Joe Funk
- Joe F kicks some knowledge. That is my uderstanding of the models. Similar modeling/methodology errors happened with housing, in which a current trend (prices going up) was forecast into infinity.— RG
- What if Chappaquiddick had been frozen over in July of 1969? What if....— A Friend
- Just in case anyone, laughably, tries to claim that the Republican Party is dominated by people who evaluate important issues on the basis of available data (and that "libz" base opinions on "feelings" ). --snip-- 58 percent of GOP not sure/doubt Obama born in US --snip-- LOL! Apparently, 58% of the Party of No comprises I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK lunatics. http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0709/58_of_GOP_not_suredont_beleive_Obama_born_in_US.html— Talking point sleuth
- "Before you go hampering the economy in the name of saving us from ourselves, you better know what the heck you are talking about." . . . . . . . We're dealing with probabilities here, not certainties. The fact that the rise in atmosperic CO2 since the 1800s has coincided with the rise of global temperatures makes it a LIKELY cause. If there is an equally or greater liklihood that its being caused by solar activity, changes in the earth's orbit, increased volcanic activity (which has mysteriously escaped our attention), aliens, or whatever, where's the evidence? In the end, it all may be academic. If we can't stop the warming trend but still don't prepare for our survival against the biblical consequences, what diff does it make?
- Great cartoon about extrapolation: http://xkcd.com/605/— geoffrobinson
- Go ahead tps explain the climate changes at the time of the vikings explain how thats 'man made'— PAEnglish
- "not that you'd know that if you read conservative Web sites like the Drudge Report, which run banner headlines everytime a cold June front moves through some Heartland metropolis " This from a blogger who repeatedly has used a stint of local hot weather to bolster his claims that global warming is real.— db_cooper
- The fact that there have been various climate cycles in the past, PAEnglish, do not mean that you can conclude that current cycles aren't affected by human activity. Once again, I'll ask you, show me ONE report from ONE climate scientist that "ignores" historical data.— Talking point sleuth
- "http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/mind-the-gap/ or maybe you could read this one: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/uncertainty-noise-and-the-art-of-model-data-comparison/" Real Climate has their own bias, TPS. Meanwhile, the lead solar scientist from NASA says we could be entering a Dalton Minimum-like level of solar activity. Bad news.— db_cooper
- "The fact that there have been various climate cycles in the past, PAEnglish, do not mean that you can conclude that current cycles aren't affected by human activity. " However, the fact that cycles have occurred naturally in the past does put an onus on AGW proponents to prove that any current climate changes are not in and of themselves naturally-occurring. Given that NASA's lead solar scientist has said we could well see Dalton Minimum level solar activity for the next couple of solar cycles, and given that solar minimums like Dalton have correlated to significant levels of cooling, and that the Earth has cooled over the last year (the data you cite was cooked by entering Russian temp data for September 2008 into October as well), we would be well-advised to prepare for the serious potential impacts of a cooling climate, which historically has been very bad for humanity.— db_cooper
- "Once again, I'll ask you, show me ONE report from ONE climate scientist that "ignores" historical data." Try the hockey stick graph, which tried to pretend the Medival Warm Period did not exist.— db_cooper
- "The fact that the rise in atmosperic CO2 since the 1800s has coincided with the rise of global temperatures makes it a LIKELY cause. If there is an equally or greater liklihood that its being caused by solar activity, changes in the earth's orbit, increased volcanic activity (which has mysteriously escaped our attention), aliens, or whatever, where's the evidence?" Try looking at a long-term graph of solar maxima and minima, correlated to relative global temps, and get back to us.— db_cooper
- " Let's revisit why fiscal conservatives were mute or unable to reel in Congress when they had control and GW was in the White House. " Most fiscal conservatives ripped into Bush and the GOP leadership in Congress over spending. And Bush only pulled out his veto pen when the Dems were in charge of the budget. However, seeing what Obama has now done to the deficit, it's not like the Dems offer any kind of viable alternative nowadays.— db_cooper
- db. Climate scientists have said that, based on data, the warming that we've seen is grater than that which would be predicted we'd see based on solar activity levels (and that the relative cooling we've seen very recently that is not consistent with the larger-scale time reference is smaller than would be predicted on the basis of solar activity). And there are plenty of articles that refute your contentions about the "hockey stick" issue - but there are none that support your previous statements that a short-term cycle "erases" trends of longer-term cycles makes your opinions on this subject highly questionable.— Talking point sleuth
- The point being, db, that your notion that climate scientists who conclude that AGW is likely, "ignore" solar activity, is no better than PAEnglish's laughable assertions that past climate cycles prove that current climate cycles aren't affected by human activity.— Talking point sleuth
- ---}}} Most fiscal conservatives ripped into Bush and the GOP leadership in Congress over spending. {{{--- Yeah. And that's why they voted for him and Dick "deficits don't matter" Cheney, twice. Because they were sooooo upset.— Talking point sleuth
- Comment removed.
- Anyone else think the Phils should be pursuing a releiver before the deadline?— RG
- "Try looking at a long-term graph of solar maxima and minima, correlated to relative global temps, and get back to us." . . . . . . . . I have no problem accepting that global temperature shifts have historically been closely related to solar activity. We know this by the data. We also know that solar activity leveled around 1975, yet global temps have continued to rise steadily. Skeptics should read the studies they like to cite, (Usoskin 2003): "during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."
- Comment removed.
- No doubt, RG.— Talking point sleuth
- I have nightmares of lee and hamels leaving after 8 leading 2-1 and the pen making a mess of it.— RG
- ----}}} so long as we also get to discuss why liberals continue to ignore the current record-setting deficit growth from the Democrat controlled congress and executive branch. {{{--- There we go - claims about how people you don't agree with "ignore" data. Libz don't ignore that. They simply disagree with "conservatives" about government priorities. "Conservatives" accept deficits that arise from tax cuts (to the rich). Libz accept deficits that arise from economic stimulus and social network spending. Toadies, (on both sides) on the other hand, defend deficits when they're run up by the pols they voted for and whine like schoolgirls about deficits run up by pols they didn't vote for - out of partisan interests.— Talking point sleuth
- RG - I think they are happy with the BP since they will be adding Myers/Martinez or Happ to it and none of the other injuries Durbin, Condrey, and J.C. are that severe (Condrey's probably the worst injury is probably odd man out anyhow). Now if the next 65 minutes brings us a SH utility infielder I'd be thrilled.— bird11
- "---}}} Most fiscal conservatives ripped into Bush and the GOP leadership in Congress over spending. {{{--- Yeah. And that's why they voted for him and Dick "deficits don't matter" Cheney, twice. Because they were sooooo upset." Once again, Obama has shown the Dems hardly offer an alternative in that department, TPS.— db_cooper
- Myers in the bullpen = "I have nightmares of lee and hamels leaving after 8 leading 2-1 and the pen making a mess of it."— Talking point sleuth
- bird, i wish i could share your optimism, but all those guys are question marks coming back, and madson and lidge have defined shaky for 2 months now. chan ho park is currently their best reliever. by a mile.— RG
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- "We also know that solar activity leveled around 1975, yet global temps have continued to rise steadily. " Not correct. The solar maximum in the late 1990s was much stronger than the one in the mid-seventies, and the mid-seventies one was weaker than the one in the fifties. Correspondingly, global temps peaked in the late 1990s and the 1970s experienced a brief stint of cooling.— db_cooper
- RG - if we are only scoring 2 runs thru 8 or 9 innings then I'll worry.— bird11
- "RG - if we are only scoring 2 runs thru 8 or 9 innings then I'll worry." Runs arent easy to come by in the playoffs. Remember the hitting last October?— RG
- Meanwhile, the dodgers are close on Gonzalez from SD.— RG
- ---}}} Once again, Obama has shown the Dems hardly offer an alternative in that department, TPS. {{{--- The alternative, db, is WHY they run up the deficits. Once again, long-term data show that Republicans are certainly no better than Dems in terms of deficit as a percentage of GDP, or in federal spending/federal revenue ratios. No better, if not worse. Any "fiscal conservative" who thinks that the Republican Party is the party of "fiscal conservativism is either kidding themselves or not really a fiscal conservative.— Talking point sleuth
- I think they are happy with the BP since they will be adding Myers/Martinez or Happ.....Reports are that in their negotiations to sign Pedro the Phils said he would be given an opportunity to start. So that means Happ goes to the BP, which I disagree with. I don't want to see Pedro starting unless Hamels, Lee, Blanton or Moyer goes on the DL. Perhaps he will get shelled so bad in LV that he's never even given a shot to start.— chasing history
- ---}}} So great, if liberals are OK with deficits, then can everyone simply stop b*tching about who did or didn't complain about deficits in the past? {{{--- The other part of that, bryanc, is that conservatives should not make broader claims about which party is more or less fiscally conservative and limit their criticism to the reasons WHY Dems run deficits rather than the bogus claim that they are, a priori, "fiscal conservaties." Good luck with that one.— Talking point sleuth
- "And there are plenty of articles that refute your contentions about the "hockey stick" issue - but there are none that support your previous statements that a short-term cycle "erases" trends of longer-term cycles makes your opinions on this subject highly questionable." Oh, horsecrap, TPS. The hockey stick has been definitively refuted as being based on bad assumptions and bad coding. The 'warm' glboal weather last year was an artifact of September 2008 data for Russia being copied into October 2008. And we simply cannot model long-term climate with any accuracy - and just about all warming projections are based on modelling. Bad science, all of it. Yet the true believers cling to it, even as public support fades.— db_cooper
- "So that means Happ goes to the BP, which I disagree with." See, this scares me. If Pedro and Moyer get blown up, that means they'd have to either start one as the 4th guy in a playoff series, or jerk Happ back out of the pen. Pedro should pitch long relief out of the pen to build arm strength. if happ or moyer fail, he takes their spot, if not, he pitches relief in Oct.— RG
- ---}}} Bad science, all of it. {{{--- Thanks for FINALLY owning up to your conspiratorial thinking db. Yup. All expert scientists that think that AGW is likely are "bad" scientists that practice "bad" science. Oh yeah, and are only doing so because they're cleaning up financially. No doubt, all those "bad" scientists are also promoting the myth that the Earth is more than 6,000 years old, that floods aren't punishment for bad behavior, etc. Yup. All that "bad" science practiced by all those "bad" scientists is causing our downfall. Oh, or maybe it's only the scientists that you don't agree with that are the "bad" scientists? Coincidentally, of course, It has nothing to do with your political bias.— Talking point sleuth
- Pedro should pitch long relief out of the pen to build arm strength....I agree RG, but based on what was reportedly promised to Pedro, I think they are going to give him some starts. Putting Happ in the pen after the success he's had this year may damge his confidence. And at this time of year, he may not have time to get it back.— chasing history
- ".....Reports are that in their negotiations to sign Pedro the Phils said he would be given an opportunity to start." Chasing not true. Pedro's contract which after the pro-rated $2M is heavy in incentives contains incentives for both number of starts and number of relief appearances.— bird11
- That said Dubee made it pretty clear the other night that he didn't think Moyer or Pedro should pitch out of the pen. Remember Happ had a lot of success in that role before replacing Park in the rotation.— bird11
- db, the solar cycles you refer to don't help to explain the general warming trend over the last 30 years, let alone the last 150 years, but only the short-term ebbs and flos along the way. Again, read the Usoskin paper.
- Heath Bell to the Dodgers. If the Phils meet them in the playoffs they better have a nice lead by the 6th inning.— RG
- RG where are they reporting the Bell trade - ESPN's website sucks.— bird11
- I may have jumped the gun on that one, my buddy near a tv sent me it. foxsports.com had them at least working on the deal.— RG
- "Putting Happ in the pen after the success he's had this year may damge his confidence. And at this time of year, he may not have time to get it back." I don't think that'll be a problem, chasing. If there is one thing that Happ has shown since coming up last year, it is that he has a certain mental toughness. In fact, that toughness could be his greatest asset. Just watch his demeanor on the mound...he gets into a bubble and simply goes about about taking care of his business regardless of external factors. In fact, that's the type of deportment that you'd want to have coming out of the pen.— legatus
- Even after 30 years of neocon lies, I am still amazed at the lengths some (bdm, sbvft) will go to to deny what is obvious. The proof that Bush/Cheney kept this stuff from public view has been available for years. It isn't very hard to do a search and find the govt. documents in question. Just like Glenn Beck/ Fox News fans to ask others to educate them; then attack those same people for trying to what they were asked to do. Must you two constantly remind us that you believe dumb is chic?— BigDaddy3150
- "All expert scientists that think that AGW is likely are "bad" scientists that practice "bad" science. " Just like for years the prevailing view in anthropology was Clovis First - despite some contradictory evidence. Scientists who put forth theories that humans arrived in North America more that 15,000 years ago risked career death. Now there is solid acceptance that humans got here much earlier than 15,000 years ago, due to the fact that the data could not be disregarded any longer. AGW is the same mindset of the Clovis Firsters - including calls by some to ostracize AGW skeptics. So yes, TPS, there is precedent for a collectivist approach to science orthodoxy, no conspiracy required.— db_cooper
- I agree legatus, but you are still subtracting from the rotation unless moyer pitchees better or pedro finds the fountain of youth. one of those guys will have to make playoff starts.— RG
- ESPN Gammons reporting Boston LaRoche to Atlanta for Kotchman.— bird11
- Rolen to Reds.— RG
- Agreed RG. I'm working under the assumption that Pedro can get the job done in whatever role he is asked to perform. In that case, I'd rather see Pedro start and Happ work out of the pen. If Martinez is washed up, then this whole discussion is moot.— legatus
- db. The cases of scientific consensus being "right" far outnumber the cases of scientific consensus being "wrong." Your exceptions prove the rule. But by a long shot, exponentially, correct scientific knowledge had developed through a process of valid skepticism mixed with the sound work of the vast majority of scientists. There is a difference between skepticism and denial. Denial has its roots in a priori bias and is feed by conspiratorial mindsets. The fact that you could, laughably, claim that all experts who believe that AGW is likely, are "bad" scientists is clear evidence of a conspiratorial denier. It's no better than AGW zealots who claim that all skeptical scientists are "bad" scientists. Assuming that neither camp has a corner on "bad" science, then it comes down to this: A "conservative" mindset would support cautious acceptance of the reality that only a minority of scientists are "bad" scientists, and that there are far more scientists who believe that AGW is likely than there are who dismiss it as disproven. It would also require the acknowledgment that despite claims to the contrary, there has been far more "unscientific" input into the debate from the "skeptical" side via heavily vested interests and 8 years of the Bush administration.— Talking point sleuth
- Sen. Chris Dodd has been diagnosed with cancer. Upon hearing the bad news Dodd is reported to have looked at his doctor and proclaimed "Thank God I won't be forced into the public option!!!"— bird11
- TPS, skepticism also works both ways. What if we're actually underestimating the effects of human activity on global warming? Is it necessarily confined to CO2 emissions and deforestation?
- [Kramer in bed eating chicken when ... the Kenny Roger's chicken light goes out] Kramer: Kenny? ... Kenny? [Kramer at his window with a sign saying "Come Back Kenny" ] Kramer: Kenny.... Will Bunch: Cheney....Cheney?— Weightman
- "Your exceptions prove the rule. But by a long shot, exponentially, correct scientific knowledge had developed through a process of valid skepticism mixed with the sound work of the vast majority of scientists. " Except that the majority increasingly is trying to intimidate the minority into silence, TPS. That is clearly documented. And bad science. Skepticism of existing scientific dogma is the cornerstone of scientific advancement - recall that Wegner was ripped by the establishment for his theory of continental drift. The atom used to be considered a cloud of particles until experimentation showed the particles were tightly bound in a nucleus. But members of the American Chemical Society did a much better job of showing the problems here, when the editor of their newsletter called for a squelshing of skeptics on the subject of AGW: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/30/american-chemical-society-members-revolting-against-their-editor-for-pro-agw-views/ ACS member scientist Dr. Howard Hayden, a Physics Professor Emeritus from the University of Connecticut: “Baum’s remarks are particularly disquieting because of his hostility toward skepticism, which is part of every scientist’s soul. Let’s cut to the chase with some questions for Baum: Which of the 20-odd major climate models has settled the science, such that all of the rest are now discarded? [...] Do you refer to ‘climate change’ instead of ‘global warming’ because the claim of anthropogenic global warming has become increasingly contrary to fact?” Atmospheric Chemist Roger L. Tanner: “I have very little in common with the philosophy of the Heartland Institute and other ‘free-market fanatics,’ and I consider myself a progressive Democrat. Nevertheless, we scientists should know better than to propound scientific truth by consensus and to excoriate skeptics with purple prose.”— db_cooper
- Comment removed.
- jwad (d) - if TPS didn't post between 3 and 7 I would think he was Eskin....but he does post less during those periods hmmmmmmmmm— bird11
- Comment removed.
- I don't think that'll be a problem, chasing. If there is one thing that Happ has shown since coming up last year, it is that he has a certain mental toughness.....I hope you're right. My belief is he has earned his spot as a starter and it should not be taken away just because Rube signed Pedro as Plan B. Let's all hope Pedro refinds his stuff and Happ throws zeros out of the pen.— chasing history
- Well the trade deadline is passed and Doc Halladay is still a Jay. Who was it that said the only team he would go to was the Phillies and doubted he would be traded at all unless Toronto came off its high asking price? Was it TPS - no TPS would have given everything in the farm system plus Bunch to get him. I guess Toronto's asking price was too much for any of the contenders (Boston, NYY, Angels, Dodgers, cardinals, Rangers of Phillies) to pay - or maybe nobody in any of those organizations knows baseball LOL.— bird11
- "Except that the majority increasingly is trying to intimidate the minority into silence, TPS." . . . . . db, I'm not sure how Baum represents the "majority" in your point. He's editor of a journal for chemists, and obviously talking out of his arse (much as as we are here). Seriously, as long as oil and coal companies are making profits, I doubt AGW skeptics will feel too ostracized to speak up.
- "db, I'm not sure how Baum represents the "majority" in your point. " Baum is just one of many. Recall Weather Channel meterologist Heidi Cullen wanted AGW skeptics decertified from the AMS. The mindset is prevalent against the AGW promoters.— db_cooper
- birdie - I'm fine with the Lee trade. Fact is, the Phils' offense is likely to make the difference between Lee pitching and Doc pitching pretty much a moot point. Either way, although Doc might give up at most, one less run per start, their chances of winning any particular game, with the Phils averaging 5 runs per game, pretty much the same. I'd rather have Doc, and I would have given up more to get him - but in the long run, I have to admit, the Lee trade was a better one.— Talking point sleuth
- Well, I've had some heavy insults thrown my way at Attytood, but I have to say jwad's latest insult really hurts. Calling me a moron is one thing - but comparing me to Eskin is beyond the pale.— Talking point sleuth