But isn’t it wonderful that the “Fools on the Hill”, Smith Hill that is, have already enjoined the state to participate in the “crusade” to “Save the planet”….

Introduced By: Representatives Handy, Ajello, Segal, Ginaitt, and Gallison
Date Introduced: February 28, 2007

Check it out yourself –
http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/Statutes/TITLE23/23-82/INDEX.HTM

CHAPTER 23-82 - Implementation of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative Act

Handy and Ajello-the two scumbags who voted against Jessica's Law at the behest of the king of pedophile enablers,Steven Brown.
Segal wasn't in the GA at the time.

Drudge reports that a portion of the UN report was based on a student's dissertation and magazine articles. Not exactly "peer reviewed".

Mr Bernstein
Would you call the 30 Republican Scumbag Senators who voted, against Senator Al Franken's bill, to punish companies like Dick Cheney's Haliburton/Blackwater, who protected rapist,

Scumbag Rapist protectors??

Just asking, I know Scumbag, Cheney and the his Blackwater workers who raped girls as young as 13 are still "right wing heroes"

Scientific data and analyses show that there is no significant human caused global warming.

During the late Ordovician the planet plunged into the Andean/Saharan ice age when the CO2 level was several times the present.

During the last and previous glaciations, atmospheric CO2 increase often lagged temperature increase by hundreds of years

Proxy data from ice cores show temperature trend direction changes. Temperature trend direction changes are not possible if NET feedback from average global temperature is positive.

Average global temperatures for over a century have trended down then up then down then up then down while average annual atmospheric CO2 levels have always risen since 1800. Lack of correlation proves lack of causation.

A simple model accurately predicts average global temperatures since 1895 (i.e. over 114 years…and counting) without any need to consider the effects of change to CO2 level or any other ghg. The model, with an eye-opening graph, is presented in the October 16 pdf at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true. (Replace all references to PDO with ESST which is short for Effective Sea Surface Temperature).

It is woefully naive to think that all that needs to be done to get global weather models (calling them GCMs does not make them GCMs) to predict climate is to run them longer.

The smoke coming from the global warming skeptics is as thick as the smoke coming from vehicles and industries!

Dear "The Effects of Global Warming":

1.) Please advise what percentage of greenhouse gases man contributes and what percentage the planet contributes.

2.) Let's say everyone on the planet agreed today to give up all greenhouse gas generating sources of fuel - gasoline, diesel, heating oil, propane, coal, etc, etc. Now, what do we use for a substitute fuel source that is

a. in sufficient supply;

b. widely available and

c. not much more expensive than the fuel source we just gave up?

"Effects" just wants your tax money to make himself feel good while putting a cap on your energy usage.

There is NO REAL DATA to back up their claims. Just about control.

Every time I come out of a coal mine I'm hot and dirty.

EOGW might have a point here. Considering how much cleaner our cars and factories are now, smoke isn't the right metaphor.

What the global-warmers are spewing is more like the fog that comes from your tailpipe before the engine warms up. And like fog, their alarmist propaganda evaporates in the sunlight.

Monique-

To answer your question about what we should use for fuel, I'd like to nominate squirrels. Those little guys seem to have endless energy. I can solve two problems with on solution. We need fuel/energy and my yard has a ridiculous number of acorns this year. So I'm happy to feed all the acorns to the squirrels and we'll harness their energy on a wheel (turbine) and get all that free power.

That's my answer. Squirrels.

So Patrick, since you seem to be an activist of entrepreneurial character, I look forward to reading in the newspaper the account of your squirrel turbine and how much power it produces.

When do you expect it to go online?

"This leads inevitably to the question: if global warming isn't all that warm, maybe it isn't anthropogenic, either."

There you have it folks. Some might call that know-nothing rejectionism of the science itself (but what do those eggheads know). So what does the study itself conclude?

The paper describes three scenarios: If Earth's climate sensitivity is at the low end of current estimates as given by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, then the total maximum future emissions of heat-trapping gases so as not to exceed the 3.6° threshold would correspond to about 35 years of present annual emissions of CO2 from fossil-fuel combustion. A climate sensitivity at the present best estimate would mean that no more heat-trapping gases can be added to the atmosphere without committing the planet to exceeding the threshold. And if the sensitivity is at the high end of current estimates, present atmospheric concentrations of heat-trapping gases are such that the planet is already committed to warming that substantially exceeds the 3.6° threshold.

So we might have as long as 35 years to correct course, or we may already have passed the point of no return. As for the author, is he concerned?

"I'm very concerned about the world my grandchildren will live in," said Mr. Schwartz, who is currently studying climate change. "There could be an increase of four to eight degrees in the next century, and that's huge. The last time there was a five-degree Celsius decrease was the last ice age. An increase of eight degrees Fahrenheit would bring change unprecedented in the last half-million years."

It's interesting how little tolerance some on the extreme right have for ambiguity. Black/white, with us/against us, right/wrong. That's not how science works, as much as those outside of the profession wish it were so, and only fools suggest that one study on its face throws everything into question.

Russ-have you got a background in science?And if so,in what discipline?
Do you seriously believe that science can't be perverted to meet a political agenda?Do you use AC at home?I don't.If you're going to talk the talk,try walking the walk.
BTW I keep my thermostat at 58 at night and no higher than 64 during the day.My heat cuts off at 2 degrees above the thermostat setting.
I already pay extorniate rates for energy,and I'm not about to stand by while some energy pig elitists in Volvo diesels and private jets shake me down for more in their quest for one world government.
I don't own a power boat or a big SUV-I do have one old six cylinder camry which gets 34 mpg on the highway.I keep the vehicle MAINTAINED mechanically.Doesn't take a genius IQ to save energy.I resent being preached to by a David Segal who has no one but himself to support.You leftists think all conservatives are multi millionaires just keeping track of our predatory investments.The truth lies elsewhere,with people like George Soros and Sheldon Whitehouse-the real greedy rich pigs.I'd love to see Sheldon survive on my income.No more moldy cheese Sheldon -you'll have to settle for jug wine and Kraft slices.

Russ clearly has no sense of irony. The global-warmingists are the ones who have put religious faith in "scientific" claims that have now been proven to be based on fraudulent manipulation of data.

Where did your skepticism go, Russ?

Joe, yes, I have a background in science (I'm a computer scientist). And I absolutely believe science can and is being perverted to meet a political agenda (that of the denier camp). I don't see much point in arguing who's greener than whom. In fact, I've been critical of the green "movement" for focusing attention on individual choices that have little or no effect on climate, other than the positive effect of raising awareness (for instance, I think it's great for my kids).

As to BobN, yes, crazy me, I still have a near religious faith in science and in the overwhelming evidence that we are on the edge of a dangerous precipice, quite possibly already too late to avoid disaster. When I get skeptical is when I view any specific plan of action to address the problem, a problem that only the most uninformed and reactionary folks could possibly still be debating.

Russ, thanks for the answer. Based on it, I am convinced that you are not a scientist.

I have a friend who is a cardiologist. He told me they have a saying: "Prescription before diagnosis is malpractice."

I accuse you and the other fear-mongers of malpractice.

Since 2000 the atmospheric carbon dioxide level has increased by an amount equal to 21% of the increase from 1800 to 2000. According to the average of the five reporting agencies (four since Climategate), the average global temperature has not changed much for several years and during the eight years from 2002 through 2009 the trend shows a DECREASE of 1.2°C/century. This measured SEPARATION between the increasing carbon dioxide level and not-increasing average global temperature is outside of the 'limits' of all of the predictions of the IPCC and 'consensus' of Climate Scientists. The separation has been increasing at an average rate of about 2% per year since 2000. It corroborates that, at the present CO2 level, atmospheric carbon dioxide increase has no significant influence on average global temperature.

Climate change is natural.

The on-going temperature decline trend was predicted and will continue.

All average global temperatures since 1895 are accurately predicted by a simple model. There was no need to consider any change to the level of CO2 or any other greenhouse gas.

The model, with an eye-opening graph, is presented in the October 16 pdf at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true. (Replace all references to PDO with ESST which is short for Effective Sea Surface Temperature).

Bob, the sooner the better. I can't wait to put these little guys to work and at the same time to clean up all the acorns in my yard. Plus, I can put even more people to work to build the little wire frame squirrel wheels. And to further help current problems, I'll adopt all the cats at the animal shelters and any other terrier-type dogs and have them stand just outside the squirrel wheel, to keep the squirrels moving. We can't have them standing around drinking water. Next thing you know, they'll all want to unionize or something. Gotta squash that before it even starts.

Just a short list of a few things we have somehow survived in the last 40 years, or so. All of them got front page coverage and a lot of media attention. They all had adherents of religious fervor:

"The coming ice age"

acid rain

cyclamates

Skin Heads

"up to 500,000 armed militia"

Y2K (no one admits that one anymore)

"up to 500,000 missing children"

"the China Syndrome"

I could easily go on.

"Prescription before diagnosis is malpractice."

Umm, I've made no prescription here whatsoever. I even pointed out that I am skeptical in what's being suggested as remedies. What I have said is that the scientific evidence on the "diagnosis" side is near incontrovertible (that AGW is occurring and presents a credible threat), an opinion I share with nearly everyone in scientific community.

Whether you think my engineering degree qualifies me as a scientist, makes no difference to me one way or the other. I never said it did; I just answered Joe's question, since he seemed to think it relevant.

Russ-it's relevant insofar as expertise goes.I took a course in Environmental Science in the early 70's and I learned quite a bit just from the assigned reading,but I hardly feel qualified to give an informed opinion on global warming.I would defer to you in a minute on computer science since I am dirt stupid about computers.
I would appreciate the same consideration on immigration enforcement issues.
I have said before that I believe both sides have dirtied this global warming question up with to the point where the truth has gotten pissed off and gone into hiding.
Individual behavior does matter,actually.The other day some nitwit left out their recycling bin with packing "peanuts"in it.Along came the wind(or maybe a careless collector)and now the whole street is decorated with the little buggers.
Individual behavior makes up aggregrate behavior down(or up) the road.
Don't take the AC thing too personally,because you're not the only one I've asked that of.
I grew up with coal heat.I loved the smell of coal smoke on a winter morning,but we never see homes with coal heat nowadays.
I was in Pittsburgh on two occasions 40 years apart.The difference was staggering.the US has been making diligent efforts to clean up/preserve the environment-the rest of the world needs to look at what they're doing.
BTW we lost a hell of a lot of our major fabrication industries in the process.Now we have Wall Street turds selling derivatives and casinos.Nice.

"I still have a near religious faith in science and in the overwhelming evidence that we are on the edge of a dangerous precipice, quite possibly already too late to avoid disaster. When I get skeptical is when I view any specific plan of action to address the problem, a problem that only the most uninformed and reactionary folks could possibly still be debating."

Russ, my point is that you have assumed the diagnosis of the alarmists is correct and cling to it with religious-like faith - despite the recently revealed "overwhelming evidence" that the "evidence" in which you believe is fraudulent.

Monique

A lot of physical phenomena are highly non-linear. 6% added to input can drastically change the output. The problem here is that no one has conclusively shown that CO2 is an input.

I think a lot of good science starts with 4 unknowns, two equations and three hunches. It proceeds to better understanding and as many equations as unknowns. Means and methods are presented, papers presented, coup counted, grants harvested , etc, etc. What we have here, as the Climategate leaks and the FOI disclosures from NOAA and NASA indicate, is four unknowns, two equations and three damned lies.

Count me as a skeptic - still open to persuasion - on high impact AGW, but a denier on the calamitologist's knowing what the hell they are talking about. There's a whole scientific discipline that has, through the mendacity of its leading lights, garnered a reputation shared by rug merchants and used car salesman.

Posted by Russ at February 1, 2010 1:16 PM
"What I have said is that the scientific evidence on the "diagnosis" side is near incontrovertible (that AGW is occurring and presents a credible threat), an opinion I share with nearly everyone in scientific community."

"near incontrovertible" is not "proven". " an opinion I share with nearly everyone in scientific community."
What you refer to is what is known as "consensus", this does not establish a "fact". Frequently such agreement leads to "fraudulent consensus". Remember when the consensus was that "the earth was flat", this in spite of good science at the time that the world was round. It is no argument that science has improved, what we do "know" is as nothing compared to what we don't know.

"Whether you think my engineering degree qualifies me as a scientist, makes no difference to me one way or the other. I never said it did; I just answered Joe's question, since he seemed to think it relevant."

Don't worry, "scientist" is a self declared description. I know several "environmental scientists" who are high school graduates who took a few courses in septic design. "NASA's Leading Climate Scientist", James Hansen, now the leading proponent of "Global Warming" was previously the chief proponent of the "coming ice age". Look it up. "Earth Day" was created to "combat" Global Cooling (man made emissions were expected to block out the sun), and to buy a few votes for Senator "whatshisname". Look it up. I would recommend at looking at archives from the 70's, these matters are seldom mentioned in present day references.

Since so many people refuse to believe that only 30 years ago we were very concerned about "the coming ice age" (memories of such concerns evaporate rapidly, who admits as more than a joke that they cared about Y2K?) here is a video that another "rememberer" has assembled showing the media reports on "the coming ice age". You might recognize some of the names.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttLBqB0qDko

Very concerned? Hardly. Yes, it was picked up in the media, but you're not seriously suggesting that the idea was paid the same attention in the scientific community?

A survey of the scientific literature has found that between 1965 and 1979, 44 scientific papers predicted warming, 20 were neutral and just 7 predicted cooling. So while predictions of cooling got more media attention, the majority of scientists were predicting warming even then.

Very concerned? Hardly. Yes, it was picked up in the media, but you're not seriously suggesting that the idea was paid the same attention in the scientific community?

"Google" Time June 24, 1974. There was also the cover stories in Newsweek. I admit it didn't get the legs AGW has, but the politicians didn't need the crisis in the way the do now.

How quickly we forget such things. Remember the "skin heads" the country was in an uproar over them. Newsweek did several cover stories on them. There was talk they were in favor of "violent overthrow". Men with shaved heads were regularly pulled over and arrested on "suspicion". Now, every other cop has a shaved head and no one remembers the threat of the "skin heads".

Please don't get me started on the "500,000 armed militia". No one remembers them either.

There must be some Y2K stories out there, fortunes were made on it.

The "skinhead"and "militia"hysteria magnified the influence of marginal groups and individuals for the express purpose of instituting oppressive gun control-this is the dream of Obama,Holder and turds like Sheldon as part of a grand scheme of control of our daily existence.Of course THEY all have armed retinues around them.
Hypocrites all.

Ummm?

Skinhead admits Obama death plot

UMMM?Right,Russ-this "death plot"was hatched by a couple of dysfunctional nitwits who got nowhere near being dangerous to Obama or anyone else.
You are real good at the Jack McConnell/Matt Jerzyk/Pat Crowley method of taking isolated instances to build a false edifice of mass danger.It won't sell here,pal.
Real highly organized criminal groups like MS13(mostly illegal aliens)are of no concern to you "progressives"are they?They're just poor oppressed minority youth,right?What's a few rapes or murders in the grand political scheme of the "progressives"?
The best example of this panicked exaggeration was the incident where a hardware store owner was rude to a couple of Hispanic customers-it was turned into a three ring circus by the ethnic pimps and their RIFbot allies.It didn't amount to crap.
You people do everything with an underlying purpose and no amount of shading the truth or outright fabrication is off the table."You people"="progressives".
Are there some dangerous white supremacists or militia types?Yes.But they don't amount a mouhful of spit in the ocean compared to organized criminal groups,both American and foreign,operating within the US.
The militia/supremacists have little chance of any mass following and usually are enagged in mutually destructive rivalries which hamper their "effectiveness",if you want to think of it that way.
I realize that thugs like the "New Black Panther Party"(unconnected to the Black Panthers of my era)are of no concern to you because like a fool you somehow think they have no bad intentions towards you-after all,you're on their side,right?If I were you,I wouldn't count on them believing any such thing.

Joe Bernstein wrote:

"You are real good at the Jack McConnell/Matt Jerzyk/Pat Crowley method of taking isolated instances to build a false edifice of mass danger."

That is my point with AGW, only more succinctly put.