Video: Teacher, teacher, I’ll raise my hand to global warming!

posted at 3:24 pm on December 13, 2007 by Allahpundit

The essence of Hillary: A canny politico on the one hand (well, not lately), waaaay too reminiscent of Tracy Flick on the other.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Global Warming = Global Socialism

Kini on December 13, 2007 at 3:30 PM

Ok Hillary you can clean out the erasers for extra credit.

ronsfi on December 13, 2007 at 3:32 PM

If I were the school marm:

“Mrs. Clinton, how can you deride the Bush administration for a lack of control over various departments, agencies, and staff when you can’t even persuade your own campaign committee and workers to not viciously attack your political opponents?”

Matticus Finch on December 13, 2007 at 3:33 PM

What a keener.

nailinmyeye on December 13, 2007 at 3:33 PM

No clapping or cheering?

davod on December 13, 2007 at 3:34 PM

Kini on December 13, 2007 at 3:30 PM

Global Warming = Global Socialism

Please don’t conflate an observed phenomenon with theories as to its causes or proposed responses to it. That’s the sort of “comment” that makes silly remarks like the one above, by Hillary, so potent.

DaveS on December 13, 2007 at 3:35 PM

Global Warming = Global Socialism

Kini on December 13, 2007 at 3:30 PM

Not if you deal with it the right way. Unfortunately, the republican base has convinced itself that the whole thing is a hoax, and refuses to deal with it in an intelligent manner.

Big S on December 13, 2007 at 3:37 PM

Not if you deal with it the right way. Unfortunately, the republican base has convinced itself that the whole thing is a hoax, and refuses to deal with it in an intelligent manner.

Big S on December 13, 2007 at 3:37 PM

Yes, I agree the global warming phenomenon on Mars is a serious problem. What shall we do? Who shall I give money to?

Zetterson on December 13, 2007 at 3:39 PM

Tracy Flick all the way!

RobCon on December 13, 2007 at 3:43 PM

Zetterson on December 13, 2007 at 3:39 PM

You prove my point. It’s probably true that fluctuations in solar output have something to do with the phenomenon on Mars, as well as here on Earth. However, it’s also probably true that increased greenhouse gas output by humans contributes to our planet’s climate change as well. The thing is, we don’t know how much each of these, as well as the potentially many other causes contributes. For this reason, and others having to do with economics and security, it’s worthwhile to try to cut down on our reliance on fossil fuels. So far, the Dems own this issue; if we don’t come up with our own plan to deal with these things, we’ll end up with the socialist solution, and have ourselves to blame.

Big S on December 13, 2007 at 3:46 PM

DaveS on December 13, 2007 at 3:35 PM

Big S on December 13, 2007 at 3:37 PM

Don’t get it.

Zetterson on December 13, 2007 at 3:39 PM

Gets it.

We have not and cannot control our environment from a global perspective. We can control our own environment from an individual perspective. Turn on the heat, turn off the air.

And what to do about Mars? Think you know about global warming, take the test.

It is an attempt to push Socialist Ideology through the guise of Global Warming by the Democrats and Leftist.

Kini on December 13, 2007 at 3:48 PM

Unfortunately, the republican base has convinced itself that the whole thing is a hoax, and refuses to deal with it in an intelligent manner.

And _____________ has?

saint kansas on December 13, 2007 at 3:49 PM

So far, the Dems own this issue;

And they can keep it cause I ain’t buying.

The Rocky Mountains were created by a glacier 2000 miles wide, 1000 long and 5 miles deep. Where did that ice go?

peacenprosperity on December 13, 2007 at 3:52 PM

When she raises her hand, will it be covered by a sock puppet?

Frozen Tex on December 13, 2007 at 3:55 PM

“Global Warming” is not an observed phenomenon. That the weather is changing (some places getting warmer, some getting colder) is not in doubt… it happens all the time.

Skywise on December 13, 2007 at 3:56 PM

There is no science in Global Warming that proves it’s caused by Humans.
That is an opinion and not fact.

This whole argument needs to be countered by real science and facts by real climate scientists not wanttabe scientists that are not climatologist.

Read what the real experts are saying.

Kini on December 13, 2007 at 4:00 PM

We have not and cannot control our environment from a global perspective. We can control our own environment from an individual perspective. Turn on the heat, turn off the air.

Kini on December 13, 2007 at 3:48 PM

Perhaps the dumbest statement I’ve read all week. I suggest brushing up on your knowledge of thermodynamics. Thanks!

And _____________ has?

saint kansas on December 13, 2007 at 3:49 PM

Sen. Inhofe, for one, at least two of our illustrious presidential candidates, and about half of the right wing blogosphere.

Big S on December 13, 2007 at 4:00 PM

Read this

Kini on December 13, 2007 at 4:01 PM

“You know,” I can actually see her going down.

Connie on December 13, 2007 at 4:02 PM

I suggest brushing up on your knowledge of thermodynamics. Thanks!

Big S on December 13, 2007 at 4:00 PM

I do understand thermal dynamics, And you should learn about climatology.

Kini on December 13, 2007 at 4:06 PM

Well this comment is OT, but here’s an apple for my teacher the AP.

I’m surprised you haven’t picked up on this freaky deaky Japanese story. A Christmas tree powered by an electric eel in Tokyo.

I figure even as an atheist, this is one Christmas story you could enjoy. Merry Christmas.

ThackerAgency on December 13, 2007 at 4:11 PM

I do understand thermal dynamics

Kini on December 13, 2007 at 4:06 PM

Apparently you skipped the class where they talk about coupled systems. Funny, that’s usually the first one. At least it is when I teach it…

Big S on December 13, 2007 at 4:12 PM

What? No barf alert?

Jay on December 13, 2007 at 4:18 PM

I know Hillary was reaching for a zinger here, but to me she was just following Fred’s lead similar to the way the Republicans did. She tried to take control of the Dem debate like Fred did, but came across as just riding his coattails instead. She just brought more attention to Fred’s moment instead of having a moment of her own.

aero on December 13, 2007 at 4:21 PM

gag gag

Ann on December 13, 2007 at 4:24 PM

Big S on December 13, 2007 at 3:46 PM

Big S, the fact is that Global Warming is not a huge problem nor does it require immediate/drastic action. It may be a reality but so what? Are we really so foolish as to think that we can alter the earth’s climate/temp with our own behavior?

The reason why the Republican base is so convinced GW is a hoax is because the facts are so contrary to the claims of the swindlers constantly pushing it down our throats. Some of us actually think for ourselves though and are looking at the debate with open eyes. You say this:

it’s also probably true that increased greenhouse gas output by humans contributes to our planet’s climate change as well

But think about it. Why do you say that? Where is the evidence? Have you just heard it repeated so many times that you accept it as fact now? Why would the period of the most rapid warming take place prior to the industrial revolution? Why do temp increases always emerge prior to rises in Co2 levels? Why is Greenland a frozen ice block while Iceland is green? Why did the mile of ice covering Chicago begin melting so rapidly before humans were exhaling all those evil greenhouse gasses?

Zetterson on December 13, 2007 at 4:25 PM

Apparently you skipped the class where they talk about coupled systems. Funny, that’s usually the first one. At least it is when I teach it…

Big S on December 13, 2007 at 4:12 PM

And where is it modeled from a global climate point of view?
And how do you model it, correctly, given the variables are constantly changing worldwide?

You are missing my original point. Global warming is a guise for a socialist agenda.
The candidates are not experts in this topic. The real question is, it Global Warming a real issue?

The loudest proponents of this argument are the non-experts, I give you the Goracle.

The solutions being presented, reduction in fossil fuels, battery powered cars, sure all good idea, but not well thought out in the long run.

Kini on December 13, 2007 at 4:27 PM

Speaking of science…

If the temperature of the planet has been changing in epic cycles for over 4 billion years, how exactly do we know that the current temperature is the, erm, right temperature and that we as humans should be responsible for maintaining the planet at that temperature?

Because our activity over a couple hundred years has “allegedly” influenced it? What about all those dinosaur farts over 150 million years? What about sunspots? Volcanoes? Do we need to compensate for those somehow?

saint kansas on December 13, 2007 at 4:32 PM

Big S,

a few questions:

1) How much effect and contamination of measured temperature data is caused by urbanization?

2) Since CO2 is a well mixed gas in the atmosphere, why is there a differential between observed warming in the northern and southern hemispheres?

3) When will Hansen et al release to the public their “correction” factors?

4) Over what time frame is it safe to declare that global warming is occuring, and is a problem?

5) What effect did the shutdown of all data sources in the soviet union have when it colapsed on the “global average temperature”?

6) Why are developing counties not subjected to the same regulations as developed countries when it comes to greenhouse gas regulation?

7) how would you prevent rent seeking schemes in a cap and trade system?

Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on December 13, 2007 at 4:33 PM

One of the things (as if her policies weren’t enough) that scares me about Hill getting into the White House again is her absolute cowardice when it comes to risking her self image. As much as I hate Bill, at least he had a spine, and knew that sometimes you can turn on idiots (such as the 911 “truthers”) and put them in their place.

Gimme more Fred.

doufree on December 13, 2007 at 4:37 PM

8) How long till one of the candidates propose a tax on exhaling.

Think that’s silly?

Kini on December 13, 2007 at 4:37 PM

With new words such as W00I (did I get it right?), it’s probably an archaic term now, but we used to call these types “brown nosers”.

It’s old, but it still fits, no?

Blaise on December 13, 2007 at 4:38 PM

The reason why the Republican base is so convinced GW is a hoax is because the facts are so contrary to the claims of the swindlers constantly pushing it down our throats.

I’ve said it before, but… I used to work in a building with 20 used car salesmen. And from experience, I can tell you that if Al Gore used the same techniques to sell you a used car that he uses to sell global warming, you’d run away screaming with both hands on your checkbook:

There is no debate. Everyone agrees on this. There is no time to consider other options. You have to act today. It’s for the safety of your children. Specifics? “That’s above my pay grade.” I’ll have to talk to my manager. We can finance it. What do I have to do to get you in a panic today?

saint kansas on December 13, 2007 at 4:41 PM

Kini on December 13, 2007 at 4:27 PM

You are missing my original point. Global warming is a guise for a socialist agenda.

No, you’re first point was that “Global Warming = Global Socialism”, which is a stupid thing to say. If you want to make the case that global warming, which is very clearly and empirically documented to be occurring, is being exaggerated, or otherwise over-hyped, and leveraged to support the implementation of some global socialist policies, then I would be arguing right by your side.

Big S pretty much summed it up. We should be doing what Newt Gingrich has been doing… we should take the issue and make it ours. The US is outperforming the rest of the world in reducing CO2 emissions, even as they all bitch about how the US isn’t doing anything to “help”. The GOP should be talking that up and steering the world toward free market solutions and new forms of energy that render OPEC–and the Mideast in general–irrelevant.

DaveS on December 13, 2007 at 4:44 PM

8) How long till one of the candidates propose a tax on exhaling.

Think that’s silly?

Kini on December 13, 2007 at 4:37 PM

Huckabee wants to tax carbon emmissions.

Zetterson on December 13, 2007 at 4:44 PM

Are we really so foolish as to think that we can alter the earth’s climate/temp with our own behavior?

Zetterson on December 13, 2007 at 4:25 PM

It’s not foolish; we can. We just don’t know by how much, since it’s not easy to analyze the data and predict exact numbers based on complex models.

But think about it. Why do you say that? Where is the evidence?

Where is yours? We don’t know what’s going on, but we are in the middle of an increase in greenhouse gases, as well as overall warming of the Earth’s surface temperature. The physical reasons for believing that they may be linked are well established, and we are definitely contributing something to the greenhouse effect. The whole point is that we don’t know by how much, and there is an ongoing debate. There are surely plenty of unscrupulous scientists and politicians out there who play up the craziest predictions, but there are also plenty of well-intentioned scientists who agree that it is an issue that needs to be considered. Pretending that it’s no big deal based on what some propaganda says is just as bad as acting as if we’re all going to die in 50 years is we don’t stop driving right now.

Big S on December 13, 2007 at 4:53 PM

The whole point is that we don’t know by how much, and there is an ongoing debate.

No, the whole point is that the debate is supposedly over. None of us neanderthals has a problem with discussing the evidence, but when it is reduced to raising your hand, then that’s where we get off.

pedestrian on December 13, 2007 at 4:57 PM

Where is yours?

Big S on December 13, 2007 at 4:12 PM

No doubt you have an opinion on this…

The pdf

elgeneralisimo on December 13, 2007 at 4:57 PM

pedestrian on December 13, 2007 at 4:57 PM

No, the whole point is that the debate is supposedly over. None of us neanderthals has a problem with discussing the evidence, but when it is reduced to raising your hand, then that’s where we get off.

That’s not what I got out of the rest of this thread… it seems that most people here are decidedly not interested in discussing evidence, and that the debate for them is just as over as it is for someone like Al Gore. And this bizarrely tinfoilish behavior has been occurring on Hotair regarding this topic since LONG before the “raise your hand” deal.

DaveS on December 13, 2007 at 5:00 PM

DaveS on December 13, 2007 at 4:44 PM

I don’t think it’s stupid to say so, it’s right to the point that you made.

If you want to make the case that global warming, which is very clearly and empirically documented to be occurring, is being exaggerated, or otherwise over-hyped, and leveraged to support the implementation of some global socialist policies, then I would be arguing right by your side.

My comment, “Global Warming = Global Socialism”, is more about the messenger in AP’s post. It’s just the comments heated into a GW science debate and got lost the meaning of my original comment toward Hillary and the democrats belief it’s an anthropomorphic event.

One to regulate your life and tax the heck out of you.

Kini on December 13, 2007 at 5:00 PM

1) How much effect and contamination of measured temperature data is caused by urbanization?

Excellent question! My guess is more than nothing, but not all of the observed effect. It may be contamination due to systematic error on our part (putting thermometers near cities), or it may be a real effect that’s actually causing warming. Also, don’t forget the effect of agriculture on modifying the surface characteristics of the planet.

2) Since CO2 is a well mixed gas in the atmosphere, why is there a differential between observed warming in the northern and southern hemispheres?

That’s because there is an influence of the geographic topology on the extent to which the warming occurs. Very local differences are due to the same kinds of effects that have always applied to all climate differentials: mountain ranges, lakes, difference in ocean depth and current, etc. This falls under the designation of “weather.” More importantly than that, however, don’t forget that the greenhouse effect occurs due to re-radiation of energy from the earth, not direct absorption of radiation from the sun. It’s a form of “blackbody radiation” and is dependent on the features of the surface of the Earth.

3) When will Hansen et al release to the public their “correction” factors?

Soon, I hope.

4) Over what time frame is it safe to declare that global warming is occuring, and is a problem?

We’ve observed a rapid warming over the past 100 years or so. I’m comfortable waiting to get a better handle on the link to solar activity and other effects, which shouldn’t take more than another 100 years or so, given current predictions.

5) What effect did the shutdown of all data sources in the soviet union have when it colapsed on the “global average temperature”?

I’m not sure. We can still count on the warming data from before the early 1990′s, though.

6) Why are developing counties not subjected to the same regulations as developed countries when it comes to greenhouse gas regulation?

I think the whole Kyoto thing is dumb.

7) how would you prevent rent seeking schemes in a cap and trade system?

I don’t know.

Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on December 13, 2007 at 4:33 PM

Big S on December 13, 2007 at 5:09 PM

My comment, “Global Warming = Global Socialism”, is more about the messenger in AP’s post.

And my original point was simply that it’s silly to use that language. Go the extra “mile” and say “global warming as a political issue”… that way people won’t think you are poo-pooing the existence of the phenomenon itself.

It’s just the comments heated into a GW science debate and got lost the meaning of my original comment toward Hillary and the democrats belief it’s an anthropomorphic event.

The word is anthropogenic (easy mistake to make, though), and there is little question that at least some of the warming is anthropogenic.

The real questions are how much is our fault, can we even do anything about it anyway, and SHOULD we do anything about it. Certainly we should be trying to move away from fossil fuels to the extent that we can, and in that regard both sides agree… they just don’t realize they agree, and they have decidedly different ways of accomplishing the targets, freedom-wise.

DaveS on December 13, 2007 at 5:09 PM

Big S on December 13, 2007 at 5:09 PM

3) When will Hansen et al release to the public their “correction” factors?

Soon, I hope.

Are you talking about the GISS adjustments?

DaveS on December 13, 2007 at 5:14 PM

DaveS on December 13, 2007 at 5:00 PM

I for one would welcome seeing an informed debate over point number 1 mentioned in the post by “elgeneralisimo on December 13, 2007 at 4:57 PM”, which is that the atmosphere and a greenhouse are fundamentally different.

I’ve seen that claim made persuasively elsewhere, but it is beyond my level to be sure I understand it fully. If the whole analogy is based on pre-quantum notions of thermodynamics, then the rest is not worth discussing, because the data really is too corrupted to draw conclusions from directly. Most of the data is from instruments that were set up to do weather forecasting, and are completely inadequate for climate studies.

pedestrian on December 13, 2007 at 5:15 PM

Big S on December 13, 2007 at 4:53 PM

Big S, I’m the evil GW denier. Remember? I don’t have to provide the evidence. All I need to do is challenge the groupthink with questions. I noticed you didn’t attempt to address any of the questions I asked specifically and how they are sort of problematic to the man made GW theory.

Zetterson on December 13, 2007 at 5:16 PM

Are you talking about the GISS adjustments?

DaveS on December 13, 2007 at 5:14 PM

Yeah. I’m a little out of date on the status of that.

Zetterson on December 13, 2007 at 5:16 PM

It’s fine to challenge groupthink, but I think you’ve misidentified the thing you should be challenging. Like I said before, the real question is how much we’re contributing to warming, not whether we are contributing to warming. When you reject the premise that it might have something to do with humans, you’ve already discredited yourself and people will ignore you.

As far as your questions go, the answer, as always is we don’t know. We do know that we’re producing greenhouse gases, and we do know that the earth is warming, and it’s very difficult to tell what the real reasons are. The best path is to do more research on the causes of global warming and the technological solutions to it. Both will end up being beneficial in the end, even if our contribution to GW ends up being very small after all.

Big S on December 13, 2007 at 5:28 PM

Global Warming = Global Socialism

If you think there’s any other agenda, you need more help that an internet forum can provide.

corona on December 13, 2007 at 5:33 PM

It totally kills me that people buy into this, thinking that they are looking at the “big picture”. Hate to tell you, Sparky. But climate cycling for a hundred / two hundred years on this planet is NOT the big picture.

Try taking a mere quarter of a second of your life, and predicting your whole life’s outcome based on the changes in that quarter second…and that is even more data that you brain-drains are using to predict the demise of a planet that will be around for LONG after we’re extinct.

This is just a ploy for insignificant, unhappy morons to feel NEEDED in the global picture.

Check in now…we are NOTHING to this planet.

tickleddragon on December 13, 2007 at 5:34 PM

Let’s clear that whole Global Warming = Socialism thing up for you guys…

A GLOBAL crisis is the perfect vehicle to centralize power to “fix” the problem that doesn’t exist (climate is cyclical and does not rely on action by man), so that people in that centralized power can attain and keep said power, while taking from everyone else.

tickleddragon on December 13, 2007 at 5:37 PM

Tell me, Big S, how did we Earthlings prevent the New Ice Age that was supposed to be just around the corner in the seventies?

corona on December 13, 2007 at 5:39 PM

geesh, two days in a row of this moderator?

Hillary is just sad. Stick a fork in her, she’s done!

jdsmith0021 on December 13, 2007 at 5:41 PM

As far as your questions go, the answer, as always is we

don’t know. We do know that we’re producing greenhouse gases, and we do know that the earth is warming, and it’s very difficult to tell what the real reasons are. The best path is to do more research on the causes of global warming and the technological solutions to it. Both will end up being beneficial in the end, even if our contribution to GW ends up being very small after all.

Big S on December 13, 2007 at 5:28 PM

Ok. Come on now. I’m going to get this out of you. If upward warming trends on the temp vs time line graph PREdate upward warming trends of greenhouse gas emmissions how is it possible that greenhouse gas emmissions have anything to do with the increase of temps?

Every single GW activist I’ve ever heard has always made reference to the coorilation between Co2 and temp. That is the crux of the man made GW theory. But its crap. You don’t have to have a doctorate in order to figure this one out. When I was in high school I remember conducting an experiment. We had a plastic coke bottle, a balloon, water and a bunson burner. We filled the plastic bottle with a few cups of water. Attached the balloon to the top of the bottle. Heated the bottom of the bottle with the bunson burner. What happened? The balloon blew up. With what? Co2. What does this teach us. It teaches us that temp increases CAUSE rising Co2 levels. Hence, the undeniable coorilation we are all supposed to bow down to. The same forces are at work on earth.

I’m not going to buy into, or endorse any action that involves the thinning of my wallet for something that is so remarkably counter to basic logic and reason. Anybody who does is a fool.

Now, weaning ourselves off foreign oil is a completely different issue. I’m for that. I’m for introduction of alternative energy sources that allow us to do that. But, only so long as Al Gore stays out of my f’ing bank account.

Zetterson on December 13, 2007 at 5:45 PM

The word is anthropogenic (easy mistake to make, though), and there is little question that at least some of the warming is anthropogenic.

Anthropogenic, I stand corrected, thanks.
To the degree that some warming is caused by human activity I think is minor, if any at all. My short but sweet comment was, in my mind, to the point. But a mind is a terrible thing to waste.

I believe the climate is changing, has changed and will always change. Irregardless of what humans contribute. The knee jerk reaction has been to blame human activity to which I ask for proof.

The one fact that isn’t debatable is GW is being used as a scare tactic to push forth a socialist agenda.

Kini on December 13, 2007 at 5:46 PM

Zetterson on December 13, 2007 at 5:45
Kini on December 13, 2007 at 5:46 PM

Am with you all the way!

JiangxiDad on December 13, 2007 at 5:51 PM

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1694259,00.html?imw=Y

blah blah, The Laureate… blah blah blah, The Laureate.

Al Gore is an enemy of the USA.

James on December 13, 2007 at 5:55 PM

All we need is to breed more electric eels and we wouldn’t need any other source for electrical power. Would that help greenhouse gasses?

ThackerAgency on December 13, 2007 at 5:58 PM

Al Gore is an enemy of the USA.

James on December 13, 2007 at 5:55 PM

He’s just punishing us for not making him POTUS.

techno_barbarian on December 13, 2007 at 6:00 PM

Now, weaning ourselves off foreign oil is a completely different issue. I’m for that. I’m for introduction of alternative energy sources that allow us to do that. But, only so long as Al Gore stays out of my f’ing bank account.

Zetterson on December 13, 2007 at 5:45 PM

Agreed. Alternative energy is a good start. I use Net Metering not to be Green, but to save some $$green$$.

Getting of the foreign oil crack pipe is a good start and drilling for our own oil is a good answer that problem. Solutions need to be tempered with long term consequences. Such as Hybrid cars using hazardous materials and fluorescent light bulbs containing mercury.

I’m all for saving green not going green to loose my green.

Kini on December 13, 2007 at 6:08 PM

4) Over what time frame is it safe to declare that global warming is occuring, and is a problem?
We’ve observed a rapid warming over the past 100 years or so. I’m comfortable waiting to get a better handle on the link to solar activity and other effects, which shouldn’t take more than another 100 years or so, given current predictions

I don’t know about rapid, given that in the 1930s there were a number of warm years on par with the late 1990s. Given the difference between urbanization and co2 concentrations between the 30s and 90s are you comfortable indicating that the problem is in fact man-made?

Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on December 13, 2007 at 6:36 PM

Just to put another nail, reason, poopoo, in my Global Warming = Global Socialism comment which I think was a brilliant statement.

President Clinton and others cite a letter signed by 2600 scientists that global warming will have catastrophic effects on humanity. Thanks to Citizens for a Sound Economy, we know now that fewer than 10% of these “scientists” know anything about climate. Among the signers: a plastic surgeon, two landscape architects, a hotel administrator, a gynecologist, seven sociologists, a linguist, and a practitioner of traditional Chinese medicine.

With Clinton in the White House, you can expect more experts like these to run the country and economy right into the ground.

And note the Chinese connection.

Kini on December 13, 2007 at 7:12 PM

Zetterson on December 13, 2007 at 5:45 PM

Sorry to get all scientific on you, but you asked for it… Your little experiment with the bottle proves nothing but the dependence of carbonate acid dissociation constants and solubility of gas in liquid on temperature (feel free to look up those terms if you haven’t heard them before). Yes, the same kind of thing can happen with the dissolved carbonate and CO2 in the ocean, as the ocean warms. However, the timescales of the various processes involved in the establishment of equilibrium are probably what’s responsible for the lag in CO2 behind temperature in the ice core data (assuming that the data’s accurate). Think about it this way: the atmosphere warms and cools much faster than the ocean, and a warming of the atmosphere by some other process (sun output, volcanic activity, differences in cloud formation, etc.) warm the oceans slowly, over the course of about 1000-2000 years (a decent estimate of the circulation time of the deep ocean water), and CO2 is released into the atmosphere. That CO2 can amplify the warming effect by re-absorption of blackbody radiation from the Earth’s surface, in what we normally call the “greenhouse effect.” Like I said, none of this is simple, and there are numerous competing effects and feedback mechanisms that contribute to temperature control. The worry is that we’re producing enough greenhouse gas to force these equilibria to new positions, and we don’t really know how the climate is going to respond.

Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on December 13, 2007 at 6:36 PM

Like I said, I’m willing to wait for better data and simulations before we do anything drastic. However, the physical mechanisms for global warming on account of increased greenhouse gas concentrations are very plausible. So yes, I’m comfortable saying that some, but not all, of the warming we’ve seen is due to the burning of fossil fuels.

Big S on December 13, 2007 at 7:34 PM

With that, I must call it a night.

Big S on December 13, 2007 at 7:35 PM

I’m fairly certain that solar activity correlates much more strongly with average temperature fluctuations in the past 100 years than do such fluctuations with co2 emissions. That is one of the reasons why some scientists hypothesize that increased co2 emissions (the vast majority of which come not from human activity) are an effect of global warming rather than a cause. When I consider the effects of global warming and increased co2 levels on plant growth, I can’t help but think that we might actually win the decades long fight against global hunger.

Jens on December 13, 2007 at 7:35 PM

I think the most revealing bit of that clip was how tickled pink and friendly the moderator was to Hillary’s lame joke. Talk about a change in body language from a day ago. As Matthew Continetti at the Weekly Standard posted about the debate: “Everyone was among friends.”

Dudley Smith on December 13, 2007 at 7:39 PM

Like I said, I’m willing to wait for better data and simulations before we do anything drastic.

You may not be allowed the choice to wait if one of these clowns with a hand up is elected.

Al Gore says the debate is over. It’s settled.

Global Warming = Global Socialism

saint kansas on December 13, 2007 at 8:10 PM

So, tell me, followers of the Goracle, how did we Earthlings manage to prevent the New Ice Age that was forecast in the seventies?

corona on December 13, 2007 at 8:15 PM

I’m trying to imagine a more boring or distasteful woman than Hillary, and if she exists, she’s that other woman from Des Moines.

Ugh is right.

Jaibones on December 13, 2007 at 8:19 PM

We don’t know what’s going on, but we are in the middle of an increase in greenhouse gases, as well as overall warming of the Earth’s surface temperature. The physical reasons for believing that they may be linked are well established…Big S on December 13, 2007 at 4:53 PM

I’m not ready to pay more taxes to deal with a well established maybe.

and we are definitely contributing something to the greenhouse effect. The whole point is that we don’t know by how much, and there is an ongoing debate. Big S on December 13, 2007 at 4:53 PM

And yet the world’s socialists want immediate and drastic action. Hmm. And I don’t know where these debates are you speak of. I see any person that questions man’s influence on climate change being labeled as a monkey for big oil, and I see the Goracle and other Chicken Littles avoiding serious debate as though it were VD.

Patrick S on December 13, 2007 at 8:59 PM

Jens on December 13, 2007 at 7:35 PM

I’m fairly certain that solar activity correlates much more strongly with average temperature fluctuations in the past 100 years than do such fluctuations with co2 emissions.

That was true up until 30 or 40 years ago. There was a nearly perfect inverse correlation between sunspot activity and global temperatures–going back hundreds or thousands of years–but it has since broken away and the earths temperatures have climbed despite a decrease in such solar activity.

DaveS on December 13, 2007 at 9:26 PM

Big S on December 13, 2007 at 3:37 PM

This period of Global warming has been going on for at least 10,000 years. What is a hoax about that. To think we are the cause is beyond stupid. It shows a complete lack of education of geologic histoy and geologic time as well as a complete lack of fossil record, of evolution record, of extinct species, or natural process, and finally a complete and utter lack of the basics of climatoloy. Look at the Deserts of our present world they were not always deserts, the oceans were not always oceans and the mountians use to be seas. The earth changes at a constant rate. To think we have anything to do with that change is egotistical at the least. to think we can stop that change that has been occurring for the last 4 billion years and will continue to change for the next 4 billion years is nothing short of mental illness. It is not a hoax. It is the elites using the avg individuals lack of education to steal power for their own purposes. If Al gore believed what he believed he would be doing webcasts from his cave not flying around the world in a jet.

unseen on December 13, 2007 at 9:33 PM

DaveS on December 13, 2007 at 9:26 PM

Yeah tell that to Mars and the rest of the solar system because they are heating up too. But the global warmers claim Mars warming is due to the “wind” while ours is due to man.

unseen on December 13, 2007 at 9:35 PM

And yet the world’s socialists want immediate and drastic action. Hmm. And I don’t know where these debates are you speak of. I see any person that questions man’s influence on climate change being labeled as a monkey for big oil, and I see the Goracle and other Chicken Littles avoiding serious debate as though it were VD.

Patrick S on December 13, 2007 at 8:59 PM

Well said! They will not produce the exact methodology for determining that infamous ‘hockey stick’ that seems to be the main ‘fact’ upon which this hoax is built. And the goracle will not debate. Only orate.

Elitist intimidation at its slimiest.

techno_barbarian on December 13, 2007 at 9:41 PM


It is an attempt to push Socialist Ideology through the guise of Global Warming by the Democrats and Leftist.

Kini on December 13, 2007 at 3:48 PM

Everybody write that on their chalkboard 500 times.

Griz on December 13, 2007 at 9:44 PM

Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on December 13, 2007 at 6:36 PM

Also don’t forget that urban environments reflect more heat that rural environments. Since most of the present day Temp readings are taken in or close to cities and those in the 1930′s were taken mostly in rural environments the temp readings of present day are off several degress due to this effect. Also the present day network of temp readings is 100 times more advance and cover more collection points so an 100% correletion in temps form the two different time periods is not possible. the earth could have been much warmer in 1930 than in present day or it could have been colder. the point is we do not know. What we do know is that there use to be 1-2mile high glaciers in NYC. They aren’t there anymore. Thus the earth has been warming for thousands of years well before the industrial revolution. So the idea that man in the last 100 years caused the earth to suddenly get warmer is laughable.

unseen on December 13, 2007 at 9:44 PM

unseen on December 13, 2007 at 9:35 PM

Yeah tell that to Mars and the rest of the solar system because they are heating up too. But the global warmers claim Mars warming is due to the “wind” while ours is due to man.

You know, it IS possible that the Earth and Mars (and many other bodies) are experiencing some natural warming, and that the Earth is also experiencing anthropogenic warming on top of it.

Stop thinking in logical fallacies.

DaveS on December 13, 2007 at 10:05 PM

elgeneralisimo on December 13, 2007 at 4:57 PM

Excellent comment.

There are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effect, which explains the relevant physical phenomena. The terms “greenhouse effect” and “greenhouse gases” are deliberate misnomers.

Kini on December 13, 2007 at 10:07 PM

We just need more electric eels.

ThackerAgency on December 13, 2007 at 10:17 PM

Kini on December 13, 2007 at 10:07 PM

I don;t have time to go into the science of that article you linked, but more than half of it is wrong or uses misleading assumptions. It is not “excellent.”

Big S on December 13, 2007 at 10:42 PM

There is NOTHING spontaneous about Mrs. Clinton at all.

SouthernGent on December 13, 2007 at 10:43 PM

A dissenting group of distinguished scientists from the International Climate Science Coalition,
representing Africa, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States, will be
available for advice and counsel in Bali, but they expect to be ignored at the conference as European
liberal politicians monopolize the agenda and allow for no dissent.

Dissent will not be tolerated. The debate is over.

“Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are…”

- former Vice President Al Gore
(now, chairman and co-founder of Generation Investment Management– a London-based business that sells carbon credits)

So stretching the truth to make a profit is the real motivation.

Now we have the EU using a Liberal Democrat tactic to black mail the US.

As U.N. talks entered their final hours, European nations on Thursday threatened to boycott a U.S.-led climate meeting next month unless Washington agrees to a deal mentioning numerical targets for deep reductions in global warming gases.

Nothing to talk about unless you comply with our demands.

Kini on December 13, 2007 at 10:46 PM

Global Warming = Hoax
You all do know that right?

kahall on December 13, 2007 at 10:55 PM

I don;t have time to go into the science of that article you linked, but more than half of it is wrong or uses misleading assumptions. It is not “excellent.”

Big S on December 13, 2007 at 10:42 PM

Of course you don’t have time. Discussing the science behind global warming and thermal dynamics wouldn’t fit the narrative. Would it?

Kini on December 13, 2007 at 10:56 PM

Stop thinking in logical fallacies.

DaveS on December 13, 2007 at 10:05 PM

The solar sytem for all intent is a closed system with the planets and the sun. Logic says that if a the same change is detected on all bodies within the system than a there is a universal source that is causing the observed effect not 9 seperate but equal events. Therefore logic dictates that since warming is occurring on all of the planets there must be a single source causing that warming. Since Man is not on all planets logic rules out man as the cause. The only thing that acts on all planets and impacts all planets that we know of is the Sun. Therefore logic says the Sun is most likely responsible for the warming. That is logic and that is science. Your logic says 2+2=5 and THAT is a logical fallacy brought on my egotistical, nihilisitc thinking.

unseen on December 13, 2007 at 11:21 PM

unseen on December 13, 2007 at 11:21 PM

Your logic is impeccable. The main cause of Global Warming is orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the Sun’s output.
Besides Astronomical Causes, there are also Atmospheric and Tectonic causes. Circulatory patterns of ocean currents. Heat retention, Solar reflectivity and Sunspot activity are not taken into account. Nope, we are the sinners, the polluters, the evil humans destroying the earth.

But when a volcano farts, just hold your nose and ignore it.

Kini on December 13, 2007 at 11:37 PM

Ok here are two stories about the same effect. The melting of Greenland ice sheets.

One blames man:

There was more bad climate news from the High Arctic on Wednesday as scientists reported fresh evidence that the ice all across the oceans surrounding the North Pole and the vast Greenland ice sheet is melting faster than ever.

Year after year in recent decades, the impact of global warming on Arctic regions has been growing more severe, but this year the situation appears worse as the ice is melting at a record pace, according to researchers who monitor climate change in the far north.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/12/13/MNC9TT0TQ.DTL

While one blames nature:

Magma May Be Melting Greenland Ice

But clues to a new natural contribution to the melt arose when scientists discovered a thin spot in the Earth’s crust under the northeast corner of the Greenland Ice Sheet where heat from Earth’s insides could seep through, scientists will report here this week at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20071213/sc_livescience/magmamaybemeltinggreenlandice

Which one will the media choose to play up and which one will the media bury?

unseen on December 13, 2007 at 11:40 PM

Kini on December 13, 2007 at 11:37 PM

Your right but you need to seperate that into three parts.

This is global warming/global cooling:
The main cause of Global Warming is orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the Sun’s output.

While this is climate:

Atmospheric Circulatory patterns of ocean currents. Heat retention, Solar reflectivity

While this is geologic:

Tectonic, volcanoes, sedimentary events

Climate changes occurs freqently over short geologic time periods while global warming and cooling events occur less frequently over longer geologic time periods and tectonic forces occur over long and short geologic time periods and can impact both climate and global warming/cooling for short to long periods of geologic time frames. Example big volcano eruption will cool the planet for maybe months or a couple of years. The rise of a major mountain range like the Rockies or the Alps can change the climte of the entire world for millions of years. In the same vain the formation of the Alantic ocean over the last 180 million years has had major climatic consequences but did not impact the warming or cooling of the earth.

When viewed form this angle the thought that man can change the entire world climate when the formation of an entire ocean did not warm or cool the earth one bit is laughable.

I blame the global warming movement on a total lack of education in our schools. They do not teach science any longer, do not give prespective and do not allow investigation and balance.

unseen on December 13, 2007 at 11:56 PM

You people aren’t paying attention. You can’t see the forest for the trees. I’ve got two words for all of you. . .

ELECTRIC EELS

ThackerAgency on December 14, 2007 at 12:10 AM

When viewed form this angle the thought that man can change the entire world climate when the formation of an entire ocean did not warm or cool the earth one bit is laughable.

I blame the global warming movement on a total lack of education in our schools. They do not teach science any longer, do not give prespective and do not allow investigation and balance.

unseen on December 13, 2007 at 11:56 PM

Quite correct to point that out. It is presumptuous to assume man’s short time on this earth has effected the climate which occurs over, well, over a very long time.

However, while the movement has affected education in schools, I blame that on the liberal teachers union, socialist democrats, and thermal dynamics.

Oh, and electric eels.

Kini on December 14, 2007 at 12:56 AM

“You know,” I can actually see her going down.

Connie on December 13, 2007 at 4:02 PM

um, ew.

- The Cat

MirCat on December 14, 2007 at 1:01 AM

unseen on December 13, 2007 at 11:21 PM

Logic says that if a the same change is detected on all bodies within the system than a there is a universal source that is causing the observed effect not 9 seperate but equal events.

Where did you ever get the impression that the “same” change is occurring on “all bodies” in the Solar system? Again, the fact that some or even most warming is possibly occurring naturally is absolutely irrelevant to the hypothesis that anthropogenic CO2 is causing unnatural warming.

Like I said before, quit thinking in logical fallacies. When you learn to spot crappy logic (particularly in your own statements) you will feel SOOOO liberated.

DaveS on December 14, 2007 at 1:18 AM

ELECTRIC EELS

ThackerAgency on December 14, 2007 at 12:10 AM

All we need then is nuclear plants to power all the lights needed to grow the food that the ELECTRIC EELS eat.

pedestrian on December 14, 2007 at 1:23 AM

Comment pages: 1 2