Confronting global warming hysteria: Sen. James Inhofe takes on CNN and the rest of the MSM

Posted by: ST on September 29, 2006 at 9:04 am

We’ve all read about the hysteria surrounding claims of “global warming”, most noteably coming from Al “Inconvenient Truth” Gore (read about his latest global warming rant here).

Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) is a well-known critic of the theory of global warming and its alarmists, and made a speech on Monday on the Senate floor to discuss the myths surrounding global warming. Yesterday, CNN ran a piece criticizing Inhofe’s speech and falsely claimed that Inhofe was “alone” on Capitol Hill with respect to his feelings on the hyped up claims of global warming.

Inhofe fought back yesterday at length with another speech, which took to task the claims made by CNN, while criticizing the MSM for ignoring any facts that call global warming claims into question. Here’s part of it:

I have been engaged in this debate for several years and believe there is a growing backlash of Americans rejecting what they see as climate scare tactics. And as a result, global warming alarmists are becoming increasingly desperate.

Perhaps that explains why the very next day after I spoke on the floor, ABC News’s Bill Blakemore on Good Morning America prominently featured James Hansen touting future scary climate scenarios that could / might / possibly happen. ABC’s “modest” title for the segment was “Will the Earth Become Too Hot? Are Our Children in Danger?”

The segment used all the well worn tactics from the alarmist guidebook — warning of heat waves, wildfires, droughts, melting glaciers, mass extinctions unless mankind put itself on a starvation energy diet and taxed emissions.

But that’s no surprise – Blakemore was already on the record declaring “After extensive searches, ABC News has found no such [scientific] debate” about manmade catastrophic global warming.


You have to be a pretty poor investigator to believe that. Why would 60 prominent scientists this last spring have written Canadian Prime Minister Harper that “If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.” (LINK)

On Tuesday’s program, the ABC News anchor referred to Blakemore as “passionate” about global warming. “Passionate” is one word to describe that kind of reporting, but words like objectivity or balance are not.

I believe it’s these kinds of stories which explain why the American public is growing increasingly skeptical of the hype. Despite the enormous 2006 media campaign to instill fear into the public, the number of people who believe that weather naturally changes — is increasing.

A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll in August found that most Americans do not attribute the cause of recent severe weather events to global warming, and the portion of Americans who believe that climate change is due to natural variability has increased over 50% in the last five years.

Given the diminishing importance of the mainstream media, I expect that trend to continue.

Read it all.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

91 Responses to “Confronting global warming hysteria: Sen. James Inhofe takes on CNN and the rest of the MSM”


  1. NC Cop says:

    Challenging the geniuses at CNN?? How DARE he?!??!

  2. Now we all know the left would be praising him to the hilt had he been sitting in the CNN studios, and starting getting into the faces of reporters, redfaced and angrily declaring “you did a nice little liberal hit piece on me.”

  3. Karl says:

    if you want a good eye opening about science’s use of mistruth including global warming, darwinism and aids, read James Hogan’s Kicking the Sacred Cow.

  4. Lorica says:

    Talk about election year scare tactics. LOL =))

    LOL Whenever this debate springs up I always go back to my old Biology Teacher telling the class that in 50,000 years we will be going thru another Ice Age. At the time I thought “do I really care about what is going to happen in 50,000 years”. =)) Talk about chicken little discussions. Al Gore since 1994 and maybe before then, has been saying we only have 10 more years. I am thinking that he has longer years than the rest of us. My Uncle when he was working for Exxon in Alaska said almost everytime they took a geological sample of a new drill site they found petrified palm trees. Seems to me that a tropical paradise in Alaska could be alot of fun. I doubt Global warming on so many different levels that it really has become a tired and pointless disscusion. – Lorica

  5. Tom TB says:

    I just laugh at Algore and his VirginAir buddy burning fossil fuels by the tons to get the message out all over the world; “Don’t do as we do, do as we say!”.

  6. LOL Tom! And Arianna “I drive an SUV” Huffington ;)

  7. Lorica says:

    When the Liberal elite give up their private jets, I will…. Ohhh I already gave up my SUV. I am much more of a Sports Sedan, I love my 300M. I sooooo want a new Dodge Charger….purrs. :) – Lorica

  8. Baklava says:

    I read his piece yesterday and cheered as I’ve studied this issue at length since 1991. Somebody in Congress standing up to the drive by legacy media. I love it. Who says only the blogs stand up to the 5th column?

  9. Drewsmom says:

    algore, global warming, better not get any warmer cuz if algore sweats anymore we’ll all need lifejackets.:d

  10. sanity says:

    Is Gore planning on banning smoking now?

    Fri Sep 29 2006 09:04:05 ET

    Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore warned hundreds of U.N. diplomats and staff on Thursday evening about the perils of climate change, claiming: Cigarette smoking is a “significant contributor to global warming!”

    Gore, who was introduced by Secretary-General Kofi Annan, said the world faces a “full-scale climate emergency that threatens the future of civilization on earth.”

    Gore showed computer-generated projections of ocean water rushing in to submerge the San Francisco Bay Area, New York City, parts of China, India and other nations, should ice shelves in Antarctica or Greenland melt and slip into the sea.

    “The planet itself will do nicely, thank you very much what is at risk is human civilization,” Gore said. After a series of Q& A with the audience, which had little to do with global warming and more about his political future, Annan bid “adios” to Gore.

    Then, Gore had his staff opened a stack of cardboard boxes to begin selling his new book, “An Inconvenient Truth, The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It,” $19.95, to the U.N. diplomats.



    Just on a side note…Gore is looking well fed these days I have noticed….

  11. sanity, read more on that at the newsmax link in my post. The scare tactics continue!

    I personally think Al Gore is a “significant contributor” to global warming -LOL.

  12. sanity says:

    Not to mention Teddy Kennedy…..

  13. Tom TB says:

    Remember that Algore speech in front of tobacco farmers when he said he grew it, cut it, stacked it, cured it, something to that effect; then his sister died of lung cancer, and he blamed the the whole tobacco industry that he had claimed to be a proud member of, for his sister’s death! I will believe in Algore’s global warming theories the day I can grow oranges in Vermont!

  14. Aghast says:

    60 Scientists vs. thousands of others… gee…

    Funny how this thread is all about trashing Al Gore, wiht zero substantive remarks regarding the issue at hand. I know you don’t realize it. but you’re arguing that the world is flat, that the earth doesn’t revolve around the sun, etc… (or at least the arguments are the same: ad hominems flung with glee while clutching an antiquated ideology)

    The right ignores scientific consensus on global warming and evolution, because it challenges their wolrdview. It’s no different from Catholics in the middle ages who refused to accept the heliocentric theory becasue it challenged theirs.

    I remember a right-wing friend of mine who proclaimed that global warming scientists were in it for the money. Talk about a conspiracy theory! It’s obviously far more profitable to work for oil companies, who have been shown to fund scientists who are willing to deny global warming. Not general research…just the specific scientists who deny global warming. That’s not an opinon, it’s an assertion.

    Take a step back and consider the possiblity…oh my…the possiblity that burning millions of barrels of hydrocarbons that have been locked in the earth for millions of years, and releasing all that carbon directly into our atmosphere might just…oh my…. affect the earth and the incredibly complex ecosystem it supports and that we depend on.

    It might actually be worth looking into before declaring that you don’t like Al Gore and therefore don’t have to consider the problem.

  15. Severian says:

    Gee, I just love it when scientifically ignorant ideologs like Aghast come in and once again get self righteous and chastise everyone for not believing in the same “god” that they do. And who, once again, pull out the “everyone agrees” canard. Gee, go back to your example of the flat earth, everyone agreed with that one too.

    Atmospheric CO2 is not going to lead to runaway global warming, the effects are logarithmic, tripling atmospheric CO2 will not triple temperature rises, the atmosphere is already almost opaque in that region. Adding more doesn’t make it more opaque. Man accounts for a minority of the existing atmospheric CO2, and CO2 does not account for even a majority of the warming observed that’s occuring since the last mini-ice age. The suns radiation has been increasing, particularly since the 40s. I knew this in my undergrad days in the 70’s as I was helping my professor measure it. Anyone who thinks that what people can do can in any way compare with the suns effect on the earth are drinking kool aid by the gallon. The sun should start cooling in another few years, and you’ll see the trends reverse. The oceans are already cooling, have been for the past 3 years, not that the MSM or our buddy “Manbearpig” Gore seems to want to acknowledge it.

    More “sky is falling because of the evil oil companies and their evil conservative Republican henchmen” BS. Can’t you guys on the left ever get a different story? It’s always the same, no matter what the details. It’s either globalization, or pollution, or global warming, or yada yada yada, and it’s always all the fault of the Republicans and corporations and yada yada yada. God’s blood, can’t you pull an original idea out of your butts just once?8-|

    Correlation is not the same thing as causality. Liberal ideology has spread rapidly since the end of WWII, coinciding with the increase in global temperatures. I say, it’s all the liberals fault, and until they are all exterminated global warming will increase. Makes as much sense, and killing off liberals will have about as much effect, as Kyoto and global warming does.

  16. Tom TB says:

    Aghast, people teach by example, therefore if Al Gore truly believed that the consumption of fossil fuels was going to cause an evironmental disaster, he would travel by bicycle and sailboat, not rack-up frequent flyer milages with airlines!

  17. Aghast says:

    Tom TB,

    Al Gore purchases carbon credits to replace the carbon that his activities release to the atmosphere.

    It’s not perfect, but it’s something. It’s actually quite cheap to offset your carbon footprint. Companies like TerraPass ( provide some very affordable options.

    They not only purchase carbon credits, but run a program designed to improve industrial efficiency, thereby significantly reducing the amount of carbon going into the air. I certainly would prefer to actually remove carbon from the air through sequestration techniques, but the methods listed above remove the same net carbon from the atmosphere.

    Finally, Severian, what exactly are the motives behind the Evil Conspiracy to get us all to believe in Global Warming? It just doesn’t make any sense to lie about it, unless you run a billion dollar corporation whose profits depend on people thinking global warming is BS. The burden of proof is on you now, regarding the great conspiracy, because it just doesn’t make any sense (like Chewbacca living on Endor, since we’re referencing south park). We’ve never had a scientist say, “they paid me to say global warming was coming!”, but we’ve had a few come out and say “Exxonmobile paid us to lie about global warming”.

    Global Warming Conspiracy Checklist:

    1. Convince everyone Global Warming is real
    2. ???
    3. Profit!

    Please fill in #2.

    Inhofe’s largest campaign contributors are oil, gas and electric (coal-burning) companies. I guessed that was the case (liberal cynicism i guess), but I checked and was correct! Surprise, Surpise!

    Your story about measuring the power of the sun is nice (and anecdotal), and it’s true that some scientists thought the globe was cooling in the seventies, but never was there a CONSENSUS as exists today.

    Look, there are some things that liberals have their heads stuck up their asses about. Missle defense, for example. I don’t think it would work logistically (meaning I think the russians would just throw many missles at us instead of one, or float a nuke in on a boat instead of using a missle, etc…), but when my liberal friends say it CAN’T work, they are full of it. I’m an engineer, and I know it’s absolutely possible to get it to work, and work well. Just because I don’t like the idea for logistical or political reasons doesn’t mean I’m going to ignore the science behind it.

  18. Severian says:

    Doesn’t make sense to lie about it Aghast? Man, are you ever naive…did you just fall off the banana boat or something?

    Government funded scientists live or die by their grants, global warming is popular, pro global warming papers get mega funding. Global warming is a convenient prop for the Democrats, including Gore, to once again paint the evil conservatives as guilty of something to once again try and weasel their way into office on lies and innuendo rather than on actually fighting terror or something the left might find repulsive, like being in favor of the US. Greenies, who should be called watermelons, green on the outside, red on the inside, are pushing this because it falls in line with their major ideology, punish the West in general and the US in particular for being successful and profitable.

    Just because you are too blinkered to see how the pro global warming crowd has an agenda that profits by this crap, doesn’t mean it isn’t there. You are so fast to assume that everyone on the conservative side is evil and greedy, what makes you think your side isn’t worse?

    Not to mention, you have not made one single comment relating to the science involved, just idiotic impugning of other peoples motiviations and obnoxious claims of dishonesty and greed against those who don’t agree. Very nice, if you’re too stupid to understand the science just sling some more mud. Consensus is a lie, there is no consensus. Back in the day, the consensus was that black people were too stupid to not be kept as slaves, too dumb to set free. Gee, everyone believed it, it must be true!

    You claim to be an engineer, but are remarkably ignorant about the facts of global warming, and swallow the lies of Gore and his cronies hook, line, and sinker, and all you can come up with for supporting arguments are the lame rants above?

    Here’s a shocker for you, I’m a physicist, and global warming alarmists are either dishonest, mistaken, or just chicken little extremists. If you are this much of a believer and this is the best you can come up with for technical argument remind me to never us a product you had anything to do with the design of.

    The world was cooling in the 70’s, then it heated a bit, now it’s starting to cool again. When you can tell me how a 3rd or 4th order term is going to guarantee a 1st order catastrophe, maybe you’ll get my attention, but your whining and leftist drivel above is just that, useless non-factual bullshit.

    Go get yourself an education from some sourch other than Gore and the environmental watermelons. I mean, for Pete’s sake, Gore’s idiotic rants don’t even acknowledge the Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, they were erased from his temperature graphs! And the infameous “hockey stick” that Gore holds up as the gospel truth has been shown to be either a completely incompetent analysis or worse yet, deliberately dishonest in an attempt to get data to prove a point. The entire global warming argument is based on bad science and lies. If that’s how you want your science you must have been a real follower of Lysenko.

  19. Tom TB says:

    Aghast, I would fill in #2 on your checklist: get attention! I think Al Gore has had the withdrawl symptoms that anyone would if they had so much media attention, and came so close to the presidency. Attention for him is profit, as publicity is profit for VirginAir. There are paleo-geologists that make the case that CO2 levels were higher long before the advent of the internal combustion engine, and the global climate was much colder. Over 70 percent of the earth’s surface is water, we have volcanoes that can erupt anytime, and you try telling the combined populations of India and China that they have to comply with California emission standards!

  20. Severian says:

    Don’t even bother Tom TB, Aghast has no facts, if he did he would have blessed us with them by now. It’s apparent that, other than as something to get hysterical about and bash Repubicans and conservatives about (the main goal anyway), he has no understanding of even the most basic of the science involved. Expect him to now hit the usual shallow, anti-Republican web sites and parrot an alleged fact or two, and they will be the same idiotic, disproven facts they constantly trot out to “prove” their argument. Compared to them, chicken little was an optimist.

  21. Baklava says:

    aghast wrote, “Inhofe’s largest campaign contributors are oil, gas and electric (coal-burning) companies. I guessed that was the case (liberal cynicism i guess), but I checked and was correct! Surprise, Surpise!

    So instead of addressing what Inhofe says/writes you attack him due to companies who sell a legal product contributing to him. I’ll happily address anything that Inhofe has written about if you’d like to venture down that high road as I’ve studied this issue since 1991.

    Sev wrote, “Not to mention, you have not made one single comment relating to the science involved, just idiotic impugning of other peoples motiviations and obnoxious claims of dishonesty and greed against those who don’t agree.

    I noticed. I’m sure others notice also.

  22. Lorica says:

    I know I am no scientist, but what always sorta gets me is when my local weather man says something to the effect that today’s high temp was set in 1930 something. I always think to myself our scientists are 70 years behind. Global warming has come and gone. – Lorica

  23. Aghast says:

    OK, cool, some answers

    So far I’ve heard:

    1. They want to demonize conservatives
    2. They want to “punish the west for being profitable”
    3. China and India won’t, so why should we?
    4. Global warming provides good government grant money
    5. Consensus is a lie
    6. “The world was cooling in the 70’s, then it heated a bit, now it’s starting to cool again.”

    Numbers 1 and 2 are laughable… It all about YOU conservatives isn’t it? You’re SO the victim.

    #3 – petulant and childish..take responsiblity for yourself before worrying about others

    #4 – true, but grant money isn’t dependent on your results (pro or con warming), it’s dependent on the research itself. There’s no reason to falsify results here. Furthermore, if you are in science for the money and are willing to be dishonest, there’s a LOT more money to be made working for Exxon…can you really deny this? cause THAT would be naive.

    #5 – the consensus is among scientists, not lay people. Look at the IPCC’s statements. (or is this now an international conspiracy among scientists worldwide?) Look at the study that actually looked at every peer-reviewed paper containing the words “climate change”. You need to decide whether you believe there is no consensus (laughable) or that they are all wrong (at least possible). It’s one or the other, not both.

    #6 – There was no consensus that the world was cooling in the 70’s. none. Climatology has come a long way since then, when there was a debate over which forces would win out (the cooling forces or the warming forces)… some scientists claimed we were cooling, but it wasn’t peer-reviewed time-tested consensus (as a physicist you should understand that). That debate is now over, the Warming forces have won.

    Look, you can complain that I’m not using science in my arguments, but every scientific point I make will be refuted by some quack somewhere, and that will always be good enough for those who want to deny warming.

    My point here is that to believe in an international conspiracy of scientists to make people believe in global warming, to demonize conservatives and punish the west for being profitable is just paranoid and stupid on its face. Seriously, think about it. How does one plan such a grand conspiracy without getting caught? Where is the evidence for the conspiracy? not scientific evidence about global warming…but of the conspiracy to convince everyone of it? There is no evidence, because no such conspiracy exists.

    If sea levels actually do rise ten feet in the next 30 years or so, will any of you admit you were wrong? Or will it be explained by another conspiracy?

  24. Severian says:

    Oh yeah, Aghast, that’s real good. “I’d give you facts but you’d just rebut them” is a very very convincing argument. Thanks for admitting that you are a complete dyed in the wool fool and lemming to boot. So, it’s all about “feelings” and not science or facts. I doubt you’re an engineer, unless the term “sanitation” is in front of it in your title, you certainly are quite knowledgeable about excrement.

    Come up with something real, otherwise you’re just the common, garden variety whiny liberal. Facts don’t matter we should just believe morons like yourself and Gore because you obviously “care” so much.

    Geez, you can’t make stuff like this up. You should exercise some more judgement in what you believe, it seems like you are a person who’s mind is so “open” your brains have fallen out. l-)

  25. Severian says:

    Oh, you want evidence of lies and conspiracy, start with the Hockey Stick and Mann’s lies and deliberate distortions and his attempts to slander people who were showing the faults with it. Start with the IPCC who still refuse to admit that they were caught with their pants down. Now as to Gore, either he knows he’s lying thru his teeth about it, or he’s too dense to know the difference, and either would be deadly dangerous in an elected leader.

  26. Severian says:

    So instead of addressing what Inhofe says/writes you attack him due to companies who sell a legal product contributing to him.

    That’s the typical Marxist leftist approach. And you see it continued in his follow on posts. More of the same, imply, inuendo, insult, and then expect you to believe. Facts are to liberals like garlic is to vampires.

  27. Aghast says:

    I think you know I’m not trying to convince you of global warming. That’s not my point. You obviously aren’t going to change your mind about that, and I never expected that you would. Hence no “facts” about global warming. Besides, getting into the specifics of the hockey-stick graph and eigenvalues and y-axis scales is a bit technical and something better left to climatologists (and when they form an overwhelming global consensus, I humbly accept it).

    My point is that you aren’t saying “we don’t really know, lets figure out the science”… you’re saying “they are lying to you when they tell you they really know”. That’s a big difference. You are alledging the largest conspiracy in the history of science. Hence, there is no need to argue with you over “facts”, because you don’t believe the “facts” because according to you, the “facts” are just part of the grand conspiracy against profit.

    Cold Fusion did’t get consensus, because although a couple of scientists were willing to fudge their numbers, the community as a whole would never sacrifice their reputations like that. The scientific process has worked for hundreds of years…but now, all of a sudden, for the first time, a vast majority of scientists are not just wrong, but LYING.

    The following paper:

    Consensus About Climate Change?
    Roger A. Pielke, Jr.; and Naomi Oreskes (13 May 2005)

    analyzed over 900 scientific papers (found by searching their abstracts for “climate change”) and found that 75% agreed that climate change was real. 25% dealt with scientific methods regarding how to study climate change and held no position. And, not remarkably, not a single paper, 0, nilch, nada, held that climate change was not happenning.

    That’s a big conspiracy. That’s not just al gore. It’s not just the hockey-stick graph. Those things do not a conspiracy make.

    Occam’s razor is all you need to cut this one down.

    Oh, and spare me the sanctimonious BS about Inhofe… the guy introduces bills written by lobbyists, and uses his denial of science to justify the damage to our environment that those laws will result in. They can prove statistically that x many people will get sick and die if an additional y tons of z is put into the environment (mercury, particulates, CFCs, etc…). Inhofe plays a butchers game, bringing profit to business while sending thousands to the hospital to get sick and die.

    Oh, that’s not fair, because…we don’t know exactly how those people will die and who they are, so he’s not killing anyone in particular. Yeah…sure. it’s ok to kill hundreds or thousands or give tens of thousands of kids asthma, as long as we don’t know for sure which ones are our fault.

    So, whether Inhofe is a true believer or not, as Upton Sinclair wrote: ‘It’s difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on him not understanding it.’

    Also, if he is a true beleiver then it’s just incompetence, not malice, but sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice. I suppose that applies to Bush too.

    OK, I’m done playing for now, I gotta get some work done.

  28. Severian says:


    What a complete waste of bandwidth you are Aghast. Still flogging that dead horse until you get horse tartar aren’t you? Your “You’ll never change your mind therefore I won’t give you facts” mantra must be really effective, bet you get lots of converts with that approach. You just want yet another excuse to wander thru and tell everyone why conservatives and Republicans are all so evil and why we are all wrong and to generally whine and moan, and it’s just a pointless effort to allow you to hear yourself “speak.”

    You won’t discuss/debate science because you are incapable of doing so without being embarassed. So why are you wasting your time and irritating your betters?

    If you go and read, actually read rather than take the regurgitated ramblings of the Gore crowd, you’d know that that “paper” you referenced has already been proven to be wrong. The articles it alleges to have studied do not say what the author leads you to believe. This is one of the many, and I mean many many, lies your side puts forth on this issue and refuses to acknowledge even after you’ve been proven wrong. Dishonest and disgusting. And once again, no science from you, just your weak “everybody thinks this way!” lemming-like behavior.

    Well, look at it this way. The majority of people voted for Bush in 04, that didn’t shut you up, why should it matter here?

    Besides, getting into the specifics of the hockey-stick graph and eigenvalues and y-axis scales is a bit technical and something better left to climatologists (and when they form an overwhelming global consensus, I humbly accept it).

    In other words, “It’s haaaarrrrrdd, and I’m laaazzzy and stuuuupid!”

    If you’d try, I think you’d be able to pull your head out of these peoples buttocks, it’d be tough, but possible. Yield to the “experts” or rather to those experts that support what you want to believe, your mama must be sooo proud of her little sheep. In other words, I was right, you have absolutely no scientific ability, education, or skill. And you’re damned proud of it too. :o)

  29. Tom TB says:

    Lorica, you may not be a scientist, but you sure have common sense. They are more than 70 years behind; when were the first reliable weather stations set up at the north and south poles, or New York City’s Central Park for that matter? How long had humans been on this planet, without thermometers? How many years of technological developement did it take so I can watch Al Gore on television show videos of polar bears swimming where he says they used to walk on ice floes? How can he know with any certainty what the earth’s climate was like even a thousand years ago? We are the most adaptable critter on the planet; we can chill the place with a cold beer, and discuss whether the lost city of Atlantis ever existed.

  30. G Monster says:

    I’m glad someone is looking into this global warming thing as it may or may not be important. I got bills to pay and don’t have time to look into it. Maybe we should have Al Gore take a serious look into it. He’s got time, there’s no way he will politicize it, and he did invent the internet after all.

  31. Aghast says:

    Nasty, Nasty stuff Severian. I have no scientific ability, education or skill; you are my “better” and I’m lazy and stupid. And a lemming/sheep, who thinks all republicans are evil. (And I’m the one wasting bandwidth).

    I haven’t used a single ad hominem against you (so far), Severian.

    You sound so angry… one wonders if you might not be able to think rationally about such things with so many negative emotions running through your head.

    Once again, I wasn’t debating the science itself, but your belief in a conspiracy. Which, by the way, you haven’t really responded too.

    I said you wouldn’t accept any “facts”, as you would include them as part of the conspiracy; you proceeded to prove me right in your reponse claiming the Climate Change Paper was part of the conspiracy!

    Your right that the essay “Consensus About Climate Change?” was countered by a variety of think-tank scientists who claimed that some of the papers included showed higher middle age average global temperatures than today (among other irrelevant findings such as the effect of solar variation).

    But that is not a refutation of climate change, as climatologists don’t debate those issues. It’s absolutely true, for example, that the earth has warmed before as much as it has today. The differences are the cause (solar output vs. greenhouse effect) and severity (previous warming trends were up to 2 degrees C, but global warming will result in more drastic changes where “all bets are off”).

    Average daylight on earth is 10% less bright than 50 years ago, they believe due to particulates in the atmosphere. This should result in cooler temperatures…except that the greenhouse effect counters it.

    If what they are saying is true, what would we see? We would see the earth warm slowly. At first (at least until we warm more than 2 degrees), you can say “Well, we’ve seen this before, no big deal”. But it’s not the same. The warming is MUCH faster this time, and solar energy hitting the planet isn’t going up. CO2 is. The fact the the earth was once as warm as it is today doesn’t do ANYTHING to refute global warming.

    The fact that scientists (paid to provide a certain point of view) refute this paper becomes, for you, evidence of the conspiracy. Even when it is an open secret that these scientists are paid to refute this stuff. I mean, we KNOW one side is being paid for their point of view, and yet you alledge conspiracy on the OTHER side.:-?

    We’ve got a $100 billion+ oil industry with a serious incentive to convince you that climate change is BS. Do you deny that? Don’t you think that they could convince people it was BS if scientists would go along with them and say so? How is it possible that the motivation to conspire unethically “against profit” is greater that the motivation to conspire ethically to gain profit? Can you answer that question?

  32. Severian says:

    You’re a laugh a minute Aghast. You want to claim I am a conspiracy monger, when you go on and on and on claiming a big oil conspiracy. You were the one who started the conspiracy claims, implying that there could be no honest reason anyone would disagree with global warming or no profit reason engage in deception to support it. After being pointed out reasons that contradict that, then you change your tune to claiming that everyone else is claiming a conspiracy and only you have the facts about the REAL conspricy which involves big oil. You’d be humorous if you weren’t such a pathetic example of the kind of fuzzy headed thinking that characterizes the left. If you want a serious discussion, and to be treated as something other than a troll, stick with the facts, not your paranoid conspiracy theories.

    Solar input to the earth is increasing, or rather has been for decades. Your claim about it being “dimmer” has to do with the amount of sunlight that reaches the ground, not the amount that’s absorbed by the entire geosphere. The facts of the matter are that sunlight is increasing, the total amount of global warming that has been observed is less than many would have you believe, CO2 forcing accounts for, maybe, a quarter to a third of all warming observed to date, and the fact is that of all the CO2 present humans are responsible for a small percentage of (about a third max), when compared with natural sources, and further additions of CO2 will not drastically increase warming as we are already near the saturation level where the effect tapers off. The oceans are already cooling. The ONLY things that show rampant warming due to CO2 are computer models that postulate one positive feedback loop or another, none of which have ever been observed, and the proponents of these models have gotten to the point where they are drinking their own bathwater, they believe their own ideas too easly. You made numerous other false statements, how do you know global warming is happening so fast now compared to the past? Considering we only have about a few decades of accurate temperature measurements. Oh, I know, you trust Mann, who derrived the entire temperature profile for the entire 15th century based on ONE TREE! There’s ample record of rapid warming, where’s your proof we are even up as far as you say? And where do you get 2 deg, try more like .6 + or – .2 degree K since the end of the 19th century, now take that .6 deg. 2/3rds of it comes from solar irradience, now you’re down to .2 deg. Out of that, even if all of it is due to CO2, you’re facing the fact that at most about a third of the CO2 is man made, so you’re down to .07 deg or less of manmade global warming. Yup, that’s a great reason to decimate the West’s economies and infrastructures, all to possibly prevent another .07 deg rise in temp over the next century, but wait! It’s less than that, as the amount of CO2 present is close to making the atmosphere opaque in the IR bands of interest, meaning the effect from CO2 is about as pronounced as it’s going to be. Yup, sure sounds like a reason to believe the sky is falling…

    But you’re still hung up on the if Big Oil is involved, it’s an evil conspriacy. Grow up. If I seem upset, it’s because I have to deal with idiocy like this on a nearly daily basis and it gets old. And if there is one thing that will PO me more than anything it’s lies in science.

    So, I’d suggest you take your conspiracy mongering back where it came from. You are intellectually dishonest at best. A more important question is why are you so eager to believe this hogwash? Just because the “experts” tell you to? Way to speak truth to power there…:o) Your entire argument is based on a “money is evil” meme, which puts you squarely in the moonbat marxist/socialist camp. Big Oil is not the boogyman.

  33. Lorica says:

    Actually if you must know, I don’t believe in the Ice Age. I think it is all evolutionary drival. Since I brought up evolution, I am going to comment on it. Aghast says “there is no world wide scientific conspiracy”. I disagree. I think when you put like minded people in the same room they will all stand in ageement with each other. Evolution, a theory that billions of dollars and over 150 years of “scientific reseach” has been wasted on. How many countless jobs have been created for “scientists” just to explore this theory, yet there is no money in science. =)) And what exactly has all this waste brought mankind?? There is also no missing link, man didn’t evolve from a ape like bi-ped. I believe that man was created and there is no proof against that. Sneer, laugh, do whatever, but you have no way to disprove creation.

    I believe that the earth and the sun go thru warming and cooling periods and I don’t believe it is due to man’s pollution. I bet that if you added up all the volcanic erruptions in the last 200 years you would have so much more ash and pollution more than any amount of man made pollution, and the earth deals with that.

    Lastly, Al Gore is a Hypocrite. I don’t care how many “carbon credits” he buys. He still owns Occidental Oil stock, which has made him very wealthy. It is the family business so there is no way he will depart with it. I don’t know what you all call a man who says one thing, but does another, but I call it hypocritical. And I don’t tend to listen to this sort of BS. – Lorica

  34. Baklava says:

    Aghast wrote, “the consensus is among scientists, not lay people.

    The lie is from you. You and others acting or reporting it as a consensus. Look up the word. THEN do the due diligence of seeing there isn’t a consensus. Then stop lying. We’ve reported to you. You refuse to hear.

    Aghast wrote, “Look, you can complain that I’m not using science in my arguments, but every scientific point I make will be refuted by some quack somewhere, and that will always be good enough for those who want to deny warming.

    Which scientific argument did you make? All I’ve seen is attack and accuse from you. Keeping up the pattern will not help anyone resolve the issue.

    Aghast wrote, “I haven’t used a single ad hominem against you (so far), Severian.

    Not in my interest whether you did or not. But you didn’t get into the science that Inhofe wrote and said nor anybody else.

    Aghast in your 5:13 post finally started making some assertions with what you think is scientific fact. Thank you. Don’t take so long next time…. Please. The point is that CO2 has been higher than now and the earth was cooler then. All the issues are intermixed. The data against the climatoligists who “claim” global warming is against them. They can’t ignore the other issues and say they have the problem defined. Why? Because of the CONTRADICTING evidence of the past. One of the facts that you presented is contradicted by the data. There is LESS pollution (particulates) in the air now by FAR than a decade or two ago. We (conservatives and liberals) ALL care about the environment. Unfortunately, liberals like to ACT like they care about the environment more and about race more yet when it comes down to the facts all that is left is attacks from leftists on the right. It’s great for politics but does NOTHING for your cause. If you are interested in the cause then do the due diligence. Learn. I’ve been studying this issue for 15 years because I care. I’ve read the research because I care. The politics involved uses such scare mongering and crisis mentality and it does NOTHING but bash people and get people to want to give more money to the scientists asking for it and drives politicians to implement HAIR BRAINED BAD ideas as “solutions”.

  35. Aghast says:

    So your contention is that global warming will not be a disaster, that we’re being alarmist, and that it’s only .07 C rise in temperature. So:

    1. All the run-away scenarios (siberian bog methane, etc…) will turn out to be false
    2. YOUR numbers are correct, and everyone else’s aren’t (cause they are being paid to fight “profit”)
    3. CO2 will reach Saturation levels, or the effect will “taper-off”

    You believe all of that, yet these’s no consensus on those claims. Where are the reputable climate scientists independently replicating and confirming these findings? You advance these theories as fact to refute peer-reviewed claims. It’s one thing to say that the majority of climate scientists don’t really know what’s goin to happen. It’s quite another to say you know exactly whats going to happen.

    Furthermore, we can see the short term trend (since 1910) is significantly faster warming than we have seen in the past, not from ONE tree, but from hundreds of samples of gas trapped in arctic ice, which can be reliably dated.

    Here’s the memo where oil executives outline the plan to spread doubt over global warming:

    Click Here

    You might argue that they believe they are spreading the truth, that they are correct, etc… but you can’t deny that they are actively spending a lot of cash to get people to doubt global warming.

    Hence, a conspiracy to create doubt and muddy the consensus. In plain view. It’s not intentionally “evil” … I just don’t think the oil executives want to believe in climate change, so they don’t; subsequently they feel the need to spend money to counter it.

    And for the record, money isn’t evil. It’s what people will do to hold on to it, sometimes, that is evil. Big oil isn’t the boogeyman, its just an industry that would spread disinformation at a significant cost to humanity for its own gain. I don’t think the boogeyman was a propagandist, and there’s no reason to smear him like that.:)

    Grand international conspiracy against science and profit = boogeyman.
    Big oil = not boogeyman.

    Finally, your contention that responding to climate change will necessarilly “decimate the West’s economies and infrastructures” is specious at best.

    BP implemented kyoto internally (an oil company can do the right thing if they want!) and claims that it is saving them millions of dollars through increased efficiency. Furthermore, I’ve seen an estimate that said it would have cost us less than the Iraq war to implement… and I mention this for a very specific reason:

    my liberal friends complain about the cost of the war, claiming it’s to expensive. It’s not. The cost is ~1% of GDP. I’m sure you’ll agree that’s totally affordable for a nation such as ours. we are so wealthy as a country, we can afford to do a LOT before our economy is “decimated”. Saying we can’t is fear-mongering and alarmism.

    If Iraq, with it’s dubios outcome, was worth it, then taking action on carbon emmisions will be worth it.

    The added benefits of increased efficiency, less dependence of foreign energy, and the possibility to create a new American industry, combined with the fact that if we do nothing, and you are wrong, the costs are SO high… it only makes sense to respond with action before it may be too late.

    If you turn out to be right, I’ll be very happy. But I just can’t see how it would in any way be responsible to just wait to find out.

    If you see a storm coming, you reef the sails, put on your harness and batten down the hatches. You don’t sit there and debate, “well maybe it won’t hit us”. Maybe the storm will move in a different direction and you will be spared, but the consequences of not preparing are too large to ignore.

  36. Severian says:

    Oh great, we’ve got another person who believes that diarrea of the keyboard equates to wit and knowledge. We can go around and around on this, but it’s clear that you have no ability to see the numerous climate scientists who disagree, who point out problems, who have shown that the peer review on many of the things you bring up are either non-existant or are the result of an echo chamber, who have shown problems with these papers in peer review. What, you think all of this stuff is magically peer reviewed by honest brokers? You haven’t been paying attention at all, in fact the global warming alarmist scientists went out of their way to prevent decent peer review of the IPCC findings and the hockey stick. Mann himself said that he wasn’t going to cooperate as they only wanted to find fault. Hello, that’s what peer review is, and his work failed it markedly, despite what others said about it having been peer reviewed, so sell that fairy story somewhere else.

    It is unreasonable to damage entire economies for something that will not matter one whit. You conveniently continue to ignore the facts of the issue, you ignore the failures of the global warming alarmists to adequately explain these issues, fail to acknowledge the deliberate lies and distortions your fellows promote daily, but you sure gotta get that “big oil” boogeyman in again and again and again. It’s a symptom of your irrationality and paranoia, and it’s not compelling.

    We’re in a lifeboat, and you are staring at a tiny cloud on the horizon and saying that a storm is coming we’d better throw all the surplus people out or we’ll be swamped. You are exactly of the same ilk as the people who have kept DDT out of use regardless of the tens of millions of deaths that result. And you still are naive and idiotic enough to not realize that the very scientists and agencies you quote are just as prone and vunerable to the kind of bias you accuse everyone else of. People will act this way, whether for money, ideology, power, prestige, the reasons are endless, which is why peer review was invented, but you need to get peer review from people other than your supporters, something which the global warming crowd has been remiss in.

    If you want to believe in fairy tales, fine, just don’t expect the rest of us to join you in your lunacy and screw ourselves just because it makes you feel good about things. If you have any SCIENTIFIC info that disproves what I say, for example, that CO2 is approaching saturation, etc. provide it. Wet dreams about conspiracy theories don’t cut it.

    And this doesn’t even get to the question of whether or not a warmer earth is a bad thing. Here’s a hint, people do a lot better in a warm earth than during an ice age. Suppose you do manage to reduce the CO2 levels and that actually does have a measurable effect, and I’m right and the sun is diming…you’ve just precipitated a little ice age, which will result in more starvation and privation than another 2 degrees of temp rise will ever accomplish.

    When you are capable of actually discussing facts in detail, maybe you’ll convince people, but not with your conspiracy theories and all oil people are evil and money isn’t to be trusted and everyone who supports you is just the salt of the earth trust me. Bah.

  37. Severian says:

    Oh, and once again you show yourself to be a typical moonbat leftist, you just had to get Iraq into the argument despite the fact it has nothing to do with the subject. Predictable.

  38. Severian says:

    Furthermore, we can see the short term trend (since 1910) is significantly faster warming than we have seen in the past

    And you conveniently ignore the mid-century cooling period, you remember it, the one that had everyone in the 70’s predicting an ice age. Yeah, it’s been all increasing temps. You lie, or are incompetent, pick one.

  39. brad says:

    Well lorica thinks that evolution is a conspiracy. I think thats about the end of the scientific discussion.

    And severian didn’t notice the positive reference to the Iraq war. His mind shut off after reading iraq.

    This is great!

  40. Baklava says:

    As for Kyoto aghast… 95 Senators voted against and ZERO (0 for thosee named aghast) voted for it.

    If you think or BP think Kyoto is the ‘right’ thing it doesn’t mean those who don’t think Kyoto is the right thing are ‘bad’ people. You didn’t call them bad but your contention and contempt comes through.

    Aghast wrote, “If you turn out to be right, I’ll be very happy. But I just can’t see how it would in any way be responsible to just wait to find out.

    Nobody’s talking about “waiting” to find out. We’re are talking about contradicting evidence #1 and #2 we are talking about the “solution” that leftists want to implement being the wrong solutions.

    Let’s just take a for example:
    1) Let’s say one side is asking for changes that will allow energy producing companies to modernize, pollute less, produce more energy with less pollution, and therefore increase energy supply therefore lessening the effect of demand on the energy markets
    2) The other side calls that plan atrocious, gives the plan an “F”, labels it a plan in ‘favor’ of energy companies, harmful for the environment, etc.., and the legacy drive by media propogates these criticisms and continues the theme of bad for the environment ideology and marks the plan an “F” also and calls it a consensus among environmental groups.

    Our (my) challenge to you then Aghast is to get out of the politics of it and review the plan and make some common sense analysis on your own examining both sides of the argument. Most energy producing companies for over 2 decades have been disallowed to modernize, steeped in lawsuits and environmental crisis mongering, and it has HURT the economy (in degrees), hurt consumers and has done NOTHING for the environment as the companies have not been given greenlights to modernize and pollute less. The plan was a Bush plan in his energy Bill. You can call it all sorts of names. It’s name I believe was New Source Review (or something similar).

    Just labeling one side as anti-environment and people with their heads in the sand does NOTHING for resolutions of the problems that we Americans face. Raising the rhetoric to your degree does not debate the science or the policy or the solutions being asked for. If you recognize that 99% of people do care about the “environment” or “race”, you’ll start to see that the difference between the camps lies behind the facts, solutions being asked for, and the the leftism (big government ideas and solutions) or conservativism (less government ideas and solutions) in the agendas. I don’t honestly believe that rank and file leftists are against the environment and you shouldn’t believe it about conservatives.

    What you need to do is look at both sides of the argument (I have) and see which policy and solutions you think address the factual problem.

    Step 1: Define the problem adequately. Taken into all factors. Climate change. Sun intensity and cosmology. Historical data. etc. The climatologists that you site fail to recognize other data that make contradicting points of reference.

    Step 2: Once the problem is defined adquately (which is moving target even today), pick an idea for a solution which you think represents a good solution that will address the problem. Kyoto is agreed to by most economists as a BAD idea and that is why 95-0 it was voted against. Environuts and drive by media types like to hammer only ONE person (Bush) for being against Kyoto but that does nothing for advancing Kyoto merits. Tell us WHAT you Aghast are for or against doing to solve the identified problem that you think exists. Please.

    There are ideas… The one in the example above would’ve been beneficial in many people’s minds but was called an “F” by those entrenched with their agendas.

    You have a lot to do. Take your time and come back with clear headed conciseness….


  41. G Monster says:

    Obviously I don’t think Al Gore is impartial. That was a joke. My opinion is there probably isn’t anything there, but it wouldn’t hurt to have someone look into it. Is there anyway we can look into it without making it a political football?

    I also don’t like to see taxpayer dollars wasted, but as it seems with any government project, even if started with good intentions, typically gets taken advantage of somewhere down the line.

    I like the new tesla ( as you all know. (No, I don’t own any stock yet, I am still busy paying off my wife’s Macy’s card.) Wouldn’t hurt to cut back on our fuel consumption here. And this was a project funded privately I believe.

  42. Lorica says:

    What science Brad??? So much of the “science” that has been used here is reacting to climate information from the last 25 years.

    Instead of just throwing out a cute comment answer my question. What good has the science of evolution brought to mankind?? We are desended from apes?? Ohh boy!!! So lets waste a couple 100 billion dollars and 150 years…… Good job. I was simply refuting the claim that there is no money in science, that is a flat out lie. Science will track down any stupid theory they want and there will be tons of money following it. I am not against science either, hell I am not against evolution research, but don’t claim a theory as fact and then try to convice the rest of the world cuz you know so much more than the rest of us knuckle draggers. This is what they have done with evolution and this is what is trying to be done with climate research. – Lorica

  43. Lorica says:

    And Al Gore isn’t an impartial observer, not at all, but so many think that he knows so much, bull. His family made a fortune from owning big oil, and now he runs around and says it is evil…. and that oil should be 5.00 a gallon. Geee wiz Batman….. no profit there for the Gore family, but people fall over themselves to quote good ole Al. Get real, why would I listen to 1 thing that man says. – Lorica

  44. brad says:

    Evolution has gotten us basically all of the organization of modern biology. For you, more immediately, this cartoon may explain it.

    I dont think the argument is that there is no money in science. PhARMA profit counters that. I think the argument is that there aren’t scientists with a profit motive in the global warming debate. But there are oil companies.

    Its a fact that evolution happens. Its also a theory that comports with the facts and quite nicely explains things.

  45. Aghast says:

    “And you conveniently ignore the mid-century cooling period”

    That is clearly due to the offset of a different, moderate periodic trend that is clearly visible on temperature graphs of that scale. Go take a look.

    I’m oversimplifying here, but if you have a graph of y = x (global warming trend), and you add a graph of y = sin(x) (the moderate cycle) to it, you will see an uptrend followed by a leveling-off followed by an uptrend.

    The upward bias is clearly visible on the graph, and the midcentury cool period doesn’t change that.

    If your contention is that the sun is putting out more light, A 2006 study and review of existing literature, published in Nature, determined that there has been no net increase in brightness since the mid 1970s, and that changes in solar output within the past 400 years are unlikely to have played a major part in global warming. But there has clearly been a warming trend since the late 1970s!

    As for what to do about it, Baklava, there are so many things that could be done.

    More Rail (anyone who has travelled in europe – both in subways and on major railways – knows that americans got screwed on this one) rail is very efficient.
    Nuclear Energy – modern designs are very safe and its the best we’ve got
    Manhattan Project-style effort to research and develop industrial efficiency, CO2 sequestration, renewable energy, and clean transportation technologies. (we CAN afford it)
    Plug-in hybrids. It’s so simple it hurts. A plug-in hybrid allows you to drive 60 miles or so at a time on battery power alone. The engine kicks in when the battery is low, but ONLY when the battery is low. You don’t need to burn any oil or give any more money to foreign states unless you go on a road trip. Most people drive less than 60 miles a day, so we can eliminate a significant source of CO2, while simultaneously enhancing our economic security. The more we get on the road, the cheaper they’ll be. They can be powerful, they can be large (you can keep your SUV). They will save you money at the gas pump. And yes, it will cost a bit more at first, though tax rebates on ultra-low-emission vehicles (instead of on hummers) is good policy.

    When I drive on the highway, I see new cars everywhere…most cars don’t seem more than a few years old. It wouldn’t take long to seriously reduce our dependence on oil.

    Of course, such a change would threaten existing industries. For such a change to occur, one would have to remove the stranglhold that those industries have on our elected officials. Because an idea like that takes nurturing. It needs champions in government to develop support, to drive things forward.

    And Gore’s carbon tax idea is actually genius. It might shift the tax burden onto polluters…but in the end it would be very effective in creating a significant incentive to reduce carbon output, while forcing the market to price in the environmental costs of a product. Thus creating competition to increase efficiency. It would also create a new industry geared towards carbon reduction, thus creating jobs and wealth. I know you conservatives have a political philosophy (tax cuts) that couldn’t accept that. Well… cutting taxes is a campaign gimmick, not a political philosophy, so get over it. You were lied to, your money belongs to the government, and we liberals will decide what to do with it come november. (I’m kidding here guys)

    It used to be that we had leaders with vision. JFK took us to the moon. Eisenhower built the interstate system. Huge achievements from strong leaders with vision. Today we have a leader who says we’re addicted to oil, and then does nothing.

    Forget about global warming for a second. oil is not going to be around forever. There is not an infinite supply of the stuff, and even if it takes 500 years to run out, it will get more and more expensive until it does.

    To become much less dependent on oil now will help further generations out big-time in the future.

    Any real solutions involve shaking things up. If one is to scared to shake things up, one is paralyzed from doing anything meaningful about the problem.

  46. Severian says:

    Cute, when data doesn’t support your views,it’s a normal data flucuation that doesn’t speak to the underlying truth of your beliefs. I got it, glad we got that straight.

    That “upward” trend you talk about does not fit in well with your CO2 warming theory, particularly because of the cooling trend, one which is occurring again at present. During the period when the cooling was occurring atmospheric CO2 was rising fairly rapidly, which fails to demonstrate the kind of correlation you seem to believe exists between CO2 and climate. And, the entire trend you believe is happening is based once again on Mann’s infameous hockey stick, which splices disparate data together. The same tree ring data he manipulated to show no temp rise over the past millenia also does not show any significant rise in temperature in this past century, which is why he spliced on the measured data. Which itself is suspect as it does nothing to mitigate urban heat island effect. Your entire proposition that atmospheric CO2 is the principal driver in global warming, let alone anthropogenic CO2, is built on sand.

    You seem to be fond of quoting “studies” or summaries of other papers, after they have been digested by a suitably docile, ideologically correct reviewer, you should try reading the real research. For Example Estimated increases since the 1600’s are 0.7%, 0.2% and 0.07% in broad ultraviolet, visible/near-IR and far IR bands respectively. The total irradiance increase over this period is ~0.2%. Curiously enough, the amount of temperature rise of the earth in that same time frame is about 0.2%, which, while I doubt the entire amount of warming is due to solar radiation, correlates far more precisely than atmospheric CO2 and planatery temperature.

    Your problem is that you don’t view this as science, you obviously view it the way many do religion. People who disagree are not honorable scientists who are doing their part, they are apostates. You view this as a grand excuse to practice the liberal’s favorite pastime, social engineering using other people’s money. You can tell this by the simple fact that your posts are about 1% dealing with the science and 99% in favor of massive societal and cultural and technological changes to address a problem that does not exist. It’s an excuse for social engineering.

    That’s the entire gist of your rants, you want to use a science that is not accurate but which you can use the media to creat a panic with to force the kind of social changes you can’t enact thru conventional means, and this is part and parcel of the totalitarianism that flows form the socialist left. You’ve demonstrated no compelling evidence you really understand the science underlying all of this. I seriously doubt you’ve seen any of the real data that hasn’t already been prechewed for you.

    As I said before, you’re either dishonest or incompetent, which is it. Are you honestly incapable of realizing that your theories are deeply flawed, or do you realize it and cynically push flawed science in order to try and effect your social agenda.

  47. Baklava says:

    Aghast wrote, “knows that americans got screwed on this one)

    Only the Americans that want rail for free making other Americans pay for it and guess what…. that is a LESS amount of people in America that WANT it. Given the other priorities that are voted for and here in CA those priorities are voted against more often than not. I’d say the American people WON!!!! :)

    This is from an American and Californian that rides the bus every day into downtown Sacramento to work. I’m not screwed. I’m doing great!!! :)

    Aghast wrote, “Nuclear Energy” Please tell this to your eviro-nut friends. OK. That was uncalled for. :) But the crisis mongerers exist there also and you must understand that we can’t MOVE FORWARD because of these people… They are keeping energy companies locked up in a non-modernized way. New Source Review is sneered at and called an “F” even though it would allow energy companies to spend much less on modernization, pollute less, make more energy , etc. Nuclear Energy plants have been decomissioned (as in one near me in CA) but not built. In fact, besides the 3 new energy plants just built, CA hasn’t seen new energy plants in the last 2 decades which caused the 20% out of state electricity needs and problem for Gray Davis as the other states needed their own energy. Gray Davis liked to call it a Big Energy problem screwing CA’nians. He blamed it on de-regulation but it was actually extra-regulation by the state prohibiting energy companies from buying energy in long term contracts (exactly what Gray did) and because of that prohibition energy had to be purchased on the spot and peak periods had ridiculous prices. Thanks you extra-regulators in Sacramento. Liars all of them that did it.

    Aghast wrote, “Plug in Hybrids” I’m reminded that your problem doesn’t seem to be anything except for the American people themselves. We don’t want what you are selling. Maybe a few. For sure. I see a few people who talk about modified Prius’s that have a switch just like the ones in Japan that only run on battery until almost all is drained. What’s funny is that BIG GOVERNMENT (read leftism) is what caused the Prius not to be sold that way here (it was in a Yahoo story that I’m not going to find and link here) and the American people LIKE the way the Prius is now anyway due to the longer distances on average they drive. It does all the thinking for them and automatically doesn’t drain the batteries (which is hard on batteries) all the way down.

    I see you going again on the industry strangehold topic and your references to the evil oil industry is laughable. You need to grow up.

    As for the manhattan project that you refered to. I saved it for last. There is BIG business in figuring out ways to tap into alternative energy sources for home, transportation (cars), electricity, etc. The fact that liberals like yourself deride the effort going on is not helpful. What would be helpful is to recognize how we do things in America as compared to other countries. For instance: America found more uses for stem cells via private companies doing stem cell research by FAR. There was no reason economically or productively for the federal government to have to or for CA (we voted for a proposition for 3 billion in new spending for it) to spend money for it. Also, all of the research by private companies have found zero uses for embryonic stem cells (not for the lack of trying) and over 40 uses for umbilical cord stems cells. Unfortunately, liberals and the drive by media do not want to talk about these facts they reduce it to we good, conservatives bad and we are for science and you are religious nut speak. THanks for being so political /end sarcasm. You don’t forward the debate.

    Back to energy. More is researched and explored here in America by far in all the energy areas but Universities, car companies, companies of all types here in America. Our innovative ways with return on investments and good ideas fuels breakthroughs. We have had major advancements in the last few decades but you are correct that we are still dependant on oil for our cars. Why? Because it is a more economical way of moving us around than any of the alternative ways. That is not evil. It isn’t a “strangehold by oil companies”. It is fact. It is very economical comparatively. We do have alternative ways of getting us around and when the American public buy into those ways in big ways then we will. Again your problem is with everyone and reality.

  48. Aghast says:

    “Your problem is that you don’t view this as science, you obviously view it the way many do religion. People who disagree are not honorable scientists who are doing their part, they are apostates.”

    I’m not the one claiming a grand international conspiracy of scientists to convince people of global warming in an effort to damage capitalist profit and make republicans look evil.8-| You are. You are claiming that thousands of scientists are not honorable. I am claiming that 60 or so are not.

    The projection is enlightening though.

    And you didn’t seem to understand what I said regarding temperatures and combining effects. You mentioned a timeframe of 1600 years…completely irrelevant to what I was saying!

    You just had to look at the temperature of the last 300 years or so to see what I was talking about, but you didn’t, and you went on some irrelevant rant. I thought you were a physicist. I made it clear that the graph was similar to y=sin(x) + x, and broke down the components (regular moderate cycle combined with warming trend), yet you responded to that with nonsense. At this point I don’t really expect you to understand or internalize what I’m saying, because you have a clear agenda against understanding this. It threatens your worldview, why would you accept it?

    Baklava, Yes, the market will solve all problems… until the solution requires a shakeup that would threaten existing industries.

    And yes, many California cities have great public transportation systems… but I’m more concerned with inner-city travel (in places where it’s sorely needed, like Atlanta). The atlanta public rail transportation system is two perpendicular lines. No outer loop, no lines go all the way to the suburbs. Mostly useless for 90% of the population. Compare that to Paris’ metro, that can take you to within a few blocks of almost anywhere in the city. Freight trains are MUCH more efficient than trucks, and are currently taking up more cargo everyday that used to go on trucks.

    Freight and subways are not money losing propositions. And let’s not pretend that our friends in the auto and gas industries lobbied against public transportation for a long time. The people were never against it. That’s fantasy.

    As for regular rail travel (between cities), the interstate system is the real reason we don’t use rail more…as gas gets more expensive, you’ll see rail become more popular.

    Furthermore, you really display some ignorance regarding what america wants, what it will take, etc…

    “people LIKE the way the Prius is now anyway due to the longer distances on average they drive. It does all the thinking for them and automatically doesn’t drain the batteries (which is hard on batteries) all the way down.”

    You don’t even understand what a plug-in hybrid is!

    “the longer distances they drive” would be powered by the engine, so there’s no problem there.
    And batteries getting run down? are you serious? deep cycle batteries have had no problem running all the way down for decades. Newer battery technologies make battery memory a thing of the past (li-poly specifically).

    Furthermore, you don’t have to have a switch that people have to think about…the car computer can turn the engine on and switch the drivetrain to use it when batteries get low.

    And it wasn’t BIG GOVERNMENT that stopped the pliug-in hybrid… Toyota claims they are readying the technology and will make them available soon. The only issue left is the high cost of batteries (and a way to dispose of them safely). As with any new technologies, the cost will come down significantly once mass-production gets underway.

    The challenges are not technical, they are political.

    But at the end of your post you really go off your rails Baklava…

    “all of the research by private companies have found zero uses for embryonic stem cells ” – that’s categorically untrue. You show yourself to be completely susceptible to absorbing and re-emmitting propaganda. They have not introduced approved medical treatments using them, but there are absolutely trials that show incredible promise for these cells beyond what adult or umbilical stem cells can do.

    And really, Stem cells? You’re just going on a government spending rant here… but as I said above, we can totally afford it, and the war in Iraq proves that we can. Plus the dollars we spend on a Manhattan-style project never have to leave the country, so there will be no net loss to our economy. (but, yes, there will be a shakeup).

    You can have your SUV. You can have your sports car. It will cost you HALF as much as gas costs today to run. Your blanket proclamations that americans don’t want it is unfounded and obviously heavily biased toward a political agenda.

  49. G Monster says:

    I do like the fact that Aghast is debating in a civil manner. He may or may not be right, but I am willing to listen to his arguments. He’s the only leftie I’ve seen that is willing to debate and listen to opposing arguments. I must agree with Baklava, that it will be private companies that bring us the new technology.

    My opinion is that there are too many politicians out there, willing to stick their hand in the cookie jar, and assign jobs or contracts to friends or relatives. Please notice I didn’t specify whether the dems were republicans or democrats.

  50. G Monster says:

    FYI, Al Gore is going for the “grandpa munster” look, to compete with John Kerry’s “lurch” look.

    Please note, if these 2 weren’t so mean, I wouldn’t be mean back.

  51. G Monster says:

    I’m not a believer in global warming as of yet, mainly because Al Gore is pushing it. I know Al Gore is out to make himself rich with no concern for his country, as he has displayed by going to Saudi Arabia, and speaking against the United States.

    I’m just saying we need to cut way back on our consumption of foreign oil. I think the electric car is the future. I hope this country gets the jump on everyone else, and builds it’s own electric cars, and hopefully is so far advanced that we export them to the other countries and make money.

  52. Lorica says:

    Good one Brad. So now we are comparing humans to viruses?? I always thought that most viruses or germs were pretty simple on a cellular level, compared to human beings that is. I must be confused. It is good to see you are using a Doonsbury cartoon to help explain it to me.

    The organization of the modern biology is not what I am getting at. I have no problem with the theory of evolution for animals. Sure there is plenty to suggest that is a possibility My problem is bringing it over to humans. You can’t find any single ongoing evidence that evolution works for humans. Which at one time, race was considered evidence of human evolution, but that was proven completely in error. I have only talked about humans in this little evolutionary discussion. Seems to me that humans are getting a raw deal when it comes to evolution. – Lorica

  53. Aghast says:

    Thanks G Monster

    I’m here in good faith, though I don’t really expect to change anyone’s mind here. I like trying to figure out what you guys are thinking, and can’t help responding when I read something that irks me.

  54. Baklava says:

    Aghast wrote, “And yes, many California cities have great public transportation systems… but I’m more concerned with inner-city travel (in places where it’s sorely needed, like Atlanta).

    That has less to do with BIG oil and more to do with priorities and expeditures by the leftist who run the big cities (including Atlanta, New Orleans, Dallas or wherever). More money is wasted by leftists on dependancy and not spent on infrastructure related items because of the budget strains created by dependancy. Leftism causes cities to over tax and businesses tend to move out because of hte burden. Conservatives believe in creating a situation where employment and employers benefit with lower taxes. With lower taxes and the conomy thriving and businesses not leaving dependancy on government is LESSENED and it allows for cities to invest in capitol improvements and buses and water and other infrastructure. Leftists are “well intentioned” don’t get me wrong, but their solutions cause more harm than good. You are talking to a former leftists who has studied the issues at length here and converted to conservativism in 1991 after visiting the library 3 times a week that year. My conservativism grows stronger everyday. Why? Because I do care and am well intentioned.

    Aghast misinformed by saying, “The people were never against it. That’s fantasy.” There are plenty of times my misinforming co-poster that CA’nians voteed against a proposition for a rail or this or that because it cost too much or taxed too much. Sure people want things for free. But you wrote “the people were ‘never’ against it. That isn’t true. People vote everyday with their pocketbooks. The bus that I take is fairly full but not completely even in spite of the high gas prices. If MORE people rode the bus the city would by MORE buses. If the demand is there the supply would be met through dollars. Reality is key here.

    Aghast attempted insult by saying, “You don’t even understand what a plug-in hybrid is!

    I know very well what it is. I have more knowledge in my right brain on this subject than you have in your entire brain. OK. Enough with that fun. Seriously though. I tried to explain that I know what it is and that there is a news story on the subject that I read months ago. My background is on electronics and instead of readhing comprehension you jumped to thinking you know what I know and insulting. Maybe I wasn’t clear. People here aren’t clamoring for the plug in hybrid though some are. The most important point is the REASON why Toyota disables the button for America. It’s the BIG government stupid! Due to the regulations it chose to do business here with the button disabled and even tells customers that you will VOID the warranty if you modify your Prius. Not to mention that if you plug it in you might be getting your energy from a coal fired plant and polluting more.

    Aghast wrote, “deep cycle batteries have had no problem running all the way down for decades.

    Tell me Aghast. Do you know that there is a limit to how many times a deep cycle battery can be drawn down? The answer is yes. The only reason why it’s called a deep cycle battery is because it can handle it better and more times than another battery. :-w

    Aghast wrote, that’s categorically untrue. You show yourself to be completely susceptible to absorbing and re-emmitting propaganda. They have not introduced approved medical treatments using them, but there are absolutely trials that show incredible promise for these cells beyond what adult or umbilical stem cells can do

    Get back to me child when those uses have come through. Grow up and stop with the incessant propensity to attack others who have a different message than you. You just stated what I stated. There are ZERO uses for embryonic stem cells to date. I didn’t talk about what was promising to be useful later. The point is also that you seemed to miss is that it doesn’t require GOVERNMENT funds in AMerica. We have lots of exploration and research and development in all of these areas. It is hte ONLY reason why I brought it up. Yet you attack me as being susceptible to propoganda as if you are all knowing and know what I know etc.

    Aghast wrote, “It will cost you HALF as much as gas costs today to run.

    What technology will cost half as much. Which one? Please do tell! You did not pinpoint which one and the short talk on plug in hybrids is evidence that yes the energy has to come from somewhere and does cause faster degradation levels of the batteries. The size battery the Prius has will not get you very far before it has to start charging the battery with it’s engine and the calculations are(done a few years ago when electricy was cheaper) that the amount of electricity to charge the battery to get you the amount of miles down the road costs you about $2.00 to $3.00 of electricity per 20-40 miles (depends on the size of the plug in hybrid we are talking about). These electric motors draw lots of energy. They aren’t 450 watt motors that you find in electric drills. They are motors that draw Kilowatts. More than your electic stove’s heating elements. More than your 9,000 watt electic oven depending on which hybrid you are talking about.

    Finally, Aghast wrote, “Your blanket proclamations that americans don’t want it is unfounded and obviously heavily biased toward a political agenda.

    It’s based on the fact that we don’t have these alternative cars in mass. That’s reality. Americans don’t want to buy something that they can’t rely on being able to transport them around the country and find a filling station to fill it. If it’s not diesel or gas America won’t buy it. Hybrid’s are great promise and people are buying them even though they are heavier (example the Prius is heavier than the Toyota Echo) because the larger battery, electrical components and motors, and even though they are pricier up front by a few thousand. That does NOT sound like HALF the cost. That sounds like MORE money to people. and it is not an agenda but reality.

    Leftists (I used to be one) have trouble with reality. Facts matter less.

  55. Aghast says:


    The differences between humans from different parts of the world are absolutely due to evolutionary adaptation. What social scientists have been saying is that the divergence between races is mostly skin-deep. We most certainly have not diverged as a species. If an asian person and a white person couldn’t interbreed…then we’d have a serious difference.

    Evolution occurs when populations are stressed and usually isolated, causing individuals to be selected out of the population for one reason or another. Of course evolution is happenning today with humans: true, our population is growing, and we aren’t living in isolated populations, but people with serious health problems live longer and are able to pass those problems on…they are no longer being selected out of the population. I guess you could say we are bound to devolve in that respect. Also, republicans have more children than democrats…since 80% of people follow their parents’ political affiliations, we are evolving into a more republican population(you should like that!). I guess you could say we’ll devolve in that respect too :d (kidding guys)

    So what makes humans different from other animals from an evolutionary standpoint? Are you saying animals evolved from their ancestors but humans didn’t?

  56. Aghast says:

    Baklava, I don’t mean to rude here, but you’re projecting again.

    Just one question… see if you can answer just this one, then you can launch into whatever tirade you want condemming leftists and big government

    Why would your critisism of plug-in hybrids involve range, if you knew what a plug-in hybrid was?

    And, for the record:

    It will cost you HALF as much as gas costs today to run.

    is true. according to people who have done their own conversions, because they plug into the grid every night (when electricity is cheaper) they pay the equivalent of 130 to 160 MPG in electricity costs. As gas gets more expensive, those numbers (relative to the price of gas) can only go UP.

    Harping on the technology gets you nowhere… you know it’s possible to do it. Missle defense…that’ll work, plug-in hybrids? no way! (for the record I think missle defense CAN work, because I’m not willing to ignore science in service of a political agenda)

    And a plug-in hybrid can run on gas like any other car…400 miles on a tank of gas…that’s the point. gas for long range, electric for commuting.

    And subways can pay for themselves when actually designed to be useful.

    Frankly Baklava, all your ranting about big government and leftists is totally irrelevant. If big government stopped plug-in hybrids, point me to the beaurocracy and I’ll give them hell.

    But leftist policies never stopped any plug in hybrid. Your explaination of “the button on the prius” is irrelevant, because the prius, unmodified, still isn’t a plug-in hybrid. It doesn’t PLUG IN!!!!

    And don’t expect me to believe that oil companies don’t see this as a threat to their bottom line. they’d be stupid not too.

    Your post was just so wrong.

  57. Severian says:

    Aghast, you are the one who keep mixing data sets. You mentioned a puff piece claiming that the sun wasn’t responsible for warming, I merely pointed you to real data that shows this to be wrong. Real data, not a news article written about a report that wss written to summarize what other people wrote in their reports. You seem to prefer your facts pre-digested and pre-chewed. Your nonsensical point about plotting data and superpositiion of different trends was not the reason for that quotation but since you mention it, it has more relevance than you realize. Since the 1600’s, not only has the solar output increased, but if you look over the timeframe involved, and extend it back to the 1100’s, you will note that there was a warming period, the Medieval Warm Period, followed by a prolonged cooling period, the “Little Ice Age”, followed by another warming period up to the current era. You want us to believe that the cooling period in the 70’s, despite the rise in atmospheric CO2, was simply an anomaly of a short term cycle laid over a longer term rise, despite the fact that the data does not support that sufficiently. What is more supported is that the current warming trend is a part of a longer term, multi-century oscillation that CO2 has little to no effect on, and the short term oscillations are laid over that. Look at the temp data, we’ve seen warm periods where there was no CO2 loading, followed by cold periods, and a warm period that just happens to coincide with CO2 rising, but all of which correlate with solar output. This, however, doesn’t support the kind of rampant social engineering you want to accomplish, so it just has to be CO2, and man made CO2 at that, which you continue to assert despite having been shown the flaws with that argument.

    As for your incessant harping on conspiracy theories, you created the straw man that I claimed thousands of scientists were in a conspiracy, when you’re tired of getting straw burns from humping that straw man and are ready to move on let me know. You made the absolutely ludicrous statement that there is nothing that would make all these scientists agree whereas evil big oil money was the only explanation for the dissenters. Bull. I pointed out various reasons scientists would do the opposite. Dislike of globalization, dislike of western power and US hegemony, basic dislike of humanity in general, desire to get research funding from governmental agencies, desire to get fame and recognition, desire to grow their influence and department size, desire to get funding to pursue their pet projects, desire to prove a deeply held belief is right (I’ve seen that one more than I’d like , people who either deliberately or unconsciously slant data because they just cant’ face the fact their theory is incorrect). All of these are obviously in play with some people, and all of them will drive these same people, regardless of a divergent background or views, into supporting the same dishonest story about anthropogenic global warming. There are people out there who think to themselves, hey, if I go along with this we get funding, I get to do the research I want to do, and it’s not like it’s really hurting anyone, I mean, mankind needs to be controlled and reigned in, so a little white lie is OK. Gore himself has admitted to this philosophy, it’s OK to lie and exaggerate as long as it’s for a good cause.

    But no, these people are all pure as the driven snow and the only thing that can possibly influence people is evil oil money.

    You have not countered even basic falshoods in your data that you support, the pro warming side you have accepted as the truth a priori. You have never addressed the massive distortions and outright lies that went into the manufacturing of the hockey stick. All you are interested in is saying that there is no debate, that this is true, and therefore we should all just shut up like good sheep and go along with whatever social engineering you think is best for us.

    Until you can present truly compelling data that it is CO2 that is forcing the temperature rise, and that it is manmade CO2 that is causing it, you are just rationalizing the kind of changes you want to see in the world and lying to try and convince people that they should go along. There has been massive fraud in the pro global warming community, for whatever reasons, and it stinks to high heaven. YOu have not refuted a single one of the numerical analyses about CO2 percentages and effects, you have not provided any real data, just a trivial lesson in algebra and graphing basic functions.

    Mankind is not responsible for more than a tiny fraction of the warming, and there is absolutely no proof that the world will be worse off with a minor warming than with a cooling, in fact evidence points the opposite way.

    Until you can come up with something other than your transparent attempt to claim that all the dissent is from evil old Big Oil, and that all the pro warming scientists are all honest and pure, and provide something more credible than what you have to support the contention that warming is man made and also is catastrophic, you are just another true believer trolling cyberspace looking for an audience.

  58. Baklava says:

    Aghast asked a good question, “Why would your critisism of plug-in hybrids involve range, if you knew what a plug-in hybrid was?

    It wasn’t a criticism. It was more or less a quickly worded (therefore poorly) statement on how Americans want things. We want it to think for us. We don’t want to have to fiddle or remember to push a button like the ones in Japan. I personally have a minivan and would buy a manual tranmission minivan if they made them. But they don’t here. Why? Because of the marketplace. Not enough of a demand. I was enumerating a few reasons why it’s NOT here. It’s NOT because of BIG oil that Toyota decided to market they way they did to Americans. Americans want a statement of reliability (read 100,00 mile battery life). Deep cycling batteries do degrade their lives faster whether you recognize it or not. Regulations and marketing decision was the reason.

    Aghast laughingly wrote, “It will cost you HALF as much as gas costs today to run.

    I suppose you don’t pay the electric company anything to run your stove or oven!!! Where do you live? We need to move there!!! Facts matter still. Please enumerate the reasons why you think a plug in hybrid with it’s 1) higher up front cost 2) cost of electricity when pluggin in 3) still needing gas to go a distance will cost HALF as much as gas costs today to run?

    Aghast wrote, “they pay the equivalent of 130 to 160 MPG in electricity costs

    Please share with us the source for these calculations. As far as I can gather it isn’t true for anything that weighs as much as a Prius or Escape Hybrid.

    Aghast wrote, “Harping on the technology gets you nowhere… you know it’s possible to do it.

    I’m sorry buy either through reading comprehension or my not being clear, you get the impression that I’m saying that it’s technically impossible. That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that it isn’t because of BIG oil and it is because of the realities of the American marketplace. I’m also refuting a few of your claims. Is any of the ohter guys having problems understanding my point here? Sev?

    Aghast wrote, “Frankly Baklava, all your ranting about big government and leftists is totally irrelevant.

    OK. So creating more dependancy on government will help free up government to have expenditures on infrastructure? Is that what you are saying? Otherwise my point is relevant. It is due to big government mentality that many locations can’t afford the pipe dreams you are talking about. They are pipe dreams because of the lack of ability to afford these projects. Things aren’t free. They cost money. Lots of it.

    And because you asked for it, here is the link:

    It has the following text:

    *Disclaimer: The modification below is undertaken at your own risk. It could result in damage to your vehicle. You could be injured doing the modification. It could easily void your warranty. It may reduce your gas mileage. It may shorten the life of your NiMH battery and lead to early replacement [NOT HALF THE COST AGHAST]not covered by the Hybrid Warranty. It may irreversibly damage the HV ECU (Hybrid Computer) of your car and require expensive replacement. Neither the author, Evan Fusco, MD nor anyone distributing this document will be held responsible for injuries or damage or financial loss resulting from any of the modifications. If you choose to make these alterations to your vehicle you do so under your own risk and responsibility. The information here is provided for informational purposes only and it is not suggested or advised that you carry them out. You should not try this unless you are reasonably comfortable working with electronics. I provide no guarantee that the information contained here is accurate though I’ve tried to assure that it is.
    What this is:
    These instructions allow you to take advantage of the built-in feature of what is commonly called “EV (electric vehicle) Mode” of your 2004+ Prius. In Japan and European versions of the Toyota Prius the vehicle is sold with an EV Button pre-installed by Toyota. For some reason, in the North American version this button is left off (note: speculation focuses on possible EPA/NHTSB regulations that were unclear as to whether the option to use 2 different ‘fuels’ was legal.

  59. Great White Rat says:

    A good reference for the global warming debate is The Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjorn Lomborg.

    Professor Lomborg admits he’s “an old left-wing Greenpeace member”. His original undertaking was proving those of us who discount global warming as simple right-wing propagandists. The intent was to examine all the statistics the right uses and prove we’re all wrong. Instead, he found that the data stood up to careful scrunity and conflicted with the libs’ myths about pollution, global warming, disappearing forests, etc. And he had the integrity to say so.

    It’s a very well documented work. Not a light read, but well worth the time.

  60. Baklava says:

    I’ve read so much of his work GWR.

    Yes. Well worth the time. Can’t be discounted quickly as Algore does.

  61. Aghast says:

    Bjorn Lomborg?

    The number of refereed publications Lomborg has produced on statistical or other scientific analysis of environmental issues? 0.

    He was a political scientist and game theoriest, not a climatologist. And greenpeace has no record of Lomborg ever being actively involved in the organisation. His cred is zilch. He openly appealed to other scientists in a now-public letter to help respond to claims of “shoddy science”…he can’t even defend his own work. Those who support him are social scientists…not natural scientists. See a trend here?

    When he submits his work to peer review, I’ll be happy to look at it. But this guy has been thoroughly debunked (i know, by scientists who are bent on perpetrating a hoax, right?).

    See… it doesn’t matter what “facts” are presented…. you’ll always believe that they are manufactured, because they challenge your worldview (sorry, it’s really because they conspire against profit). And I will always find ten scientists to every one you trot out whe presenting your “facts”, because there’s a consensus on my side.

    I know, they are all wrong and you are right. when your guy submits to peer review, maybe we can have a debate about that.

    But all of this, you don’t really know, but I do crap is stupid. Niether of us are climatologists… we aren’t an appropriate group to be coming to a conclusion on this. but you won’t even admit that the people studying this have reached consensus…because you read a book, by a non-climatologist, that was never peer reviewed (and when investigated was found to be, even if not intentionlly, scientifically fraudulent).

    I know, I know, you’ll say “Aghast’s giving up on the argument, he admits he doesn’t have the facts, etc…”. No, I’m just done with trying to counter nonsense, only to be responded to with more straw-grasping nonsense.

    You can’t distinguish between rational and non-sensical arguments, becuase you wish so much for one side to be true.

    Hey, I’d love for you to be right. I have NO agenda in promoting global warming. But I’m certainly not going to ignore consensus and focus on a someone who gets no respect from the relevant scientific community, simply because he tells me what I want to hear.

  62. Baklava says:

    I could’ve guessed you would casually attack and dismiss Lomborg. You never deal with the substance… or almost never. When you do deal with the substance you do so atrociously with little reading comprhension…. just stringing along phrases and snippets that aren’t very well thought out.

    Next time. Read his work. It’ll take awhile. Look at both sides of the argument.

    You do not deserve the right to even speak his name let alone cast him aside so callously like you do. A mere lay person yourself you admit and not a good one. This is what we expect from liberals because we’ve seen the pattern before. You continue it.

    Aghast continues to try to perpetuate this lie, “but you won’t even admit that the people studying this have reached consensus

    Look up the word again. Then look for the scientists who disagree with your theory and their evidence. Then you will have done the due diligence to see your are not being truthful.

    Aghast wrote with florish, “You can’t distinguish between rational and non-sensical arguments, becuase you wish so much for one side to be true.

    Whatever… you failed to let us know what source of energy will zip us around for half the cost. You failed. Not us.

  63. Severian says:

    Is any of the ohter guys having problems understanding my point here? Sev?

    I thought your points were clear, if one of them was perhaps awkwardly put from the standpoint of Conan the Grammarian, I understood you. Aghast either did and deliberately misinterpreted it or didn’t, but that goes back to my he’s either incompetent or dishonest comment. There are significant other issues with plug in hybrids, and with hybrids in general relating to amount of energy needed to manufacture, to “fuel” (as you point out, wall power has to come from somewhere, and without analysis there is absolutely no guarantee that moving the point of power generation from the car to the power plant, with the attendent losses and inefficiencies from transferring power over long distances will increase or decrease efficiency and pollution). But it’s the general type of “cure” the left provides for us, not proven, not really practical, but it feels good, makes a good headline, and costs money. I thought your comments on the free market aspects of why certain cars are not going to work here was right on target, but what kind of response can you expect from someone who blames the evil oil companies for paying off all the thousands of scientists who disagree with global warming.

    You can’t distinguish between rational and non-sensical arguments, becuase you wish so much for one side to be true.

    Aghast is a funny one to making that statement considering how much hero worship he lavishes on those “experts” who he agrees with. He certainly has an overabundence of “respect” for authority, well, for authority he agrees with anyway.

  64. brad says:


    This is why I said the science discussion was over. You don’t get that the organizing principle behind biology would apply across all of biology. You’d think I was somehow crossing a line between viruses and humans. Why are humans so special to you? why beyond biology?

  65. Baklava says:

    Sev wrote, “ absolutely no guarantee that moving the point of power generation from the car to the power plant, with the attendent losses and inefficiencies from transferring power over long distances will increase or decrease efficiency and pollution)

    You have too much common sense. And added on that is the fact that the power required to charge a battery and then to use that power ends up as a 50% power loss already. CA has during peak hours needs that are 20% greater than it has supply so it has to transfer energy across long distances over power lines and every few hundred miles is so much loss of the energy that it’s ridiculous. CA ends up making more pollution because it doesn’t want the energy plants in their own backyard. Hypocrites.

    BTW, I looked up the electric motors in the Toyota Prius. They are 50 Kilo Watt motors. That’s 50,000 watts. That is a lot of energy to run those motors to get you the 10-20 miles the relatively small battery packs the Prius has as compared to GM’s EV1 had. They are actually LARGE battery packs as compared to the rest of the cars on the road and it requires a lot of energy to charge them. A constantly running 5 or 10 horsepower motor would have a hard time keeping them charged to fuel the needs of the 50 Kilo Watt electric motors’ demands. Obviously the motor wouldn’t be on full power all the time because the car wouldn’t need to be accelerating or going top speed all the time but it is a power hungry motor and it takes a lot to charge the battery packs.

    I’m not saying (for those of you in Rio Linda) that Prius is bad. I’m saying that energy aint free and you aren’t getting HALF the cost of running around town no way no how. Period.

    Just call me Severized…

  66. Aghast says:

    “You do not deserve the right to even speak his name”

    that’s rich. 300 social scientists back him up in a petition…only to be refuted by 600 natural scientists in another petition. And I’ve got to pour through his non-peer reviewed research to call BS? Laughable.

    As for the source of energy that will zip you around at half the cost. It’s the power from the outlet, on the wall….like, the one your computer is plugged into. I’ve said it over and over. And regarding the transfer of emmisions from your tailpipe to the power plant, we know that grid power emits less carbon per kw/h of energy produced than your average car.

    And this one:
    “someone who blames the evil oil companies for paying off all the thousands of scientists who disagree with global warming.”

    I coud rewrite that:

    “someone who blames [the hatred of conservative profit] for [motivating] all the [tens of] thousands of [evil] scientists who [have reached an consensus about] global warming.”

    (I threw in [evil] since we’re all of a sudden making value judgements for each other)

    And I never once said that the oil companies were “paying off” scientists. They don’t need to pay them for any quid pro quos or other specific arrangements. It’s much more subtle. Think tanks, for example, let you subtly announce that you’ll give scientists jobs if they support your cause. Oil companies openly create and contribute to such think tanks, which then attract and fund scientists who might otherwise not be funded (maybe because they are shoddy, or unscientific).

    My “hero worship” is towards the consensus of climatologists, which I have yet to see refuted beyond the mention of a very discredited political scientist.

    I do find it funny that you mock me for “respecting” the authorities I agree with.

    Obviously I have respect for authorities I agree with. But you shouldn’t assume cuasality there. I have respect for them because they have the respect of the vast majority of people who study the subject at hand. And I agree with them because every buffoon that global warming deniers trot out to make their case is thoroughly destroyed by real scientists in short measure. That says nothing about whether your authorities deserve any respect.

    History has plenty of examples of established entities denying science in pursuit of a political agenda. We can all name a few. But there was always a political agenda to fit the crime.

    If your idea of a political agenda is “to make conservatives seem evil” and to stop “western capitalist profit”, or just to “get attention”… well, that just won’t cut it. Those aren’t well funded or motivating agendas.

    Arguments like “to protect a $100+ billion industry” and “to preserve the appearance of papal infallability” make a lot more sense.

    But I’m the consiracy nut. I get it now… I feel as if I’ve descended into the cave (you know the one). I see how you trust the shadows on the wall, and how hostile you are to those who try to tell you that what you see is just shadows and not real.

    By the way, this thread has gotten looooong….and noone has compared anyone to Hitler…might be a record!

  67. Baklava says:

    Aghast wrote, “As for the source of energy that will zip you around at half the cost. It’s the power from the outlet, on the wall….like, the one your computer is plugged into

    A computer will use 200-400 Watts of energy. Toyota Prius has 50,000 Watt motors and will drain the battery pack if not charged in less than 10-20 miles depending. To plug in and charge these battery packs we are not talking about a slow charge 2 Amp (2 times 120 volt = 240 Watt) battery charger that you use to charge a typical car battery. We are talking about a charger that would use a lot of energy all night to recharge your battery pack and for what? 10-20 miles. It is NOT half the cost To get you those miles.

    You FAIL basic arithmetic and basic understanding of electronics and common sense and logic. You did it with your belief and regurgitation of some talking points about climatology with out addressing the science behind such claims. You dismiss somebody’s work with a Masters and a PhD and you display ZERO ability to comprehend a simple amount of logic to understand the energy required to move a mass 10 miles via electricity.

    You’ve repeated your points without fail while we’ve written new ones with new data. The only reason why this thread is so long is because we naively had hope that you might read and comprehend. I owe you an apology for believing that. Good day!

  68. Severian says:

    Bak to Aghast:

    I’m sorry, I’m not allowed to argue unless you’ve paid.


  69. Severian says:

    Aghast lies once again:

    And I never once said that the oil companies were “paying off” scientists.

    But you said:

    The fact that scientists (paid to provide a certain point of view) refute this paper becomes, for you, evidence of the conspiracy. Even when it is an open secret that these scientists are paid to refute this stuff. I mean, we KNOW one side is being paid for their point of view, and yet you alledge conspiracy on the OTHER side.

    Typical liberal, can’t keep your untruths straight. Not the hallmark of a logical mind.

  70. Aghast says:

    Baklava, did you even follow the link? There’s a detailed graph that goes over cost of electricity vs. gas taking into account the efficiencies of both technologies. Yet you respond with a completely irrelevant analysis of a prius (which ISN’T a plug-in hybrid).

    “A computer will use 200-400 Watts of energy. [yes, so what?] Toyota Prius has 50,000 Watt motors and will drain the battery pack if not charged in less than 10-20 miles depending. [because the prius is not a plug-in hybrid, and doesn’t have the capacity a plig-in hybrid would have] To plug in and charge these battery packs we are not talking about a slow charge 2 Amp (2 times 120 volt = 240 Watt) battery charger that you use to charge a typical car battery. [except that we’re not working with typical car batteries, we’re talking about li-ion or li-poly batteries] We are talking about a charger that would use a lot of energy all night to recharge your battery pack and for what? 10-20 miles. It is NOT half the cost To get you those miles.”

    What’s really funny, is that even with your numbers, you turn out to be laughably wrong!

    240 watts * 8 hours = 1920 watt hours OR just under 2kWh.

    That’s 15 cents worth of electricity at average standard rate. (Or 6 cents if you get the cheaper nightly rate). 10 miles on 15 cents? That’s like 45 cents/gallon gasoline! (you obviously didn’t look at or understand the graph either, because 2Kwh will actually only get an electric car 2 to 4 miles.)

    You are actually so off it’s funny… (you didn’t even run your own numbers!) in reality these cars use a lot more energy than 240 Watts when charging.

    And for the record Lomborg has a PhD in GAME THEORY. When he has a degree in a natural science, and publishes peer reviewed reseach, then he might be considered an authority.

    And Sev, “paid” and “paid off” clearly have different connotations. I’m not arguing that the scientists are paid to willingly lie… I’m arguing that those who would counter global warming through shoddy science get funding they otherwise wouldn’t. And the oil companies admit this. It would be irresponsible to their shareholders to NOT try and counter the science.

  71. Severian says:

    All depends on what the meaning of is is eh Aghast.

    Go back to the drawing board sport, the shoddy science is in the pro-global warming crowd, in addition to deliberate misrepresentation and outright lies. Just because some annonymous online blog poster named Aghast comes on and says the science is shoddy and refuses to disuss the science is no proof.

    BTW Aghast, the people who demolished Mann’s hockey stick, who accurately pointed out the flaws and outright manipulation in it, were statisticians, not climatologists. You seem to have an overabundance of respect for climatologists, just remember God created climatologists so meteorologists would look accurate.

  72. Severian says:

    Oh BTW Aghast, you say you’re an engineer, well, I’m a physicist, which is closer to being a climatologist than you are, so my opinions, by your rationale, should automatically hold more weight than yours. Which is it, are mine more authoritative or are you a hypocrite on this line of reasoning too? :-"

  73. Aghast says:

    Yes, definitions: (from

    pay off
    1. To pay the full amount on (a debt).
    2. To effect profit: a bet that paid off poorly.
    3. To get revenge for or on; requite.
    4. To pay the wages due to (an employee) upon discharge.
    5. Informal To bribe.
    6. Nautical To turn or cause to turn (a vessel) to leeward.

    Which definition of “paid off” did you mean? Because clearly I interpreted #5. None of the others make any sense in the way you used the word.

    There’s obviously a subtle but substantive difference, that even the dictionary acknowledges. Nice try though.

  74. Aghast says:

    Severian, You know perfectly well that one scientist does not a consensus make. a scalar data point (your opintion or my opinion) is never conclusive, regardless of your expertise.

    Also, I have more respect for statisticians (who are not the social scientists I referenced above and who did find problems with Mann’s work, I don’t deny.) I have not referenced mann at all here. Even the temperature graph I linked to was based on surface temperature measurements dating from 1850.

    What’s funny, since you still mention it, it that the Hockey Stick graph (valid or not) has no bearing on the argument of global warming at this point.

    We both agree it’s getting hotter… the question is why.

  75. Aghast says:

    Just curious Sev, what area of physics do you study/teach?

    (I promise I’m not being cynical or trying to cut you down or trap you or anything)

  76. Severian says:

    I don’t teach, my experiences with academia have not been enjoyable, the politics, laziness, infighting, backstabbing, and lack of any kind of work ethic or emphasis on results turned me off. There is a LOT of truth to the statement that the reason the battles in academia are so vicious are that the stakes are so small.

    I did a lot of work in quantum chemistry and high power chemical lasers, but for the last few years my focus has been on algorithm development and system architecture development. Nice thing about physics, it teaches you how to think, not how to solve a particular problem, and algorithm/architecture is interesting and allows me to touch enough different problem areas to keep me interested.

    What kind of engineering do you do?

  77. Severian says:

    Oh, BTW, game theory is not social science, it’s a very mathematically intensive field, as or more rigorous than statistics, which form a significant part of it. And the bleatings of people who lived by the hockey stick that it is now unimportant is more of the fuzzy headed “that doesn’t matter now” you always get from people who got hung out to dry after their pet project got gored. It was and still is being used as a prime driver of the IPCC and definitely of Gore’s crowd. Add to that the fact that it was used as the basis for starting most of this insanity about anthropogenic global warming, and saying the fact it’s bogus doesn’t matter is pure crap. But I completely understand why the people who used it heavily now want to claim it doesn’t matter and continue on with their mantras unchecked. The discrediting of the hockey stick destroys one of the cornerstones of the entire global warming industry, that is that it’s unusually hot now and that is because of human activity. Expanding the tree ring data used in the analysis to today shows that these tree rings, used to justify the analysis that it is so hot now, don’t show temperatures nearly as high as the instruments of today. What this means is that there is no proof at all that it was cooler in the past than it is now. The same type of data says it’s cooler now than it is, so you can chuck a major cornerstone of your entire religion out the window. And the fact that the Maunder Minimum is perfectly correlated with the Little Ice Age renders any claims that the sun is not driving the majority of the planetary warming that is happening, which is less than many claim, meaningless.

    You have provided no compelling proof, but you have spewed a considerable amount of libel at various scientists you don’t agree with (or rather don’t support the rationale you use to justify your social positions), and made a lot of patently untrue statements. And it is still painfully obvious that you don’t fully understand the science, and want to use it as a stick to bludgeon society into the kind of changes that fit the liberal ideology.

    This entire thread can be summarized by my Devil’s DP Dictionary’s definition of endless loop:

    Endless loop – n., see loop, endless

    Loop, endless – n. see endless loop

  78. Aghast says:

    I’m a computer engineer.

    I agree with you about academia… I got out after getting my Bachelor’s. I had worked with graduate students that were so clueless it was scary. It seemed the longer they spent at the university, the less practical their knowledge was. Sure, the could code a linked-list class in 10 minutes, but ask them to design some software to perform an actual task and their eyes glaze over.

    I do software development now. My background in physics has been invaluable (I was a physics major before deciding I wanted a decent job out of school) – knowing how to mathematically model real-world processes obviously helps a lot in software development.

    So I guess we both spend a lot of time dealing with algorithms/architecture.

  79. Severian says:

    Sounds like we do Aghast, we have something in common at least. :)>-

    Yeah, finding grad students for a work environment is frightening isn’t it? I had one, who had to draw up an interface diagram, get 3 of the 11 signals wrong. When confronted and told to fix it, she asked “Why? 8 out of 11 right is a B in any class!” Absolutely scary ain’t it? The PhD’s I’ve had to work with from academia haven’t been much better, they are remarkably similar only you have the additional fun of trying to work with their egos.

    Let me be the proof, you can make money in physics. I’m not rich, but well paid and happy! But you have a lot more chance of finding a good job in s/w, you need one good physics person for about every 10,000 or more programmers, but physics is an excellent basis for other careers.

    With your background, I’d have expected you to be a bit more cynical about some of this, not as enamored with “experts” as you seem to be. I guess everyone is not as much of a curmudgeon as I am though.

  80. Baklava says:

    Aghast shows extreme incompetence by writing, “That’s 15 cents worth of electricity at average standard rate.

    That is for running the slow charger for charging normal car batteries. It is not for getting the amount of energy into larger battery packs required to get a mass weighing 3,000 pounds 10 miles at 65 mph speed on non level surface. You FAIL AGAIN and I give up even trying to explain to you why you are failing.

    I’d be surprised if 15 cents of electricity can move a mass of 3,000 pounds 1 mile given normal driving circumstances (not moving to 30 MPH and then coasting). You are factually incorrect and calling me off the mark. It’s laughable.

    Please tell us (I was using Prius as an example) what comparitive plug in hyrbid you would use as an example and what Wattage motors it has. It has to be a car that COULD be in the marketplace like the Prius. The Prius is an example I used because it is a working example of a car with electric motors that could be used exclusively electically and without the gas motor running. The FOrd Think is not such and example as it ways hundreds versus 3,000 pounds. Once you see that 50,000 watt motors is what you need to propel an electric car of that mass acceptably for the American marketplace your harping becomes irrelevant and you have to use the 50,000 WATT number not the 240 watt number which is a whole separate part of the discussion that you FAILED to recognize was about a SLOW charger for normal car batteries. You would need something charging at 1800 Watts all night to get your Prius 10 miles. NOW DO THE MATH AND APOLOGIZE ! :-w

  81. G Monster says:

    OMG, This discussion continues. I spent 3 years in algebra in highschool but I’m not sure how to spell algebra. I was great by the third year, but Sev and Aghast are definitely smarter than me.

    I am glad I got you all on the subject of the electric car, and away from global warming as the global warming stuff I do not understand. I am reading your posts, and listening to your reasoning.

    I did state that oil will be dropping in price immediately about a week ago. I hit the nail on the head with that one. Although, it might be dropping for reasons other than I stated, I still got it right. (Even a blind squirrel finds a nut in the woods on occassion.)

    Luckily, I will be hitting the lotto within the next year and won’t need to rely on my brain to earn a living, although I am a pretty good salesman. Trust me, I sold it all. Cars, homes, motorhomes, boats, etc.

  82. Baklava says:

    Can you sell me a motorhome G that can move me 1 mile with 15 cents worth of electricity? I want one.

    I heard they have some out there with 1 horsepower (about 700 watt) motors that can cost less per mile than a VR6 Volkswagen diesel powered motorhome. I wanted to replace that motor with the one that moves my garage door because it only has a 1/2 horsepower motor and there are too many times I have to grease it up because my garage door gets stuck. But then my garage door will work and my motorhome will start dragging too huh. So then I might have to get one of those NEW Li Poly fangled batteries that Toyota doesn’t even put in their Prius for some reason. Boy Toyota is so stupid. Don’t they know how much more COST effective the new fangled technology is. I’ll put that in there and then the 1/2 horsepower motor will move my motorhome faster and better and cheaper. Energy is all relative right? My one relative said so. HE keeps talking about living off a windmill. He said with all the wind that comes through his .2 acre lot he can capture enough of it to generate 50 Watts of continuous electricity. I tole him that my lights in my house don’e use that much all put together even the one in my fridge. So he can keep his food cold with his windmill. For free!! And charge his motorhome too….

  83. Baklava says:

    BTW Aghast, Your link compared an EV1 (GM’s electic vehincle that was much lighter than a normal car and weight MATTERS) to a 22 mpg car. It said that the EV1 sould be 4cents per mile and the 22 MPG car would be 7 cents per mile. That’s a great way for liars to compare things. Try the Toyota Corolla which is still heavier or the Honda Civic hx. You get double the mileage almost and therefore 3.5 cents per mile using gas and then increase the weight of the electic vehicle as it has to be comparable and marketable. Put in that backup gasoline motor because yourself called it a hybrid. Makes sure to add the wieght of the transmission. Now you sse the necessity ofr the prius electric motore comparison at 50,00 watts. You see the fact that those motors will drawn down it’s sizable battery in 10 miles. And you see the 1800 watts it’d take all night to charge it if the Prius WERE plug in -able.

    I don’t know why I spend the time. YOu will probably FAIL again. But suffice to say, adding that weight will NOT be a car that gets 4 cents of electric energy per mile. It will be nearer the 7 cents which is the mark set for the 22 MPG car.

  84. Baklava says:

    That… is a car that costs MORE to operate not half as much. Thanks for the link to shred your claim.

  85. Aghast says:

    Baklava… I was just running the numbers you presented.

    But, now that I re-read what you said, it’s clear you said:

    “we are not talking about a slow charge 2 Amp charger”

    I stand corrected about what you said… I missed the “not” (honest mistake, sorry). In reality we’re looking at more like a 4Kw charger, if we are to provide enough energy to go 60 miles on one 8-hour charge.

    But let’s run your new numbers….first some data regarding electric vehicle efficiency:

    “Older electric vehicles in commercial fleets have energy efficiencies of about 2 mi/kWh while new electric vehicles such as GM’s EV1 have energy efficiencies of over 6 miles per kWh. Heavy duty vehicles such as trucks and buses average about 1 mile per kWh.” – from

    OK, so 1.8 kW * 8 hours = 14.4 kwH.

    ok, that’s $1.08. let’s say the battery is 80% efficient (a reasonable assumption for lead-acid – li-ion can get up to 96% – wow!) so we can get 11 kwh of power out of it.

    at 3 mile/kwh (what we would expect from a modern electric car with regenerative braking, etc…) that’s 33 miles on $1.08.

    since we’re charging at night, we would take advantage of the cheaper electricity bringing the cost down to ~43 cents to go 33 miles.

    Compared to a 30 mpg car, with regular gas at $2.03, it’s less than ONE QUARTER THE COST!

    This will become even more feasible as gas prices rise, battery technology improves, manufacturing costs go down due to mass production, etc…

    so when you say
    “You would need something charging at 1800 Watts all night to get your Prius 10 miles.”

    what you really meant was 33 miles.

    Even if you were right and it was only 10 miles, it would still be cheaper! This is why I find your reponses so silly.

  86. Aghast says:

    Makes sure to add the wieght of the transmission.

    No thanks. In-hub motors do away with transmission power loss and wieght, and allow for easily implemented regenerative braking. The engine itself just needs to act as a generator plugged into the electric drivetrain.

  87. Severian says:

    The ONLY reason hybrids exist is regenrative braking. Right now, there is no other way to get kinetic energy turned back into usable power other than electric motors and generators. So far no one has been able to figure out how to turn kinetic energy back into gasoline, but gasoline is still a more efficient car. A hybrid has to turn gasoline into kinetic energy into electrical energy and back into kinetic energy at the wheels.

    There are a fair number of cars out there that get better mileage than the Prius and other hybrids, such as the VW diesels.

    “Plug-in” hybrids will not be a viable solution to anything unless and until we improve our electrical generating capacity, which means either more coal plants or more nuclear, and with the enviromentalists blocking just about every new power plant or attempting to, this is a solution that just won’t be practical on anything like a large scale until that issue is solved.

  88. Aghast says:

    I think its inevitable that the market will bring it about. I do believe in the market…I just think we can influence it for the good of our economic, geopolitical, and environmental futures. (I know, I know. typical leftist idealism that will result in unintended consequences that will ruin us all)

    I’m not saying that every detail has been figured out. Its definitely risky for a car company to embrace that sort of change without a breakthrough (in fuel cells, for example) to make it a sure thing, or help from national policy makers.

  89. G Monster says:

    I believe everything is settled? Now, Severian, Aghast, and Baklava, you 3 get together and bring me a product that I can sell to the world. We should make a great team.

  90. Baklava says:

    Sev is correct in writing, “but gasoline is still a more efficient car.

    hybrids can take advantage of storing some energy while braking and while the gas engine is running but not being used for accelerating and then using that energy to with electric motors in order to increase MPG. But the losses involved with creating the electricity in Nevada (or similar distance) using it to charge a large battery pack (I see Aghast realized his mistake and is admitting 4Kwatts all night long) in a house in Sacramento CA, is neither environmentally friendly nor cost effective nor pallatable to the American marketplace.

    Quadruply this is not a BIG oil conspiracy as you see it.