Jerry +1.

If they don't want to do the whole 113 billion over 10 years let's at least make a step and do half or more. Given how we are spending money what is 11.3 billion a year really going to mean.

The Lugar thing is real scary in my opinion. The far right and left are gaining too much power. If you try to move toward the middle and compromise to get something done, you get killed by the outside interest groups. I feel like we are moving further away from resolving our problems.

Getting the old republican party back would be great, but heck I would be satisfied with a Reagan/democratic congress or Clinton/republican congress. Sadly I think those were the good old days that we will no longer see. Just going to be downright ugly in the future.

Brad Fisher

Wow! a conservative agreeing with me : )

I don't see how the far left are getting power.

For example, they passed "Obama-care" but that is a compromise to conservatives. If the far left was getting power, they would have passed "Medicare for all".

I think the people that have bought our government are in fear that us people in the middle will figure out we're being had and quit listening to their propoganda

"I think the people that have bought our government are in fear that us people in the middle will figure out we're being had and quit listening to their propoganda"

Never a truer word was spoken.

Though it could have been spelled better. ;-)

"I think the people that have bought our government are in fear that us people in the middle will figure out we're being had and quit listening to their propoganda

Never a truer word was spoken.

Though it could have been spelled better. ;-)"

Wow! Rog agrees with me too!!!

propoganda, propaganda, whatever,...

First thing we have to do is get the money out of politics. Each individual person should be allowed to contribute a small amount, like $100, to any politician. And it should count the same whether you give it to a politician, or give it to a group that runs their own ads. Corporations shouldn't be allowed to spend anything.

Would this paper be left, right or center politically?

"The study, published this week in the journal Nature Geoscience"

“If we were to invent a set of conditions conducive to retreat of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, this would be it,” said Don Blankenship, senior research scientist at The University of Texas at Austin’s Institute for Geophysics and co-author on the new paper.

“With its smooth bed that slopes steeply toward the interior, we could find no other region in West Antarctica more poised for change than this newly discovered basin at the head of the Filchner-Ronne Ice Shelf. The only saving grace is that losing the ice over this new basin would only raise sea level by a small percentage of the several meters that would result if the entire West Antarctic Ice Sheet destabilized.”

http://www.tehrantimes.com/science/97818-climate-scientists-find-weak-spot-in-west-antarctic-ice-sheet

Edited by oware on 05/14/2012 09:10:44 MDT.

> For example, they passed "Obama-care" but that is a compromise to conservatives. If
> the far left was getting power, they would have passed "Medicare for all".

Curiously, Australia has had 'Medicare for all' for decades. It works well in Australia. But we also have very highly regulated banks - which also work well.

Cheers

But, do you have "the best government money can buy"?

Jerry,

If you prohibit corporations then you have to include unions and lobbyist groups in the mix. I'm moving closer to your notion of publicly fund elections for state and federal level. Everybody gets the same dollars and you only have a couple months. Half the time spent in office is running for reelection. However I know that this is a pipe dream.

Brad Fisher

Definitely limit unions also

Not only do politicians spend half their time raising money, if you look at the laws, you can tell they're heavily influenced by contributors

Like "Dodd Frank" only takes us half way back to "Glass Steagel" so there is still a high risk of more financial failures. And they are dragging their feet implementing "Dodd Frank" so you get JP Morgan losing $2 Billion recently. And the Republicans are saying "see, Dodd Frank doesn't work so we should get rid of it". What!!! it's only a half measure and it hasn't even been implemented yet.

Uh oh, I'm ranting...

> But, do you have "the best government money can buy"?
:-)

Nah, most of them are incompetent.
Oh dear - maybe that is the 'best' we can buy?

Cheers

David Olsen quoted:
"this new basin would only raise sea level by a small percentage of the several meters that would result if the entire West Antarctic Ice Sheet destabilized.”

Try not to worry too much David. If the average temperature of the WAIS rose over the last 50 years from a long way below freezing to a degree less than a long way below freezing, its still a long way below freezing.

Read this paper, especially around fig 3
http://faculty.washington.edu/steig/papers/recent/SchneiderSteigGRL2006.pdf

The scaremongers are hard at work, but anyone with half a brain can see illogicality and exaggeration for what it is. As we can see from ice cores drilled in the Antarctic and Greenland, nature has produced large and suddent temperature swings since the world began. I doubt nature lost that capability when man set fire to coal. Present conditions are well within the limits of past variation. Anyone who says otherwise is lying.

Governments obtain the best science money can buy. The return on their investment is higher taxation.

Edited by tallbloke on 05/16/2012 07:55:12 MDT.

"Present conditions are well within the limits of past variation. Anyone who says otherwise is lying."

Carbon Dioxide levels are way above anything in the Antartic and Greenland ice cores. We are doing a science experiment with the planet. Who knows how much the climate will change. Anyone who says otherwise is lying : )


"Governments obtain the best science money can buy. The return on their investment is higher taxation."

That is absurd!

The climate scientists are making it all up to get more grant money????

No, the money is in the oil and coal industries that don't want to end their huge profits.

And the best government money cab buy has cut taxes not raised them, especially on oil companies and others that have bought the government.


But we're repeating ourselves ad nauseum...

"The scaremongers are hard at work, but anyone with half a brain can see illogicality and exaggeration for what it is"

ah, yesh. dealing in fear does happen to be getting trendy, extremists abound it would seem.

Weird. I had a supporter of man-made climate change attempting to explain their side just a few weeks ago, he too used the term "half a brain" - his words seem to stop, but those lips kept flapping...

^dunno who he thought he would reach talking like that, it made me feel awkward for him and left me feeling like the extremes are ripping us apart

Jerry asks:
"The climate scientists are making it all up to get more grant money????"

It seems that once the die is cast, there is great reluctance to admit past mistakes:

See this recent post on Climate Audit
"East Anglia’s argument under section 12(5)(c) is that disclosure of the data would result in financial loss to the university through reduced grants. Their argument on this point is far-fetched. However, in a tradeoff between relatively remote prospects of reduced grants,as compared to the public interest in a complete record for data used by IPCC, it is hardly “obvious” that the financial interest of the University of East Anglia should be preferred. (In passing, given the usual vehemence with which climate scientists reject suggestions that alarmism is affected or influenced by grant-seeking, it’s ironic that CRU’s primary argument in this case depends on grant-seeking.)"

"No, the money is in the oil and coal industries that don't want to end their huge profits."

Jerry, the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia was originally set up with money from Royal Dutch Shell and British Petroleum, two of the biggest oil companies in the world.

"Carbon Dioxide levels are way above anything in the Antartic and Greenland ice cores. We are doing a science experiment with the planet. Who knows how much the climate will change."

Carbon dioxide is near the lowest it has been in 500 million years. I posted this graph on page 1 of the thread!

Edited by tallbloke on 05/17/2012 04:46:23 MDT.

Craig, point taken. I get very frustrated at the intransigence of some people in the face of plain facts and allow myself to get too ranty. Thanks for the reminder that we should all maintain a calm and reasonable tone in debate.

Edited by tallbloke on 05/17/2012 04:45:30 MDT.

Rog, your plot shows that when Carbon Dioxide levels were higher, there was significant global warming.

You've just contradicted your main premise.

But, that's so long ago, and way before the ice cores, and conditions were way different than now, it's hard to make any conclusions about how raising the Carbon Dioxide level today will change climate.

And, the farther back you go, the less accurate the data is.

Since we're re-posting old plots, here's the plot that shows ice core data:



In the last 400,000 years, except for the last few years, the Carbon Dioxide levels were between 180 and 300 PPM. We're at about 390 PPM right now.

I can't believe ya'll are still arguing about this.

Guess what? Man will stop burning oil and gas as it starts to run out and the prices start to go up. As the price goes up, other sources of energy will take over. It's not going to happen before that happens so there is really nothing to talk about. If the earth is warming, fine. If the earth is not warming, fine. Either way it does not matter because modern civilization is built on oil for energy and until that runs out we are going to keep burning it because our economy and our way of life is completely built around it. I can't hardly think of any cause in the history of human beings more worthless than trying to swim upstream on this issue. Good luck beating your head against the wall if you are trying.

(P.S. My personal belief is we may mess things up a little, we may dirty up the planet, but if we drill and burn every drop of fossil fuels on this planet I don't think it will matter. Maybe human beings won't make it, but the earth will go on and clean up our mess and be fine.)

George Carlin on the environment...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjmtSkl53h4

Edited by TylerD on 05/17/2012 08:27:42 MDT.

Jerry observes:
"Rog, your plot shows that when Carbon Dioxide levels were higher, there was significant global warming."

Yes Gerry, and it also shows that when Carbon Dioxide levels were higher, there was significant global cooling. The reason for that is that co2 has very little to do with causing temperature changes on the Earth.

We know that because changes in co2 level, happen *AFTER* the changes in temperature. Got that? I've pointed it out to you several times before, but you just never seem to get the point. I don't think you are stupid, so I'm a bit baffled as to why you continue to ignore this crucially important *FACT*.

CO2 FOLLOWS TEMPERATURE AT ALL TIMESCALES THAT MATTER TO US.

Your plot of the last 400,000 years, when you zoom in enough, will show you that co2 levels change 800-2800 years *AFTER THE TEMPERATURE CHANGE*

Cause *ALWAYS PRECEDES EFFECT* Co2 changes are an effect *NOT THE CAUSE* of temperature change.

How many other ways do I have to think of to say this before you take it on board?
here, try this article on my blog:

Edited by tallbloke on 05/17/2012 09:03:41 MDT.

We're going to make Tyty's head explode - you're probably right about burning all the oil up before we stop, but maybe we will leave most of the coal and tar sands in the ground.

Yes Rog, CO2 lags temperatures.

So, we burn a bunch more fossil fuel which puts a bunch more CO2 in the atmosphere,

due to greenhouse effect, it warms the climate,

we finally figure out that CO2 does effect climate,

then the CO2 level keeps increasing because the temperature increased, which makes the temperature increase more,... it's called positive feedback

so, after we finally figure it out, the temperature will increase a bunch more but there won't be anything we can do about it. Our great grandchildren will be cursing us because we didn't do anything about it when we could.

I'll stop if Rog stops : )

I seem to remember in high school science class being told that any one of the numerous major volcanic eruptions that have happened throughout recorded history puts out many times more CO2 into the atmosphere than man has put out in the history of the industrialized world. Is there any truth to that or am I having selective memory or something?