Global Warming

[me]

The article I posted has nothing to do with carbon credits and said nothing about what is causing the warmup .... it was simply an analysis of global temperatures gathered over the last 135 years.

Here it is again, because I don't think you even bothered to open it.

http://www.scientificcomputing.com/news/2014/10/warming-earth-heading-hottest-year-record?et_cid=4220789&et_rid=54725525&location=top

Hate to break this to you but they probably didn't have data for certain areas and had to guess at it that far back.  Think about it.  Were phones even around then or satellites?  How would they have gotten information for a lot of areas?  What, and how reliable, were their sources for that information? 

[Palehorse]

Like I said fellas, quite awhile back in this very thread:

Pearls before swine! Only when they are actually frying like fatback in a hot skillet, will they believe that which they refuse to understand.

[me]

Typical, ya can't answer the question so you poke fun at the person rather than address the issue. 

[Palehorse]

Typical, ya can't answer the question so you poke fun at the person rather than address the issue.

1. There was absolutely NO question before this poster surrounding this latest exchange, so there was nothing for me to respond to. In fact, I purposely avoided any commentary what-so-ever because I already knew the outcome of things; based upon my own futile exchanges here in the past.

2. "Typical" indeed; but only in that you want to drag me under the bus for reminding my colleagues of the futility in attempting to enlighten those who would not be enlightened, by interjecting yet another in a very long series of perceived / altered states of reality within which you seem to reside.

[libby]

Same subject (global warming/climate change):

The following is an obituary from yesterday's Washington Post. I often read them because they can be like biographies. This one caught my eye because of the heading:

22 Oct 2014 The Washington Post
BY JULIET EILPERIN juliet.eilperin@washpost.com

WHISTLEBLOWER OVER EDITING OF CLIMATE-CHANGE REPORTS

Rick S. Piltz, a longtime climate policy analyst who exposed how top-level George W. Bush administration officials edited scientific reports to minimize the link between human activity and climate change, died Oct. 18 at a hospice center in Washington. He was 71.

The cause was complications from bladder cancer, said his wife, Karen Metchis. He was a resident of Bethesda, Md.

For a decade, Mr. Piltz held a senior post with the U.S. Global Change Research Program, through which U.S. government agencies coordinate their support for research on climate. He quit in March 2005, citing frustration with the Bush administration's efforts to change the testimony of federal officials and the reports they submitted documenting the impact of global warming.

The edits — in some cases subtle, in others as bold as crossing out whole sentences — altered descriptions of climate research written by government scientists and their supervisors with the apparent intent of raising doubts where many climate experts think there are none.

Many of the fixes were made by Philip A. Cooney, a onetime lobbyist for an oil industry trade group who was then working as executive director of the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

Cooney reportedly eliminated a passage from a 2002 draft summarizing government climate research that described the impact warming might have on water availability and flooding. He wrote that the language about a projected reduction of mountain glaciers and snowpack was "straying from research strategy into speculative findings/musings."

Mr. Piltz, who packed a trove of documents into a box and gave them to the New York Times for publication in June 2005, sent a scathing memo to senior officials at a dozen agencies.

"Each administration has a policy position on climate change," he wrote. "But I have not seen a situation like the one that has developed under this administration during the past four years, in which politicization by the White House has fed back directly into the science program in such a way as to undermine the credibility and integrity of the program."

Cooney announced shortly after the documents' publication that he was leaving the administration to join the gas giant Exxon Mobil Corp.

After the Democrats took control of the House and Senate following the 2006 elections, Mr. Piltz testified before both chambers on the muzzling of federal scientists. Some of the edited documents he disclosed were included in a probe by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, which in December 2007 concluded after a 16-month investigation that the Bush administration had "engaged in a systematic effort to manipulate climate change science and mislead policymakers and the public about the dangers of global warming."

Meanwhile, in summer 2005, Mr. Piltz used his own funds to start the group Climate Science Watch under the umbrella of the D.C.-based public watchdog organization Government Accountability Project.

At the time he turned whistleblower, Mr. Piltz came under criticism from conservatives, including Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) and the late columnist Robert Novak, who noted that Mr. Piltz had once served as a Democratic congressional staffer. As a House Science Committee aide, Mr. Piltz had helped write the 1990 Global Change Research Act, which calls for a regular national climate assessment, a 10-year climate research plan and annual progress updates to Congress. The act also created the U.S. Global Change Research Program.

Michael MacCracken, who served as the program's executive director when Mr. Piltz joined in 1995, said Mr. Piltz pushed repeatedly for the Bill Clinton administration to conduct the national climate survey to evaluate how global warming was affecting the country. The federal government published its third such assessment in May.

"He persisted by asking questions, calmly and doggedly, and urging that things get done," MacCracken said.

Frederick Steven Piltz was born on July 29, 1943, in Detroit. He was a 1965 graduate of the University of Michigan, where he also earned a master's degree in political science in 1967, motivated in part by the anti-Vietnam War movement on campus.

One of his first professional jobs was as a legislative analyst in Austin. According to MacCracken, one of Mr. Piltz's tasks was determining who was benefiting from provisions "then-state Rep. Tom DeLay would put in late in the afternoon" as a bill was being finalized.

His first marriage, to Charlotte Crafton, ended in divorce. He then spent seven years as a companion of Lynn Hayden. Survivors include his wife of 24 years, Karen Metchis, and their daughter, Shayne Piltz, both of Bethesda.

Mr. Piltz was a firebrand who often would speak out at public forums about the suppression of federal scientists and the U.S. government's unwillingness to move swiftly enough to cut carbon emissions linked to climate change. He spoke of fossil fuel extraction continuing at a "fulltilt boogie" and argued the Obama administration had failed to live up to its own pledge of respecting scientific integrity.

Even during his final days, while hooked up to an oxygen tank and on morphine, he insisted on discussing future policy priorities when friends dropped by for a farewell visit.

"He was saying we couldn't let the administration get away with this and that policy," said Nicky Sundt, who directs climate change science and policy integration at the World Wildlife Fund. "He was saying, ' This is the torch that you need to carry.' It was a fitting way to end."

[Locutus]

If ever there was an enemy of science, it was George W. Bush. 

[libby]

Heads up:  Next Wednesday, Nov 19th, NOVA will air a Program -- Landslide. "Drawing on analysis of recent landslides around the world, geologists are investigating what triggered the deadliest U.S. landslide in decades in Washington state last March, and whether climate change is increasing the risk of similar disasters around the globe."

[me]

[Locutus]

The U.S. Senate on Wednesday voted 98-1 to approve a resolution stating that "it is the sense of the Senate that climate change is real and not a hoax." Then, about 15 minutes later, the Senate rejected a second resolution that said climate change is real and caused by humans.

The first resolution was approved — and co-sponsored — by one of the most outspoken climate deniers in the Senate, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), a man who literally wrote a book about how climate change is the "greatest hoax ever perpetrated." The only Senator to vote against the resolution was Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS).

Sounds too good to be true, right? That's because it is. At the last minute, right before a vote was taken, Inhofe took the floor to state that he would be co-sponsoring and approving the amendment on the grounds that yes, climate change is real, but human-caused climate change is not. "Man cannot change climate," Inhofe said. "The hoax is that there are some people that are so arrogant to think that they are so powerful that they can change climate."

The resolution was originally put forth by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) as an amendment to the bill to approve the Keystone XL pipeline. It was widely seen as a way to troll Republicans — a way for Democrats to say "Fine, if you want to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, you have to go on record about whether you think global warming is real."

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/01/21/3614028/so-much-senate-climate-change-trolling/

[Locutus]

^^  There's more to read if you click that link. 

"Man cannot change climate," Inhofe said.

James Inhofe needs a punch in the face for such abject stupidity. 

[Exterminator]

"Man cannot change climate," Inhofe said.

He's apparently unfamiliar with the dust bowl.   

[me]

He's apparently unfamiliar with the dust bowl.   

Temporary brought on by stupidity.  It did not permanently change the climate in that area.

[Bo D]

Temporary brought on by stupidity.  It did not permanently change the climate in that area.

And do you know why it didn't permanently change the climate?

.
..
...
....
.....
......
.......
........
.........


Because the GOVERNMENT stepped in with several unpopular, but very effective measures.

[me]

And do you know why it didn't permanently change the climate?

.
..
...
....
.....
......
.......
........
.........


Because the GOVERNMENT stepped in with several unpopular, but very effective measures.

Inexpensive common sense measures not expensive mostly ineffective measures.  I do believe the people realized what they had done wrong too.

[Bo D]

Inexpensive common sense measures not expensive mostly ineffective measures.  I do believe the people realized what they had done wrong too.

Inexpensive?????


four million acres of land had been purchased by the government during the Dust Bowl and permanently restored as national grasslands, the soil didn't blow as much. http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/dustbowl/legacy/

Yeah ... cheap!

The Resettlement Administration (RA), which eventually became the Farm Security Administration (FSA), stressed "rural rehabilitation" efforts to improve the lifestyle of sharecroppers, tenants, and very poor landowning farmers, and a program to purchase submarginal land owned by poor farmers and resettle them in group farms on land more suitable for efficient farming. The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) encouraged cultivation techniques which would prevent further soil erosion. Finally, the Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA) restricted production by paying farmers to reduce crop area. The farmers were paid subsidies by the federal government for leaving some of their fields unused. http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/151818/

That didn't cost anything!

in 1935, FDR initiated the Prairie States Forestry Project to create a "shelter belt" from the Texas Panhandle to the Canadian border. Over the course of the next seven years, the U.S Forestry Service, working in conjunction with the CCC, the newly established Works Progress Administration (WPA), and local farmers, planted nearly 220 million trees, creating over 18,000 miles of windbreaks on some 30,000 farms. The scale of this effort boggles the imagination. http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/new-roosevelt/fdr-and-new-deal-response-environmental-catastrophe

Pennies!