Waxman's victory is great news for environmentalists

You can't possibly be that depressed to believe the nonsense you espoused in this post.

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel

Afghans, Iraq, North Korea, Pakistan, and all you idiots blubber on and on and on and on and on and on. If Hillary R. Clinton becomes the annointed one's Secretary of State, please stock up on heavy ammo and kiss your sweet babies good-bye.

and it didn't put into italics all the quoted paragraphs. Oh well, I'm sure you'll figure it out. :-)

I look forward to a few hours of exploration and learning ......I appreciate your response.

I'd like to hear more about these 40% of which you speak. Please, tell us.

I don't think I'm incorrect in using the qualified phrase "general consensus" when stating that there is a general scientific consensus that human actions are contributing significantly to climate change.

Now, whether we can actually reverse the impact of our actions at this point, I don't think there is a consensus on that issue, because there are way too many X factors.

Anyhow, you ask for articles, and articles you shall have. The first takes issue (as do you) with the word "consensus," so you should enjoy it.

The IPCC concluded last year: "Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely (>90 percent) caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years. This conclusion takes into account ... the possibility that the response to solar forcing could be underestimated by climate models."

Scientists have come to understand that "forcings" (natural and human-made) explain most of the changes in our climate and temperature both in recent decades and over the past millions of years. The primary human-made forcings are the heat-trapping greenhouse gases we generate, particularly carbon dioxide from burning coal, oil and natural gas. The natural forcings include fluctuations in the intensity of sunlight (which can increase or decrease warming), and major volcanoes that inject huge volumes of gases and aerosol particles into the stratosphere (which tend to block sunlight and cause cooling).

A 2002 study by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences warned, "Abrupt climate changes were especially common when the climate system was being forced to change most rapidly." The rapidly growing greenhouse warming we ourselves are causing today thus increases the chances for "large, abrupt and unwelcome regional or global climatic events."

* * *

The scientific consensus most people are familiar with is the IPCC's "Summary for Policymakers" reports. But those aren't a majority opinion. Government representatives participate in a line-by-line review and revision of these summaries. So China, Saudi Arabia and that hotbed of denialism -- the Bush administration -- get to veto anything they don't like. The deniers call this "politicized science," suggesting the process turns the IPCC summaries into some sort of unscientific exaggeration. In fact, the reverse is true. The net result is unanimous agreement on a conservative or watered-down document. You could argue that rather than majority rules, this is "minority rules."

Last April, in an article titled "Conservative Climate," Scientific American noted that objections by Saudi Arabia and China led the IPCC to remove a sentence stating that the impact of human greenhouse gas emissions on the Earth's recent warming is five times greater than that of the sun. In fact, lead author Piers Forster of the University of Leeds in England said, "The difference is really a factor of 10."

How decent of the IPCC not to smash the last hope of deniers like Fred Thompson, whose irrational sun worshiping allows them to ignore the overwhelming evidence that human emissions are the dominant cause of climate change.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/02/27/global_warming_deniers/index.html

But try as he might, Solomon fails to find a single reputable character who will contest the major hypothesis: The human burning of fossil fuels is affecting the world's climate in an unprecedented and dangerous way.

Instead, Solomon has rounded up the usual suspects and revelled in the usual arguments. He quotes Dr. Edward Wegman's criticism of the famous hockey stick graph without admitting that Wegman testified before a U.S. Senate committee that he believes the globe is warming and that humans are to blame.

And then Solomon subs in an alternative non-hockey-stick graph that ends (it appears) around 1980, just at the point the blade of the hockey stick started to really spike up.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/editorial/story.html?id=12d547f8-af20-490a-9049-b22c5f2c5df9

http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/index.jsp

http://www.begbroke.ox.ac.uk/climate/interface.html

http://www.eo.ucar.edu/basics/index.html

http://www.pewclimate.org/

You can, indeed, you obviously do believe in the oxymoronic phrase "scientific consensus".

That's fine. I respect that. I Remain an agnostic on AGW and am unable to find anyone who can offer me a site that even attempts to explain the scientific certainty in lay language that will allow me to be a believer ....without the requisite religious like leap of faith that WaWi offers.

I will ask again: have you seen or are you aware of any sites that exist that even make an effort to explain the conclusions that they support without gratuitous dismissiveness of the 40% of the scientists that seem to reject AGW certainty theories.....and are able to do so in a way that is understandable to you and me?

I remain an inquisitive learner but I need to believe....I cannot leap ...please provide a source or two

thanks

"I do not believe that the evidence supporting man as the primary cause of the warming is conclusive."

Well, that's fine and good, but as I've said time and again, I'm going with the vast majority of scientists on this one, and I buy into the notion that the millions of tons of emissions we're spewing into our atmosphere is the likely explanation for the uptick in global temperatures over the past century and a half, particularly in the escalating trend over the past several decades. A "pragmatic environmentalism" which opts to dismiss the general consensus of science seems to me not very pragmatic after all -- indeed, it seems to be "dead dog stupid," to borrow a phrase.

As for libertarianism, I have great sympathies for many of its tenets, but I also recognize that it simply doesn't work as a practical political philosophy.

Hi there Interface .....glad to see you ramain attentive to your causes......haven't seen you post in a while....

I spent an hour and a half or so on the website that you referenced and, like WaWi, Kaulbars is 100% dismissive of any scientific support of AGW skeptics/contrarians/deniers. I would dare say that I spent a good deal more time on Greenfyre than you have on Icecap.

I remain interested in finding a couple of sites that will attempt to explain the urgency absent dismissive narrative or zealotry and with a narrative directed to the lay citizen. perhaps you might know of one or two ......I have never found one.

Allow me to advance my naive belief. Global Warming is occurring. We as a people would be well served to live and work with a more reasoned and responsible respect for environmental concerns.

We would be dead dog stupid to leap to the degree that Goracle supporters like WaWi would urge. The receding global economy cannot afford the leap IF there were conclusive evidence that a solution is necessary immediately and, that one is available.

I do not believe that the evidence supporting man as the primary cause of the warming is conclusive. Yes, there is risk in not leaping. There is also, I believe, greater risk in Leaping. Waxman supports leaping ....which is very costly.

I remain what I call, a pragamatic environmentalist. I do what I can without either imposing on or inconveniencing others. I long ago traded in my suv for a fuel efficient e-85 vehicle.....I think twice before I leap into my car to go anywhere...and I do all the little stuff around my own home.

I guess all that is reflective of my natural contrarian nature .....kind of why I am a libertarian as well

Hahahahaha!

Oh, jeez, when you start citing that mainstay of the climate change denier camp that Grinch so bitterly clings to, your stock starts falling, Chazzy.

For more on icecap and other denier hoax/misinformation sites, here's a blog with a good take:

http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/09/15/skeptics-contrarians-or-deniers/

Then again, I'm a tiny, vegetarian, tree hugging Native American.
Things are going to have to change (no pun intended.)
Global warming will affect many things in the next few years, including food security. All the denial in the world can't change the fact.

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel

Except the omnipotent Grinch of course , who has wisely insulated his financial future.

He has a lowly 33% rating from the coc, ranking him among the least friendly to business in congress. His consituency is arguably the most liberal in the country(Hollywood, beverly Hills, Malibu, west LA) and this tiny 5'5" napoleonic bozo has a passionate disregard for anyone who is, as yet, unconvinced of the impact of AGW.....calling them "deniers".

He embraces all things "Goracle" and will fully support the adoption of the most radical enviromentalist agendas......all which will cost every taxpayer in the country tens of thousands of dollars over next twenty years. Wally Winch is in heaven and the ten year cooling cycle we currently are in has no meaning......It's as though comedy central is taking over.....get ready for 30 to 50 % increases in energy costs over the next 5 years.

Fotr a more reasoned approach see

http://www.icecap.us/

LOL. He is a tad bit cranky. His nom de plume certainly is apropos

Don't-cha just love the grinch? I just laugh at the thought of him holed up in his fortress McMansion, mattress stuffed with loot, the yard full of buried coffee cans of cash, gleefully emitting hydrocarbons and solid waste.

Oh well, he's old and he'll die soon enough so we can recycle him.

"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid,but most stupid people are conservative."

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel

The real issue with Waxman is he is anti business. He will use and probably abuse his power as the chairman of the house energy and commerce committee to push regulations that will have no meaningful impact on the environment and if you believe in man made global warming, then no impact on that as well. He will adversly impact on business in this country and make it more difficult to revive the economy and ensure a long term of economic stability and growth.

We elected change and the change Waxman brings will not be welcomed by most people in this country.

Tow of the biggest con men what ever existed. Global Warmning my Aunt Agrnes.....

Go suck on some freon Bahner, nimrod.

"Listen would you send some of that "global warming" out to my house this AM?"

With as much hot air as you put out Rogue, I figured you would be nice and toasty this morning...

Listen would you send some of that "global warming" out to my house this AM? It is 15 and I am freezing my azz off!

What utter nonsense, the moonbats are now in charge of the asylum.

Screw Waxman, and screw the environmentalists. I am doing everything in my power to only not recycle, and not mulch, and not bring canvas bags to the politically correct grocery stores, I am laughing at those of you naive enough to think that whatever the hell you are doing is going to make the slightest difference.

It won't. Boo hoo.

Our next President will be in a winning situation from the get-go.

Why?

Anybody who hasn't seen the 1-minute clip of world leaders refusing to shake the hand of George Bush at the G-20 summit is in for a true eye-opener. Our world-wide reputation is at rock-bottom. It can only go up from here.

Check the video out at:
http://scootmandubious.blogspot.com/2008/11/video-that-shows-what-world-leaders.html

You should take the court cases seriously. They are real and make a good case. One of the suits also brings into question McCain's citizenship (born in military base in Panama). I'm not sucked in and think it's a sure thing, but my point is, why is Obama taking chances? Produce the document and move on.

Oh yes, he was the carpetbagger that tried to run against Obama

in Illinois and lost. I guess, he's still a wee bit bitter.

This sort of nonsense feeds the hysteria of the uninformed.

I suggest you visit the sites I posted. Snopes and Fact check both

have verified Obama's citizenship.

By the way, do you have a copy of your original birth certificate?

I certainly don't.

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel

I realize this issue is totally unrelated to the Waxman post, and I wish someone at the Star would write about it - but since they won't, I have a question for you.

There are something like 10 suits filed in various courts regarding Obama's citizenship. The most recent one filed in California by Alan Keyes. Ok - my question - why doesn't Obama just resolve this? Posting a birth certificate on his website just doesn't do it. He, and all of the candidates on the ballot, present less identification to run for president than you & I present for a driver's license. Just present an original long-form Hawaii birth certificate and be done with it. Isn't that what you & I would do?

Xenophobia is NOT attractive. Like Obama, I spent seven years of my childhood in a foreign country, do you want to see my proof of citizenship as well?

http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel

EASY MONEY !!!
$1000 dollars to ANYONE that can PROVE what HOSPITAL and DOCTOR delivered OBAMA...
EASY MONEY !!!