Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Rosie/ Billy's Blind Side

I don't even know where to start here. First of all, Bill, other networks DO cover Rosie O'Donnell's tirades. Joe Scarborough and Tucker Carlson (you know, thoses guys from MSNBC, that network you continuously lambast) have continuously been holding her feet to the fire (Glenn Beck on CNN Headline, also). But even if they didn't, I'm saying, the lady is a friggin' comedian who nobody, NOBODY with an IQ over 95 takes seriously. Ann Coulter, she, on the other hand, DOES have a political constituency (25 year-old sex-starved stooges on Wall Street, I'm gathering). I mean, that is her on C-Span, isn't it?

1 comment:

Mordechai said...

anonymous said...

A.) Just what is the global mean temperature that we're striving for?

1 degree Celsius planet wide global average above the 2000 global average, anything more then feedback mechanisms kick in, and climate change becomes self sustaining like it did during the PETM period.

PS: this fits with in the IPCC goals also.

B.)WHO gets to decide just what that temperature should be?

Easy physical science, see the science of too much GHG (above 350PPm long term) creates a set of feedbacks which create a situation where both poles end up ice free with the arctic being the first to go. This results in a much higher sea level rise where the vast majority of coastal cities where almost all global trade happens end up under water not to mention the land over 1 billion people live on.

BTW this doesn't take into accounts the CH4 factor.

C.)And at what point do we say OK we fixed it?

When the arctic melt off stops and CO2 consecrations are returning to the sustainable (for modern life) of 350 PPM

February 5, 2011 12:45 AM
Blogger anonymous said...

Here's the way that I see it, gents. The earth is, what, 4.5 billion years old? Homo sapiens, "we", on the other hand, are only 200,000 years old.

Both comments irrelevant to the discussion of GHG and AGW because the time frames we are discussing are a decade or so time frame before the feed back mechs start to kick in and no actions realsitically would work. It really is that short a time.

There had to have been thousands of episodes of global warming (not to mention, ice ages) before we even got here.

Also irrelevant because the ENTIRE modern history of the human race exists in the Holocene. All our agriculture, culture and most of the major global trading cities depend on keep global temps with in the temps of this era.

Now, this isn't to say that human activity CAN'T have a negative effect on the earth.

We can in fact until the rise of industrialization the earth was on a long term very slow cooling period moving ever slowly closer to a possible new ice age, thousands of years in the future. Since 1750, as a whole we with our activity have reversed this trend pushing global temps back to the highest levels since the beginnings of thew Holocene.

Not at all. But, I think that it's also probably best to approach this whole thing with a level head, looking at cost effectiveness, etc..

The costs of not doing the work needed to stop runaway ice melt and the other changes (ie severe agriculture disruption) leaving the temps which we have enjoyed during the Holocene are astronomical compared to any costs to making the changes to restore the climate the entire human race has lived under.

Try moving EVERY coastal city to a higher elevation as sea level rises, let alone finding ways of recreating the large scale agriculture we need to support world populations of 7 billion and above when the weather changes rain fall patterns let alone severe weather storms rising in both intensity and durations.

Bjorn Lomborg (yes, I know that he got into some trouble once) - he seems to have the best perspective (IMO); accept global warming, but do so in a prudent, nonhysterical manner.

Nothing hysterical about accepting the truth of science, which for some reason nobody wants to actually discuss.

February 5, 2011 12:59 AM
Blogger anonymous said...

BTW what happened to my post in response to the Newsweek cover?

I know it posted, I checked before I logged off.

Now for some reason it is missing.

The basis of the post is Newsweek isn't science, and only 1 scientific paper quoted global cooling while over 25 quoted global warming.

It would be nice to see posts not disappear when they disproved your personal talking points.

February 5, 2011 1:02 AM