Alaskan Glaciers Grow for First Time in 250 years

[Anderton]

Regardless of whether there's climate change that is man-made or not, running cleaner cars, having less toxic emissions, putting less crap in the air, and conserving natural resources and energy are all things that i can get behind and don't consider stupid.

And credit where credit is due: That's John McCain's position, almost word-for-word (although curiously, not Sarah Palin's).

[Anderton]

It's the "first time in 250 years" line that sort of says "Statistical anomaly!" Now, if the average temperature of the earth starts going down a bit every year for the next 250 years, then we have some really interesting data.

I think it's a mistake to look for a single cause. It's not people driving SUVs causing climate change. Climate change is often due to natural forces beyond our control, e.g., Krakatoa exploding or the sun's temperature fluctuating. However, the mechanism whereby greenhouse gases can affect climate is pretty well understood, as well as altering the albedo of the poles and other icy regions, which causes change of its own.

So the only questions are 1) whether man is accelerating a natural process, 2) not accelerating a natural process, or 3) causing a man-made acceleration of the process.

In the case of 1) and 3), then the McCain/Ken Lee approach is the only logical one to take. In the case of 2), then it's still the logical approach to take because greenhouse gases are not considered a good thing anyway.

Case closed, next question!

[Music Calgary]

So the only questions are 1) whether man is accelerating a natural process, 2) not accelerating a natural process, or 3) causing a man-made acceleration of the process.

 

Not at all. The answers to those questions have zero benefit other than entertainment value...

 

First of all everything we do is natural, toxins are natural -- and all that occurs here on this shiny blue marble is part of the current natural process. Period.

 

It's no less natural when ten million humans {censored} into a river than when a single catfish does it...

 

Second of all nature has a marvelous capacity to regulate itself and that is really where the crucial questions lie.

 

Case closed, next question!

 

God bless you Craig Anderton for solving global warming.

[MichaelSaulnier]

Again, it doesn't matter if someone posted something. That doesn't mean anything. Show me where it's being accepted by the broad consensus of climate scientists. I could post a video saying whatever I want. It doesn't mean much though unless it's accepted by those peers, not just seen by them. If it's upsetting the belief system, reference those comments by the other scientists whose beliefs it's changed.

I can see you're not really interested in hearing what this guy says...

But it's not just a vid of the guy speculating... or as you put it... a video of a guy saying whatever he wants.

He's testifying before a congressional committee. In front of the whole world. He shares his insights from his leadership position at NASA... about policy decisions at high levels in government. That was pre-oriented toward the belief that CO2 emmissions were to be regulated... before the science was done... that he personally observed.

He's a credible scientist, in fact one of the LEADING scientists studying this subject. He's not just "a guy". That's WHY he was testifying before congress. They don't just let crackpots wander up to the mic...

But I understand you prefer to wait until "the consensus" is that GW isn't caused by CO2 emmissions.

You let me know when everyone's on board.



M

[Richard King]

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/10/20/lorne-gunter-thirty-years-of-warmer-temperatures-go-poof.aspx

In early September, I began noticing a string of news stories about scientists rejecting the orthodoxy on global warming. Actually, it was more like a string of guest columns and long letters to the editor since it is hard for skeptical scientists to get published in the cabal of climate journals now controlled by the Great Sanhedrin of the environmental movement. Still, the number of climate change skeptics is growing rapidly . Because a funny thing is happening to global temperatures -- they're going down, not up.

More...

[Anderton]

God bless you Craig Anderton for solving global warming.

You're welcome! Glad to help. I've always favored the Monty Python approach:

"How to play the flute: You blow through here, and run your fingers up and down these holes."

"How to drive a car: You go faster or slower with these things, and turn this wheel here to go different places."

Now that I've solved global warming, stay ttuned for my next installments, "How to End Poverty in 15 Minutes" and "What to Do if Aliens Invade La Jolla."

[Dean Roddey]

First of all everything we do is natural, toxins are natural -- and all that occurs here on this shiny blue marble is part of the current natural process. Period.

That's not remotely true. We pump out all kinds of things that would NEVER exist if we didn't create them artificially through industrial processes.

[Dean Roddey]

He's a credible scientist, in fact one of the LEADING scientists studying this subject. He's not just "a guy". That's WHY he was testifying before congress. They don't just let crackpots wander up to the mic...

But don't you see the issue here? They other people who did the same and had the opposite point of view are also leading scientists and not crackpots. If the fact that a leading, non-crackpot scientist says something, then global warming would have to be true, since plenty of them take that position. The only difference with this guy is that he's saying what you want to believe, so you assume he's correct and that the other scientists, just as competent, who take the opposite approach are not. But that's an arbitrary choice.

So it makes no sense for you to point me at that video and claim that it has to be true because he's competent and a leading scientist. That doesn't make him unique in any way. Neither of us are in a position to say whether his arguments are true or false, since we are not climate scientists. If what he says is true, then he needs to convinece other climate scientists.

[Anderton]

Now that I've solved global warming, stay tuned for my next installments, "How to End Poverty in 15 Minutes" and "What to Do if Aliens Invade La Jolla."

As promised, here are the solutions.

1. Make sure everyone has enough money to live.
2. Go to somewhere that's not La Jolla.

You're welcome!

[amplayer]

2. Go to somewhere that's not La Jolla.

What if they are nice aliens that only have our best interest in mind, er, um, whatever they use to do something like thinking? Maybe Clem knows these guys...

[MichaelSaulnier]

As promised, here are the solutions. 1. Make sure everyone has enough money to live. 2. Go to somewhere that's not La Jolla. You're welcome!

If the Aliens land first in La Jolla...

They're not going anywhere for a while.

Have you every tried getting a seat at an oceanside restaurant?

It takes forever.

Plus, there's no parking, so the valets will have all their spacecraft.

M

[MichaelSaulnier]

But don't you see the issue here? They other people who did the same and had the opposite point of view are also leading scientists and not crackpots. If the fact that a leading, non-crackpot scientist says something, then global warming would have to be true, since plenty of them take that position. The only difference with this guy is that he's saying what you want to believe, so you assume he's correct and that the other scientists, just as competent, who take the opposite approach are not. But that's an arbitrary choice. So it makes no sense for you to point me at that video and claim that it has to be true because he's competent and a leading scientist. That doesn't make him unique in any way. Neither of us are in a position to say whether his arguments are true or false, since we are not climate scientists.

I'm not saying he's correct. I'm pointing out that he was called to testify before congress as one of the leading researchers in the field. And that there is NEW INFORMATION they have learned that leads HIM to conclude that the case for CO2 emissions causing global warming may be flawed.

If you take a minute and watch his testimony, you'll see he states when he shared this NEW INFORMATION with other scientists at a seminar on the subject, he didn't get "serious objections" to his conclusions.

Which I take as the OTHER SCIENTISTS didn't object.

If what he says is true, then he needs to convinece other climate scientists.

Hey, we may agree on this point...

Do you think we have to wait for ALL the other scientists to agree, a simple majority, only ones who have reviewed this NEW INFORMATION, only specialists in this field with equal credentials or what?

Why don't you just watch the vid and see whether his testimony makes YOU wonder about the credibility of the case for CO2 emissions and global warming?

C'mon, humor me.

M

[John Sayers]

I liked what he said at the end of the presentation - that this is good news!!! yet it was met with silence and indifference.

It's amazing that everyone seems to want a warming planet with catastrophe and rising sea levels.

[UstadKhanAli]

It's amazing that everyone seems to want a warming planet with catastrophe and rising sea levels.

John, this is because many of us live further inland from the coast and want beachfront property.

[John Sayers]

well that's why I moved inland Ken

[MichaelSaulnier]

I liked what he said at the end of the presentation - that this is good news!!! yet it was met with silence and indifference. It's amazing that everyone seems to want a warming planet with catastrophe and rising sea levels.

John, you see this conflicts with the power grab that's happening over "carbon control".

I don't know if you saw the link to the proposed bill in the US House that creates a major NEW GOVERNMENT AGENCY that will have the power to levy "carbon tax" on companies.

SO... why is this a concern.

Well, if you're in the business of creating energy, or do manufacturing... you'll need to have politico's in your pocket to support legislation that favors your view on how this would work... and make sure YOUR firm doesn't get the shaft. So you'll have to contribute to the politico's and their party in order to get and keep their ear.

Now if it turns out that CO2 emissions AREN'T causing global warming... the whole bill and therefore the influence and control would get a big "NEVER MIND".

That would NOT be a favored outcome.

M

[UstadKhanAli]

In the case of 1) and 3), then the McCain/Ken Lee approach is the only logical one to take.

John and I have solved the global warming crisis.

He asked if I could be his running mate, but I said, "Thanks, John, but politics is not for me."

[SteinbergerHack]

Clean air and water would be wonderful. Alternative fuels are essential for both the environment and economic security. Let's just start there and stop bull{censored}ting about global warming.

Well said....

[pickabar]

This all reminds me of what "deep throat" said to Bob Woodward as he was investigating Watergate... "Follow the money" M

More from that wikipedia article:

He has been referred to as the "official climatologist of the EIB Network" by Rush Limbaugh, who is the owner of the Excellence In Broadcasting network.

Spencer is listed as a member of the Heartland Institute and a contributor to the George C. Marshall Institute[17], both of which receive funding from ExxonMobil.

[Jotown]

http://www.dailytech.com/Alaskan%2BGlaciers%2BGrow%2Bfor%2BFirst%2BTime%2Bin%2B250%2Byears/article13215.htm I've never accepted the "fight climate change" hysteria. Nature does what it does. For us to invest resources into an intentional attempt to block nature from taking its course in order to somehow "reverse" the unintentional harms we create is probably the single stupidest idea I've ever heard. The Alaskan glaciers have grown this year, Arctic sea ice has increased this year, some areas just had the coldest summer in several decades -- and yet the press isn't giving it any coverage. Odd. I wonder how global warming alarmists will obfuscate this one.

The overwhelming majority of experts on this subject have long ago agreed that climate change is real and that Co2 emissions from humans are a big part of the cause.

There will always be experts on the fringe of every issue (and most of those claiming climate change is not due in any way due to humans are usually funded by the oil companies) but this is a non issue in most of the worlds universities and think tanks.

Climate change is real. Humans are playing a huge role in its acceleration. We need to get that and get on with doing our part to contain it. Pretending its not real only wastes time.

[Richard King]

There will always be experts on the fringe of every issue (and most of those claiming climate change is not due in any way due to humans are usually funded by the oil companies) but this is a non issue in most of the worlds universities and think tanks.

Universities and think tanks whose funding would be taken away if this is resolved in the "non man made" direction. So long as they can keep this alive they will keep the funding coming in. Resolve the problem with a decision that man has nothing to do with it and the funding goes away, as does Al Gore's reason for being here.

The money has to be taken out of BOTH sides of the arguement.

[Dean Roddey]

Come on. It's so easy when you don't agree with someone to accuse them of being blantantly evil or greedy. Do you really believe that all those scientists have no concern for their professional career and integrity?

[Jotown]

the problem with a decision that man has nothing to do with it and the funding goes away, as does Al Gore's reason for being here. The money has to be taken out of BOTH sides of the arguement.

Again; at this point there is no doubt that the 6 1/2 billion people on this planet and all of the damage we have done to the earth, water and air is having an effect. And yes, glaciers are melting. In Tibet they have seen an amazing decline that has sped up predictions of their demise by a hundred years.

That an Alaskan glacier appears to be growing is great, but that does not ameliorate the 99 % that are not.

[John Sayers]

The glaciers have been retreating for 100s of years, we are in an interglacial period- that's what glaciers do in these periods. The glaciers that covered most of the US during the last ice age have since receded.

[kurfu]