Man Based Global Warming....

It's hard to ignore the bozos when they ignore their own advice.

If one wishes to compare the present enrgy secretary to Bush's last one, the comparison would be made with:

Samuel W. Bodman, Secretary of Energy (2005 - 2009):
Samuel Wright Bodman was born in Chicago, Illinois, on November 26, 1938. He received a bachelor's in chemical engineering in 1961 from Cornell University and his doctorate from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)in 1965.

Bodman then served as an associate professor of chemical engineering at MIT. At the same time, he entered the financial sector and served as technical director of the American Research and Development Corporation. In 1970, he went to Fidelity Venture Associates, an offshoot of Fidelity Investments. In 1983, he was named President and chief operating officer of Fidelity. Bodman moved to Cabot Corporation in 1987 and became the company's chief executive officer the next year.

Bodman has served in various roles during the administration of George W. Bush. First, he served as deputy secretary of the Department of Commerce from 2001 to 2004, during which time he focused on the operations in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Patent and Trademark Office. He then served as deputy secretary of the Treasury Department, focusing on stopping the flow of money from reaching terrorists. Bodman became the eleventh secretary of Energy on February 1, 2005, after being unanimously confirmed by the Senate.

A man with a considerably broader experience in the real world than a laboratory scientist.

Senators are elected by the residents of various states, not appointed by presidents to be their 'chairperson to head climate change discussion.'

As for Nobel Laureates, one wonders how rigorously the selection is considered:



Yasser Arafat, terrorist.

 

A recent conference in Copenhagen has updated the '07 IPCC:
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/press-releases/files/synthesis-report-web.pdf

 

Re:S.W. Bodman

Real world experience,, working for Wall St? Deputy Sec. of The Treasury, and finally Sec. Of Energy.

Let's see,, How's your mutual funds doing? Oh,, and how 'bout the economic melt down due in no small part the the cozy relationship(s) between wall street and the previous administration. And energy,, that's a laugh, the only cogent thought that came out of the energy dept. in 8 years was "drill baby drill".

As we approach peak oil and (even if you don't believe in it) global warming, there was less than zero emphasis on solving our energy situation save opening ANWR. During that time we taxed our oil to $4/gallon so it would benefit us,,, oh no I got that backwards,,, we paid $4 a gallon (and soon will again I predict) and in the process sent ~$3 of it to the Saudis, Chavez, etc.

Yes indeed,,, that's the CV I want coming across my desk with "real world experience"!

I'm so glad we are evolving away from the feeling that we want leaders who we would "like to have a beer with" in favor of someone who knows how to read.

Icarus

 

Yeah I read that part and I knew you'd be stupid enough to use it... You're getting predictable in your desperateness.

 

Please fire up your brain cell and explain in a sentence or few how I was stupid in using a quote from an article to which you linked. Just because you make pronouncements doesn't render them true.

Where is my desperation? I have demolished your insufficient and puny examples at will. Fight back with something of substance. Something more than, " Boy, you sure are stupid, duh."

Is English your first language?

 

You're talking about the previous administration that wanted MORE oversight of the GSEs involved in mortgage guarantees? Who were shouted down by the likes of Barney Fwank as racists?

The debacle was caused by forcing financial institutions to make loans to people that wouldn't otherwise have qualified.

This increased demand on housing, which made property values go up. People sold and profited. They bough houses, fixed them a little and sold them for massive profits. This was the free market RESPONDING to the idiocy of the aforementioned legislative 'social justice'.

Then the bubble burst because it was (here's a favorite buzzword) unsustainable.

Then the free market and the administration that 'failed' to do anything about it get all the blame.

It wouldn't be more perfect for the left if they actually planned it!

 

Really how dumb can you be that you think that because we don't know if the bigger ear is an immediate detriment, that we can rest easy.

The important point is it is an example of a change in the atmosphere causing a change in the ocean that is causing a rapid physiological change in fish.

It's the uncertainty in AGWs extent or effects that would cause a prudent person to say we better play it safe. You can't see the forest for the trees.

 

When you learn how to read and comprehend, let's have a beer.

 

Wow, four whole sentences. Let's see what you said:

1 You are dumb.

2 I'll restate part of what the climate religionists said in the article I linked.

3 We are uncertain about AGW, so let's put a tax on energy that will cost the U. S. citizens about 10 TRILLION bucks over the next three decades.

4 You are confused.

Thanks, fibber, that's really cool.

 

Reply to Fraya,,,,

"The debacle was caused by forcing financial institutions to make loans to people that wouldn't otherwise have qualified."

If you are blaming the current financial meltdown on the Community Reinvestment Act. (Which for the first time required bankers who did business in a community, provide loans in those communities under the same terms as any other loans!) If you look into the repayment stats, those CRA loans have a lower than average default rate,,, contrary to popular (talk radio!) perception.

What caused the mortgage meltdown was not the CRA,, but the fact that wall streeters figured our a way "securitize" these mortgages and sell them on the secondary market, claiming some inherent value, while the underlying value was questionable.

Couple that with the get rich quick mentality of "flip this house", easy credit that allowed people to borrow against their house as though it were a giant piggy bank, pay off their credit cards with that money, re up the credit card debt, and the put a 30 year lien on their blue jean. This all predicated on the notion that prices could do nothing but go up,, ergo there was no risk.

Surely there was (is) plenty of blame to go around,, but to blame it on the CRA is just plain wrong!

Icarus

 

Paul Krugman looks at the denialist argument of using (very) short term trends to argue for previous cooling trends.

"What this tells me is that annual temperature is indeed noisy: there have been many large fluctuations, indeed much larger than the up-and-down in the last decade or so. But the direction of change is unmistakable if you take the longer view. The fitted line in the figure is a 3rd-degree polynomial, but any sort of smoothing would tell you that there is a massive upward trend."

Temperature trends - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com

 

This doesn't even pass the laugh test. First Krugman states that, "...if you pick and choose your dates over a short time span you can usually make whatever case you want." Then he proceeds to do precisely that by choosing a geologically short span of little more than a century.

Let's follow Krugman's own advice and look at a longer period of time:

 

Too long is just as inappropriate as too short. The relevant time span is from the industrial revolution when humans began actively changing the concentration of greenhouse gases.

That's an interesting graph you present. It has no reference and no units on the y axis. Cam you explain how the BC temperatures were obtained to such high resolution?

The actual published and peer-reviewed data is here:



This is why arguing with denialists is so difficult. They bend basic reasoning and information to the one preconceived conclusion.

 

Well you looked at an alarming study and immediately and illogically tried to dismiss it with the same kind of BS thinking that Mr. Burns used in Two Cars in Every Garage and Three Eyes on Every Fish - Simpsons Wiki

Blinky - Simpsons Wiki "...some kind of superfish"

 

This is why arguing with AGW hoaxers is so difficult. They present one chart created by an economist op/ed writer for the New York Slimes, and then carp about a graph made by a climate scientist and a meteorologist.

THEN they move the goalposts and present a chart that may have been more useful in the first place. But it has no attribution. What is its source, the IPCC and the discredited Michael Mann?

 

The illogic applied here is to cast the study increasing the amount of CO2 in which fish are hatched and artificially reared as 'alarming'.

The scientists involved merely report the unexpected results that show accretion of otolith material when they expected the reverse. They express no 'alarm', and freely admit that they have no idea whether this response is for the better or for the worse.

The alarmism is in the article discussing the study. As previously clearly explained, it is alarmism to characterize a decrease of alkalinity as 'acidification'. It certainly worked on Fibber. He's certainly alarmed, while the scientists continue to study - as they should.

 

There is another reason why graphs may be alarming to the uninitiated, but just a depiction of data to others. This, essentially, is the same time period depictd in Krugman's alarming graph.

 

http://holocene.meteo.psu.edu/shared/articles/MannetalPNAS08.pdf

Mann et al. (2008). Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia. PNAS September 9, 2008 vol. 105 no. 36.

Note is a peer reviewed and published paper and the graph you present is incomplete and unpublished.

"There is another reason why graphs may be alarming to the uninitiated, but just a depiction of data to others. This, essentially, is the same time period depictd in Krugman's alarming graph."

Using the wrong scale. The correct scale for a graph always leaves the least amount of unused axis space. Your graph leaves 90 of axis space unused.

 

From a peer-reviewed and published paper:




Yes, this depiction uses the same device that Krugman does - that is to cherry-pick the time frame of the mean.

For an explication of the problems surrounding the Mann et.al. 'hockey stick', (which they still defend at their propaganda site realclimate.org.) and in slightly altered form is still used in IPCC reports, see this:

http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/NAS.M&M.pdf

And for comments by independent panels formed to study claims and counter-claims:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2322

"...
It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community;[REFERRING TO MANN AND HIS CRONIES} even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community. Additionally, we judge that the sharing of research materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done. In this case we judge that there was too much reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent.
Based on the literature we have reviewed, there is no overarching consensus on [Mann's work]. As analyzed in our social network, there is a tightly knit group of individuals who passionately believe in their thesis. However, our perception is that this group has a self-reinforcing feedback mechanism and, moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that they can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility.
It is clear that many of the proxies are re-used in most of the papers. It is not surprising that the papers would obtain similar results and so cannot really claim to be independent verifications."
Especially when massive amounts of public monies and human lives are at stake, academic work should have a more intense level of scrutiny and review. It is especially the case that authors of policy-related documents like the IPCC report, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, should not be the same people as those that constructed the academic papers."

{My parens - non bold}

 

Your graph shows range in temperature change. The paper you cite argues there is a decrease in temp change because it is getting uniformly hotter.

You may not like it but the hockey stick was confirmed. Particularly in that PNAS paper I just cited. The meme that the hockey stick was disproven is a commonly parroted and unpublished denialist claim.