Next year? Those herds won’t come back.

Weather? The forecast for this week is weather. The rain from last week is weather. 30 years of consistent trend is climate change.
http://summitcountyvoice.com/2012/03/25/wmo-says-global-warming-accelerated-in-past-decade/“>
No rise for 13 years? <a href="I'm sorry. I had understood you lived on Earth. What planet are you on?

What about last year? What about next year…its called weather!!!!

Yes I will read more carefully the newspapers printing of dud scare predictions ..in search in vain for a correction of past dud predictions.

temperature have not risen for 13 years , this is odds with AGW …would you advise your students caution in there whole hearted acceptance of AGW ? Would you a least try and promote the ideals of scientic inquiry?

All the disasters I mentioned were ‘scares’ based in AGW which I read in newspapers. So malaria isnt returning – great now your on board with me ! But why did the newspaper print it? I am confused that you told me to read more newspapers…….because they only report the scares and then it goes down the memory hole.

You seem to have no difficulty recalling bad information, especially biased information from denialists that never made the newspapers. Maybe my advice should be to simply read more carefully.

We face real disasters. The beef industry, wheat farmers, and shipping on the Mississippi have already been hammered this year. Global warming is not hypothetical at all.

You didn’t read that malaria is returning in any news column in any newspaper. That line is only maintained by the broad group of industry-paid flacks who deny the science behind the limiting of DDT.

You may have read, accurately, that the range of malaria mosquitoes is spreading. That’s a result of climate warming, and it’s accurate. But the number of malaria cases, and deaths, remains in decline.

However, there are other diseases spread with the help of warming we might do well to worry about, including West Nile virus. DDT can’t help there.

And also , has the IPCC never ever issued predictions or warnings based on its modelling of future global warming? Reality and odd worldviews indeed.

Are you familiar with IPCC publications? On one hand you criticize the agency for stuff it doesn’t do, and you denigrate findings in its reports. Then you ask a question that one might think would be clear to anyone who reads their works. Perhaps you should start here: Working Group II Report, “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability” http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/contents.html

Where are you getting information on warming, other than the wrong stuff from newspapers?

“So, reality has no place in your odd “worldview,” and disasters are the responsibility of others”

Oh dear…what ‘disasters’ and who are the ‘others’? All the disasters I mentioned were ‘scares’ based in AGW which I read in newspapers. So malaria isnt returning – great now your on board with me ! But why did the newspaper print it? I am confused that you told me to read more newspapers…….because they only report the scares and then it goes down the memory hole.

And also , has the IPCC never ever issued predictions or warnings based on its modelling of future global warming? Reality and odd worldviews indeed.

IPCC has published numerous reports. It is an organization that requires that AGW theory to be true.

What a bizarre claim. IPCC’s charter is merely to gather information that nations can use to prevent disasters, or encourage growth. Why do you slander the agency so?

Here’s the official explanation:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading international body for the assessment of climate change. It was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts. In the same year, the UN General Assembly endorsed the action by WMO and UNEP in jointly establishing the IPCC.

The IPCC is a scientific body. It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters.

David said:

Each of its reports have reduced there alarmist predictions to the point where even if the prediction now come true , the changes will be manageable. So as we know more, we have more understanding ,and the risks seem less.

You’re not paying attention.

I am no counting the usual arctic ice scares( and what of the Antarctic), polar bears, coral bleaching, return of malaria( lucky we still have DTT) etc and an unending liternany of dud predictions that get reported in the 4 estate but never corrected because good news is NO news. ..This is the IPCC

So, reality has no place in your odd “worldview,” and disasters are the responsibility of others?

Malaria isn’t returning. It’s at the lowest level in human history, and mostly without DDT — DDT stopped being effective against all mosquitoes in the 1960s, and it is used now only when lab reports indicate it has some killing effect on the local mosquito population. That you’re so badly informed – malinformed? dysinformed? — on malaria and DDT is just one more indication to me that you really need to read newspapers sometime, and that you don’t understand much about climate change, maybe all of science.

Climate is always changing. Fullstop!

Are you arguing for letting natural courses take their way? We’re overdue for a new ice age. There are some who conjecture that we’ve stopped it.

Warming on the scale we’ve seen is not natural, and the warming catastrophes have a huge component of our own hubristic action in them. Yes, things change. That’s a poor reason to piss in the soup, you know?

Are you pro-pollution in all other areas, too? Cow pies are natural, but I don’t like them on my dinner table. I think we have an obligation not to plop human pollution all over the planet, at the risk of all other species, and especially ourselves.

Accidents happen. That’s not an argument against seatbelts. Disease kills people. That’s not an argument against vaccination.

Sometimes I wonder who the poster boys were for Bagley’s cartoons (see original post).

http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2012/09/global-warming-30-second-video

The Iraq war may have been “legal” but it sure wasn’t just, child. It was a collossal waste of time, money and especially lives. That’s why we protested it.

And if our involvement in Libya had been in your view a “legal” war you wouldn’t have protested it? OH please. You still would have opposed it because of the Big Scary Black man in the White House.

It was also illegal war conducted by Obama , with consent from Republicians. Democracts protest even legal wars – emocracts must think hypocrisy is a strenght.

So, you supported Gaddhafi because he recently made nicey-nicey about the U.S., though he still protected the Lockerby bombers, tortured his own people, and posed a great threat to security of the entire Arab world, AND you think we should have violated the NATO agreement and stayed out of the thing completely, though what we got is 100% better than what was there before?

I’ve heard of “cutting off your nose to spite your face,” but never before have I heard of doing that and poking your own eyes out at the same time.

Because Creationism at its most basic says that God is a sociopathic liar.

Yeah except for that figure is wrong for Democrats. We’re not so stupid.

As for the 70% of Republicans believe in Creationism..yeah that really just proves the adage about if 50 million people believe a foolish thing…it’s still a foolish thing.

Sorry, this is not a game of popularity. This is a game of facts and there simply are none to back Creationism and quite a lot to back evolution.

To quote:
Obama did it to Kaddhafi , who was on cordial terms with the US , and let the mob rip him apart. A drone stopped Kaddhafi from fleeing and directly resulted in his death

You mean the Kaddhafi that was as much a mass murderer as Saddam Hussein that your side insisted we had to take out no matter what? Even if the result was a cesspool of terrorists and the Islamics taking over? At least what Obama did didn’t bankrupt the country and cost American troops their lives in a pointless war. that by itself puts him leagues ahead of Bush and the GOP.

Same goes with Egypt.

Kaddhafi was done whether or not we did anything to help or not. So sitting there bitching at Obama when we had no real power to affect the outcome is nothing more then the whinings of a party of petulant children who are still pissed 4 years later the American people put the “scary black man” in the White House. And who are even more pissed that they’ve lost their supposed national security cachet to the Democrats. And what does your side have to show for it? A crazy crackpot dimwitted Congresswoman from the 6th district of Minnesota who is currently channeling Tailgunner Joe and believes that she gets to define treason and patriotism all by herself.

To quote:Either way the result isnt going to be a democracy in Egypt, Libya or evenually Syria…it will be the stated aim of the Brotherhood – an Islamic Theocracy

You may very well be right, David. Or it might turn into a version of Turkey. Time will tell. But short of invading those countries, David, we have no real ability to stop the process that is going on. And if the President ordered the invasion of those countries your party would within the immediate 10 seconds afterwards decide to attack Obama for invading those countries and squelching the nascent democracy in those countries.

WIth you and your party this isn’t a rational discussion, as much as you and your party want to claim otherwise, this isn’t about the national security of the United States or whats best for this country and the rest of the world.

With you and your party this is about one thing alone: Your party’s visceral hatred of the President and your party’s willingness to take any position whatsoever that allows you and your party to attack the President no matter what.

as for the Brotherhood’s aim of a Islamic Theocracy and your fear of them…let me know when you’re going to start being concerned about the stated aim of more then a few Republicans of turning the United States into a Christian theocracy.

Which is half the reason your party created such a hullabaloo about the Democrats supposedly removing God from the party platform.

Your party whores out God on an amazing level. Especially considering there is so little actual Christianity coming from your party.

A decade of nonwarming? What planet are you living on? Lets see..the Arctic is still melting and we’re in the middle of a very bad drought. And my state, Minnesota, has had nothing approaching a normal winter in the last decade.

You, David, live in fantasy world.

Crisis….where? Computer models that predict crises that have continually not happened…now we have a decade of non-warming and the travesty is that they, the warmists, can’t explain it.

I mean, seriously, Rip: Can you at least read a newspaper from the past ten years before you make statements that would make any informed person blush?

o Annals of Global Warming: 2011 comes in as 9th warmest year ever recorded

o Annals of global warming: NOAA calls 2011 year of climate extremes

o Annals of global warming: Decade from 2000-2009 warmest on record, NASA found

We have crises in the changed monsoons in India, which may significantly increase starvation, soon. Drought in Africa, drought in almost all of the U.S. this year (relieved a bit by tropical storms, but oo late to save the beef industry, or pork or corn or soybeans or wheat). If you’ve bought fresh beef — or hoped to — over the last four weeks you’ve witnessed the effects of the crisis.

Across the U.S. we’ve had record wildfires over the past decade, in some cases eclipsing the record fires of 1908.

Migrating birds have changed migration patterns. Migrating fish have change their patterns or disappeared, ruining a lot of fishing boats and some packing companies, and making fish much more scarce across the world.

In the western U.S., weeds like cheat grass (Russian brome, Bromus tectorum) spread as warming disrupts the rain cycles. Cheat grass is particularly nasty because it’s wholly useless to any American wildlife, and to any domestic wildlife, andit crowds out all beneficial species and burns like a Roman candle when lit, which increases wildfire dangers of frequency of fires, speed of fires and intensity of fires.

You’re right: No computer model accurately forecast these global-warming caused disasters.

But you believe , because belief comes first and evidence is shoe horned in.

No, I was a professional botanist for few years in the 1970s, and we tracked the effects of global warming then, though we didn’t have a cause. Crop losses, livestock losses, wilfI’ve stayed relatively current with old friends and professional work on public lands use and environmental impact statements. In a period of 30 years, botanists have gone from “what in the world is causing this?” to “We’ve eliminated every other potential cause — and warming is the cause.”

It’s not a belief. I’ve seen the data. I’ve checked the plants, along the Colorado, San Juan and Green Rivers, down the canyons of central Utah; I’ve seen the damage along the Susquehanna and down through Chesapeake Bay. I’ve charted the timberlines of he Wasatch and Oquirrh ranges, and sat with the rangers who plot the annual changes along the upper glacier valleys of Glacier National Park. I’ve listened to hours of testimony from the fisherman of the Gulf of Mexico, and the chefs who depend on the catches of those fishermen. I’ve seen the damage, and I’ve seen the charts that show it spreading, year by year. It’s been in your newspapers. It’s been chronicled in your newspapers over the past 30 years.

I don’t believe. I know the evidence. It’s not a case of belief, as a religious faith. It’s a case of paying attention to just what the evidence shows. Evidence first. Years of pinning down the causes of the effects. Conan Doyle put it best, in the words of his character Sherlock Holmes: You eliminate all the things that are impossible, and then what remains, no matter how improbable, is the cause.

Add up all the evidence. Changing rain patterns. Rising temperatures. Changing migration patterns, in plants and animals. The earlier arrival of spring, incrementally, over more than 30 years (more than 100 years of records from the USDA). Changing frequencies of el Ninos and la Ninas. Rapid escalation of glacier melt, all over the world. Escalation of the rising of seas. Coral bleaching. Rising timberlines. Rising greenlines. Fish kills from warm, and hot water. Untimely flows of rivers (Mississippi this year being a chief example).

None of that involves any modeling, none of that involves any computer work.

So, what computer models do you complain about? The most famous is Michael Mann’s “hockey stick.” It took actual data from as far back as we can get data, including dendrochronologies, and projected past 1990 the trends then-observed. Were those projections inaccurate? Not happily, at all. They were inaccurate because they failed to predict how rapidly temperatures would actually rise! In short, the models sided with you on disbelieving the warming would continue.

For 20 years now, warming has continued much faster than the computer models predicted.

Were you aware that the models were too conservative when you impugned their accuracy?

You scream the sky is falling , and you discount any contrary view,

Contrary views are discounted only after disproof. It’s not a bias thing, it’s an accuracy thing. When I started out in botany, we were chasing air pollution effects and measurements. Everywhere we went in the wild, we found rising temperatures (something we were checking to see when crops and wild plants would be most vulnerable to damaging gases); we found increased weed competition over what the texts said. We found plants outside the areas they should have been, shifting northward and upslope. Back then we worried a lot about particulate pollution, which had not yet been controlled well. Particulates block out sunlight and cause cooling on a grand scale. Often we discussed what could be predicted, were particulates to be controlled, and greenhouse gases not. We also looked at predictions with partial and no particulate control. Big debates occurred over whether human-caused emissions could really affect weather over big areas. Some botanists specialized in sunlight effects, some in rain effects, some in temperature effects. Massive studies were done by meteorologists, and climatologists; dozens of hypotheses were thrown up in the air, and examined. There was that one guy out at Mauna Loa who had 20 years of data on CO2. Textbooks speculated about what might happen if the competition for effects from the cooling particulates were ever removed. Warming on a grand scale?

Here we are a few decades later. Various hypotheses have been dismissed as impossible. The one remaining hypothesis that explains almost everything is rising CO2 from human emissions.

You don’t know the issue. You don’t know what you’re talking about. Alas, perhaps, the sky isn’t falling. Particulates, at least, came down after a while, and captured various gases with them when they fell, including a tiny percentage of CO2. We’ve very well controlled for particulates in most of the industrialized world. Greenhouse gases, on the other hand, have not been controlled.

And we have warming.

there’s no comfort that the AGW theory maybe overstated, just shrill denoucations….sounds like your being the dogmatic Church to the sceptics ( or should that be denier) Galileo.

Galileo is an object lesson. Those who clung dogmatically to old beliefs — like religion — and who refused to look at the data, now look like fools. Your political church keeps insisting warming can’t happen, never mind the dead crops, the rising oceans, the declining glaciers, the rising actual temperatures . . .

Galileo’s story involved only whether the planets are pushed by angels, or by some other more natural source. It didn’t predict disaster for the human race, so ignoring Galileo was a matter of history and theology.

You might want to pay attention to the predictions of the prophet Joseph, and seven bad years. The Bible warns us not to mock those who have the data, and to pay attention to those who have been accurate in the past. Maybe Galileo isn’t the story you need to pay attention to.

“Let me know when you’re going to drop the stupid racism because you seem to be saying that blacks are more inclined to be homocidally violent.”

That is exactly what I am saying, A mere statement of fact gleened from statistics or….. the actual body count. But the whites a pretty out there as well …

JK
“David asks:7. How is having voter ID racist?
You mean besides the fact that it’s designed to do one thing and one thing only? To make damn sure that as few blacks, latinos and other minorities vote?”

And how does it do that , when the ID requirement covers all citizens? Or do you want to divide America into racial categories…like “stupid Black people who cant get ID”, .. nar that would be racist and the Democractic party has never ever been a Racist entity that traded on race baiting for political adavantage….not ever ever truly

JK
“So I ask my original question. The President should have had the US military invade those countries in order to keep their dictators in power? ”

This is a vexing issue.Which is why I didnt directly comment- yet I still attract a spray of bile from you. Both Obama and the Republicans have the same policy….and its not an easy one. I suspect the Brotherhood was always going to get power, so why not throw steadfast ally / relatively benign dictator ( by midde east standards) under a bus.

Obama did it to Kaddhafi , who was on cordial terms with the US , and let the mob rip him apart. A drone stopped Kaddhafi from fleeing and directly resulted in his death- no trial was ever going happen, hardly an improvement . It was also illegal war conducted by Obama , with consent from Republicians. Democracts protest even legal wars – emocracts must think hypocrisy is a strenght.

Either way the result isnt going to be a democracy in Egypt, Libya or evenually Syria…it will be the stated aim of the Brotherhood – an Islamic Theocracy. Just look at the electrions in Gaza —once in Hamas were never going to allow themselve to be voted out. Just like Hitler got into power through the vote, the end is foreseeable =heck you even have George Santayana quoted on the side bar of this blog.

I guess what I am advocating is support and aid for the only true democracy in the region , Israel. And a policy of Separatism from the rest of the Islam nightmare…..through disengagment , strategic negation of any threats such as nukes , stop all immigration , making the US unattractive for Muslims to want to stay, keep the wolves at arms length with a big stick/gun handy. Is Teddy on mount Rushmore?

You talk about dangerous ideology , to the liberal west , then Islam is the mother of them all. (Well Islam and the DNC – but you knew I was going to say that)

To Ed Darren

What we have here is a failure to communicate….

Intelligent design is “God guiding” the evolutionary process, it is a form of creationism but different as it uses physical evidence of past ages to make sense of how humanity came to be. Creationism is the unscientific extreme position , of a young earth. I believe that this position is over represented in the survey ,as people didnt see the 10000 years they just saw the ” God created humans…” part of the sentence and they voted accordingly – the survey should be rejigged.

Intelligent design (ID) is a form of creationism defined as the proposition that “certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.” In other words God guides the process. Natural selection is in itself problematic for evolutionary theory…but I digress.

Over 70 percent of Republicans and Democrats belief in creationism- either the extreme young earth version or the ID version.

You mean where the Democrats attempted to include all faiths including Christianity by not singling out any religion or deity?

Tell me…what’s your problem in being respectful to people of all faiths and no faith?

Or do you just like whoring out God?

Sorry, the Democrats never tried to exclude God. They were trying to be respectful of everyone. You know..the opposite of the GOP who seem to think that you have to be white, rich and Christian to be a real American.