The "dyck obama bin lyin'" regime's epa now says they have to add 230,000 snoops on top of the thousands they already have, at a cost of $21,000,000,000.00 to the government on top of the billions it will cost business, to control CO-2 emissions!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now the "dyck obama bin lyin'" regime is pissing away another $1,000,000,000.00 of U.S. tax payers money on two more destined to fail green enterprises!
Without a doubt there a FLEEBAGGER supporter waiting in the wings somewhere to get his campaign cash back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now it develops that one of the honchos in the green scam getting the major portion of the $1,000,000,000.00 campaign repayment plan is nazi nancy's brother-in-law!
One of the scammers in the other giveaway was also involved in the solyndra government rip-off!
The "dyck obama bin lyin'" regime reworked the solyndra deal so one of their big donors would get the money from the government handout before legitimate investors!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well the Vegas valley had two days of rain again and the man-made global warming hoaxers measured a total of .09 inches for the two days!
They've either moved the rain gauge inside or cover 95% of it because we had flooding and a large portion of the valley had over an inch of rain in one of the days!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WASHINGTON (AP) — A prominent physicist and skeptic of global warming spent two years trying to find out if mainstream climate scientists were wrong.

In the end, he determined they were right: Temperatures really are rising rapidly.

The study of the world's surface temperatures by Richard Muller was partially bankrolled by a foundation connected to global warming deniers. He pursued long-held skeptic theories in analyzing the data. He was spurred to action because of "Climategate," a British scandal involving hacked emails of scientists.

Yet he found that the land is 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit (1 degree Celsius) warmer than in the 1950s. Those numbers from Muller, who works at the University of California, Berkeley, and Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, match those by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA.

He said he went even further back, studying readings from Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. His ultimate finding of a warming world, to be presented at a conference Monday, is no different from what mainstream climate scientists have been saying for decades.

What's different, and why everyone from opinion columnists to cable TV 's satirical"The Daily Show" is paying attention is who is behind the study.

One-quarter of the $600,000 to do the research came from the Charles Koch Foundation, whose founder is a major funder of skeptic groups and the conservative tea party movement. The Koch brothers, Charles and David, run a large privately held company involved in oil and other industries, producing sizable greenhouse gas emissions.

Muller's research team carefully examined two chief criticisms by skeptics. One is that weather stations are unreliable; the other is that cities, which create heat islands, were skewing the temperature analysis.

"The skeptics raised valid points and everybody should have been a skeptic two years ago," Muller said in a telephone interview. "And now we have confidence that the temperature rise that had previously been reported had been done without bias."

Muller said that he came into the study "with a proper skepticism," something scientists "should always have. I was somewhat bothered by the fact that there was not enough skepticism" before.

There is no reason now to be a skeptic about steadily increasing temperatures, Muller wrote recently in The Wall Street Journal's editorial pages, a place friendly to climate change skeptics. Muller did not address in his research the cause of global warming. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists say it's man-made from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil. Nor did his study look at ocean warming, future warming and how much of a threat to mankind climate change might be.

Still, Muller said it makes sense to reduce the carbon dioxide created by fossil fuels.

"Greenhouse gases could have a disastrous impact on the world," he said. Still, he contends that threat is not as proven as the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says it is.

On Monday, Muller was taking his results — four separate papers that are not yet published or peer-reviewed, but will be, he says — to a conference in Santa Fe, New Mexico, expected to include many prominent skeptics as well as mainstream scientists.

"Of course he'll be welcome," said Petr Chylek of Los Alamos National Lab, a noted skeptic and the conference organizer. "The purpose of our conference is to bring people with different views on climate together, so they can talk and clarify things."

Shawn Lawrence Otto, author of the book "Fool Me Twice" that criticizes science skeptics, said Muller should expect to be harshly treated by global warming deniers. "Now he's considered a traitor. For the skeptic community, this isn't about data or fact. It's about team sports. He's been traded to the Indians. He's playing for the wrong team now."

Muller's study found that skeptics' concerns about poor weather station quality didn't skew the results of his analysis because temperature increases rose similarly in reliable and unreliable weather stations. He also found that while there is an urban heat island effect making cities warmer, rural areas, which are more abundant, are warming, too.

Among many climate scientists, the reaction was somewhat of a yawn.

"After lots of work he found exactly what was already known and accepted in the climate community," said Jerry North, a Texas A&M University atmospheric sciences professor who headed a National Academy of Sciences climate science review in 2006. "I am hoping their study will have a positive impact. But some folks will never change."

Chris Field, a Carnegie Institution scientist who is chief author of an upcoming intergovernmental climate change report, said Muller's study "may help the world's citizens focus less on whether climate change is real and more on smart options for addressing it."

Some of the most noted scientific skeptics are no longer saying the world isn't warming. Instead, they question how much of it is man-made, view it as less a threat and argue it's too expensive to do something about, Otto said.

Skeptical MIT scientist Richard Lindzen said it is a fact and nothing new that global average temperatures have been rising since 1950, as Muller shows. "It's hard to see how any serious scientist (skeptical, denier or believer — frequently depending on the exact question) will view it otherwise," he wrote in an email.

In a brief email statement, the Koch Foundation noted that Muller's team didn't examine ocean temperature or the cause of warming and said it will continue to fund such research. "The project is ongoing and entering peer review, and we're proud to support this strong, transparent research," said foundation spokeswoman Tonya Mullins.

For those less inclined to read, here is a short video reguarding Dr. Muller's work.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tciQts-8Cxo

I have no doubt that we are going through an overall warming trend. And burning of fossil fuels may be responsible for part of it. But how much of that part? Is it significant? No one knows for sure. Should we curb the burning of fossil fuels where we can for this and other reasons? Of course. I would prefer to not depend on camel jammers for our energy. But we need to do it thoughtfully and carefully so that we do not create other problems as we develop renewable energies.

Yes we are experiencing an overall warming trend, according to the consensus of climate scientist as well as the avowed climate warming skeptic Dr. Muller, all of whose data, show about 1.5 degrees more, in the last 50 years, than would be expected if there were no anthropomorphic CO2 temperature forcing. That is the answer to your "how much" question.

It is my opinion that this country is at a turning point, where we need to change from a petroleum base economy to a hydrogen/electric based economy and from a centralized energy supply to a distributed energy supply.

I would suggest this book:
The Third Industrial Revolution: How Lateral Power Is Transforming Energy, the Economy, and the World. By Jeremy Rifkin

You can also listen to this program featuring Mr. Rifkin speaking about his latest book.
http://tunein.com/tuner/?Progr...31&TopicId=36126898&

May be a ways out of the comfort zone of most around here.

The sky is falling..

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Heath:
Yes we are experiencing an overall warming trend, according to the consensus of climate scientist as well as the avowed climate warming skeptic Dr. Muller, all of whose data, show about 1.5 degrees more, in the last 50 years, than would be expected if there were no anthropomorphic CO2 temperature forcing. That is the answer to your "how much" question.

It is my opinion that this country is at a turning point, where we need to change from a petroleum base economy to a hydrogen/electric based economy and from a centralized energy supply to a distributed energy supply.

I would suggest this book:
The Third Industrial Revolution: How Lateral Power Is Transforming Energy, the Economy, and the World. By Jeremy Rifkin

You can also listen to this program featuring Mr. Rifkin speaking about his latest book.
http://tunein.com/tuner/?Progr...31&TopicId=36126898&

May be a ways out of the comfort zone of most around here.

I respect what he is saying, but the data to back up his claims is weak. There are warming trends throughout history and before that are unexplained. The Earth does its own thing, regardless of who is on top of it. Sure we have some effect, but how much is pretty difficult to pin point. I think we can agree it is something. Past that, no agreement.

quote:

Originally posted by Bucky:

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Heath:
Yes we are experiencing an overall warming trend, according to the consensus of climate scientist as well as the avowed climate warming skeptic Dr. Muller, all of whose data, show about 1.5 degrees more, in the last 50 years, than would be expected if there were no anthropomorphic CO2 temperature forcing. That is the answer to your "how much" question.

It is my opinion that this country is at a turning point, where we need to change from a petroleum base economy to a hydrogen/electric based economy and from a centralized energy supply to a distributed energy supply.

I would suggest this book:
The Third Industrial Revolution: How Lateral Power Is Transforming Energy, the Economy, and the World. By Jeremy Rifkin

You can also listen to this program featuring Mr. Rifkin speaking about his latest book.
http://tunein.com/tuner/?Progr...31&TopicId=36126898&

May be a ways out of the comfort zone of most around here.

I respect what he is saying, but the data to back up his claims is weak.

Whould you care to expand on just where or how the data is weak?

Petroleum is a finite resource so of course we have to move past it. The problem is that the discussion is dominated by intellectual fools who don't care what happens after they die. They have no responsibility to protect the planet for our great grandchildren so the plan is to drill,baby,drill. Smart people know this is stupid,baby,stupid but smart people seem to be in the minority right now.

quote:

Whould you care to expand on just where or how the data is weak?

Everything I read on the subect has this big hole where they avoid talking about unexplained cycles of warming or cooling. And now this guy can predict what the planet should be within less than a degree of error? Really? I'm not arguing against conservation and alternative energy sources. However, we shouldn't base our decisions on questionable data.(and the data is questions by plenty of other experts) Eliminating our support of middle east insanity would be a really good reason to support alternative energy sources.

Yet more proof the warming deal was a hoax.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sci...truth-colleague.html


Another lie exposed.

Lets see, we've been experiencing "global warming" (hot button phrase) ever since the end of the ice age. The earth was once covered in water and the dinosaurs died. Man's audacity to think he can control the earth amazes me. As stated conservation and prudent decisions are warranted. But to think the same guys that can't tell you what the temperature or rain is going to be next week somehow know about global warming is a joke of the first order.

quote:

Originally posted by Bucky:

quote:

Whould you care to expand on just where or how the data is weak?

Everything I read on the subect has this big hole where they avoid talking about unexplained cycles of warming or cooling. And now this guy can predict what the planet should be within less than a degree of error? Really? I'm not arguing against conservation and alternative energy sources. However, we shouldn't base our decisions on questionable data.(and the data is questions by plenty of other experts) Eliminating our support of middle east insanity would be a really good reason to support alternative energy sources.

Everything you read? OK, citations please. I would like to read this material and understand what you mean by "unexplained cycles".

quote:

"unexplained cycles".

Ummm. Changes that they cannot explain. I'm not sure how to make that clearer. Larry, I can't tell you where I read something last week, let alone last month or last year. I tend to read a lot. But not all from one source.

quote:

Originally posted by Canted Valve:
Lets see, we've been experiencing "global warming" (hot button phrase) ever since the end of the ice age. The earth was once covered in water and the dinosaurs died. Man's audacity to think he can control the earth amazes me. As stated conservation and prudent decisions are warranted. But to think the same guys that can't tell you what the temperature or rain is going to be next week somehow know about global warming is a joke of the first order.

Once again everyone knows we have been warming since the last ice age, but we have about 1.5 degrees MORE warming than we would expect if there were no CO2 forcing.

Further the "same guys" do not try to tell you about climate change, as try to tell you about the chance of rain next week. Different fields all together. Meteorologists are not the same as climatologist, one does short term the other does long term.

Yes man is an audacious creature and he has controlled his environment, the earth, since the time he first learned to make fire. He has changed the face of the earth in a myriad of ways. He has gone to the moon and back. He literally lights the face of the earth such that our cities can be seen at night from a thousand miles in space. Some seven billions of us are dumping billions upon billions of tons of CO2 into the environment; this is not rocket science, as the saying goes. What amazes me is that some people are so ignorant of what we as humans are capable of doing to the environment. At one time in the not so distant past it was said that the oceans are so vast we can never out strip there capacity to feed us, it is an endless supply that we will never be able to exhaust, yet one after another species of fish are becoming commercially exhausted, in little more than a couple hundred years.

That’s right we just couldn’t possibly affect anything at all by what we do. Damn wake up!

quote:

Originally posted by Bucky:

quote:

"unexplained cycles".

Ummm. Changes that they cannot explain. I'm not sure how to make that clearer. Larry, I can't tell you where I read something last week, let alone last month or last year. I tend to read a lot. But not all from one source.

In God we trust. All others bring data.

As Clara Beller was wont to say, "Where is the Beef" Bucky I don't seen any data. All I'am seeing is your word for it.

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Heath:

quote:

Originally posted by Bucky:

quote:

"unexplained cycles".

Ummm. Changes that they cannot explain. I'm not sure how to make that clearer. Larry, I can't tell you where I read something last week, let alone last month or last year. I tend to read a lot. But not all from one source.

In God we trust. All others bring data.

As Clara Beller was wont to say, "Where is the Beef" Bucky I don't seen any data. All I'am seeing is your word for it.

There is plenty of data that supports either side of this argument, and none of it is conclusive. You don't need to trust me because you aren't going to base any action off of my opinion (and opinions are about all there are on this topic), and then there is no reason to "trust" anything anyone says on this....because there isn't any conclusive data. Mostly leaps of faith. Believe what you want Larry, but if you want studies that are able to show conclusively the exact amount that humans are responsible for climate change, good luck.