Climate Science and the 2012 Election

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 19:41 GMT le 31 janvier 2012

Share this Blog
16
+

Climate Science and the 2012 Election

I came from a family that subscribed, in the 1960s, to both the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and Technology Review. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is the magazine that, during the Cold War, famously published a clock set a few minutes before midnight. This clock was the evaluation of those at the Bulletin of how far we were from the, well as my grade-school self understood it, the end of the world. The cause for concern for the end of the world was nuclear war.

I have had cause to recall my Cold War childhood recently when my sister told the story of my brother going to roof of his building during the 1965 Northeast Blackout with a fine bottle of wine – or perhaps, cognac, to await the end of the world. His presumption was that the blackout was the darkening of the cities to make them more difficult targets for the bombers. I remember, in the 1960s, finding comfort when the new issue of the Bulletin would come and the clock had not moved forward, and I was quite excited if it moved backwards. I was surprised, recently, when I read that Bulletin had moved the clock one minute closer to midnight because of “inadequate progress on nuclear weapons reduction and proliferation, and continuing inaction on climate change …” Looking at their website you will see that the Bulletin maintains efforts in Biosecurity, Nuclear Weapons, Nuclear Power, and Climate Change. The article by Cohen and Miller, Climate Change 2011: A Status Review of US Policy is an excellent summary of the current situation in the US. The final sentence of their essay is, “That action is extremely unlikely to occur unless climate change comes to be seen as a practical, rather than ideological, issue.”

Looking at the political landscape, climate change has fallen from the political discussion; it is a subject that cannot be talked about(some of my writings). Maxwell Boykoff has an excellent op-ed piece in the Washington Post entitled A Dangerous Shift in Obama’s ‘climate change’ Rhetoric. At the center of this piece is how climate change has implicitly been consumed in discussions of energy security, alternative energy, and clean energy. Though the warming of our climate is strongly linked to our burning of fossil fuels, there are many ways to achieve energy security and to develop alternative energy that do not address the causes of global warming. The pursuit of clean energy depends on the definition of “clean,” and this word is easily co-opted by, for example, the reduction of mercury emissions from coal.

Ultimately, we have to talk about management of the climate if we are to address the problems of human-caused global warming. We cannot address one societal challenge with the idea that we will fix the climate change problem by good fortune. When I teach this idea in class, I invoke my experience in management and, namely, it is simply not responsible management to anticipate achieving an important result without someone, some organization, having the responsibility for delivering that result.

Yet we live in a time when politicians are vilified and run out of office when they talk about climate and climate change. As Boykoff noted in his piece, President Obama avoids the climate issue because it is such a political hot button that it completely disrupts and halts progress on any issue where it is invoked. There is the recent incident where an essay on climate change was purged from a collection being put together by Newt Gingrich. I like to think that a couple of the candidates pulled out of the Republican primaries because they felt that their integrity would be too seriously comprised by having to, essentially, lie in order to obtain the trust of their voters.

Bob Inglis was voted out of Congress in 2010. Recently he wrote a piece Conservative Means Standing with Science on Climate Change. Ultimately, Inglis is arguing that if ALL costs of our energy use are incorporated into the equation, then the cost of fossil fuels would be much higher and alternative sources of energy would be more attractive. This coupled with elimination of all subsidies for energy costs, Inglis argues, would allow the market to make the right decision about energy and, hence, the climate. This full-cost accounting is enticing in its philosophical simplicity, but there are many profound implications. It does require accepting the notion that our carbon dioxide waste is harmful to the environment, the assignment of cost to that harm, and a process of linking that cost to energy sources.

As a strategy, addressing issues of clean energy, energy independence and energy security are more politically pragmatic than addressing issues of climate change. They offer a path towards addressing climate change; they are part of the best-we-can-do-at-this-time strategy. However, our inability to actually talk about solving the climate change problem means that we will not address the problem; we will elevate our risks; we will continue to impact negatively our economic and technological competitiveness.

It has fascinated me over the years at how both elected officials and government appointees make far more sense in what they say after they are outside of their government positions. I was a minor manager in the government, and even at my level, I was motivated to saying and doing things that were not the best thing to do to address a problem. Rather, what I did was the expedient and possible and it did advance the problem, but it was not either the best or most cost effective decision. This places the post-government truth teller, like Inglis, into one of the most important roles in advancing difficult problems like climate change. It also, however, points out the stunning inefficiency and ineffectiveness of our politically based determination of priorities in the development of knowledge-based environmental policy. We look knowledge in the face and deny its existence. We make our convenient arguments for the need for more research in the ill-posed pursuit of the illusive final facts. We fall into the diversion-motivated process of always asking for the next piece of information in what can be a never ending series of information discovery.

I found the October/November 1969 Technology Review in a box of Space-Age memorabilia I packed up from childhood. This issue was entitled “Man Among the Planets,” and the first article was “The Modification of the Planet Earth by Man,” by Gordon J. F. MacDonald. MacDonald in 1969 argued that we had already altered the planet, and that changes produced by humans were already at the scale “caused by nature.” He warned that we needed to do research into large-scale, man-made, and inadvertent changes to our environment. He called for the development of climate prediction. Since 1969 we have taken the observations, we have developed the theory, and we have determined unequivocally that the Earth has warmed and that we the fuel-using people are the primary reason of the warming. As MacDonald called for in 1969, we have placed a lot of emphasis on climate and environmental research, and the results of that research have provided actionable information – knowledge. We look at that knowledge in eye and, as a society, we deny it. We look away. Perhaps, if we look away then it is not really there.

Looking forward to the 2012 election, I don’t expect that climate change will be an oft articulated issue. The issue out front will be jobs, and the prominent link will be made between the exploitation of fossil fuels, new jobs, and energy security. Our approach to climate change will remain quietly in the hands of those savvy enough to use the unique knowledge provided by climate projections and those post-government truth tellers who no longer have to look away.








Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 198 - 148

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4Blog Index

198. Neapolitan
10:46 GMT le 10 février 2012
Quoting Ossqss:


Sooo,,,,,, the government provided data he used is wrong because of a customized (and noted as such) polynomial problem ? We are not below normal then based on the UAH data because your imageshack picture says something different. Thkso?

I often wonder about how the cloud would react to a Carrington Event as opposed to worrying about AGWT. If it happened, even your PCO2 footprint would shrink :)

I would be ready, you?

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-n asa/2008/06may_carringtonflare/

LOL, I gotta see this movie now!




No, I used the exact same data set as Spencer does for his graph. When he himself started using the absurd polynomial trendline a few months ago, he noted that it meant nothing and was there for fun. So I downloaded the data set, then started playing with the trendlines, and noticed that he specifically chose the 3rd order polynomial one simply because it indicates a dishonest--and meaningless--downturn. The 2nd order polynomial trendline parallels the linear one that I added, while the 5th and 6th order ones accurately indicate an upturn at the end. IOW, Spencer has dishonestly added an admittedly meaningless trendline to his chart simply because he knows gullible types (read: readers of WUWT and WeatherBell) will believe pretty much any denialist nonsense thrown their way.
Member Since: 8 novembre 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13306
197. RevElvis
04:54 GMT le 10 février 2012
"The Great Carbon Bubble"

TruthDig.com Link

(I don't brake for trolls)
Member Since: 18 septembre 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
195. Ossqss
03:47 GMT le 10 février 2012
Quoting Neapolitan:
Here, Oss, let me help you; you seem to have mistakenly embedded that image from Spencer's site that for some reason has omitted the linear trendline, yet includes a completely ridiculous 3rd order polynomial trendline. Why not the linear trendline? Or why not a 2nd order polynomial trendline? Or a 5th order one? Or a 6th order one? None of those show that silly downward bend at the right end. I'd say that if one didn't know better, one would think Spencer was trying to hide the incline.

Uh-oh

I see that Arctic Sea ice area is at a new low for the day, and more than a quarter of a million km2 lower than it was last year on this date--and remember, last year set a new record. The death spiral definitely continues, wouldn't you say? Scientists are predicting another new low this year, and now some are tentatively calling for a loss of all summer ice by as early as 2015...

Oh, did you see those temps in Alaska? Canada? The European coast of the North Sea? Record warmth in places. Rain above the Arctic Circle in February.

Pretty amazing, inna?


Sooo,,,,,, the government provided data he used is wrong because of a customized (and noted as such) polynomial problem ? We are not below normal then based on the UAH data because your imageshack picture says something different. Thkso?

I often wonder about how the cloud would react to a Carrington Event as opposed to worrying about AGWT. If it happened, even your PCO2 footprint would shrink :)

I would be ready, you?

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-n asa/2008/06may_carringtonflare/

LOL, I gotta see this movie now!




Member Since: 12 juin 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8183
194. nymore
03:44 GMT le 10 février 2012
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Hopefully, we can plan a trip together someday. Nothing is better than fresh fish!
Anytime just tell me what kind of fish and what time of year. I will let you know what is in season. If you want some fish I can send you some perhaps when I am back home. Salmon, brown trout, lake trout, splake, rainbow trout, brook trout, walleye, sauger, crappie, muskie, northern pike, lake whitefish, sturgeon or burbot just to name a few are all within 100 miles. I have over 400 lakes within 30 miles of my house.
Member Since: 6 juillet 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2210
193. Some1Has2BtheRookie
03:36 GMT le 10 février 2012
Quoting nymore:
Walleye is very good but big black crappie caught in cold water is even better IMO. If you want some maybe we can hook that up for you.


Hopefully, we can plan a trip together someday. Nothing is better than fresh fish!
Member Since: 24 août 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4729
192. nymore
03:19 GMT le 10 février 2012
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


I am glad to hear that. I have heard that Walleye are a great fish for eating. ... Can you email me one? ;-)
Walleye is very good but big black crappie caught in cold water is even better IMO. If you want some maybe we can hook that up for you.
Member Since: 6 juillet 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2210
191. Some1Has2BtheRookie
03:17 GMT le 10 février 2012
Quoting nymore:
I was not with family but some buddies. Went to LOW (lake of the woods) did well fishing the american side picked up some walleye and saugers then drove about 45 miles across the ice to the canadian side and did some lake trout and lake whitefish fishing had some luck. Slept in our portable fish houses got up in the morning hit it again did fairly well with both species then headed back to Nester falls and took the highway back to the border. All and all fun trip


I am glad to hear that. I have heard that Walleye are a great fish for eating. ... Can you email me one? ;-)
Member Since: 24 août 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4729
190. nymore
03:01 GMT le 10 février 2012
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


That is true.

The last time we spoke, you were heading out to do some ice fishing with the family. How was the trip?
I was not with family but some buddies. Went to LOW (lake of the woods) did well fishing the american side picked up some walleye and saugers then drove about 45 miles across the ice to the canadian side and did some lake trout and lake whitefish fishing had some luck. Slept in our portable fish houses got up in the morning hit it again did fairly well with both species then headed back to Nester falls and took the highway back to the border. All and all fun trip
Member Since: 6 juillet 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2210
189. Some1Has2BtheRookie
02:54 GMT le 10 février 2012
Quoting nymore:
maybe he is but I'm glad he is gone. I am great
Greenspan what a scumbag, his own arrogance along with others destroyed Brooksley Born who used to head the CFTC commodity futures trading commission and who warned them in the late '90s of the problem with derivative trading. She warned them about the financial collapse and they had her run out of town on a rail.


That is true.

The last time we spoke, you were heading out to do some ice fishing with the family. How was the trip?
Member Since: 24 août 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4729
188. nymore
02:49 GMT le 10 février 2012
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


I am doing great, nymore. I have been very busy the past week. How have you been doing? ... I wonder if the worker that quit on your job, because of his distaste for cold and snow, is now shaking his head for leaving?
maybe he is but I'm glad he is gone. I am great
Greenspan what a scumbag, his own arrogance along with others destroyed Brooksley Born who used to head the CFTC commodity futures trading commission and who warned them in the late '90s of the problem with derivative trading. She warned them about the financial collapse and they had her run out of town on a rail.
Member Since: 6 juillet 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2210
187. Some1Has2BtheRookie
02:42 GMT le 10 février 2012
Quoting nymore:
Hello Rookie how goes it.


I am doing great, nymore. I have been very busy the past week. How have you been doing? ... I wonder if the worker that quit on your job, because of his distaste for cold and snow, is now shaking his head for leaving?
Member Since: 24 août 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4729
186. Some1Has2BtheRookie
02:39 GMT le 10 février 2012
Quoting sirmaelstrom:


Maybe...I also noticed that Gramm was involved in the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 too.

I have to admit that I'm rapidly losing interest in looking though. The only thing worse than researching politics is researching 10-year old politics.

Maybe I'll look more at it later tonight.

* * *

Anyway, concerning efforts to repeal Glass-Steagall, as well the Fed Reserve's actions to weaken it, I did find the following summary.

The Long Demise of Glass-Steagall.

Interesting read, and I'm sure you'll approve of the source. Remarkable some of the sites you'll pull up researching politics--not that I'm sure the PBS link is totally unbiased, but it seems reasonably balanced.



I consider PBS to be far more unbiased than most news programs. Unbiased, in the sense that they bring both sides of the issue into the story. How accurate is the presentation of the sides??? THAT is what one has to discover for themselves. I do not expect either side of the presentation to unbiased and completely truthful. PBS does allow me to hear both sides and to discover which side has better represented the truth of the story.

I did find the article to be an interesting read. Alan Greenspan's prior success in limiting Glass-Seagall also comes back to my mind. Alan Greenspan was a firm believer in deregulation. He believed that the markets would police themselves. After the melt down of 2007, he admitted that he overestimated the ability of the markets to police themselves and underestimated the amount of greed in the financial markets.

img src="">

I will do some further research on Phil Gramm and his play in all of this. I do remember him being far more involved than the article brings to light.
Member Since: 24 août 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4729
185. nymore
01:49 GMT le 10 février 2012
Neapolitan- Lets see how this trick works.

Let us start with the annual global analysis from 1997 with a baseline of 1961-1990. Here is the link to their graph.Link notice if you will the anomaly is 0.42.

Now lets look at the annual global analysis for 1998 Link notice now the temp anomaly for 1997 is now a little over 0.50 and every line went up, how could this happen. BTW the 1998 graph still holds today.Link this graph is from their 2011 annual report

Answer by changing the baseline from 1961-1990 to 1901-2000. This big change (-0.0835) will make it appear about 20% warmer. Nice trick

To check and see if this stands up lets check their monthly temp anomalies with a baseline of 1901-2000. Link Now lets take all the anomalies from 1997 and add them up. What do we get for an answer 0.5035 or what is shown on their graphs after 1997

Conclusion after 1997 they changed their baseline from 1961-1990 to 1901-2000 and changed every graph after 1997 but forgot about 1997 and left it up on their site. FNG mistake

FWIW just for fun lets take the -0.0835 and deduct it from the (new, after 1997) February 1994 anomaly of 0.0408 and we get a temp of -0.0427 this new number is now in line with Hadley (C.R.U) and below average just like HADCRUT3v (-0.0720) which also uses 1961-1990 for their baseline.

So how does this work again, please explain it to us all if you would.

It looks like street smarts just took book smarts to school again

Do you know what they use 1971-2000 or 1981-2010 for? I do

Lets hear it Nea I WAS WRONG. They did not remove 1971-1980 nor did they add 2001-2010. What they did add was 1901-1960 and 1991-2000 to 1961-1990 for a base period of 1901-2000 which makes for a clear warming (anomaly) bias.
Member Since: 6 juillet 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2210
184. nymore
01:15 GMT le 10 février 2012
Quoting Neapolitan:
That would be a valid point, except for the fact that NOAA very publicly raised the baseline just last summer by removing the 1971-1980 decade and adding the 2001-2010 decade. You know, to keep up with the growing heat. Howe about that huh? They raise the baseline for normal--and temperatures are still above where they used to be.

Here's an ironclad guarantee: come 2012, they'll have to remove the 1981-1990 decade, and add the one we're currently in--and it won't come even close to normalizing things.
Really then why on their own anomaly data is the baseline 1901-2000 when it used to be 1961-1990
Member Since: 6 juillet 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2210
183. Neapolitan
01:13 GMT le 10 février 2012
Quoting nymore:
I know I wasn't wrong and I know why he chooses to use their stats. It seems at NOAA if you don't like the anomalies, you just move the baseline by which you measure anomalies. For instance lets say if we drop it by about 0.08C it will make the cooler period warmer and the warm period hotter. Now we have to ask why you would do that.
That would be a valid point, except for the fact that NOAA very publicly raised the baseline just last summer by removing the 1971-1980 decade and adding the 2001-2010 decade. You know, to keep up with the growing heat. How about that, huh? They raise the baseline for normal--and temperatures are still above normal?

I wonder whatever could that mean... ;-)

Here's an ironclad guarantee: come 2012, they'll have to remove the 1981-1990 decade, and add the one we're currently in--and it won't come even close to normalizing things.
Member Since: 8 novembre 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13306
182. nymore
01:07 GMT le 10 février 2012
Hello Rookie how goes it.
Member Since: 6 juillet 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2210
181. nymore
01:06 GMT le 10 février 2012
Quoting Ossqss:


No your not really wrong. Records before 1950 are poor to say the least. They contained very little info on the tropic's temp and virtually none in Africa, so how can you really imply accuracy for anything really prior to the sat era for the globe? You really can't with any level of confidence. How did they even calculate the temperatures over the oceans pre-ARGO? Like a hair in the swimming pool from a boat over the same area everytime? LOL

We currently are globally below average now for the Sat era.



This was an excellent post dealing with temperature anomaly records.

How reliable are global temperature %u201Canomalies%u201D ?

Lets have a peek at active stations and their longevity. Not like the infamous newly created stations capturing record highs all the time like many embellish here eh?

Recent



Yep, I am going to have the utmost confidence in our comparative analysis going way way back in time on a global scale. I don't think so folks. Where are those missing data points?

Long term





I know I wasn't wrong and I know why he chooses to use their stats. It seems at NOAA if you don't like the anomalies, you just move the baseline by which you measure anomalies. For instance lets say if we drop it by about -0.08C it will make the cooler period warmer and the warm period hotter. Now we have to ask why you would do that.
Member Since: 6 juillet 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2210
180. Patrap
00:33 GMT le 10 février 2012
The Dog and owner come to mind..imagine dat?
Member Since: 3 juillet 2005 Posts: 415 Comments: 125722
179. Neapolitan
00:24 GMT le 10 février 2012
Here, Oss, let me help you; you seem to have mistakenly embedded that image from Spencer's site that for some reason has omitted the linear trendline, yet includes a completely ridiculous 3rd order polynomial trendline. Why not the linear trendline? Or why not a 2nd order polynomial trendline? Or a 5th order one? Or a 6th order one? None of those show that silly downward bend at the right end. I'd say that if one didn't know better, one would think Spencer was trying to hide the incline.

Uh-oh

I see that Arctic Sea ice area is at a new low for the day, and more than a quarter of a million km2 lower than it was last year on this date--and remember, last year set a new record. The death spiral definitely continues, wouldn't you say? Scientists are predicting another new low this year, and now some are tentatively calling for a loss of all summer ice by as early as 2015...

Oh, did you see those temps in Alaska? Canada? The European coast of the North Sea? Record warmth in places. Rain above the Arctic Circle in February.

Pretty amazing, inna?
Member Since: 8 novembre 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13306
178. Ossqss
23:12 GMT le 09 février 2012
Quoting nymore:
You got me. I WAS WRONG, you cherry picked the one that uses a much different baseline for its index anomaly.

Although now when someone comes on here and cherry picks something to prove you wrong, I don't want to hear you claim cherry picking that would constitute hypocrisy and we all know you are not a hypocrite.

Kudos Sir


No your not really wrong. Records before 1950 are poor to say the least. They contained very little info on the tropic's temp and virtually none in Africa, so how can you really imply accuracy for anything really prior to the sat era for the globe? You really can't with any level of confidence. How did they even calculate the temperatures over the oceans pre-ARGO? Like a hair in the swimming pool from a boat over the same area everytime? LOL

We currently are globally below average now for the Sat era.



This was an excellent post dealing with temperature anomaly records.

How reliable are global temperature “anomalies” ?

Lets have a peek at active stations and their longevity. Not like the infamous newly created stations capturing record highs all the time like many embellish here eh?

Recent



Yep, I am going to have the utmost confidence in our comparative analysis going way way back in time on a global scale. I don't think so folks. Where are those missing data points?

Long term





Member Since: 12 juin 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8183
177. sirmaelstrom
22:41 GMT le 09 février 2012
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Again I am going on memory but, there was discussion of the repeal and Gramm could not get enough support for the repeal. This is when he decided to slip it into the spending bill as a ryder. Clever Boy!! I agree that Gramm did not act alone. He was, however, the main driving force behind it and it was his efforts that got it repealed. There was a LOT MORE discussion AFTER everyone found out what had happened. .. Do you remember that part?


Maybe...I also noticed that Gramm was involved in the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 too.

I have to admit that I'm rapidly losing interest in looking though. The only thing worse than researching politics is researching 10-year old politics.

Maybe I'll look more at it later tonight.

* * *

Anyway, concerning efforts to repeal Glass-Steagall, as well the Fed Reserve's actions to weaken it, I did find the following summary.

The Long Demise of Glass-Steagall.

Interesting read, and I'm sure you'll approve of the source. Remarkable some of the sites you'll pull up researching politics--not that I'm sure the PBS link is totally unbiased, but it seems reasonably balanced.

Member Since: 19 février 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 568
176. iceagecoming
22:20 GMT le 09 février 2012
This!





leads to this!






Brasov, Romania

News of shocking death toll and whole regions shut off from the rest of the world by snow and closed roads and railways have dominated headlines from Eastern Europe in recent days. But even as officials struggle to respond to extreme temperatures, many people are forging ahead with daily life, fortified by years of experience and hot drinks.



Temperatures have hit 100-year lows in some parts of the region, nearing minus-25 degrees F., well below the usual level. The death toll across the region now tops 200 – roughly 30 in Poland, 22 in Romania, at least 10 in Bulgaria, and more than 160 in Ukraine, where many people reportedly froze to death on the streets. In Serbia, almost 12,000 people are said to be isolated, trapped in remote villages and farmsteads.
Member Since: 27 janvier 2009 Posts: 23 Comments: 1034
175. Some1Has2BtheRookie
22:15 GMT le 09 février 2012
Quoting sirmaelstrom:


I can't say that remember the details of it myself either, and I can't say that I "watched" Phil Gramm as close as you seem to, but I'm not sure that the repeal was inserted after the initial votes or that most of Congress was unaware of it; certainly, he didn't insert it into the House version, as he wasn't in the House.

Anyway, if I remember correctly (I would need to look it up), I do think that there was quite some discussion at the time about the Glass-Seagall Act being repealed and what some possible consequences would be. I also seem to recall that the Glass-Seagall Act had already been significantly weakened by a series of Federal Reserve Board actions prior to its repeal.

Again, I would have to look it up, but I doubt the repeal of Glass-Steagall could really be attributed to one party, or indeed, one person. I'm quite sure that there was bipartisan interest in repealing it long before 1999.



Again I am going on memory but, there was discussion of the repeal and Gramm could not get enough support for the repeal. This is when he decided to slip it into the spending bill as a ryder. Clever Boy!! I agree that Gramm did not act alone. He was, however, the main driving force behind it and it was his efforts that got it repealed. There was a LOT MORE discussion AFTER everyone found out what had happened. .. Do you remember that part?
Member Since: 24 août 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4729
174. iceagecoming
21:54 GMT le 09 février 2012
Quoting cyclonebuster:


Correct the rights act as though their problems are the end of the world not the lefts!


United States re-enters the nuclear age
Commentary: Go-ahead ends 30-year freeze on new reactors.

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) — Southern Co. won approval Thursday to break ground on two new nuclear reactors in Georgia.

The permits, issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, mark the first time in three decades the United States has given the go-ahead to a new nuclear-power plant. Read about Southern's NRC permits.



The event is being called historic by the power industry — and anyone even remotely associated with the design, construction or maintenance of reactors.





One of the first positive signs under the current Administration concerning energy policy. GoBama.
Member Since: 27 janvier 2009 Posts: 23 Comments: 1034
173. sirmaelstrom
21:52 GMT le 09 février 2012
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


The "vote" was on a spending bill!!! The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act was a nearly single handed effort led by then Senator Phil Gramm when he attached a ryder to the Senate spending bill and, if I remember correctly, he attached this ryder after the House/Senate final vote on the spending bill. Read the link, in my previous post. ... Some may wish to hide the efforts of Phil Gramm and say that it was a bipartisan effort, but that would not, NOT be true. Clinton did not veto the spending bill, that Gramm had "hid" his ryder in, because he no longer had line item veto power to do so. He would have had to veto the entire spending bill. ... There were two politicians that I watched, like a hawk! Phil Gramm and Tom DeLay. Two of the most corrupt and vile politicians of our time!


I can't say that remember the details of it myself either, and I can't say that I "watched" Phil Gramm as close as you seem to, but I'm not sure that the repeal was inserted after the initial votes or that most of Congress was unaware of it; certainly, he didn't insert it into the House version, as he wasn't in the House.

Anyway, if I remember correctly (I would need to look it up), I do think that there was quite some discussion at the time about the Glass-Seagall Act being repealed and what some possible consequences would be. I also seem to recall that the Glass-Seagall Act had already been significantly weakened by a series of Federal Reserve Board actions prior to its repeal.

Again, I would have to look it up, but I doubt the repeal of Glass-Steagall could really be attributed to one party, or indeed, one person. I'm quite sure that there was bipartisan interest in repealing it long before 1999.

Member Since: 19 février 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 568
172. Some1Has2BtheRookie
21:31 GMT le 09 février 2012
Quoting sirmaelstrom:
Concerning the Repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act:

To be totally accurate, the final version of the repealing bill was bipartisan to the point of being veto-proof, as noted below:

"Nov 4, 1999: After passing both the Senate and House, a conference committee is created to work out differences between the Senate and House versions of the bill. A conference report resolving those differences passed in the Senate, paving the way for enactment of the bill, by roll call vote. The totals were 90 Ayes, 8 Nays, 2 Present/Not Voting."


"Nov 4, 1999: After passing both the Senate and House, a conference committee is created to work out differences between the Senate and House versions of the bill. A conference report resolving those differences passed in the House of Representatives, paving the way for enactment of the bill, by roll call vote. The totals were 362 Ayes, 57 Nays, 15 Present/Not Voting."


From here, near the end.

The vote totals mentioned in previous relevant posts were the totals for the prior Senate and House versions of the bill, which both passed and were consolidated into the final compromise version. It was that version that was revoted on in both the Senate and House and subsequently signed into law.



The "vote" was on a spending bill!!! The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act was a nearly single handed effort led by then Senator Phil Gramm when he attached a ryder to the Senate spending bill and, if I remember correctly, he attached this ryder after the House/Senate final vote on the spending bill. Read the link, in my previous post. ... Some may wish to hide the efforts of Phil Gramm and say that it was a bipartisan effort, but that would not, NOT be true. Clinton did not veto the spending bill, that Gramm had "hid" his ryder in, because he no longer had line item veto power to do so. He would have had to veto the entire spending bill. ... There were two politicians that I watched, like a hawk! Phil Gramm and Tom DeLay. Two of the most corrupt and vile politicians of our time!
Member Since: 24 août 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4729
171. Some1Has2BtheRookie
21:17 GMT le 09 février 2012
Quoting TemplesOfSyrinxC4:


The goalposts have moved so far to the point that the neoconservatives outnumber real conservatives 10-1, the old guard Barry Goldwater conservatives that are for limited gov't like Ron Paul are so few and far between now that they are considered out of the mainstream and referred to as "paleoconservatives" or "kooks". Perception is reality, so if popular opinion dictates that's what the new reality is, then I guess that's what it is even if those of us in the reality-based community disagree, I understand , "that as an empire they can always just create new realities" then that just becomes the new normal. The neocons are now accepted as mainstream conservatives and vastly outnumber the Old Right, but it is what it is,
if the majority of people believe it to be reality, then it is reality. But those with true conservative principles of Barry Goldwater would not have voted for repealing Glass-Steagall or for the bailouts. The so called Republican Revolution led by Newt Gingrich in 1994 was a actually a coup d'etat by the globalists.

You are correct that vote to repeal Glass-Steagall led by Phil Graham went basically along party lines in the Senate at 54-44, and had an overwhelming majority in the House at 343-86 (I think Ron Paul was the only republican to vote against it in the house), CFR globalist Bill Clinton could have still vetoed it and did not. Repealing Glass-Steagall set into motion the derivatives scheme by investment banks that could call themselves regular banks. The banks had to have known that it would inevitably lead to bailouts, there's no way people that smart didn't know that would be the inevitable outcome. The votes for the bailouts were bipartisan and both Bush and Obama(who's top 5 campaign contributors were all banks) signing off on it. Nowadays it's becoming harder for anyone to deny that we are now living under a 2 party corporate duopoly.


I do not remember all of the details but, Phil Gramm had attached a ryder to a spending bill.
Phil Gramm kills Glass-Steagall Act Clinton did not have the line item veto power at this time. The Supreme Court had already ruled line-item vetoes unconstitutional. Another of the many mistakes made by the Supremes.
Member Since: 24 août 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4729
170. Neapolitan
20:59 GMT le 09 février 2012
Quoting nymore:
You got me. I WAS WRONG, you cherry picked the one that uses a much different baseline for its index anomaly.

Although now when someone comes on here and cherry picks something to prove you wrong, I don't want to hear you claim cherry picking that would constitute hypocrisy and we all know you are not a hypocrite.

Kudos Sir
I wasn't cherry-picking, of course; I always use the NOAA SotC numbers when talking about that particular stat. No, cherry-picking would be my selecting from a different data set each time, being sure to choose whichever one validated my stance or "beliefs".

Sound familiar? ;-)
Member Since: 8 novembre 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13306
169. sirmaelstrom
20:43 GMT le 09 février 2012
Concerning the Repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act:

To be totally accurate, the final version of the repealing bill was bipartisan to the point of being veto-proof, as noted below:

"Nov 4, 1999: After passing both the Senate and House, a conference committee is created to work out differences between the Senate and House versions of the bill. A conference report resolving those differences passed in the Senate, paving the way for enactment of the bill, by roll call vote. The totals were 90 Ayes, 8 Nays, 2 Present/Not Voting."


"Nov 4, 1999: After passing both the Senate and House, a conference committee is created to work out differences between the Senate and House versions of the bill. A conference report resolving those differences passed in the House of Representatives, paving the way for enactment of the bill, by roll call vote. The totals were 362 Ayes, 57 Nays, 15 Present/Not Voting."


From here, near the end.

The vote totals mentioned in previous relevant posts were the totals for the prior Senate and House versions of the bill, which both passed and were consolidated into the final compromise version. It was that version that was revoted on in both the Senate and House and subsequently signed into law.

Member Since: 19 février 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 568
168. nymore
19:51 GMT le 09 février 2012
Quoting Neapolitan:
This is from NOAA's November, 2011, State of the Climate report:

"Combining the monthly global land and ocean temperatures, November ranked as the 12th warmest November since records began, at 0.45C (0.81F) above average, making this the 26th consecutive November and 321st consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th century average. The last month with below-average temperatures was February 1985."

The January, 2012, report will be out within the next week, and the part that says "321st" will be updated to state "323rd".
You got me. I WAS WRONG, you cherry picked the one that uses a much different baseline for its index anomaly.

Although now when someone comes on here and cherry picks something to prove you wrong, I don't want to hear you claim cherry picking that would constitute hypocrisy and we all know you are not a hypocrite.

Kudos Sir
Member Since: 6 juillet 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2210
166. nymore
19:46 GMT le 09 février 2012
Quoting greentortuloni:


For the sake of argument, since I seem to be unable to resist spending my quit-smoking breaks on this blog, I will respond. It is difficult to know where to start though.

1. Ok, spelling first. Spelling is, imho, one of the stupidest skills there is. I leave this for future argument but I really couldn't care less about that.

2. Forget about the constitiushon for the moment, if you think the president doesn't have the pwoer to create jobs, you are wrong. Period.

3. I have never read the constitution. Seriously, I have tried a few times but after the first page or so, in terms of boring, it ranks up there with the US tax code and symbolic logic. I find any burocracy (of which spelling is part) hugely boring.

4. Readign the constitution and understanding it are hugely different things. I think I understand it much better than you do, witness your claim that the president cannot create/destroy jobs.

5. Finally, there is no correspondence between reading/understanding the constitution and being someone America is proud/ashamed of. I am sure Newt gingrich has read and understands the constitution much better than either of us. Similarly, Jane Fonda, Ted Bundy, most lawyers, Dick Cheney and a lot of other cowards/hypocrits have read the constitution and understand it better than either you or me.

Likewise, Babe Ruth, Marilyn Monroe, Jim Bridger, Steve Reeves, Niel Cassidy, ee cummings, many many soldiers etc. have probably never read the constitution. I could be wrong about who has and hasn't read it (e.g. George Bush - has he read it? Who knows) but the point is that being a good American has little to do with who read the constitution or not.

You have some luck though. Thought you have read the constitution, you are still young enough that you may yet do something that makes American proud of you.
I have no idea how to even respond to such nonsense as you have posted here. You have never read it but understand it better than I do. Well sir that may be a dumbest thing I have ever heard in my life.

Here is all you need to know for your future job titles " Would you like to try one of our combo meals today" With the knowledge expressed in your post you will go far.
Member Since: 6 juillet 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2210
165. Some1Has2BtheRookie
19:13 GMT le 09 février 2012
Quoting TemplesOfSyrinxC4:


BaltimoreBrian, I was responding to greentortuloni's post, a portion of that post was then quoted by Neapolitan who erroneously stated that Newt Gingrich was a conservative to which I was compelled to respond to set the record straight that according his voting record and actions as opposed to his rhetoric, Newt is actually not conservative at all, but a RINO CFR globalist. Haec Immatura indeed.


Newt is, and has always been, for Newt. Neapolitan is quite correct in his claiming Newt is a conservative. Newt campaigns on that he is the true conservative and that he is the one that should run against Obama. Newt lacks the moral integrity one would hope that even a town dog catcher would have. Newt probably is right when he claims to be a conservative. After all, these days, a conservative is anything that the lobbyist want them to be. Newt fits that description quite well. Yes, the liberals will also cater to the lobbyist but, not anywhere near the degree that the conservatives have. The liberals have never had, to my knowledge, any entities as nearly organized and influential as Jack Abramoff and "The K Street Boys".

Who drove the effort to end the Glass-Steagall Act? - (Phil Gramm(R) - U.S. Senator, from Texas)
Member Since: 24 août 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4729
164. overwash12
18:36 GMT le 09 février 2012
Pretty cool,check out the last two frames and you will see Italy covered in snow(on the graph)not literally! Link
Member Since: 24 juin 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1437
162. petewxwatcher
17:41 GMT le 09 février 2012
TemplesOfSyrinxC4 why do you spam the climate blog with off topic political insanity? It's inappropriate and you should stop. You've done this under the BeCoolorBeCastOut handle and god knows how many others.

Do you have any climate information to post here? If not, leave.
Member Since: 24 Mars 2011 Posts: 3 Comments: 392
160. Neapolitan
16:06 GMT le 09 février 2012
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
Didn't the warmists proclaim that these areas would be ice-free in the future?

Link
Psst... read the whole article.
Member Since: 8 novembre 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13306
159. Neapolitan
16:05 GMT le 09 février 2012
Quoting TemplesOfSyrinxC4:
I'm surprised more of the "left" here don't like Newt Gingrich, I'd think he'd be right up your alley, being the Constitution hating globalist collectivist that he is. I guess you all can't admit that you like him publicly because you all have to keep up appearances of the false left/right paradigm. I'd bet that some of you self-proclaimed progressives secretly like him and hope he wins, you just can't admit that publicly or it would lift the veil on the left/right illusion.
You'd lose that bet, my friend. Big time.

Gingrich is a corrupt, lying, hypocritical, self-aggrandizing, self-promoting, do-anything-to-get-elected conservative. I'm not sure what would ever make anyone think any true liberal/progressive would like him.
Member Since: 8 novembre 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13306
158. NeapolitanFan
16:04 GMT le 09 février 2012
Didn't the warmists proclaim that these areas would be ice-free in the future?

Link
Member Since: 10 décembre 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
157. NeapolitanFan
16:03 GMT le 09 février 2012
Quoting TemplesOfSyrinxC4:
That's correct, greentortuloni, Obama was a Constitutional law professor, yet that did not preclude him from signing the NDAA that codifies into "law"(I put that in quotes because of course as "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null
and void.
"-U.S. Supreme Court Marbury v. Madison,2 Cranch 5 U.S. (1803)

or -U.S. Supreme Court,Norton V. Shelby County
118 U.S. 425, 442"An Unconstitutional Act is NOT a law;it confers no rights; it imposes no duties;
it affords no protection; it creates no office;
it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative
as though it had never been passed.")

So, of course it's a law in name only, I should say NDAA 'purports' to codify into law powers that the executive have claimed for years they have, as Bush did when he indefinitely detained American citizen Jose Padilla without due process, and O'bomber had already claimed that he had the authority to assassinate American citizens without trial or charge, when he killed Al-Alwaki and his 16 year old son. Al_alwaki may or may not have been guilty, we'll never know because he was never charged and given a fair trial. NDAA purports to codify these powers into
law and even goes a step further, for the first time declaring America a battlefield, they had the gall to put it on paper that American citizens on U.S. soil can be indefinitely detained or even killed without due process. Constitutional law professor Obama had no problem signing the seditious document.

Newt Gingrich has a PHD in history, I'm sure he knows the Constitution like the back of his hand, nevertheless he's one of the biggest anti-American globalists with a disdain for the Constitution and individual liberty you'll ever meet, that agrees with his good friend and fellow futurist Alvin Toffler, he wrote the forward to Toffler's book Third Wave in which Toffler trashes our founding document and constitutional form of governance that "served us so well for so long, and that now must, in its turn, die and be replaced. Link

I'm surprised more of the "left" here don't like Newt Gingrich, I'd think he'd be right up your alley, being the Constitution hating globalist collectivist that he is. I guess you all can't admit that you like him publicly because you all have to keep up appearances of the false left/right paradigm. I'd bet that some of you self-proclaimed progressives secretly like him and hope he wins, you just can't admit that publicly or it would lift the veil on the left/right illusion.

The Constitution and our founding fathers' ideals of individual liberty have been being trashed all over the place lately as old and antiquated for the brave new world we're living in with scholars all over the place that have read and understand it well saying it needs to go: Globalist Campaign Calls for Abolishment of Constitution


I don't know about how much the leech Dick Cheney knows about the Constitution other than what little respect he has for it as evidenced through the years, but I agree with your point that having knowledge of the Constitution and actually respecting the ideals of individual freedom there in are 2 totally different things.


Just look to his membership in the Council on Foreign Relations. Anyone who is a member of that organization has not the rights and freedoms of the American people at heart.
Member Since: 10 décembre 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
155. Neapolitan
10:16 GMT le 09 février 2012
Quoting nymore:
Not according to GISS and if we use satellites last month. GISS= November 1992 at -4, RSS= January 2012 at -0.060

FWIW if we use HADCRUT3 it is February 1994 at -0.090 or HADCRUT3v it is February 1994 at -0.072 or CRUTEM3 it is April 1996 at -0.003 or CRUTEM3v it is February 1994 at -0.152.

BTW as I have said if you ever need help don't hesitate to ask

Also just remember 3 little words I WAS WRONG it is ok to be wrong sometimes. I know your track record for the past few days here has not been good but cowboy up you little buckaroo it will get better. LMFAO
This is from NOAA's November, 2011, State of the Climate report:

"Combining the monthly global land and ocean temperatures, November ranked as the 12th warmest November since records began, at 0.45C (0.81F) above average, making this the 26th consecutive November and 321st consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th century average. The last month with below-average temperatures was February 1985."

The January, 2012, report will be out within the next week, and the part that says "321st" will be updated to state "323rd".
Member Since: 8 novembre 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13306
154. greentortuloni
09:02 GMT le 09 février 2012
Quoting nymore:
You claim to be an American and yet have no idea what the Constitution dictates? Try reading Article 1 Section 8.

The only thing someone can not teach is stupid, and learn how to spell RIDICULOUS

BTW once again the pres does have power in these areas. Example as OSSQSS says the power to instill confidence or as I put it influence (the bully pulpit) but both these are not direct power to control it.

If you are really an American and do not even understand basic knowledge of the U.S. Constitution you are an embarrassment to America.


For the sake of argument, since I seem to be unable to resist spending my quit-smoking breaks on this blog, I will respond. It is difficult to know where to start though.

1. Ok, spelling first. Spelling is, imho, one of the stupidest skills there is. I leave this for future argument but I really couldn't care less about that.

2. Forget about the constitiushon for the moment, if you think the president doesn't have the pwoer to create jobs, you are wrong. Period.

3. I have never read the constitution. Seriously, I have tried a few times but after the first page or so, in terms of boring, it ranks up there with the US tax code and symbolic logic. I find any burocracy (of which spelling is part) hugely boring.

4. Readign the constitution and understanding it are hugely different things. I think I understand it much better than you do, witness your claim that the president cannot create/destroy jobs.

5. Finally, there is no correspondence between reading/understanding the constitution and being someone America is proud/ashamed of. I am sure Newt gingrich has read and understands the constitution much better than either of us. Similarly, Jane Fonda, Ted Bundy, most lawyers, Dick Cheney and a lot of other cowards/hypocrits have read the constitution and understand it better than either you or me.

Likewise, Babe Ruth, Marilyn Monroe, Jim Bridger, Steve Reeves, Niel Cassidy, ee cummings, many many soldiers etc. have probably never read the constitution. I could be wrong about who has and hasn't read it (e.g. George Bush - has he read it? Who knows) but the point is that being a good American has little to do with who read the constitution or not.

You have some luck though. Thought you have read the constitution, you are still young enough that you may yet do something that makes American proud of you.
Member Since: 5 juin 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
153. nymore
03:51 GMT le 09 février 2012
Quoting Neapolitan:

The last month with below average temperatures was February, 1985, making January the 323rd consecutive one above the normal. The last year below normal was 1976, 35 years ago.
Not according to GISS and if we use satellites last month. GISS= November 1992 at -4, RSS= January 2012 at -0.060

FWIW if we use HADCRUT3 it is February 1994 at -0.090 or HADCRUT3v it is February 1994 at -0.072 or CRUTEM3 it is April 1996 at -0.003 or CRUTEM3v it is February 1994 at -0.152.

BTW as I have said if you ever need help don't hesitate to ask

Also just remember 3 little words I WAS WRONG it is ok to be wrong sometimes. I know your track record for the past few days here has not been good but cowboy up you little buckaroo it will get better. LMFAO
Member Since: 6 juillet 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2210
152. Neapolitan
03:47 GMT le 09 février 2012
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
AGW is causing more cooling:

Link
Don't worry; you're not the only one who has trouble grasping the basics:

Uh-oh
Member Since: 8 novembre 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13306
151. Neapolitan
03:43 GMT le 09 février 2012
Quoting nymore:
It has been 229 months above average not 323. This number is through 2011, the last month below (said) normal was November 1992

The last month with below average temperatures was February, 1985, making January the 323rd consecutive one above the normal. The last year below normal was 1976, 35 years ago.
Member Since: 8 novembre 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13306
150. nymore
03:23 GMT le 09 février 2012
Quoting Dragontide:
Green politics could still make it's way to the forefront of the 2012 elections. The record number of broken weather records, the 323 consecutive months the world temperature has been above average and excessive insurance claims from extreme weather damage could run all those Koch Brothers sponsored, AGW denying, right-wingers out of Washington. All the left has to do is point out the facts.
It has been 229 months above average not 323. This number is through 2011, the last month below (said) normal was November 1992
Member Since: 6 juillet 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2210
149. Patrap
02:25 GMT le 09 février 2012
co2now.org

393.09ppm


Atmospheric CO2 for January 2012
Preliminary data released February 6, 2012
(Mauna Loa Observatory: NOAA-ESRL)


Member Since: 3 juillet 2005 Posts: 415 Comments: 125722
148. Ossqss
02:19 GMT le 09 février 2012
Gnight to both sides of the fence :)

It is in the end about perception, No?

Member Since: 12 juin 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8183

Viewing: 198 - 148

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.

Local Weather

Clear
46 ° F
Ciel dégagé