Storms of My Grandchildren by Dr. James Hansen
"Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity" is NASA climate change scientist Dr. James Hansen's first book. Dr. Hansen is arguably the most visible and well-respected climate change scientist in the world, and has headed the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City since 1981. He is also an adjunct professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University. Dr. Hansen greatly raised awareness of the threat of global warming during his Congressional testimony during the record hot summer of 1988, and issued one of the first-ever climate model predictions of global warming (see an analysis here to see how his 1988 prediction did.) In 2009, Dr. Hansen was awarded the Carl-Gustaf Rossby Research Medal, the highest honor bestowed by the American Meteorological Society, for his "outstanding contributions to climate modeling, understanding climate change forcings and sensitivity, and for clear communication of climate science in the public arena."
Storms of My Grandchildren focuses on the key concepts of the science of climate change, told through Hansen's personal experiences as a key player in field's scientific advancements and political dramas over the past 40 years. Dr. Hansen's writing style is very straight-forward and understandable, and he clearly explains the scientific concepts involved in a friendly way that anyone with a high school level science education can understand. I did not find any scientific errors in his book. However, some of his explanations are too long-winded, and the book is probably too long, at 274 pages. Nevertheless, Storms of My Grandchildren is a must-read, due to the importance of the subject matter and who is writing it. Hansen is not a fancy writer. He comes across as a plain Iowan who happened to stumble into the field of climate change and discovered things he had to speak out about. And he does plenty of speaking out in his book.
James Hansen vs. Richard Lindzen
Dr. Hansen's book opens with an interesting chapter on his participation in four meetings of Vice President Dick Cheney's cabinet-level Climate Task Force in 2001. It seems that the Bush Administration was prepared to let Dr. Hansen's views on climate change influence policy. However, Dr. Richard Lindzen, whom Hansen describes as "the dean of of global warming contrarians", was also present at the meetings. Dr.Lindzen was able to confuse the task force members enough so that they never took Dr. Hansen's views seriously. Hansen observes that "U.S. policies regarding carbon dioxide during the Bush-Cheney administration seem to have been based on, or at a minimum, congruent with, Lindzen's perspective." Hansen asserts that Lindzen was able to do this by acting more like a lawyer than a scientist: "He and other contrarians tend to act like lawyers defending a client, presenting only arguments that favor their client. This is in direct contradiction to...the scientific method." Hansen also comments that he asked Lindzen what he thought of the link between smoking and cancer, since Lindzen had been a witness for the tobacco industry decades earlier. Lindzen "began rattling off all the problems with the data relating smoking to health problems, which was closely analogous to his views of climate data."
Alarmism
Global warming contrarians often dismiss scientists such a Dr. Hansen as "alarmists" who concoct fearsome stories about climate change in order to get research funding. Dr. Lindzen made this accusation at Cheney's Climate Task Force in 2001. However, Dr. Hansen notes that "in 1981 I lost funding for research on the climate effects of carbon dioxide because the Energy Department was displeased with a paper, 'Climate Impact of Increasing Carbon Dioxide,' I had published in Science magazine. The paper made a number of predictions for the 21st century, including 'opening of the fabled Northwest Passage', which the Energy Department considered to be alarmist but which have since proven to be accurate." If you read Dr. Hansen's book and listen to his lectures, it is clear that he is not an alarmist out to get more research funding by hyping the dangers of global warming. Hansen says in his book that "my basic nature nature is very placid, even comfortably stolid", and that nature comes through very clearly in Storms of My Grandchildren. Hansen's writings express a quiet determination to plainly set forth the scientific truth on climate change. He has surprisingly few angry words towards the politicians, lobbyists, and scientists intent on distorting the scientific truth.
The science of climate change
The bulk of Storms of My Grandchildren is devoted to explanations of the science of climate change. Hansen's greatest concern is disintegration of the gerat ice sheets in Greenland and West Antarctica causing sea level rise: "Once the ice sheets begin to rapidly disintegrate, sea level would be continuously changing for centuries. Coastal cities would become impractical to maintain." Hansen is concerned that evidence from past climate periods show that the massive ice sheets that cover Greenland and Antarctica can melt quickly, with large changes within a century. For example, sea level at the end of the most recent Ice Age, 13,000 - 14,000 years ago, rose at a rate of 3 - 5 meters (10 - 17 feet) per century for several centuries. Hansen is convinced that just a 1.7 -2°C warming, which would likely result if we stabilize CO2 at 450 ppm, would be a "disaster scenario" that would trigger rapid disintegration of the ice sheets and disastrous rises in sea level. Hansen advocates stabilizing CO2 at 350 ppm (we are currently at 390 ppm, with a rate of increase of 2 ppm per year.)
Another of Hansen's main concerns is the extinction of species. He notes that studies of more than 1,000 species of plants, animals, and insects have found an average migration rate towards the poles due to climate warming in the last half of the 20th century to be four miles per decade. "That is not fast enough. During the past thirty years the lines marking the regions in which a given average temperature prevails (isotherms) have been moving poleward at a rate of about thirty-five miles per decade. If greenhouse gases continue to increase at business-as-usual rates, then the rate of isotherm movement will double in this century to at least seventy miles per decade."
Hansen's other main concern is the release of large amounts of methane gas stored in sea-floor sediments in the form of methane hydrates. If ocean temperatures warm according to predictions, the higher temperatures at the sea floor may be enough to destabilize the methane hydrate sediments and release huge quantities of methane into the atmosphere. Methane is a greenhouse gas 20 - 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide.
Solutions to the climate change problem
Dr. Hansen is a controversial figure, since he has stepped outside his field of expertise and become an activist in promoting solutions to the climate change problem. He devotes a chapter called "An Honest, Effective Path" in the book to this. His main theme is that we need to tax fossil fuels using a "fee-and-dividend" approach. All of the tax money collected would be distributed uniformly to the public. This carbon tax would gradually rise, giving people time to adjust their lifestyle, choice of vehicle, home insulation, etc. Those who do better at reducing their fossil fuel use will receive more in the dividend than they will pay in the added costs of the products they buy. The approach is straightforward and does not require a large bureaucracy, but currently has little political support. Hansen is vehemently opposed to the approach that has the most political support, "Cap-and-trade": "Cap-and-trade is what governments and the people in alligator shoes (the lobbyists for special interests) are trying to foist on you. Whoops. As an objective scientist I should delete such personal opinions, to at least flag them. But I am sixty-eight years old, and I am fed up with the way things work in Washington." Hansen also promotes an overlooked type of nuclear power, "fast" reactors with liquid metal coolant that produce far less nuclear waste and are much more efficient than conventional nuclear reactors.
Quotes from the book
"Humanity treads today on a slippery slope. As we continue to pump greenhouse gases into the air, we move onto a steeper, even more slippery incline. We seem oblivious to the danger--unaware how close we may be to a situation in which a catastrophic slip becomes practically unavoidable, a slip where we suddenly lose all control and are pulled into a torrential stream that hurls us over a precipice to our demise."
"In order for a democracy to function well, the public needs to be honestly informed. But the undue influence of special interests and government greenwash pose formidable barriers to a well-informed public. Without a well-informed public, humanity itself and all species on the planet are threatened."
"Of course by 2005 I was well aware that the NASA Office of Public Affairs had become an office of propaganda. In 2004, I learned that NASA press releases related to global warming were sent to the White House, where they were edited to appear less serious or discarded entirely."
"If we let special interests rule, my grandchildren and yours will pay the price."
"The role of money in our capitals is the biggest problem for democracy and for the planet."
"The problem with asking people to pledge to reduce their fossil fuel use is that even if lots of people do, one effect is reduced demand for fossil fuel and thus a lower price--making it easier for someone else to burn...it is necessary for people to reduce their emissions, but it is not sufficient if the government does not adopt policies that cause much of the fossil fuels to be left in the ground permanently."
"I have argued that it is time to 'draw a line in the sand' and demand no new coal plants."
"The present situation is analogous to that faced by Lincoln with slavery and Churchill with Nazism--the time for compromises and appeasement is over."
"Humans are beginning to hammer the climate system with a forcing more than an order of magnitude more powerful than the forcings that nature employed."
"Once ice sheet disintegration begins in earnest, our grandchildren will live the rest of their lives in a chaotic transition period."
"After the ice is gone, would Earth proceed to the Venus syndrome, a runaway greenhouse effect that would destroy all life on the planet, perhaps permanently? While that is difficult to say based on present information, I've come to conclude that if we burn all reserves of oil, gas, and coal, there is a substantial chance we will initiate the runaway greenhouse. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale, I believe the Venus syndrome is a dead certainty."
"One suggestion I have for now: Support Bill McKibben and his organization 350.org. It is the most effective and responsible leadership in the public struggle for climate justice."
Commentary
James Hansen understands the Earth's climate as well as any person alive, and his concern about where our climate is headed makes Storms of My Grandchildren a must-read for everyone who cares about the world their grandchildren will inherit. Storms of My Grandchildren retails for $16.50 at Amazon.com. Dr. Hansen's web site is http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/.
Jeff Masters
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 — Blog Index
Nope, you're dead flat on it...the politicians in this country have made things pretty ugly. Now iof you know our history (and honestly, how many in here really do), we've been here before; the division in this country after the Revolutionary War, the Jackson Imperialism (very bad and nearly as divisive as our system today), the Civil War...
It's bad, but if we're careful and get the right leadership we can get out of it, but there's really no one in DC right now that can do it
Oh, damn...I started into politics...d'fly, stop me, huh?
Savannah Hunter, Georgia (Airport)
Updated: 33 min 2 sec ago
Scattered Clouds
99 °F
Scattered Clouds
Humidity: 56%
Dew Point: 81 °F
Wind: 9 mph from the South
Pressure: 30.01 in (Falling)
Heat Index: 120 °F(!!!!!)
Heat index here hit 126F two days ago.
FALSE. I call my IT guy a denier because he swears I make up half of the issues I have with my hardware.
Oh.. I see.. Because YOU don't use it in that manner, no one else does either?? :D
So you connect being called a "denier" to the Holocaust? Sounds like you watch the program too. ;-)
I haven't watched network or cable TV in 6 years.. :D
NMFC Norfolk Tropical Feed
No Active Tropical Warnings in the Atlantic, Caribbean, or Gulf of Mexico
By Maritime.CDO@navy.mil (NMFC CDO) from Naval Maritime Forecast Center Norfolk Virginia. Published on .
As of Tue 27 Jul 2010 20:30:02Z
2010 Storms
All Active Year
Atlantic
East Pacific
Central Pacific
West Pacific
92W.INVEST
Indian Ocean
Southern Hemisphere
What, exactly, does an entomologist's view on the population have to do with one of the world's most famous climatologists' views on climatology?
The ACE total this month has got to be.... l-o-w, over the entire planet.
Fortunately for Dr. Hansen, he has virtually all of the peer-reviewed science backing his position! Whew!
Are you really going to base your conclusion off of the skewed facts that you just posted?? Man I hate to be critical but, your post is the epitome of ignorance. Saying that global warming conclusions have only been based on 30 yeears of satellite data is like trying to argue that the earth is only six-thousand years old..its really just ignorant. I am NOT going to detail all of the methods that are used ofor obtaining data on global warming. However, I will heavily reccomend that you do some research on the subject before you come in here and base your ignorant arguement on pure hog-wash and partial facts...Go learn all of the FACTS surrounding the subject then you can come up with a much more eduacated conclusion and maybe you wont look so ignorant when you post your opinions on global warming in a public place.
there is no need to be so harsh. That is why I hate being here sometimes you people can't have a constructive argument without criticizing one another. I understand that there are other methods that have been used such as measuring the concentration of Carbon dioxide in ice cores and then dating the ice cores but once again that ice that is present at the poles only represents a small fraction of the earth's long history. ice is continuously melting and forming. I'm not going to get into a long argument and present scientific data such as cycles such as warm and cold pdo's like others have mention because i want to enjoy my vacation but the reason i mention the satellite data is because satellite data is the only thing that can give an accurate measurement of the global average temperature and because we still don't know for sure the exact correlation between carbon dioxide and global temperature the 30 years of reliable temperature measurements from satellite is all we have to distinguish global warming
before 30 years ago scientists relied on measurements taken from weather stations all over the world to determine temperature. The warmest places on earth are rarely inhabited and thus we didn't have reliable temperatures from those warmest regions. It is no surprise that global average temperature increased when satellite data began funneling in because we had observations from those remote areas.
Flood, this is the only way they know how to "win' the argument.This is exactly what the conservative party does with news. They alter tapes to only show what they want you to perceive, and sadly it works on most people.
"Half an hour's googling would make the vast majority of you feel utterly foolish. And I find it sad that the person I quoted didn't even bother to read far enough into the article to find this gem,
"Prinn cautioned against interpreting the study as an argument against wind power, urging that it be used to guide future research that explores the downsides of large-scale wind power before significant resources are invested to build vast wind farms. “We’re not pessimistic about wind,” he said. “We haven’t absolutely proven this effect, and we’d rather see that people do further research.”"
This is how you look stupid on the internets. And I'm rather saddened that people are leaving because you knuckleheads cant deign to stop using the same arguments you preach that 'the other team' is using.
It's not all us vs them, children."
================================================
Thank you for the humor. Obviously, you did not realize the paper was linked in the article. Please ensure you read what I stated again so you don't misinterpret it again.
"Just be careful what you ask for. It might not be what you expect, since we have no clue as to what the alternate use of realtime energy will do to us vs the stored energy we use today.
Paper linked in the article and is free. "
Just in case you care to read the paper and not the article. Some people are just amazingly arrogant! LOL
Potential climatic impacts and reliability of very large-scale wind farms
And, don't forget the theologian's view...
All three of those authors appear to have quite the fan base and all three spell out the end of the earth as we know it. Although, honestly, while the cover is certainly eye-catching, I don't see Storms of My Grandchildren becoming quite the cultural icon the other two became.
So he's not a "hyperbolic liar" as was stated earlier? I noticed once I asked about that statement I didn't see anything else out of ezcColony...LOL
Sheesh,buddy,you use to be better at avoiding those mine fields,you just walked from one into another one
And, as I have pointed out time and again and no one has disputed, the "peer review" process took a huge credibility hit when it was discovered that Pro AGW (sic) "scientists" decided to rig the peer review process in their favor..
Peer review means precisely dick... It's like having a seal of approval that you can purchase simply by saying the right words...
Regardless of all that, if Hansen had all that peer review back-up and he was STILL wrong, then what does THAT tell you about the peer-review process??
Did Hansen predict the record cold temps we have had the last couple years??
Did ANY pro AGW scientist??
No. None did..
Ergo, their predictions ain't worth spit..
That's my personal opinion, but I am open-minded enough to change it, should the FACTS warrant it..
update till jun30 july may go up slightly
2010 Northern Hemisphere Tropical Cyclones
Maximum Wind Speed & ACE per storm (ATCF operational intensity estimates)
North Atlantic
Alex (85 ACE = 7.3725)
TD02 (30 ACE = 0.0)
Bonnie (whirl) (35 ACE = 0.49)
Western North Pacific
01W (30 ACE = 0.0)
Omais (50 ACE = 2.0075)
Conson (75 ACE = 8.3225)
Chanthu (75 ACE = 3.5775)
Northern Indian Ocean & Arabian Sea
Laila (65 ACE = 4.46)
Bandu (55 ACE = 2.39)
Phet (125 ACE = 14.16)
Eastern Pacific
Agatha (40 ACE = 0.2825)
Blas (55 ACE = 2.715)
Celia (140 ACE = 25.4875 )
Darby (105 ACE = 10.3925)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I notice a correlation in Sea Ice daily, when I look at the University of Illinois' Cyrosphere today. When the Arctic sea ice goes down, the Antarctic goes up. It's really funny, and can be seen in these two images:
Notice how the Arctic is coming up from a ow point, but the overall trend is down
Yet the Antarctic is coming out of a highpoint, but the overall trend is up.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
Also the melting of ice starts becoming more rapid in 2000. Funny you say that, as that is when the AMO turned positive.
The PDO and AMO both warm, combined, distort the Global Heat Budget to favor warm, and for it to be further north, explaining why the Arctic is losing ice, and the Antarctic is gaining ice.
http://www.accuweather.com/video/111162007001/one-more-look-at-the-coming-cooling.asp?channel=vbbas taj
The Arctic was feeling an impact from the warm PDO, and even a bigger impacted from the warm AMO, so what do you think will happen when the PDO turns cold, and the AMO turns cold...
The PDO is starting to turn cold... c'mon folks, let's hear your opinions...
If you truely think that scientist are basing the GW theory on the last 30 years of satellite data alone, then you are waaaaay off the mark and really should do some more research on your own .. or at the very least read my last post...
Your post reminded of the people that told Columbus that he would sail off of the edge... LOL
You mean like this?
Want more recent? How, exactly, do you think arguing in favor of global warming went over, funding-wise, during the previous eight years under an administration that didn't believe in it? An administration that re-wrote the findings of scientific institutions and held back reports in order to push global warming denial? That's like going to the tobacco industry and saying, "Hey, I just found out that tobacco causes disease X -- give me more funding to research this!"
LOL I get the same way my friend... Agreed to no leadership in DC... Someone needs to rid of the special interest and start paying these fools like NBA superstars... Then the cream (real leaders) will come out of the woodwork and lead. I mean, I wouldnt want to put my hat in that ring with all of those criminals.... just like I dont want to work at the local county corrections... who in their right mind would think they could go in and clean up all that corruption! Chop it out by getting rid of the under the counter payoffs. They will weed themselves after that.... Then show the money and the folks that want to lead for whats best in the country will show up (dem or Repub) ... Right now its a chicken and egg problem.. but we'll figure it out even if we have to implode a bit to get there....
Tony Hayward's parting shot
By MarketWatch
Jul 27, 2010 15:30:00 (ET)
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- As BP chief Tony Hayward prepares to tackle new challenges in Russia, he's hit on a way to choke off some of the cost of that pesky Gulf oil spill.
For BP shareholders, it's pure genius.
Here's how it works: Citing the $32 billion charge BP (BP, Trade ) is taking to cover the cost of the spill and the $17 billion second-quarter loss this caused the company, BP is entitled to a $9.9 billion tax credit. That's nearly half of the $20 billion Hayward agreed to set aside to cover the job when he met last month with President Barack Obama.
And, because it's part of the nation's corporate tax code, it's perfectly legal.
Hayward, fielding questions Tuesday about BP's second-quarter results, wasn't terribly eager to discuss the move. But he reassured everyone that it follows "current" IRS regulations. In other words, this will save BP nearly $10 billion that Washington had probably been counting on to help clean up the Gulf.
American taxpayers are likely to take a darker view of this development than BP shareholders. Despite President Barack Obama vowing to make BP pay for this mess, it suddenly looks like a big chunk of the cost will be coming out of their pockets after all.
Of course this might just be a temporary state of affairs. Once Washington lawmakers catch wind of a populist backlash, you can bet there will be calls to change the law.
That's where things get really interesting. Remember when Hayward was on the hot seat in June, testifying before a mostly hostile gang of U.S. legislators? One of them really stood out. Representative Joe Barton of Texas took it upon himself to apologize to Hayward for what he called Obama's $20 billion "shakedown" of the oil company. He later apologized for the apology, but his initial message stuck.
A month later, BP appears to be the one doing the shaking down, using a good old-fashioned American corporate tax loophole.
If lawmakers close that loophole, it would set a dire precedent for other companies counting on tax breaks to survive their own financial setbacks. Citigroup (C, Trade ) alone has built up $21 billion in deferred tax assets due to losses from the financial crisis.
No matter how this shakes out, Washington looks like it got caught flat-footed. And with nothing left to lose in the arena of public opinion, Tony Hayward suddenly doesn't look so clueless after all.
The climate system is a complex, interactive system consisting of the atmosphere, land surface, snow and ice, oceans and other bodies of water, and living things. The atmospheric component of the climate system is what we generally refer to as climate: climate is often defined as ‘average weather’. Climate is usually described in terms of the mean and variability of temperature, precipitation and wind over a period of time, ranging from months to millions of years.
Countless empirical tests of numerous different hypotheses have now built up a massive body of Earth science knowledge. This repeated testing has refined the understanding of many aspects of the climate system, from deep oceanic circulation to stratospheric chemistry. Sometimes a combination of observations and models can be used to test planetary-scale hypotheses. For example, the global cooling and drying of the atmosphere observed after the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo provided key tests of particular aspects of climate models.
Climate science in recent decades has seen an increasing rate of advancement, particularly in field research and notably through the evolution of measuring climate change methodology and tools, including the models and observations that support and enable the research. During the last four decades, the rate at which scientists have added to the body of knowledge of atmospheric and oceanic processes has accelerated dramatically. As scientists incrementally increase the totality of knowledge, they publish their results in peer-reviewed journals.
Temperature When measuring climate change this is a primary and can be measured or reconstructed for the Earth's surface, and sea surface temperature (SST).
Precipitation (rainfall, snowfall etc) offers another indicator of relative climate variation and may include humidity or water balance, and water quality.
Biomass and vegetation patterns may be discerned in a variety of ways and provide evidence of how ecosystems change to adapt to climate change.
Sea Level measurements reflect changes in shoreline and usually relate to the degree of ice coverage in high latitudes and elevations.
Solar Activity can influence climate, primarily through changes in the intensity of solar radiation.
Volcanic Eruptions, like solar radiation, can alter climate due to the aerosols that are emitted into the atmosphere and alter climate patterns.
Chemical composition of air or water can be measured by tracking levels of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, and measuring ratios of oxygen isotopes. Research indicates a strong correlation between the percent of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the Earth's mean temperature.
shows that Global Warming could trigger a mass migration of illegals aliens (or as Obama prefers to refer to them, "Undocumented Democrats") across our southern border.
More fear-mongering marrying the two issues. Unreal.
Flood, this is the only way they know how to "win' the argument.This is exactly what the conservative party does with news. They alter tapes to only show what they want you to perceive, and sadly it works on most people.
Nope, it is just that you can not base these rediculous claims off of such a short time period of research considering the earth has been here thousands of years...
Which completely and utterly negates whatever effectiveness he may or may not have as a climate scientist.
It calls into question every statement he utters about global warming and the climate...
A good scientist must, above ALL else, be objective..
James Hansen is a bad scientist. Period.
Probably a study done by some Fox affiliated organization, similar to how Rasmussen is.
Well the democrats just tried to do that by passing a finance transparency bill but Republicans blocked it. One party is trying to change and the other is blocking the change from happening. The system is broken.
you are calling this blog scientific. It is a weather blog mainly focused on the tropics. Many people who do not understand come here to find information. I am posting common sense information that a typical person with no knowledge of the topic can understand. the reason you do not like my post is because you don't agree with my point of view. Don't question my knowledge of the topic. I have done countless hours of research and a paper or two on global warming. My focus is on the political aspect of global warming and how the facts are skewed to make the problem seem worse than it is. Yes the world is warming but compared to what? that is what I want to know and that is what so many other people want to know. The earth is warming based on 10,000 years of ice core data, 30 years of satellite data, or warming overall based on the entire length of earth's history. those are the things we must look at when discussing global warming
ehehehehehehehehehehehe
Now THAT was funny!! :D
Mind if I borrow the term??
"Undocumented Democrats"
Classic :D
JULIE PACE | 07/27/10 02:43 PM |
WASHINGTON — Despite setbacks on Capitol Hill, President Barack Obama said Tuesday he still supports the need for broad climate legislation and pledged to keep pushing for it. The White House expressed fresh hope the Senate and House might strike a deal on a sweeping energy plan this year.
Lacking the votes they need in this election year, Senate Democrats have abandoned Obama's goal of a bill that would cap the greenhouse gases blamed for global warming. Instead, Democrats hope to pass a narrower measure that responds to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and takes steps to improve energy efficiency.
"I want to emphasize it's only the first step," Obama said in the Rose Garden after a meeting with congressional leaders of both parties. "And I intend to keep pushing for broader reform, including climate legislation."
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs later went further, disputing the notion that a climate bill is dead for the year. He suggested that such a comprehensive bill could be negotiated between House and Senate members once, as the White House hopes, the Senate approves a scaled-back energy bill in the coming days.
Such a bill would then have to be approved by both chambers.
The House voted 219-212 last year for a "cap and trade" plan featuring economic incentives to reduce carbon emissions from power plants, vehicles and other sources. It remains unclear how Democrats could muster the votes in the Senate to get even a version of that bill approved.
Republicans slammed the House bill as a "national energy tax" and jobs killer, arguing that the costs would be passed on to consumers in the form of higher electricity bills and fuel costs that would lead manufacturers to take their factories overseas.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said no Republican senators were willing to vote for the broader energy bill he wanted, leaving Democrats shy of the 60 votes needed to overcome GOP delaying tactics.
Obama also called on Congress to pass legislation that he says will help small businesses grow and hire again.
A measure pending in the Senate would create a new lending fund to help community banks offer loans. Obama urged lawmakers not to block the initiative.
Obama announced during his State of the Union address earlier this year that he planned to hold monthly bipartisan meetings with congressional leaders at the White House. Among those present Monday was House Minority Leader John Boehner, who has ratcheted up his criticism of Obama in recent weeks, accusing the president of stooping to partisan attacks and saying Obama cannot sell his economic plan.
Obama has argued that Boehner and Republicans are trying to advance the same agenda that led the country into the recession.
The president said he urged Senate Republicans to help fill federal judgeship vacancies. He said his nominees have been waiting up to eight months to be confirmed, even though they have received unanimous or nearly unanimous bipartisan support in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
He blamed "some in the minority" for using procedural tactics to delay the votes.
Since he took office, the president has nominated 86 federal judicial candidates, 62 for district courts, 22 at the circuit level and two Supreme Court justices. The Senate has confirmed 37 of those. At this point in his presidency, President George W. Bush had 62 percent of his district court nominees confirmed, while Obama has had 45 percent confirmed.
There are currently 101 current vacancies on the federal bench.
___
Associated Press writer Ben Feller contributed to this story.
I didnt make it up. Knock yerself out!
So what else was on that Bill of Finance Transparency my friend?
By your argument, then NONE of the science is any good...peer review is not limited to CC papers, is it? It is used for ALL papers, isn't it? So by your logic, you have no argument either...interesting strategy...I can't wait to see how it turns out
Thank goodness that that didn't happen!
Regardless of all that, if Hansen had all that peer review back-up and he was STILL wrong, then what does THAT tell you about the peer-review process??
I don't know. Hansen would have to be wrong to find out. So far...he's done very well, especially considering how little he was working with in 1988. And he *still* did an excellent job.
Did Hansen predict the record cold temps we have had the last couple years??
Did ANY pro AGW scientist??
No. None did..
Ergo, their predictions ain't worth spit..
Why would a climatologist predict the weather? They are different fields.
You won't find facts by dismissing peer-reviewed literature. That's almost the only place *to* find facts.
AGW isn't a matter of opinion. It is simple physics at its heart.
From Dr. Masters' book review: "Hansen's writings express a quiet determination to plainly set forth the scientific truth on climate change. He has surprisingly few angry words towards the politicians, lobbyists, and scientists intent on distorting the scientific truth."
If true (I have not read the book), I think Hansen sets a good example for those assembled here on both sides of the issue ... "a quiet determination to plainly set forth the scientific truth on climate change."
Yep, time will tell won't it? :D
Yeah, it's like stepping into a steaming pile of dog stuff and while hopping on one foot looking to see how bad you got it, you hop into another one
Viewing: 2201 - 2251
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 — Blog Index