Neelman on cnbc.com today....

[Soverytired]

Of course if people would simply put down the coffee, the cheeseburger, the cell phone, the paper and f-ing pay attention .....and maybe use a turn signal once in a while, fatalities might just not increase. But, then who am I to ask people to be aware of their surroundings?

Hmm. Perhaps we should have the federal government install cameras, GPS systems, engine governors, and data-recorders in cars to monitor drivers? Driving is a privilege granted by the government, after all.

Cars could "self-report" traffic infractions, and we would all be so much safer.

It's so much better when government tells you what you can and cannot do, all because its for your own safety and your own good. And it's for the children. And the environment.

(and the tax revenue)

 

[Soverytired]

One more time - I never brought up Gore. You did.


I'm more concerned with NOAA and NASA.

I'm afraid it's inevitable. Al Gore may have raised awareness on the issue of "climate change", but he did so in such a bombastic, alarmist, and frankly false way that his own integrity and motives are now associated with the issue. He is now synonymous with "the movement".

His own conduct of profligate waste, carbon emitting, energy hogging for personal use and profiteering is just another example of how the "elites" will cram regulation down our throats while they live like kings.

The ultimate hypocrisy? Gore can emit as much carbon as he wants . . he just has to give the government some money for "carbon offsets" and he's now a saint again. Chumps like you and I will never be able to afford it.

Bjorn Lomborg is a hard-core environmentalist in the best sense. He's written two books that don't cherry pick data, good or bad, on climate change. Climate change, in his estimation, may be a long-term problem.

In his book "Cool it", his primary thesis is that if the ultimate purpose of environmentalists is to save lives, there are dozens of better ways to make immediate impacts all over the world. Millions, if not tens of millions, of lives could be saved by things like mosquito netting, DDT application, vitamin supplements, clean water programs, vaccinations, etc. And this could all be done IMMEDIATELY for a fraction of the cost of some of the laughable schemes being contemplated for climate change "control".

Little of that is being pursued. One is led to think that a fair amount of "climate change" talk is scare tactics for government power grabs, not concern for humanity.

 

[Oh-ryan]

The Earth has been warming since the end of the last ice age (about 11000 years ago). Unlike global warming, almost ALL scientists agree that we are currently between ice ages.

It will cool off again. Give it about 80000 years. People will look back at this century and think how lucky we were to have global warming.

Now where is my winter jacket?

 

[FlyFastLiveSlow]

Hmm. Perhaps we should have the federal government install cameras, GPS systems, engine governors, and data-recorders in cars to monitor drivers? Driving is a privilege granted by the government, after all.

Cars could "self-report" traffic infractions, and we would all be so much safer.

It's so much better when government tells you what you can and cannot do, all because its for your own safety and your own good. And it's for the children. And the environment.

(and the tax revenue)

Huh?? Someone said there is a fear of an increase in fatalities with smaller cars. I was merely suggesting that if people learned how to freaking drive, maybe it wouldn't be as much of an issue. You fly airplanes. Do you eat a burger, drink a coffee, read the paper and talk on your stupid looking bluetooth thing in the flare????

 

[Soverytired]

Huh?? Someone said there is a fear of an increase in fatalities with smaller cars. I was merely suggesting that if people learned how to freaking drive, maybe it wouldn't be as much of an issue. You fly airplanes. Do you eat a burger, drink a coffee, read the paper and talk on your stupid looking bluetooth thing in the flare????

You seem like a Democrat government can-and-should solve any and all problems sort of person. I just thought this sort of solution might appeal to you.

It's actually moving this way (baby steps, baby steps). Speed cameras, GPS in cell phones, cell phones that can be turned on as wiretaps without your knowledge even with the power button off, computers in cars recording data, automated speed cameras at red lights . . . .

All for our own safety, which after all is far more important than freedom.

 

[Quimby]

One more time - I never brought up Gore. You did.


I'm more concerned with NOAA and NASA.

No. Some other guy did. I was just adding a story that was aired on Brother Gore last year.

Now, back to your debate.

 

[FlyFastLiveSlow]

You seem like a Democrat government can-and-should solve any and all problems sort of person. I just thought this sort of solution might appeal to you.

It's actually moving this way (baby steps, baby steps). Speed cameras, GPS in cell phones, cell phones that can be turned on as wiretaps without your knowledge even with the power button off, computers in cars recording data, automated speed cameras at red lights . . . .

All for our own safety, which after all is far more important than freedom.

I am aware of all that, and I am completely against it. But, hey, all in the name of "national security" right?

I was merely suggesting that people stop being stupid and pay attention when they are hurling 3000 pounds of metal at 75 mph.

 

[STL717]

And then there's this gem, right off the front page of noaa.gov.

A synopsis:

The average global land temperature last month was the warmest on record and ocean surface temperatures were the 13th warmest. Combining the land and the ocean temperatures, the overall global temperature ranked the second warmest for the month of March. Global temperature averages have been recorded since 1880.

One month does not make a climate.

=======================
Garbage in, garbage out.

If the OFFICIAL temperature sensors are not located correctly, such as near pavement and heat sources, do we really know what the temperature is?
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/04/03/how-not-to-measure-temperature-part-56/




=============================
Oh...
Your, “it has to be a .GOV web site” is not valid. A .GOV web site is not infallible. Conversely there are many non .GOV web sites that are full of accurate unbiased information.


May 02, 2008
A Tale of Two Thermometers

By Steven Goddard, The UK Register
A paper published in scientific journal Nature this week has reignited the debate about Global Warming, by predicting that the earth won’t be getting any warmer until 2015. Researchers at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences have factored in cyclical oceanic into their climate model, and produced a different forecast to the “consensus” models which don’t. But how will we know whether the earth is warming or cooling? Today, it all depends on the data source.
Two authorities provide us with analysis of long-term surface temperature trends. Both agree on the global temperature trend until 1998, at which time a sharp divergence occurred. The UK Meteorological Office’s Hadley Center for Climate Studies Had-Crut data shows worldwide temperatures declining since 1998. By contrast, NASA data shows worldwide temperatures increasing at a record pace. The other two widely used global temperature data sources are from earth-orbiting satellites UAH (University of Alabama at Huntsville) and RSS (Remote Sensing Systems.) Both show decreasing temperatures over the last decade, with present temperatures barely above the 30 year average. Satellite temperature data (UAH and RSS) is more reliable because it covers the entire earth - with the exception of small regions near the north and south poles. They use the same methodology from year to year, and the two sources tend to agree fairly closely. The downside of satellite data is that it only goes back to 1978.
Confusing? How can scientists who report measurements of the earth’s temperature within one one-hundredth of a degree be unable to concur if the temperature is going up or down over a ten year period? Something appears to be inconsistent with the NASA data - but what is it?
One clue we can see is that NASA has been reworking recent temperatures upwards and older temperatures downwards - which creates a greater slope and the appearance of warming. Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre has been tracking the changes closely on his Climate Audit site, and reports that NASA is Rewriting History, Time and Time Again. The recent changes can be seen by comparing the NASA 1999 and 2007 US temperature graphs.
Particularly troubling are the years from 1986-1998. In the 2007 version of the graph, the 1986 data was adjusted upwards by 0.4 degrees relative to the 1999 graph. In fact, every year except one from 1986-1998 was adjusted upwards, by an average of 0.2 degrees. If someone wanted to present a case for a lot of recent warming, adjusting data upwards would be an excellent way to do it.
Looking at the NASA website, we can see that the person in charge of the temperature data is the eminent Dr. James Hansen - Al Gore’s science advisor and the world’s leading long-term advocate of global warming. Read story here.

 

[jayme]

One month does not make a climate.

I never said it did. You, however, argued earlier that since 1998 was the warmest year on record, that global warming was a sham.

The only reason I posted that link was because MJ42 stated his "uncle" was a bigwig at NOAA. I took a link right of the front page of NOAA.gov that suggested his "uncle" doesn't read his own website.

Oh...
Your, “it has to be a .GOV web site” is not valid. A .GOV web site is not infallible. Conversely there are many non .GOV web sites that are full of accurate unbiased information.

Another straw man argument...

All I did was challenge you to find me a single, solitary government website that sided with you. You failed.

Instead you come up with more silly opinion pieces.

If you don't know the difference between journalism and science, I don't think I can help you.

 

[JFReservist]

Climate change? Isn't that what its suppossed to do? I may not be as smart as some of you other folks, but it seems to me that if you really cared about the environment and this impending doom, you'd all ride your bicycles to the airport to quit your jobs have sit ins at the gates to stop people from killing our 'mother'. Maybe you could distract TSA long enough for me to walk through security with the rest of my coffee (it's been a bit cold this May).

 

[JFReservist]

Instead you come up with more silly opinion pieces.

If you don't know the difference between journalism and science, I don't think I can help you. - Jayme

You're kidding right? You know that all these theories are "opinions," don't you? Don't you? My theory is that its stupidity that keeps changing the climate. Prove me worng, goes I'm collecting plenty of evidence.

 

[jayme]

Nope, not kidding at all. I quote NASA and NOAA, and stl717 quotes newspapers and blogs.

 

[MJ42]

Nope, not kidding at all. I quote NASA and NOAA, and stl717 quotes newspapers and blogs.

And you need to read between the lines and "connect the dots" to support your "opinion" you (incorrectly) interpret from NOAA and NASA. And yes, my Uncle did retire from NOAA and still does consulting work for them.

 

[jayme]

I had to paraphrase for you because you weren't understanding what I copied off NOAA. We can go over it again if you need me to.

 

[MJ42]

I had to paraphrase for you because you weren't understanding what I copied off NOAA. We can go over it again if you need me to.

Oh, I understand. I just don't twist things around like you. You pick things out that support your opinion yet leave out things that would make you look dumb. See post 51...

 

[jayme]

For example?

 

[MJ42]

For example?

AGAIN, POST 51. Every once in a while Camille lets one slip through the cracks

 

[jayme]

I personally liked #10:


10. Can the observed changes be explained by natural variability, including changes in solar output?

Since our entire climate system is fundamentally driven by energy from the sun, it stands to reason that if the sun's energy output were to change, then so would the climate. Since the advent of space-borne measurements in the late 1970s, solar output has indeed been shown to vary. With now 28 years of reliable satellite observations there is confirmation of earlier suggestions of an 11 (and 22) year cycle of irradiance related to sunspots but no longer term trend in these data. Based on paleoclimatic (proxy) reconstructions of solar irradiance there is suggestion of a trend of about +0.12 W/m2 since 1750 which is about half of the estimate given in the last IPCC report in 2001. There is though, a great deal of uncertainty in estimates of solar irradiance beyond what can be measured by satellites, and still the contribution of direct solar irradiance forcing is small compared to the greenhouse gas component. However, our understanding of the indirect effects of changes in solar output and feedbacks in the climate system is minimal. There is much need to refine our understanding of key natural forcing mechanisms of the climate, including solar irradiance changes, in order to reduce uncertainty in our projections of future climate change.

In addition to changes in energy from the sun itself, the Earth's position and orientation relative to the sun (our orbit) also varies slightly, thereby bringing us closer and further away from the sun in predictable cycles (called Milankovitch cycles). Variations in these cycles are believed to be the cause of Earth's ice-ages (glacials). Particularly important for the development of glacials is the radiation receipt at high northern latitudes. Diminishing radiation at these latitudes during the summer months would have enabled winter snow and ice cover to persist throughout the year, eventually leading to a permanent snow- or icepack. While Milankovitch cycles have tremendous value as a theory to explain ice-ages and long-term changes in the climate, they are unlikely to have very much impact on the decade-century timescale. Over several centuries, it may be possible to observe the effect of these orbital parameters, however for the prediction of climate change in the 21st century, these changes will be far less important than radiative forcing from greenhouse gases.

You have the attention span of a squirrel. You saw something you thought proved your point, but didn't bother to read and comprehend it before you posted it.

 

[jayme]

I had a nice thing going at skywest, but that has nothing to do with this.

 

[Soverytired]

I am aware of all that, and I am completely against it. But, hey, all in the name of "national security" right?

I was merely suggesting that people stop being stupid and pay attention when they are hurling 3000 pounds of metal at 75 mph.

Just remember, the Dems are the ones who keep sending bills to the president to sign to reauthorize patriot act stuff. They could block it or stop it all tomorrow, but they'd rather talk out of both sides of their mouths. (as do the Republicans, admittedly)

But yeah . . . bad drivers suck.