Yet more proof Global Warming does not exist

[Ozzy]

So when you toss of "water vapor" as more crucial than CO2 as far as the current warming trend, cite a source FROM THE RESEARCH that upholds that. If you look, you will see that there is no source from research, and their are legions of researchers who study nothing other that the hydrologic cycle. If you want to know water's impact, ask them, not Crichton, or Lindzen. Those two don't know WTF they're talking about.

Slider


From: Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia,
and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service;

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

You'll see 7 different 'sources' listed at the bottom of the report;

or try here:

http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/16/5/7

This will show why many of the models are inaccurate.

And more talk about water vapor:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4419880.stm

I could spend months posting scientific and news based information and references that point out that water vapor is the prevalent greehouse gas that has the largest effect on global warming, and further I could post tons of information which clearly shows that scientist have, to date, been unable to accurately predict and/or project changes in water vapor and its effects. If you can't reliably account for water vapor (which is believed to be responsible for 70-95% of the greehouse effect), then how can you possibly detremine what the climate will be like in 50 years? Its nonsense. Its like having a problem with a car, and taking it to a mechanic who is only qualified to inspect tires. Tell him the steering is pulling to the right, he can say maybe the problem is the tires, because I see some uneven wear... but what about the steering box, the A-arms, the pitman arm, the idle arm, the tie-rods, the brakes, the suspension... Are you seeing my point yet... I certainly wouldn't put any trust in the 'tire guy' without knowing what the rest of the automobile is doing, its simply ridiculous, and BAD science. Now if a certified tech comes back and says, I've checked EVERYTHING that affects the steering of this vehicle, and found you have a bad upper ball joint, and need an alignment, and new tires... Now I've got something, this guy understands the entire system, checked and verified the operation of the entire system, and THEN made his diagnosis... In my example the tire guy is a fortune teller, and the tech who understands the system, and makes his diagnosis based upon measurable and verifyable facts that he has a complete understanding of, is the true scientist here.

[Ozzy]

Of interest:

http://www.thebusinessonline.com/Stories.aspx?US%20beats%20Europe%20over%20CO2%20co ntrol&StoryID=02E2E5EB-2572-4ACC-8CD7-FD0153EED7CE&SectionID=F3B76EF0-7991-4389-B72E-D07EB5AA1CEE


Here's an axcerpt that says it all:

"The US is frequently criticised for having the highest CO2 emissions in the world – 19.5 tons per person. This is more than twice the level of Britain, at 9.5 tons a head, which itself is sharply ahead of nuclear-driven France at 6.8 tons a head.


Thats nice, but you missed one important part: That Europes (Kyoto) CO2 emmisions are on the rise in the last year, and the U.S. emissions stayed at the same levels as last year...

[Ozzy]

But the examples you provided, when they considered the question, said that CO2 is more fundamental to the warming process, and water vapor is increasing as a result of CO2-based warming.

That makes CO2 "more crucial."

But I am confused as to why this is even an issue. All the additional water has long been considered, which is one reason that hurricanes are predicted to increase in number and strength along with increasing temperature.

Slider




Not really, in relation to humanity. Consider that ALL of humanity is only responsible for 3% of all of the co2 put into the air.

Now, lets look at the data from the 1940's-2000, below is a excerpt, but for those of you who would like to read the whole paper, and review its references, check here; sorry as well, it won't let me upload the graphs in question, so follow the link as well.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Figure 11 compares the trend in atmospheric temperatures predicted by computer models adopted by the IPCC with that actually observed during the past 19 years those years in which the highest atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and other GHGs have occurred.

In effect, an experiment has been performed on the Earth during the past half-century an experiment that includes all of the complex factors and feedback effects that determine the Earth's temperature and climate. Since 1940, atmospheric GHGs have risen substantially. Yet atmospheric temperatures have not risen. In fact, during the 19 years with the highest atmospheric levels of CO2 and other GHGs, temperatures have fallen.

Figure 11:

Global annual lower tropospheric temperatures as measured by satellite MSU between latitudes 83 N and 83 S (17, 18) plotted as deviations from the 1979 value. The trend line of these experimental measurements is compared with the corresponding trend line predicted by International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) computer climate models (14).

Not only has the global warming hypothesis failed the experimental test; it is theoretically flawed as well. It can reasonably be argued that cooling from negative physical and biological feedbacks to GHGs will nullify the initial temperature rise (26, 30).

The reasons for this failure of the computer climate models are subjects of scientific debate. For example, water vapor is the largest contributor to the overall greenhouse effect (31). It has been suggested that the computer climate models treat feedbacks related to water vapor incorrectly (27, 32).

The global warming hypothesis is not based upon the radiative properties of the GHGs themselves. It is based entirely upon a small initial increase in temperature caused by GHGs and a large theoretical amplification of that temperature change. Any comparable temperature increase from another cause would produce the same outcome from the calculations.

At present, science does not have comprehensive quantitative knowledge about the Earth's atmosphere. Very few of the relevant parameters are known with enough rigor to permit reliable theoretical calculations. Each hypothesis must be judged by empirical results. The global warming hypothesis has been thoroughly evaluated. It does not agree with the data and is, therefore, not validated.

[TrailBate]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13736561/

longer fire season blamed on Global Warming.

[Slider]

I could spend months posting scientific and news based information and references that point out that water vapor is the prevalent greehouse gas that has the largest effect on global warming, and further I could post tons of information which clearly shows that scientist have, to date, been unable to accurately predict and/or project changes in water vapor and its effects. he has a complete understanding of, is the true scientist here.


You COULD spend months, but nearly all of the crap against CO2 induced warming would come from Lindzen and Singer, and maybe a few Crichton notes thrown in, and they'd be disputed by nearly all the members of the active research community.

And the big analysis you provide is from The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine? WhoTF are they? Six guys in a garage somewhere, and they're supposed to outweigh the combined research of all the other environmental institutions in the world?

They even have the balls to claim that temperatures are declining, and that CO2 is good. Talk about complete crap. To give them some benefit of the doubt, the paper is from 1991, so they may not have realized that the glaciers are disappearing, that recent decades have been the warmest of the previous century, that recent years have been the warmest in centuries, that sea levels are in fact rising (as any number of REAL research efforts have shown), and that the tundra is melting.

Hang your hat where you want, but you have given no reason why the small minority of doubters should be given any credence at all.

But no one is saying water vapor is not increasing. Many people are saying that it is, and that CO2 is largely to blame. More heat means more water in the air. There's no revelation here at all. And it is a bad thing. The effect on hurricanes alone, well documented to be more numerous and intense, would be enough by themselves, but there are so many more reasons why such drastic changes as we are now seeing are bad.

Your point seems to be that we can't predict what will happen with all that CO2-induced water in the air. That is it? That's your argument? We don't know, so let's ignore it. That is just plain stupid.

Slider

[Slider]

Thats nice, but you missed one important part: That Europes (Kyoto) CO2 emmisions are on the rise in the last year, and the U.S. emissions stayed at the same levels as last year...


Is there a point in here somewhere? The change in levels is not related to the issue of Bush's stance in any way. In fact, you'd make a better argument if you said Bush is successfully trashing the ecomomy, so CO2 emissions are dropping too.

Slider

[GeepNutt]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13736561/

The sky is falling.... The sky is falling....

[Ozzy]

Your point seems to be that we can't predict what will happen with all that CO2-induced water in the air. That is it? That's your argument? We don't know, so let's ignore it. That is just plain stupid.


No actually my point is that, to suggest the earth is going to heat 6 degrees in 20 years because of adding 3% more CO2 to the atmosphere is ridiculous. How much CO2 have we added in the past 100? Has the temperature risen by 6 degrees in 100 years, nevermind 20 years. No, absolutely not; try 1/10th of that amount. Based on what we KNOW the cause and effect relationship to be over the last 100 years, how does that relate to your model... Shouldn't your model represent a similar increase in temperature in response to the added CO2, as what the actual facts have shown us from the preceding 20 years, or 100 years of reliable data? Why doesn't it.
Do different GHG absorb in different specific wavelength's? What if there's so much CO2 that it absorbs everything in the wavelength it operates on? Does it suddenly start absorbing in different wavelengths? Did anyone notice we're still below the average temperature for the last 3000 years? Maybe, just maybe, everything is returning to 'normal'. Maybe all the clear cutting in the 1800's took so much CO2 out of the atmosphere it dropped the temperature, and now, with the regrowth, its starting to normalize again? Can you prove that theory wrong?
There's a ton of great theories out there, but they're all just that, theories. _ALL_ of the calculations are based on a horrribly inaccurate sampling... The earth is around 4.5 billion years old, and we have about 100 years of truely accurate information about temperature... Semi accurate, maybe 4000 years. Do you really think that 4000 years of semi-accurate data is statistically sound to work with? The .6 degree increase we're dealing with in the last 100 years (I assume you agree to that fact) is within the margin of error based upon the data at hand; how can you POSSIBLY jump to such rash conclusions based on those numbers?

The entire problem with these arguments is people provide sound scientific data and/or opinion that debunks the very calculations your basing your opinion on. Instead of addressing that issue, you attack the scientist or say, so what, isn't it better to be safe then sorry? As soon as you do that, your addressing the matter on a basis of faith, not science. Everyone thinks junkscience.com, or this scientist or that scientist is full of it, or bought off by big oil, but no one wants to show me how their claims are wrong... The hockey stick theory has been blown apart, Mann tried his best to defend his position, but his calculations have been proven wrong again and again, finally he gave up defending it and started to ignore the critics... Scientific journals have even confirmed he had major problems with his model and how he manipulated data to get his hockey stick. Junkscience offered a platform to AL Gore for open honest debate over the situation over 6 months ago... where is he? If he could present evidence that they were just con artist, he would win me over, but he won't do it, or can't do it. Point being, I'm sure there's hundreds of thousands of people who tend to believe sources who are in disagreement with Gore because of what the critical science community has said about these global warming alarmist, yet, he makes no attempt to quiet them by standing by his facts in a two party scientific debate. Such an event would shut up one side or the other, but alas, there must be a reason why its yet to occur; I can only guess what that reason is, but I have a good idea.

[Ozzy]

Is there a point in here somewhere? The change in levels is not related to the issue of Bush's stance in any way. In fact, you'd make a better argument if you said Bush is successfully trashing the ecomomy, so CO2 emissions are dropping too.


That's ridiculous. Listen, I will be happy when Bush goes, but he has hardly trashed the economy in the past 6 years, last time I checked new and existing home sales have been extremely high almost the entire time he has held office, while unemployment has been very low, so I think that arguments out the window, but the fact that you're trying to make this a political issue shines a little more light on where you're coming from in this discussion.

[Slider]

No actually my point is.....

I'll sum up my point in one sentence: You don't know what you're talking about, but the NSF, NCAR, NASA, AES, WHOI, JIMAR, AMS and many, many other research institutes do know what they are talking about. And they disagree with you 100%.

I only know what those well-educated, professional researchers tell me, and it is opposite what you claim.

Slider

[Ozzy]

Since you have mulled through their info already, could you please go back through my post, and pick out the questions I have posed, and answer them for me?

[Slider]

No. Your sources, which you don't even cite, are not reliable. They are industry shills, whackos and morons.

Avoiding BS is why there's something called peer review. The non-warming faction avoids that like the plague.

Slider

[catbbq]

No. Your sources, which you don't even cite, are not reliable. They are industry shills, whackos and morons.

Avoiding BS is why there's something called peer review. The non-warming faction avoids that like the plague.

Slider


I am dropping out of the discussion because Ozzy is way better at it than me. WAY BETTER! I gotta learn how to use this internet thing better. I hear they have it on computers now.

Slider seems to be doing exactly what Slider does, disregarding evidence when presented as being politically or economically driven if it disagrees with his faith. The guy won't even admit the possibility that he might be wrong.

[Mr_Cheeze]

Hmmm... not too much hypocrisy in that last sentence.

Let me see if I get this correct. An overwhelming majority of the science lands somewhere on the side of showing, in some way, that global warming exists. Does that mean that all of these exponents are somehow politically or economically driven? IsIsn't it more likely that most of the opponents, which, again, are in the grand minority on the issue, is it not more probably that they have some alterior motive, like making arguments for the industries that might be hurt by green legislation?

I think you have this one backwards.

I will reiterate, though, that I think way too much emphasis is being put on one part of the equation. You're not going to produce or reduce extra CO2 without affecting the overall air pollution caused by the burning of fossil fuels. This entire issue begins and ends right there. How can one say, well, one the one hand, we need to reduce air and water pollution, and lessen the consumption of fossil fuels; but in the very next sentence take pains to counterdict the science that only goes to show the specific effects of all of this pollution. The debate makes zero sense at this point. It's like arguing that there is a problem with steriods and other performance enhancing drugs in professional and elite level sports, but going out of your way to deny that Barry Bonds might not be guilty of being a juicehead. Big picture, folks.

[Slider]

You can find a source on the Internet to support nearly any position. That is why things like peer review, citations, and valid underlying research are so important in weeding out the BS.

The crap that gets circulated usually either was rejected for publication in a real journal, or was never submitted since the authors knew beforehand that there was no sound science in it.

Some people seem to want to believe in a grand conspiracy, so they grab onto any contrarian BS they can dig up. Believe what you want, but cite legitimate references if you want to sway opinion.

Slider

[catbbq]

Hmmm... not too much hypocrisy in that last sentence.

Let me see if I get this correct. An overwhelming majority of the science lands somewhere on the side of showing, in some way, that global warming exists. Does that mean that all of these exponents are somehow politically or economically driven? IsIsn't it more likely that most of the opponents, which, again, are in the grand minority on the issue, is it not more probably that they have some alterior motive, like making arguments for the industries that might be hurt by green legislation?

I think you have this one backwards.

I will reiterate, though, that I think way too much emphasis is being put on one part of the equation. You're not going to produce or reduce extra CO2 without affecting the overall air pollution caused by the burning of fossil fuels. This entire issue begins and ends right there. How can one say, well, one the one hand, we need to reduce air and water pollution, and lessen the consumption of fossil fuels; but in the very next sentence take pains to counterdict the science that only goes to show the specific effects of all of this pollution. The debate makes zero sense at this point. It's like arguing that there is a problem with steriods and other performance enhancing drugs in professional and elite level sports, but going out of your way to deny that Barry Bonds might not be guilty of being a juicehead. Big picture, folks.


If you will go back and read, you will see that I never said I don't believe global warming may be caused by CO2 or anything else. I have always said that there is doubt in my mind because there is evidence that supports both sides. Sure there are lots more people on one side, but that doesn't, no matter how much you may want it too, make it more right.

Global warming either exists or it doesn't. It is either caused by man-made CO2 or it isn't.

My point from the beginning is that there is some doubt. I have never stated otherwise. If you have no doubt then you are one of the faithful. I got no problem with that. I only have a problem with narrow minded people who can't admit that they may be wrong.

[Slider]

But there really isn't any doubt at all whether CO2 is advancing global warming, other than what has been created by those who either don't rely on the legitimate research, or by those with a political agenda.

Slider

[Ozzy]

But there really isn't any doubt at all whether CO2 is advancing global warming, other than what has been created by those who either don't rely on the legitimate research, or by those with a political agenda.

Slider


Everytime I cite a reputable scource, many of whom have their articles reviewed, rereviewed, and published in scientific journals, you say its not 'legitimate research, or by those with a political agenda'. It seems that the criteria for legitimate research is it must agree with your position in order to be valid.

[Slider]

Most of the time, you don't cite references at all. When you do, they're from "research" that hasn't been published anywhere other than some obscure Web site with no research credentials at all.

So I don't waste my time anymore.

Slider

[Ozzy]

Most of the time, you don't cite references at all. When you do, they're from "research" that hasn't been published anywhere other than some obscure Web site with no research credentials at all.

So I don't waste my time anymore.

Slider


Apparently you have trouble reading. Since you began asking for research credentials 5 pages ago I;ve made sure everything I posted listed its resources in depth, and that all said resources were of substantial quality; I'd rather not waste the time listing them all via copy and paste, but if thats what it comes down to, I'll do it... You're one of the most ridiculous people I've ever tried to have an intellectual debate with, it parrallels discussions I've had with religious people in regards to the bible and god. ::)

[Slider]

Ditto, except intellectual debate requires more than BS harvested from the Web.

Slider

[MTBME]

So I'm watching TV a few nights ago and I catch an interview with someone trying to explain why its been getting hotter lately. He gave the usual stuff we've heard before and then he said this. "Because of cleaner air standards, we have less pollution getting into the upper atmosphere. As a result more of the suns rays are getting through. The pollution used to deflect some of those rays back into space." I'm paraphrasing just a little here but that was the gist of what he said.

[Slider]

Lemme guess - Faux News. Am I right?

Slider

[MTBME]

Actually at that time of the night it would have been CBS.

[Slider]

It had Faux News written all over it. They have this technique of introducing non-established "facts", tossing them out for discussion among a panel of "experts", and neatly sidestepping most common journailsm conventions in the process. Faux or not, I'd need to hear a reference to the research, or info on the fellow dropping the "fact" and other stuff before I formed an opinion.

Back to trashing Faux for a minute. It is a lot more fun, though not global warming related. I was stuck in a supermarket with a TV blasting away in the corner of the food court. It is a Faux financial discussion show, with 3-4 "experts" on a panel. This is right after some recent optimistic news on the economy, and before some more dire recent stuff. Moderator: "Now that the President's tax cuts have been shown to be extremely effective..blah blah blah." You wanna take a guess if any of the "experts" challenged that waaay-unfounded fact? Of course not.

If that's a panel discussion, so is chanting Hare Krishna.

Slider, who's sorry for the hi-jack

[catbbq]

It had Faux News written all over it. They have this technique of introducing non-established "facts", tossing them out for discussion among a panel of "experts", and neatly sidestepping most common journailsm conventions in the process. Faux or not, I'd need to hear a reference to the research, or info on the fellow dropping the "fact" and other stuff before I formed an opinion.


I am sure you have already formed your opinion, but I am going to make it hard for your to justify.

The NASA and NSF funded atmospheric sciences professor Dan Collins doing the research started the study back in 2001. Haven't found any references to his results though.

http://www.tamu.edu/univrel/aggiedaily/news/stories/01/071101-4.html

I am sure once we start digging, we will find Big Aerosol Deodorant Money behind this though.

[Slider]

If there is Big Aerosol Deodorant Money behind it, at least it will pass the smell test. ;D

Slider

[MTBME]

"Now that the President's tax cuts have been shown to be extremely effective..blah blah blah."

Well maybe there isn't a boatload of experts out there that think the economy sucks! Lets see if your still unemployed in 3 months or will you be in a better job making more money. Stay tuned.

[Slider]

"Now that the President's tax cuts have been shown to be extremely effective..blah blah blah."

Well maybe there isn't a boatload of experts out there that think the economy sucks! Lets see if your still unemployed in 3 months or will you be in a better job making more money. Stay tuned.


You certainly can't make much of an argument that the tax cuts played a role without a LOT more supporting info. And, beyond that, you have to at least consider the harm they've done, too.

It isn't about the state of the economy, which has some serious problems, but about the effect the cuts have had.

Slider

[edge]

"Now that the President's tax cuts have been shown to be extremely effective..blah blah blah."

Well maybe there isn't a boatload of experts out there that think the economy sucks! Lets see if your still unemployed in 3 months or will you be in a better job making more money. Stay tuned.


You certainly can't make much of an argument that the tax cuts played a role without a LOT more supporting info. And, beyond that, you have to at least consider the harm they've done, too.

It isn't about the state of the economy, which has some serious problems, but about the effect the cuts have had.

Slider


I've had to study the dividend tax cut at length. This is data I pulled from 5+ left and right sources. I never imagined I could use this info to threadjack with...

The good:

Sinced the dividend tax cut the nation has added more than 4.7 million new jobs, productivity has increased at a 3 percent annual rate, homeownership has reached all-time highs, and the American economy is growing faster than other major industrialized nations. The deficit recently for the budget year that'll end in September will be $296 billion. That's $127 billion less than estimated last winter. It's also a slight improvement over last year. It put more than one trillion dollars in the hands of Americans.

The bad:

The great bulk of stock ownership among the less-than-wealthy is held in retirement accounts like 401Ks or IRAs, which are already not being taxed. So the dividend change makes no difference at all to them.

Some are saying that the reason for the increase in tax revenue is due to the coming expiration of the dividend act itself in 2008. They are also saying that it is due in part to the expiration of the accelerated depreciation tax cuts in 2004. The stats I gathered below show that as a whole, we are doing much better since the inception of the tax plan. Coincidence or not. We’re doing better.

01-0303-05VarVar %
Nominal GDP per capita3.1%5.6%2.6%83.3%
Real GDP per capita 1.2%2.8% 1.7%145.2%


I have more too ::)

[catbbq]

I've had to study the dividend tax cut at length. This is data I pulled from 5+ left and right sources. I never imagined I could use this info to threadjack with...

The good:

Sinced the dividend tax cut the nation has added more than 4.7 million new jobs, productivity has increased at a 3 percent annual rate, homeownership has reached all-time highs, and the American economy is growing faster than other major industrialized nations. The deficit recently for the budget year that'll end in September will be $296 billion. That's $127 billion less than estimated last winter. It's also a slight improvement over last year. It put more than one trillion dollars in the hands of Americans.

The bad:

The great bulk of stock ownership among the less-than-wealthy is held in retirement accounts like 401Ks or IRAs, which are already not being taxed. So the dividend change makes no difference at all to them.

Some are saying that the reason for the increase in tax revenue is due to the coming expiration of the dividend act itself in 2008. They are also saying that it is due in part to the expiration of the accelerated depreciation tax cuts in 2004. The stats I gathered below show that as a whole, we are doing much better since the inception of the tax plan. Coincidence or not. We’re doing better.

01-03 03-05 Var Var %
Nominal GDP per capita 3.1% 5.6% 2.6% 83.3%
Real GDP per capita 1.2% 2.8% 1.7% 145.2%


I have more too ::)




You just backed by Big Money money. When your hanging out tonight with your oil tycoon and railroad baron friends, lighting your Cuban cigars with 50$ bills, snorting coke off of beautiful women's backsides, drinking your Nepolean's brandy eating your... where was I going with this?

[edge]

I've had to study the dividend tax cut at length. This is data I pulled from 5+ left and right sources. I never imagined I could use this info to threadjack with...

The good:

Sinced the dividend tax cut the nation has added more than 4.7 million new jobs, productivity has increased at a 3 percent annual rate, homeownership has reached all-time highs, and the American economy is growing faster than other major industrialized nations. The deficit recently for the budget year that'll end in September will be $296 billion. That's $127 billion less than estimated last winter. It's also a slight improvement over last year. It put more than one trillion dollars in the hands of Americans.

The bad:

The great bulk of stock ownership among the less-than-wealthy is held in retirement accounts like 401Ks or IRAs, which are already not being taxed. So the dividend change makes no difference at all to them.

Some are saying that the reason for the increase in tax revenue is due to the coming expiration of the dividend act itself in 2008. They are also saying that it is due in part to the expiration of the accelerated depreciation tax cuts in 2004. The stats I gathered below show that as a whole, we are doing much better since the inception of the tax plan. Coincidence or not. We’re doing better.

01-03 03-05 Var Var %
Nominal GDP per capita 3.1% 5.6% 2.6% 83.3%
Real GDP per capita 1.2% 2.8% 1.7% 145.2%


I have more too ::)




You just backed by Big Money money. When your hanging out tonight with your oil tycoon and railroad baron friends, lighting your Cuban cigars with 50$ bills, snorting coke off of beautiful women's backsides, drinking your Nepolean's brandy eating your... where was I going with this?


lol. Let me finish your thought.. eating your caviar.. I hope you spill the brandy on your pressed kakies, and the ash from your cigar lights your capitalist, suv driving, latte drinking, mulitigear, full squish riding a$$ on FIRE!!!

[Slider]

There are problems in assuming the benefits you cite are related to the tax cut. They are the Administration's claims, for sure, but some are unfounded and others are simply spurious.

"Sinced the dividend tax cut the nation has added more than 4.7 million new jobs, productivity has increased at a 3 percent annual rate, homeownership has reached all-time highs, and the American economy is growing faster than other major industrialized nations. "

We were coming off a very steep drop in employment, so the added jobs were nothing more than a catch up, and we're not nearly where we were before Bush assumed office. But the real problem with the claim is that employment increases have nothing to do with tax breaks to the wealthy.

Productivity is more related to gains in technology than to tax benefits, and we're not talking about breaks to industry but to individual taxpayers, so you can't credit the tax break for technology gains in industry.

The economic growth claim completely ignores the growth in the deficit. The tax break contributed more to that than to anything else. It isn't free money, and the debt has to be paid at some point. Since the break shifted the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle and lower income groups, guess who gets to make up the difference.

"The deficit recently for the budget year that'll end in September will be $296 billion. That's $127 billion less than estimated last winter. It's also a slight improvement over last year. It put more than one trillion dollars in the hands of Americans."

Guess who's numbers were used for the estimate. If you claim you are really in debt, then claim later that it isn't as bad as you thought, more than anything that means your previous claim was off. And the claim came solely from the Bush administration. Smoke and mirrors.

Slider

[edge]

There are problems in assuming the benefits you cite are related to the tax cut. They are the Administration's claims, for sure, but some are unfounded and others are simply spurious.

"Sinced the dividend tax cut the nation has added more than 4.7 million new jobs, productivity has increased at a 3 percent annual rate, homeownership has reached all-time highs, and the American economy is growing faster than other major industrialized nations. "

We were coming off a very steep drop in employment, so the added jobs were nothing more than a catch up, and we're not nearly where we were before Bush assumed office. But the real problem with the claim is that employment increases have nothing to do with tax breaks to the wealthy.

Productivity is more related to gains in technology than to tax benefits, and we're not talking about breaks to industry but to individual taxpayers, so you can't credit the tax break for technology gains in industry.

The economic growth claim completely ignores the growth in the deficit. The tax break contributed more to that than to anything else. It isn't free money, and the debt has to be paid at some point. Since the break shifted the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle and lower income groups, guess who gets to make up the difference.

"The deficit recently for the budget year that'll end in September will be $296 billion. That's $127 billion less than estimated last winter. It's also a slight improvement over last year. It put more than one trillion dollars in the hands of Americans."

Guess who's numbers were used for the estimate. If you claim you are really in debt, then claim later that it isn't as bad as you thought, more than anything that means your previous claim was off. And the claim came solely from the Bush administration. Smoke and mirrors.

Slider




Yes, yes!! I knew I was wrong all along. Thank you! Bush is the devil disguised as a dumbass closeeyed texan!!!
&
Rumsfeld breeds bird flu in is a$$!!!

You are reading way too much from the leftie papers man. I looked at both sides.. Here's what you need to do. Get a spreadsheet and crunch you're own numbers. Then get back to me. I don't want to hear another goddamn word from you. Just numbers. YOUR NUMBERS. Think you can google that?

[Slider]

I kinda guessed you didn't know what you were talking about.

Slider

[catbbq]

I agree with Slider. I would much rather just agree with what I already know is true based on my political beliefs than to actually look at numbers.

[kernel crash]

This is so typical and not unexpected.

"We were coming off a very steep drop in employment, so the added jobs were nothing more than a catch up,"

If a Democrat was in office, would Slider have made this comment? This is one of those no win issues. Edge you can come up with reams of data but Slider will always find a way to poke holes in it. He can't help himself. He is incapable of giving Bush or Republicians credit for anything positive that has happened in the last 6 years. (At this point I would expect him to respond, "That's because they haven't done anything positive." So there. I've saved you the trouble).

[Slider]

Drawing a dubious statistical picture of the economy has nothing to do with showing a connection between the taxt cuts and how we got where we are. This isn't politics, just simple logic.

But then, that's how Bush got into power, by taking advantage of people who don't understand cause and effect.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

They're both wrong if they truly believe that the President has a profoundly direct effect upon the economy. Clinton got way too much credit for an economy that thrived thanks to the proliferation of the internet during his terms. He leaves office, the economy takes a dive and Bush got blamed even before he had a chance to exact any legislation. Now Bush gets too much credit (or discredit) for the "economic recovery" because of some coincidental tax cut that gave families with children an average of $400. I'm sorry, but any boost to the economy from such a minor boon is temporary at best. But he is doing what they all do. "Hey, look what I did!" If the economy is indeed on a slight incline, it is despite Bush and the amount of capital that is being spent on war and Israeli and other foreign aid.

Congress has significantly more effect on our economy. But even they are subject to the ebbs and flows of commerce and industry.

[Mr_Cheeze]

But then, that's how Bush got into power, by taking advantage of people who don't understand cause and effect.

Slider


The Democrats would never do this. Nah. They would never give people promises without telling them the consequences.

[edge]

They're both wrong if they truly believe that the President has a profoundly direct effect upon the economy. Clinton got way too much credit for an economy that thrived thanks to the proliferation of the internet during his terms. He leaves office, the economy takes a dive and Bush got blamed even before he had a chance to exact any legislation. Now Bush gets too much credit (or discredit) for the "economic recovery" because of some coincidental tax cut that gave families with children an average of $400. I'm sorry, but any boost to the economy from such a minor boon is temporary at best. But he is doing what they all do. "Hey, look what I did!" If the economy is indeed on a slight incline, it is despite Bush and the amount of capital that is being spent on war and Israeli and other foreign aid.

Congress has significantly more effect on our economy. But even they are subject to the ebbs and flows of commerce and industry.


don't go around saying that the $400 is the only part of the jobs & growth tax relief reconciliation act. it's a tiny factor in the package. the dems want you to think it's all that's in there so people will walk around saying "what's $400 gonna do for me"??

[catbbq]

don't go around saying that the $400 is the only part of the jobs & growth tax relief reconciliation act. it's a tiny factor in the package. the dems want you to think it's all that's in there so people will walk around saying "what's $400 gonna do for me"??


Care to enlighten us?

[Mr_Cheeze]

I mean, really. The per child tax cut was the main piece of the legislation, and it's the part they crooned about the most. Tell me exactly what it is in this bill that promises long term growth? How many of those jobs are connected to pork like "the Bridge to Nowhere"? How many are connected to defense contractors? Oil drilling? Where are the incentives to companies that do not outsource jobs? How about public safety jobs? I don't know about your town or city, but every one around here (Taunton) cannot seem to come up with the money for cops and firemen because of the cost of health insurance. Where's the Insurance reform legislation?

You see, this so called "jobs & growth tax relief reconciliation" is an illusion, and I think you know it. It just happens to come during a time of growth that, lets face it, isn't exactly so great as to prompt Americans to go out and buy those new Hi Def TV's and Hybrid Cars. Well, at least those who are responsible with their money, which, after reading the latest Globe Spotlight series (http://www.boston.com/news/specials/debt/), is enough to open your eyes to the reality that there is hardly an economic boon to any degree with so many people in serious debt.

As an aside, that report is worth the read. It also makes me wonder about this culture of spending beyond one's means. I'm sure Slider would love to blame that on Bush, since he's doing it with the Federal budget. But seriously, it's hard to feel sorry for most of these people who get themselves into trouble. These people aren't saying, "Look, the President's doing it. Why shouldn't I?" Is it a good thing, edge, that the debt collecting industry is flourishing?

[TrailBate]

Conservative Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson said Thursday the wave of scorching temperatures across the United States has converted him into a believer in global warming.

"We really need to address the burning of fossil fuels," Robertson said on his "700 Club" broadcast. "It is getting hotter, and the icecaps are melting and there is a buildup of carbon dioxide in the air."

This week the heat index, the perceived temperature based on both air temperatures and humidity, reached 115 Fahrenheit in some regions of the East Coast. The 76-year-old Robertson told viewers that was "the most convincing evidence I’ve seen on global warming in a long time."



He left out the part about God making it hot to punish us for gays and abortions.

[edge]

don't go around saying that the $400 is the only part of the jobs & growth tax relief reconciliation act. it's a tiny factor in the package. the dems want you to think it's all that's in there so people will walk around saying "what's $400 gonna do for me"??


Care to enlighten us?


Are you guys telling me you haven't received your dividend checks???

[catbbq]

I was looking for other parts besides the $400. You said it was just a tiny part.

[Mr_Cheeze]

Conservative Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson said Thursday the wave of scorching temperatures across the United States has converted him into a believer in global warming.

"We really need to address the burning of fossil fuels," Robertson said on his "700 Club" broadcast. "It is getting hotter, and the icecaps are melting and there is a buildup of carbon dioxide in the air."

This week the heat index, the perceived temperature based on both air temperatures and humidity, reached 115 Fahrenheit in some regions of the East Coast. The 76-year-old Robertson told viewers that was "the most convincing evidence I’ve seen on global warming in a long time."



He left out the part about God making it hot to punish us for gays and abortions.


I know that you are being somewhat facetious, but the wacko Reverend is obviously not the only one making tenuous connections to weather and global warming. Unfortunately, heat waves are hardly proof of the phenomenon. While it is difficult to deny the existence of some level of global warming, those who ignore the dynamic nature of weather and climate to espouse some chicken little alarmist point of view hardly help the environmentalist cause. For the record, the national heat wave is piddly compared to others in the past, like one in DC from 1930 that lasted 21 days. http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200608/NAT20060804c.html I can even remember hotter summers than this one. These people with the need to use every anomoly in the weather as somehow proof need to relax.

[Slider]

The real problem is the deficit. Anyone can finance the illusion of prosperity if they're willing to run all their credit cards to the max. That is exactly what the current adminstration has done. And you can tie the increasing debt directly to Bush's policies.

The tax break was nothing but a gift to the upper class, at the expense of the rest of us. The huge debt burden is the real "policy" at work here. It will have to be paid sometime.

Slider

[Rych]

The real problem is the deficit. Anyone can finance the illusion of prosperity if they're willing to run all their credit cards to the max. That is exactly what the current adminstration has done. And you can tie the increasing debt directly to Bush's policies.

The tax break was nothing but a gift to the upper class, at the expense of the rest of us. The huge debt burden is the real "policy" at work here. It will have to be paid sometime.

Slider


Here is your solution:

http://www.fairtax.org/

[Mr_Cheeze]

Oh no no no no no. Fair tax means that the evil rich won't be forced to pay a disproportionate amount into the revenue stream. That would be wrong. Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong! Only socialism works in a utopian society, dummy.

[Slider]

You and I have absolutely no idea how thre tax burden will sort out among rich, middle income and poor wage earners under a "Fair Tax" model.

As they say, the devil is in the details. My guess is that the rich, by far having more access to the ears of those who will craft those details, will make sure they don't carry the weight.

We will see lesser taxes on the purchase of houses over $3million, M7 series BMWs and yachts. Things like disposable diapers, toothpaste and Budweiser beer will carry a greater percentage of tax.

Is isn't about the model, but about how it is executed. The working class, as a group, doesn't have the reperesentation to ensure they are as well protected as the rich, and there's nothing you and I can do about it.

Slider

[off piste]

Well, it's like the vice-presnit said -- it's up to us to save more, then we can be the rich folk, and get all the breaks and perks, and life'll b e good for us! It's all our fault!

[TrailBate]

Conservatives/Republicans like to claim that THEY are the ones that support the troops. Then they don't want to pay taxes. What do you think pays for the troops, and your illegal wars? YOUR TAXES!!!

If you want to pay for a $400 billion war, who do you go after? The middle and lower class people that are already fighting the war?

God Forbid you should make the Rich (and mostly Republican) crowd pay for the administration they support.

[FriedRys]

Study: Antarctic snowfall remains static
COLUMBUS, Ohio, Aug. 10 (UPI) -- U.S. researchers say the most precise record of Antarctic snowfall ever generated shows no real increase in precipitation during the past 50 years.

The study's results from the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University show the snowfall was nearly static, although most computer models assessing global climate change call for an increase in Antarctic precipitation as atmospheric temperatures rise.

"The year-to-year and decadal variability of the snowfall is so large that it makes it nearly impossible to distinguish trends that might be related to climate change from even a 50-year record," said Andrew Monaghan, a center research associate and lead author of the study.

"There were no statistically significant trends in snowfall accumulation over the past five decades, including recent years for which global mean temperatures have been warmest," Monaghan said.

The findings also suggest thickening of Antarctica's massive ice sheets haven't reduced the slow, but steady, rise in global sea levels, as some climate-change critics have argued.

The research is published in Science magazine.

[Mr_Cheeze]

You and I have absolutely no idea how thre tax burden will sort out among rich, middle income and poor wage earners under a "Fair Tax" model.

As they say, the devil is in the details. My guess is that the rich, by far having more access to the ears of those who will craft those details, will make sure they don't carry the weight.

We will see lesser taxes on the purchase of houses over $3million, M7 series BMWs and yachts. Things like disposable diapers, toothpaste and Budweiser beer will carry a greater percentage of tax.

Is isn't about the model, but about how it is executed. The working class, as a group, doesn't have the reperesentation to ensure they are as well protected as the rich, and there's nothing you and I can do about it.

Slider



You have "no idea", but you'll still guess how it will pan out. The evil rich will plot to screw the rest of us. Yuh, not too much prejudice laden in tht statement. Wow.

[catbbq]

You and I have absolutely no idea how thre tax burden will sort out among rich, middle income and poor wage earners under a "Fair Tax" model.

As they say, the devil is in the details. My guess is that the rich, by far having more access to the ears of those who will craft those details, will make sure they don't carry the weight.

We will see lesser taxes on the purchase of houses over $3million, M7 series BMWs and yachts. Things like disposable diapers, toothpaste and Budweiser beer will carry a greater percentage of tax.

Is isn't about the model, but about how it is executed. The working class, as a group, doesn't have the reperesentation to ensure they are as well protected as the rich, and there's nothing you and I can do about it.

Slider



Its ironic you would make such a statement on a global warming thread. (you guys remember this is a global warming thread, right?) Economic systems can easily be modeled much like climates. Lets look at the models and then form our opinions.

Anyone got any models?

[Mr_Cheeze]

Okay, global warming is the fault of the evil rich. Satisfied?

[Slider]

You have "no idea", but you'll still guess how it will pan out. The evil rich will plot to screw the rest of us. Yuh, not too much prejudice laden in tht statement. Wow.


Quote from Cheeze:
"The Abramoff scandal is, in fact, symptomatic of what is wrong at the very core of big government and big politics, in which both parties are equally at fault. Big time spending by government, coaxed by big moneyed special interests, which comes from all angles. Factor in to that that pretty much every big time politician is first and foremost centered on their own re-elections. "

I suppose you really mean the middle class is aligning to pervert the political system?

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

Since the inception of our government, the rich have always been part and parcel of what, when, where and why things get done. Goerge Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, William Harrison... all rich. And yet, our country and its system of government has survided, and dare I say, thrived. Would that be in spite of the rich, or maybe, just maybe, because of them?

I just don't agree that socialism is the solution. Overly taxing those with money only incites them to pass off the expense to those underneath. Job cuts, higher prices, etc. A better form of campaign reform is the real key to reducing the corruption and influence from the money people. But how do you do that when they are all in power? And you keep electing them? Do not for a minute think that the Democrats are truly for the "working family". That's the biggest crock of b.s. ever. But you know what? Blue collar people eat that shite up. And they elect people who promise to take from the rich and give to the poor. Then suddenly 4000 jobs are lost overseas. Gee, I wonder why.

[Slider]

Since the inception of our government, the rich have always been part and parcel of what, when, where and why things get done. Goerge Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, William Harrison... all rich. And yet, our country and its system of government has survided, and dare I say, thrived. Would that be in spite of the rich, or maybe, just maybe, because of them?

I just don't agree that socialism is the solution. Overly taxing those with money only incites them to pass off the expense to those underneath. Job cuts, higher prices, etc. A better form of campaign reform is the real key to reducing the corruption and influence from the money people. But how do you do that when they are all in power? And you keep electing them? Do not for a minute think that the Democrats are truly for the "working family". That's the biggest crock of b.s. ever. But you know what? Blue collar people eat that shite up. And they elect people who promise to take from the rich and give to the poor. Then suddenly 4000 jobs are lost overseas. Gee, I wonder why.


The point was that the rich will push the "Fairt Tax" approach to favor themselves. You disagreed, but I don't see anything in your post that says otherwise. In fact, you seem to agree.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

I disagree on the premise that they would somehow manipulate the system to their benefit, by, as you put it, allowing them to buy their yachts and luxury autos. The proposal, in fact, does not even address luxury and excise taxes. That sort of manipulation would be pretty transparent, though, and the voters would never go for it.

Besides, you and I both know this has about as much a chance of happening as you ever voting for a Republican.

[Slider]

True, it ain't gonna happen. If it did, you and I would still get screwed, unless you're sitting on several million you aren't talking about. They I'd get screwed and you wouldn't.

We now return control of this topic to the endless CO2/Warming debate. Do not adjust your PC....

Slider

[Slider]

Here's the real reason to hate Bush, if you need another. He has no respect for the rule of law or any other prinicipal this country holds dear.

The problem is this: He is such a scumbag that a Federal Court ruling means nothing to him. And Frist and the rest of his abettors are equally ignorant.

Slider
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

August 17, 2006
Federal Judge Orders End to Warrantless Wiretapping
By DAVID STOUT
WASHINGTON, Aug. 17 — A federal judge in Detroit ruled today that the Bush administration’s eavesdropping program is illegal and unconstitutional, and she ordered that it cease at once.

District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor found that President Bush exceeded his proper authority and that the eavesdropping without warrants violated the First and Fourth Amendment protections of free speech and privacy.

“It was never the intent of the Framers to give the president such unfettered control, particularly where his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights,” she wrote, in a decision that the White House and Justice Department said they would fight to overturn. A hearing will be held before Judge Taylor on Sept. 7, and her decision will not be enforced in the meantime pending the government’s appeal.

The judge’s ruling is the latest chapter in the continuing debate over the proper balance between national security and personal liberty since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, which inspired the eavesdropping program and other surveillance measures that the administration says are necessary and constitutional and its critics say are intrusive.

In becoming the first federal judge to declare the eavesdropping program unconstitutional, Judge Taylor rejected the administration’s assertion that to defend itself against a lawsuit would force it to divulge information that should be kept secret in the name of national security.

“Predictably, the war on terror of this administration has produced a vast number of cases, in which the states secrets privilege has been invoked,” Judge Taylor wrote. She noted that the Supreme Court has held that because the president’s power to withhold secrets is so powerful, “it is not to be lightly invoked.” She also cited a finding in an earlier case by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that “whenever possible, sensitive information must be disentangled from nonsensitive information to allow for the release of the latter.”

In any event, she said, she is convinced that the administration could defend itself in this case without disclosing state secrets. Judge Taylor’s ruling came in a suit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of journalists, scholars, lawyers and various nonprofit organizations who argued that the possibility of eavesdropping by the National Security Agency interfered with their work.

Although she ordered an immediate halt to the eavesdropping program, no one who has followed the controversy expects the litigation to end quickly. The White House issued a statement saying “we couldn’t disagree more” with Judge Taylor’s decision and crediting the surveillance program with saving American lives.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said this afternoon that he was disappointed with the decision, and that while the stay is in place “we will continue to utilize the program to ensure that America is safer.” Mr. Gonzales said he remained confident that the program was constitutional, and that Congress had given the president all the authority he needed when it authorized the use of military force after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Earlier, the Justice Department called the surveillance program “a critical tool” against Al Qaeda and said the parties to the suit have agreed to a stay of Judge Taylor’s order until the Sept. 7 hearing. On that day, the judge will be asked to prolong the stay of her order pending further appeals, to the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit or perhaps to the Supreme Court.

Some Republicans voiced disappointment over the ruling, while Democrats praised it. The starkly different reactions signaled more heated debate on Capitol Hill when Congress reconvenes.

But for the moment, the ruling by Judge Taylor caused elation among the plaintiffs.

“It’s another nail in the coffin of executive unilateralism,” said Jameel Jaffer, a lawyer for the plaintiffs with the A.C.L.U. And Anthony Romero, executive director of the A.C.L.U., said Judge Taylor’s ruling “confirms that the government has been acting illegally, in contravention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the Fourth Amendment.’’

The surveillance act was passed by Congress in 1978 in response to disclosures of previous government improprieties in eavesdropping. The act established a secret court to handle applications for surveillance operations, and set up procedures for them to take place while applications for warrants are pending in some limited circumstances and for limited times.

Judge Taylor said “the president has acted, undisputedly, as F.I.S.A. forbids,” thus defying the express will of Congress, and she was unpersuaded by the government’s stance that it could not defend itself in the lawsuit without doing the country harm.

“Consequently, the court finds defendants’ arguments that they cannot defend this case without the use of classified information to be disingenuous and without merit,” she wrote.

The judge, who heard arguments in the case in June, brushed aside several assertions made by lawyers for the National Security Agency. She held that, contrary to the N.S.A.’s assertions, the plaintiffs were suffering real harm, and had standing to sue the government.

“Here, plaintiffs are not asserting speculative allegations,” she said.

Judge Taylor, appointed by President Jimmy Carter in 1979, did not deal a total defeat to the administration. She dismissed a separate claim by the A.C.L.U. over data-mining of telephone records, agreeing that further litigation could indeed jeopardize state secrets.

But over all, Judge Taylor’s decision was a rebuke to the administration, as she made clear in closing by quoting Chief Justice Earl Warren’s words in a 1967 ruling: “Implicit in the term ‘national defense’ is the notion of defending those values and ideas which set this nation apart.”

Democrats said Judge Taylor saw things the right way. “Today’s district court ruling is a strong rebuke of this administration’s illegal wiretapping program,” said Senator Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin. “The president must return to the Constitution and follow the statutes passed by Congress. We all want our government to monitor suspected terrorists, but there is no reason for it to break the law to do so.”

Representative Ed Markey of Massachusetts, a senior Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee, said the administration should stop “poking holes in the Constitution” and concentrate on “plugging holes in homeland security.”

But Republicans lined up behind the administration. "America cannot stop terrorists while wearing blinders,” said House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert. “We stop terrorists by watching them, following them, listening in on their plans, and then arresting them before they can strike. Our terrorist surveillance programs are critical to fighting the war on terror and saved the day by foiling the London terror plot.”

Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the majority leader, agreed. “We need to strengthen, not weaken, our ability to foil terrorist plots before they can do us harm,” he said. “I encourage swift appeal by the government and quick reversal of this unfortunate decision."

[TrailBate]

There's that darn Constitution again. It's SOOO pre 9/11 thinking!!

[GeepNutt]

Seems like all the doomsday predictions from the "Expert Scientific Community" haven't come to pass this year.......

Maybe now Exxon/Mobil and the rest can lower the gas prices they inflated with expectations of a volitile hurricane season.....

http://www.weatherstreet.com/hurricane/2006/hurricane-atlantic-2006-below-normal-season.htm

[TrailBate]

I wouldn't run out and buy that New Orleans real estate just yet.

Just as every day in Fall is not always colder than the previous day, every hurricane season will not always be worse than the one before it. The trend is the key.

That graph shows that last 2 years above normal, and the article only states that the western Atlantic ocean is cooler than normal. Is all of the worlds' oceans cooler than normal? Not likely.

Didnt the US just have the hottest June's and July's on record or something? I put little stock in single events meaning anything. It's all in the trend, baby!

Besides, the melting glaciers and ice caps must be cooling the ocean! :)

[TrailBate]

new ice core samples show there is more co2 in the atmosphere than anytime in the past million years...

http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=2841

[GeepNutt]

http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_4387552

http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759

[Slider]

http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_4387552

http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759

The most incomprehensible thing, to me, is that anyone listened to Senator Inhofe babble on for that long. Whew! Talk about global warming....

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

Too much to read. I'll have to print it out for my next morning session on the hopper.

[kernel crash]

[QUOTE=TrailBate;140612]new ice core samples show there is more co2 in the atmosphere than anytime in the past million years...

Ya think maybe thats because we didn't have hummers on the road a million years ago?

[Slider]

Here's why idiots like Inhofe still find an audience. Bush helps fill the seats by restricting the release of relevant info.

Slider

Government accused of blocking hurricane report

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration has blocked the release of a report that suggests global warming is contributing to the frequency and strength of hurricanes, the journal Nature reported Tuesday.

The possibility that warming conditions may cause storms to become stronger has generated debate among climate and weather experts, particularly in the wake of the Hurricane Katrina disaster.

In the new case, Nature said weather experts at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration -- part of the Commerce Department -- in February set up a seven-member panel to prepare a consensus report on the views of agency scientists about global warming and hurricanes.

According to Nature, a draft of the statement said that warming may be having an effect.

In May, when the report was expected to be released, panel chair Ants Leetmaa received an e-mail from a Commerce official saying the report needed to be made less technical and was not to be released, Nature reported.

Leetmaa, head of NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in New Jersey, did not immediately respond to calls seeking comment.

NOAA spokesman Jordan St. John said he had no details of the report.

NOAA Administrator Conrad Lautenbacher is currently out of the country, but Nature quoted him as saying the report was merely an internal document and could not be released because the agency could not take an official position on the issue.

However, the journal said in its online report that the study was merely a discussion of the current state of hurricane science and did not contain any policy or position statements.

A series of studies over the past year or so have shown an increase in the power of hurricanes in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, a strengthening that many storm experts say is tied to rising sea-surface temperatures.

Just two weeks ago, researchers said that most of the increase in ocean temperature that feeds more intense hurricanes is a result of human-induced global warming, a study one researcher said "closes the loop" between climate change and powerful storms like Katrina.

Not all agree, however, with opponents arguing that many other factors affect storms, which can increase and decrease in cycles.

The possibility of global warming affecting hurricanes is politically sensitive because the administration has resisted proposals to restrict release of gases that can cause warming conditions.

In February, a NASA political appointee who worked in the space agency's public relations department resigned after reportedly trying to restrict access to Jim Hansen, a NASA climate scientist who has been active in global warming research.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

[kernel crash]

Open Kyoto to debate
Sixty scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming

"Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise." The new Canadian government's commitment to reducing air, land and water pollution is commendable, but allocating funds to "stopping climate change" would be irrational. We need to continue intensive research into the real causes of climate change and help our most vulnerable citizens adapt to whatever nature throws at us next.

We believe the Canadian public and government decision-makers need and deserve to hear the whole story concerning this very complex issue. It was only 30 years ago that many of today's global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605

[Slider]

http://ucsaction.org/campaign/vote_now_for_science_idol

I like 'em all.

Slider

[off piste]

http://www.tbnweekly.com/content_articles/112906_fpg-02.txt

Experts sum of 2006 hurricane season http://www.tbnweekly.com/images/trans.gif By SUZETTE PORTER
http://www.tbnweekly.com/images/trans.gif http://www.tbnweekly.com/images/spacer.gif http://www.tbnweekly.com/content_images/112906_fpg-02.jpg (javascript:popwin ('/scripts/vlargeimage.php?image=112906_fpg-02_popup.jpg','image_viewer', 200, 250, 'no', 'no', 'yes', 'no', 'no');) Click on the graphic to get a larger view of the paths taken by the storms that formed during the 2006 Atlantic Hurricane Season. http://www.tbnweekly.com/images/trans.gif PINELLAS COUNTY - Thursday is the last day of a mostly uneventful 2006 Atlantic Hurricane Season.

Hurricane experts Philip J. Klotzbach and William M. Gray released a summary report of the season on Nov. 17. According to the report, nine named storms formed, which is the fewest named storms to form in the Atlantic since 1997, when only seven named storms formed.

Gray is a professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project. Klotzbach is a project member and research associate at Colorado State University and, as of this year, has primary responsibility for the project's seasonal, monthly and landfall probability forecasts.

The report said that five hurricanes formed during the 2006 season, which is the fewest hurricanes to form in the Atlantic since 2002, when four hurricanes formed. Two of the five were classified major hurricanes and, according to the report, 1997 was the most recent year to have fewer than two major hurricanes form.

The season started early. Alberto formed on June 11. The climatological average date for the first named storm formation in the Atlantic, based on 1944-2005 data, is July 10, the report said.

Other special characteristics of the season included that only one hurricane formed during August, which is the fewest hurricanes to form in August since 2002, when no hurricanes formed.

No named storms formed in October, which according to the report is the first time that no named storms have formed in October since 2002. Prior to 2006, only eleven years since 1950 witnessed no named storm formations in October.

The report said that only two named storm days were observed in October, which is the fewest named storm days in October since 1994, when zero named storm days were observed.

No Category 4 or 5 hurricanes formed in the Atlantic basin this year, which is the first year with no Category 4-5 hurricanes in the Atlantic since 1997.

Three named storms made United States landfall in 2006, which according to the report, is the fewest number of named storms to make landfall in the United States since 2001 when three named storms made landfall.

The report said that 2006 is only the 11th year since 1945 that no hurricanes have made United States landfall.

Although the 2006 season was uneventful, especially compared to the years 2005 and 2006, emergency officials urged residents to continue to take preparedness seriously.

Tom Iovino with the county Communications Department said the winter months were a good time to make do things to improve structures. He said the hot summer months, when hurricanes form and people begin to make improvements, were not as ideal a time for crawling around in the attic to strengthen the roof as the winter months.

The winter also is a good time to get in touch with a contractor to get a bid for improvements, to order hurricane shutters and make sure hurricane plans are in order.

Iovino said the holidays were the perfect time to take stock of food items in the hurricane kit. He said many people donated the food not used to charity at the end of the season.

The Atlantic Hurricane season runs from June 1 to Nov. 30 each year; however, Iovino said that people should remember that tropical storms and hurricanes could form anytime.

"The season is just the most common time that storms form," he said. "People should remain prepared at all times."

Season storm summary by Gray and Klotzbach

Tropical Storm Alberto: Alberto formed from an area of low pressure in the northwest Caribbean. It was upgraded to the first tropical storm of the 2006 season on June 11 based on aircraft reconnaissance measurements as well as a ship report. Alberto slowly intensified into a strong tropical storm reaching a maximum intensity of 60 knots on June 12. The system entrained dry air as it moved northeastward towards the Florida coastline and began to weaken. It weakened considerably before making landfall near Adams Beach, Florida on June 13 with maximum sustained winds at landfall estimated at 40 knots. Alberto became extratropical the following day. It was not responsible for any direct deaths, and property damage was reported to be minimal.

Tropical Storm Beryl: Beryl formed from an area of low pressure located about 250 miles southeast of the North Carolina coast on July 18. Beryl was upgraded to a tropical storm later on July 18 when aircraft reconnaissance measured 1000-foot flight level winds of 47 knots and a central pressure of 1007 mb. It tracked northward through a break in the sub-tropical ridge and intensified somewhat, reaching a maximum intensity of 50 knots on July 19. The system continued to track slowly northward and began to weaken as it moved over the cooler waters of the North Atlantic. A digging trough over the Great Lakes caused Beryl to accelerate northeastward, and it passed over Nantucket Island, MA early on July 21 with sustained winds at landfall estimated at 40 knots. It continued tracking northeastward and was declared extratropical later on July 21. Beryl was not responsible for any deaths, and it caused minimal damage.

Tropical Storm Chris: Chris formed from a tropical wave while near the Leeward Islands on July 31. It was upgraded to a tropical storm on Aug. 1 due to its appearance in conventional and microwave satellite data. Chris tracked westward and gradually intensified due to favorable upper-tropospheric outflow channels. A ridge to the north of Chris continued to drive the system westward, and it reached its maximum intensity of 55 knots on Aug. 2. It became rapidly disorganized early on August 3 as it encountered strong northerly shear and very dry air. It was downgraded to a tropical depression early on Aug. 4, and it dissipated over Cuba on Aug. 5.

Tropical Storm Debby: Debby formed from a very vigorous tropical wave that moved off the coast of Africa on Aug. 20. It organized quite quickly and was upgraded to a tropical depression late on Aug. 21 as it passed south of the Cape Verde Islands. Despite stable air, the system was upgraded to a tropical storm early on Aug. 23 based on Dvorak satellite estimates as well as several Quikscat passes indicating winds of 30-35 knots near the center of the circulation. A mid-level high steered Debby towards the northwest, and it slowly intensified to its maximum intensity of 45 knots in an environment of light easterly shear. After undergoing a brief weakening trend likely due to dry air, it again strengthened to a 45-knot tropical storm. Southerly shear began to increase as the system moved northwestward, and it weakened to a minimal tropical storm on Aug. 25 due to increasing shear as well as an environment of dry air. An upper-level low continued to impart southerly shear on Debby, and it was downgraded to a tropical depression on Aug. 26. It dissipated later in the day on Aug. 27.

Hurricane Ernesto: Ernesto formed from a tropical wave that was passing through the Windward Islands on Aug. 24. It initially tracked westward due to a mid-level ridge of high pressure. Ernesto strengthened to a tropical storm the following day based on an aircraft reconnaissance report. An upper-level trough to the northwest of Ernesto imparted some southwesterly shear which prevented the system from intensify rapidly. The shear began to weaken as the upper low moved westward, and Ernesto strengthened to a hurricane on Aug. 27. Even though the synoptic environment became much more favorable for intensification at this time, Ernesto slowed over the southwestern part of Haiti, and this interaction with land rapidly took its toll. It was downgraded to a tropical storm later on Aug. 27. It drifted northward towards Cuba and weakened further to a minimal tropical storm before making landfall near Playa Cazonal on Aug. 28.

Ernesto moved back over water early on Aug. 29 and began to move northward towards the Florida Peninsula as a shortwave trough displaced the subtropical ridge that was previously positioned over the southeastern United States. Even though thermodynamics were favorable for strengthening of Ernesto over the Florida Straits, the system did not strengthen, likely due to some easterly shear. Ernesto made landfall near Plantation Key early on Aug. 30 as a minimal tropical storm. It weakened to a tropical depression while tracking northeastward over the Florida Peninsula. Once Ernesto emerged back over water off the Florida coastline, it began to intensify over the warm waters of the Gulf Stream. It reached its secondary maximum intensity of 60 knots before making its second United States landfall near Long Beach, N.C. Ernesto rapidly dissipated over land on Sept. 1. More than $100 million dollars in total damage was attributed to Ernesto in the United States. Two people died in Florida in traffic accidents caused by heavy rains from Ernesto. Ernesto was also responsible for five deaths in Haiti.

Hurricane Florence: Florence formed from a tropical wave about midway between Africa and the Lesser Antilles on Sept. 3. Southwesterly shear inhibited intensification early in Florence's life cycle. It became the season's sixth named tropical cyclone on Sept. 5 due to tropical storm-strength classifications from microwave and conventional satellite imagery. It initially tracked northwestward under a subtropical ridge and strengthened slightly over the next couple of days as it continued to battle southerly shear. Florence was a rather large system and continued to fight against southerly shear as it tracked along the periphery of a subtropical ridge. This shear eventually began to relax, and Florence intensified into the second hurricane of the 2006 season on Sept. 10. The system continued to intensify over warm sea surface temperatures as it tracked towards Bermuda. After passing by Bermuda on Sept. 11, the system began to weaken as it encountered cooler sea surface temperatures and strong upper-level westerlies. It underwent extratropical transition on Sept. 12. Although hurricane-force winds were felt on Bermuda from Florence, there was only minimal damage reported on the island, and no fatalities were reported.

Intense Hurricane Gordon: Gordon formed from a tropical wave early on Sept. 11 while located northeast of the Lesser Antilles. The system was initially under significant northerly shear generated by the upper-level anticyclone surrounding Hurricane Florence. It was upgraded to the seventh tropical storm of the year later on Sept.11 and began to intensify further as it moved into an area of light shear and warm sea surface temperatures. It turned northward while moving through a break in the subtropical ridge and was classified as a hurricane early on Sept. 13. The system continued to deepen on Sept. 13 and became the first major hurricane of the year early on Sept.14.

Gordon began to turn towards the northeast as it became embedded in the westerlies. It began to weaken later on Sept. 14, and it was only a minimal hurricane with 65 knot winds early on Sept. 16. At this point, steering currents collapsed, and Gordon drifted slowly northeastward across the open Atlantic. Gordon then began to defy the odds and strengthened while traveling over somewhat cooler waters. It reached a secondary peak with 90 knot winds on Sept. 19. Gordon then turned eastward as it became completely embedded in the westerlies and tracked towards the Azores Islands. It passed over the Azores as a Category One hurricane and weakened to a tropical storm on Sept. 20. The system became extratropical later that day. Damage in the Azores from Gordon was minimal.

Intense Hurricane Helene: Helene formed in the far eastern tropical Atlantic from a tropical wave on Sept. 12. It initially tracked westward under the subtropical ridge. Initial intensification was inhibited by a strong mid-level jet; however, it was able to escape from the jet's influence and became classified as a tropical storm on Sept. 14. Despite being in a low-shear environment, Helene struggled to develop further due to large amounts of dry air penetrating into the cyclonic circulation. It eventually began to enter a more favorable environment with more copious amounts of moisture. Helene became a hurricane on Sept. 16. It began to move towards a break in the subtropical ridge and turned northwestward. At this point, Helene entered a very favorable environment for intensification with warm waters and low vertical wind shear, and it became the second major hurricane of the year on Sept. 18. It maintained major hurricane status for the next couple of days while tracking more westward as a ridge temporarily built to the north of Helene. An upper-level trough soon broke down the ridge, and Helene began to track northward. Some dry air and increased levels of wind shear began to affect the cyclone, and it weakened to a Category 2 hurricane on Sept. 19 and a Category 1 hurricane on Sept. 21. By early on Sept. 23, Helene was becoming less tropical in nature and was downgraded to a tropical storm. It was upgraded back to a hurricane later on Sept. 23 due to satellite-measured hurricane-force winds. An upper-level trough was rapidly approaching Helene at this point, and it underwent extratropical transition on Sept. 24.

Hurricane Isaac: Isaac developed from an area of low pressure in the central Atlantic on Sept. 27. An upper-level low caused some southerly shear over Isaac, which initially inhibited intensification. It was upgraded to a tropical storm on Sept. 28 based on a Quikscat pass, which indicated that the system had 35-knot winds. Isaac tracked northwestward as it interacted with the upper-level low and strengthened slowly while battling dry air entrainment and continued southerly shear.

By later on Sept. 29, the shear began to abate and the surrounding environment became moister, and Isaac strengthened. A strong trough began to curve Isaac more towards the north at this time. It became the fifth hurricane of the year on Sept. 30 and reached its maximum intensity of 75 knots early on Oct. 1. At this point, southwesterly shear and cooler sea surface temperatures began to impact Isaac, and it was downgraded to a tropical storm on Oct. 2. Isaac began to accelerate towards the north and northeast, and it became extratropical later on Oct. 2.

[Mr_Cheeze]

Well, to the surprise of no one, climatologists have once again predicted higher than average hurricane activity for 2007. http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?type=bondsNews&storyID=2006-12-08T154234Z_01_N08287785_RTRIDST_0_WEATHER-STORMS-UPDATE-1.XML

Gee, I seem to remember similar forecasts for 2006. I wonder what happened. Oh, I know. Silly me. George Bush fixed global warming in time for the mid term elections. I guess that means back to catastrophe for 2007. I, for one, am happy. Extreme weather is so much more exciting. Death, destruction, dire warning of the end times being near. I missed it all.

[catbbq]

Well, to the surprise of no one, climatologists have once again predicted higher than average hurricane activity for 2007. http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?type=bondsNews&storyID=2006-12-08T154234Z_01_N08287785_RTRIDST_0_WEATHER-STORMS-UPDATE-1.XML

Gee, I seem to remember similar forecasts for 2006. I wonder what happened. Oh, I know. Silly me. George Bush fixed global warming in time for the mid term elections. I guess that means back to catastrophe for 2007. I, for one, am happy. Extreme weather is so much more exciting. Death, destruction, dire warning of the end times being near. I missed it all.

Dems are in charge now, so no longer need to worry about it.

[Slider]

You guys sound like Rush Limbaugh, who concluded that Global Warming was real because he experience a heat wave last summer. It is cold out today, so it really must be a lot of BS.

Slider

[catbbq]

You guys sound like Rush Limbaugh, who concluded that Global Warming was real because he experience a heat wave last summer. It is cold out today, so it really must be a lot of BS.

Slider

You do make a good argument.