More evidence of environmental and economic devastation attributable to man-made global warming:
Lobsters have rarely been as scarce or expensive as they have been in the last few weeks, thanks to a confluence of bad weather, extremely cold water and a lack of reserve supply.I'm grateful to our visionary political leaders for doing something, anything, to try to cool the planet down. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at April 16, 2007 05:27 PM | Email This
...
Although spring is traditionally a slow season for lobstermen and the time when prices are the highest, this season is shaping up to be one of the worst in a generation.
...
Unseasonably cold spring weather has lowered water temperatures about six degrees, too cold for lobsters to want to feed, Dr. Bayer said.
Doing the opposite isn't funny or insightful - unless you really believe that localized below-normal temperatures are evidence against global warming. We know you don't, because you've said as much.
This joke is stale, stale, stale, stale, stale, stale, staler than stale. Staler than Hillary. Stale stale stale. Blah. I'm sick of seeing such pseudoscience even in an ironic context. It's deeply boring and you're better than that.
Posted by: booooooring on April 16, 2007 06:01 PMThe 24th time, it looks like you have nothing new to say and you're just filling space - or you actually believe that the odd news story about cooler-than-usual temperature invalidates global warming any more than the reverse.
Either way, it looks stupid and you're too smart for that, Stefan. You should know the rule of three.
The United States military takes climate change seriously:
National Security and the Threat of Climate Change
The report is 68 pages long. I encourage you to read it all.
"Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are greater now than at any time in the past 650,000 years, and average global temperature has continued a steady rise. This rise presents the prospect of significant climate change, and while
uncertainty exists and debate continues regarding the science and future extent
of projected climate changes, the trends are clear."
and ... of special relevance to me ...
"Flooding could increase with sea level rises, especially in the low-lying areas of North America—inundation models from the University
of Arizona project that a sea level rise of three feet would cause much of Miami, Fort Myers, a large portion of the Everglades, and all of the Florida Keys to disappear [31]."
***
The authors of the report are all three- and four-star generals, not scientists.
Our President may not take this issue seriously, but at least our military does.
It actually insinuates quite the opposite Stefan, in claiming a confluence circumstances as the cause of the problem.
Talk about making up a media conspiracy that isn't there.
Posted by: Daniel K on April 16, 2007 07:58 PM
Glad to see that your climatology degree is paying of Giffy... oh wait....
Glad to see Al Gore's climatology degree is paying off... oh wait...
It has been warmer in the past! why do you think they called "Greenland" because of the melting ice? No fool because it used to be green where sheep used to graze.
This guy is a real quack! Lies just like his father Chris Mathews on MSNBC.
Posted by: HW on April 16, 2007 10:53 PM> It has been warmer in the past! why do you think they called "Greenland" because of the melting ice? No fool because it used to be green where sheep used to graze.
What astonishes me is that conservatives really do believe that they know something about the climate which has somehow escaped the attention of all those Ph.D. climatologists.
If you spent any time actually reading the science you would learn that the climate scientists know a lot more than you imagine, a lot more than you will ever know.
Conservatives exhibit a common error in arguments of this sort. Creationists make the same mistake:
They point to one bit of common-knowledge evidence, interpret it incorrectly as contradicting the conclusions of science, conclude that the issue is thereby settled, and stop thinking about the subject.
The scientists know Greenland's history ... hundreds of thousands of years of Greenland's history.
Posted by: David Mathews on April 17, 2007 05:38 AMLocal weather broadcasters seem to have an agenda of mentioning global warming every time the temperature rises above the average. It seems like there is a policy of trying to get and keep this in front of the public. Its a shame when nature itself doesn't play along.
2 Years ago, the local weather suits were saying that the lowered rainfall (of that year) and reduced snowpack were a result of global warming as well, and were starting to move towards saying that we would have to deal with more of it in the future... now that we've had two years of excessive rainfall, they're saying that the extra rainfall is being caused by global warming. So which is it? Colder temperatures? Warmer Temperatures? More rainfall? Less rainfall? Its getting so that "Climate Change" means nothing more than weather conditions that are not "average".
My guess is that they've got several hundred "models" that they're picking and choosing from, and then giving us the "worst case scenarios" from the models.
I think Stephan's posts are good for giving us perspective - its also telling to see that the lefties don't get it... and have their panties in such a twist trying to get Stephan to stop.
Posted by: thecomputerguy on April 17, 2007 08:37 AMAnd turnabout is fair play.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 17, 2007 09:01 AMEven though the argument is not over, and #14 seems to continually get conservatives confused with liberals, it's time to go dump the garbage and let others waste their precious time on this particular post.
Posted by: KS on April 17, 2007 10:34 AMWe should do what we can to encourage discussion of this topic.
The only problem I have is when posters (on either side of the issue) ignore good evidence in favor of ad-hominem attacks, then go off on rediculous tangents that lead nowhere - best advice is that if you're going to answer them, try to at least steer the discussion back to the orignal post. Another thing I've started doing is to wait until the thread has been up for a very long time - that way you can answer their issues, and not run the risk of derailing an active conversation.
Shutting down people who disagree with you is what the MSM does, and its wrong ... but I do agree that more than a few trolls that we see seem to want to take the discussion on a magical mystery ride...
Posted by: thecomputerguy on April 17, 2007 01:17 PMPost some liberal proof or anything that makes any since!!
> post that makes any since ... Post some liberal proof or anything that makes any since!!
"since" doesn't appear appropriate in post #20. Did you have some other word in mind?
Posted by: David Mathews on April 17, 2007 01:44 PMYou are such a nitwit! By the way I am not a conservative or a liberal but an independent thinker not a "parrot" like you!! Go play with the gators young one!!
Ok, so you don't like "Mercury Vapor" lights ...
What are you willing to sacrifice on behalf of reducing your impact upon the environment?
Posted by: David Mathews on April 17, 2007 02:28 PMhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_lamp#Environmental_issues
Compact Florescent bulbs use a small amount of mercury, and are an enviromental concern in landfills.
I use CF bulbs myself. My recommendation is to buy a box of them, and as they wear out, put them back in the original box in a way that you know that they're used up (I put a little tape on the old ones), then take them to a recycling station. For the most part, I believe recycling of these does not cost the consumer (or a very small charge), and the mercury can be reused. YMMV.
L.E.D's are also beginning to show up as light sources, and they are even more efficient than CF bulbs...
But again, we're getting way off topic here...
But must we go off topic?
Posted by: thecomputerguy on April 17, 2007 03:16 PM> But must we go off topic?
I'd love to stay on topic and would do so, but what is the topic of this discussion?
Let me tell you about the weather:
On Sunday night about 3 am I turned the heater on because it was 60 degrees and I found that temperature incompatible with me falling to sleep. Since 7 am on Monday morning I haven't needed the air conditioner or heater at all.
In other words: Beautiful Spring Florida weather. Blue sky and sunshine.
Today was a productive day, too: I visited Boyd Hill Nature Park and happened to find a tremendous diversity of wildlife: 8 alligators, two pileated woodpeckers, one wild eagle, two hawks, a half-dozen ospreys, a snake in the grass, and plenty of flying insects.
Then while driving around town I happened to discover a national guard armory. I took a picture of a tent but the sargent got a little stressed and insisted that I delete that photo. Oh well.
So I moved on and went to Clam Bayou Park and happened to find a great Blue Heron, night heron, three parrots, two woodpeckers, and a flock of ibises there.
After walking all of these miles I drove home and happened to see a gasoline station selling regular gasoline for $2.92 a gallon.
The sun is in the process of setting now and the colors of the sunset always glorify the pine trees outside my window. Occasionally the sunrise glorifies these trees, too, but only when I wake up early enough to see it.
Tell me, then, what are we discussing in this thread? How is the weather in Seattle?
Posted by: David Mathews on April 17, 2007 04:28 PM> ... the benefits of global warming!
And those are ... ?
Posted by: David Mathews on April 17, 2007 05:04 PMThere are benefits to warming verses cooling that will kill you sooner rather later, Right?
These benefits sound really good to me.
Now, HW, supposing that we want to gain these benefits of global warming ... how shall we cause Global Warming to occur?
What are the most effective strategies to warm the planet?
Posted by: David Mathews on April 17, 2007 06:12 PMsee: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/climatechange/cat_members.htm
1. Rod Brown, Washington Environmental Council
2. The Most Reverend Alexander J. Brunett, Archbishop of Seattle
If the subject were any more religious in nature I suppose they would have to make the Archbishop number 1.
A religious leader appointed to state sanctioned advisory board? Well there's a first time for everything.
Religion has something to say about this subject so why shouldn't a religious leader have a place on the advisory board?
For those who would like to gain a true appreciation of the often unseen and always unappreciated beauty of science:
The Universe is an extremely beautiful place. Too bad humans don't even notice its existence. Too much time spent shopping and watching television ...
Posted by: David Mathews on April 17, 2007 06:23 PMYou must think you are the only one that enjoys "God's great creations on earth and the wonderful universe he has created.
Grow up! We are all Americans. You act like a communist who wants to divide and conquer.
> Do you think the Sun might be associated with global warming?
Eh ... I suspect that the vast majority of climatologists have noticed the sun.
That's just a theory on my part.
Posted by: David Mathews on April 17, 2007 07:51 PMGiven that the sun is pretty bright and pretty much appears daily in the sky, I suppose that it is something more than opinion.
Posted by: David Mathews on April 17, 2007 08:00 PMAnyway, I found the following op-ed in the Boston Globe to be interesting, and relevant to the original topic...
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/04/15/doubting_doomsday/
Jeff Jacoby is a shill.
Did you read the article carefully? Did you read what Richard Lindzen actually said:
"But to global-warming True Believers, Lindzen's essay is just one heresy after another. It suggests that "a warmer climate could prove to be more beneficial than the one we have now." That extreme weather events might actually be less likely in a warming world. That higher levels of CO2 could be a boon to agriculture. And that a warmer planet is preferable to a colder one."
In other words: Richard Lindzen believes in Global Warming. He thinks that it is a good thing.
From the Newsweek article, Why So Gloomy?
"There has been a net warming of the earth over the last century and a half, and our greenhouse gas emissions are contributing at some level.
Both of these statements are almost certainly true."
But the really absurd statement appears later:
"There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we've seen will amount to anything close to catastrophe."
Well, locking your baby in your car on a hot summer day may not lead to catastrophe -- the baby might survive -- but that alone does not justify the reckless behavior.
"The conclusion of the late climate scientist Roger Revelle—Al Gore's supposed mentor—is worth pondering: the evidence for global warming thus far doesn't warrant any action unless it is justifiable on grounds that have nothing to do with climate."
Here is a good reason: Polluting the Earth is an inherently evil act.
And another good reason: The natural resources which make polluting the entire globe possible are finite and depleting fast.
Need any more?
Denny dimwit is too young to remember the cooling that took place until the early seventies.
Demwit's your analogy regarding the kid lock in the car is as crazy as you seem to be!
Cooling is not pleasant but this global warming is really showing some positive benefits to all breathing humans on earth.
I did read in the MSM today that ethanol is going to pollute more than the hydrocarbon refined gasoline but we can blame that on David Mathews and his ilk for the mandatory changes that they are causing without scientific examination or discussion of the negative results of the changes they are making!
The Computerguy, I think you can kill more bacteria with vinegar than you can with honey!!