Chu: We don’t understand the “bumps and wiggles” of climate change, but oh yes, it’s happening

posted at 12:46 pm on April 12, 2012 by Erika Johnsen

The Obama administration was more vocal about the supposedly dire need to combat climate change toward the beginning of their oh-so-eminent reign, with President Obama out championing the cause at such august events as the U.N. climate conference in 2009. There’s been a bit of a lull in their alarmist-enthusiasm rhetoric in the past year or so (maybe they’ve figured out that concern for climate change is a luxury good during times of economic recession), but it looks like they may be thinking about bringing back the meme to help sell their horrendous energy polices in the run-up to November.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu said Wednesday that scientific evidence of climate change is getting more and more powerful, comments that come as global warming legislation remains moribund in Congress and Environmental Protection regulations are facing ongoing GOP assaults.

“Over the last couple of years, the dispassionate, hard science evidence has been mounting, increasing,” said Chu, speaking at an energy forum hosted by The New York Times.

Chu noted that “we don’t understand everything” and that in past years scientists have actually underestimated the pace of some changes, including sea level rise.

“It is rising even faster than we thought. The number of violent rainstorms have increased faster than we thought,” he said at the event in New York, adding that though there are “bumps and wiggles” that are not understood, trends are clear in the long term.

Funny — I thought the rising sea levels were supposed to have wiped out polar bears by  now, or something?

For what feels like the umpteenth time: nobody is denying that climate change exists. Planet earth is not and never has been a static place. But is human activity contributing to climate change at an exponentially unsustainable rate, hurtling the world toward unprecedented large-scale catastrophe? Hmm…

During a speech at Tufts’ law school last month, Sen. John Kerry voiced his consternation with what he called the “flat-earth caucus” of the U.S. Congress constantly standing in the way of President Obama’s environmentalist ambitions. “You can’t talk about climate now,” Kerry lamented. “People just turn off. It’s extraordinary. Only for national security and jobs will they open their minds. …The irony is that we used to be a nation that valued science. We have become a nation that is now discarding science.”

Well, guilty as charged! Yes, conservatives are finally vocalizing the idea that ‘science’ is not a sacred cow immune from politics, but rather that science is perfectly capable of being corrupted and is governed by a set of incentives. Incentives such as – oh, I don’t know – chasing government grants and lobbyist money, perhaps? And boring, non-catastrophic science doesn’t rank highly on the government-handout to-do list, as it doesn’t whip the public into the suitable frenzy. Contrary to the doomsayers’ claims, more and more “heretics” are emerging from the scientific community to point out how politicized the issue of climate change has become, and a growing faction agrees that the 21st century hasn’t actually produced any measurable warming.

The prospect of battling with those darn obstructionist Republicans didn’t deter President Obama from requesting a nice $770 million chunk in foreign aid to combat climate change in developing countries (but then, his entire 2013 budget was a flippant political stunt that won approximately zero votes, so, wash). Despite the fact that we cannot afford even these tidy little earmarks, this appeal to the environmentalist lobby’s bid to shape and control how other countries develop is selfish, elitist, and ignorant. Wealthier societies are healthier societies, and discouraging the proven routes to prosperity in weaker nations in order to furnish laboratories for environmentalist pipe dreams is a waste of money that does nothing to contribute to global economic growth and accomplishes little to help lift people out of poverty and misery.


Related Posts:

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

We are getting Climate Change opinions from the Energy Secretary who doesn’t own his own car & who wants gas prices to reach the level they are at in Europe (approx $8)?! LOL! Whatever!

easyt65 on April 12, 2012 at 2:47 PM

Climate changes every day, and every year, and every millennium. And it always will.

minnesoter on April 12, 2012 at 12:57 PM

You don’t seem to be aware of the systemic, widespread evidence of climate change impacting ecosystems around the world. What’s occurring to species on every continent is unprecedented in its speed, making it incredibly hard for biologists to fully grasp how it will affect the biodiversity of the affected areas.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0409/feature3/index.html

bayam on April 12, 2012 at 2:48 PM

You don’t seem to be aware of the systemic, widespread evidence of climate change impacting ecosystems around the world. What’s occurring to species on every continent is unprecedented in its speed, making it incredibly hard for biologists to fully grasp how it will affect the biodiversity of the affected areas.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0409/feature3/index.html

bayam on April 12, 2012 at 2:48 PM

You are, for all intents and purposes … a vegetable.

darwin on April 12, 2012 at 2:50 PM

bayam on April 12, 2012 at 2:48 PM

Ah! A greenie! Someone hit it with a shoe quick, before it lays eggs and multiplies!!

Buckshot Bill on April 12, 2012 at 2:51 PM

You don’t seem to be aware of the systemic, widespread evidence of climate change impacting ecosystems around the world. What’s occurring to species on every continent is unprecedented in its speed, making it incredibly hard for biologists to fully grasp how it will affect the biodiversity of the affected areas.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0409/feature3/index.html

bayam on April 12, 2012 at 2:48 PM

So let the two legged creatures screw around and cause their own extinction. Then the planet can return to its normal, violent, ever-changing configuration….without the influence of man.

If I were a liberal, I’d call that a WIN!

BobMbx on April 12, 2012 at 2:52 PM

What we have here is a tragic case of epistemic closure by the CAGW crowd, Mr. Secretary.

perries on April 12, 2012 at 2:54 PM

“Chu” is a Chinese word meaning “imbecile.”

Stu Gotts on April 12, 2012 at 12:51 PM

Actually, Chinese scientists have reached the same conclusions as their Western colleagues when it comes to the reality of global warming.

It’s unfortunate to see so many conservatives projecting their intellectual superiority over stupid ‘liberal scientists’, while absolutely failing to participate in the massive wealth generation around new science and technology, from the internet and software to biotechnology. Apple, Amgen, Amazon, and the vast majority of high growth tech companies are run by people stupid enough to believe in global warming and the integrity of this country’s scientific establishment. And that’s not good.

bayam on April 12, 2012 at 2:58 PM

bayam on April 12, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Must be why they’re building a new coal plant every week, then.

Buckshot Bill on April 12, 2012 at 2:59 PM

Of course Climate Change is happening, it’s always happened and probably always will — but human activity isn’t causing it.

Watch these and see what some of the world’s top climate scientists have to say about the man-made Global Warming scam.

The Great Global Warming Swindle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaTJJCPYhlk

Global Warming Doomsday Called Off
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3309910462407994295#

———————–

Axion on April 12, 2012 at 3:05 PM

Chu noted that “we don’t understand everything” and that in past years scientists have actually underestimated the pace of some changes, including sea level rise.

According to satellite measurements from Envisat, the linearized trend of sea level rise over the last 8 years is 0.87 millimeters per year. At that rate, sea level in the year 2100 will have risen by 88 * 0.87 = 76.6 millimeters, or slightly over 3 inches.

Let’s see if all our unemployed construction workers can build a seawall 3 inches high to protect our “endangered” beaches by the end of the century!

Al Gore’s infamous disaster documentary “An Inconvenient Truth[sic]” showed the disastrous effects of a 20-foot sea-level rise in Florida, which (at the current rate) just might occur by the year AD 9000…

Ya think our distant descendants will be ready for it? Maybe…after all, people 4,000 years ago built the Egyptian pyramids!

Steve Z on April 12, 2012 at 3:07 PM

bayam on April 12, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Must be why they’re building a new coal plant every week, then.

Buckshot Bill on April 12, 2012 at 2:59 PM

That’s a very good point. It’s a common mistake the assume that global warming science demands the most developed countries to aggressively cut back on carbon emissions. The science and policy response are completely separate issues. Actually, you could make a far different case that actually puts China and other US competitors at an economic disadvantage.

On the other hand, China is growing at such an unprecedented pace that the country has trouble cutting back on coal-powered plants, even while it realizes that the eventual outcome is far higher coal prices over the long-term. China is making by far the largest investments in nuclear technology of any country in the world. Of course, a few in the US are also pushing nuclear, especially a group backed by Bill Gates:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HxI3-DzPWU

bayam on April 12, 2012 at 3:07 PM

Speaking of bumps and wiggles, why doesn’t Obama get a wiggle on and bump Chu?

Steve Z on April 12, 2012 at 3:11 PM

Actually, Chinese scientists have reached the same conclusions as their Western colleagues when it comes to the reality of global warming.

It’s unfortunate to see so many conservatives projecting their intellectual superiority over stupid ‘liberal scientists’, while absolutely failing to participate in the massive wealth generation around new science and technology, from the internet and software to biotechnology. Apple, Amgen, Amazon, and the vast majority of high growth tech companies are run by people stupid enough to believe in global warming and the integrity of this country’s scientific establishment. And that’s not good.

bayam on April 12, 2012 at 2:58 PM

You’re so full of crap my screen is brown.

Nothing the climate fanatics have claimed has come true. Nothing.

The earth isn’t warming although CO2 is rising. The polar ice hasn’t disappeared. Polar bear populations have been increasing. Sea level was dropping until the “scientists” adjusted the numbers. Weather is no different today than is was 100 years ago.

The climate fanatics have been telling us we must do something today! Right now!!! for fifty years now and none, I repeat NONE of their claims has even come close to coming true.

darwin on April 12, 2012 at 3:11 PM

Watermelon, watermelon, watermelon rind,
Watch as the commies hide the decline.

Knott Buyinit on April 12, 2012 at 2:15 PM

That’s so beautiful it should be carved in stone and sent to Al Gore.

Axion on April 12, 2012 at 3:15 PM

How big a.problem is global warming? So big the democrat party needs to squander all the accumulated wealth, destroy liberty, and obliterate opportunity. Such is the democrat party today. The socialist workers party a bunch of nazis.

Screw em.

tom daschle concerned on April 12, 2012 at 3:17 PM

That’s a very good point. It’s a common mistake the assume that global warming science demands the most developed countries to aggressively cut back on carbon emissions. The science and policy response are completely separate issues

Now that there is just FUNNY.

China is making by far the largest investments in nuclear technology of any country in the world. Of course, a few in the US are also pushing nuclear, especially a group backed by Bill Gates:

Are you advocating Nuclear now?? Which party killed that off in the US? Why are they so anti-science???

WryTrvllr on April 12, 2012 at 3:29 PM

Liberal environmentalist cheer:

Watermelon watermelon
hybrid car
we ain’t as dumb
as you think we ….is

Bevan on April 12, 2012 at 3:38 PM

Apple, Amgen, Amazon, and the vast majority of high growth tech companies are run by people stupid enough to believe in global warming and the integrity of this country’s scientific establishment. And that’s not good.

bayam on April 12, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Naturally you can’t get through a thread without irrelevant gratuitous name-dropping. The people that run those companies may be smart business people – but none of them are even close to being any kind of climate scientist – an accusation you libtards love to throw out at many AGW deniers.
You really should consider just quoting the talking points you’re given, cuz when you try to go off on your own you look like a complete idiot.

You don’t seem to be aware of the systemic, widespread evidence of climate change impacting ecosystems around the world. What’s occurring to species on every continent is unprecedented in its speed, making it incredibly hard for biologists to fully grasp how it will affect the biodiversity of the affected areas.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0409/feature3/index.html

bayam on April 12, 2012 at 2:48 PM

Climate change happens – always has – always will. And that causes ecosystems to change. So what? The Sahara used to be a tropical forest; there are tropical plants beneath glaciers high in the Andes Mountains; there are tropical forest fossils under the permafrost in the arctic. All of those ecosystem and climate changes happened before humans showed up. There is nothing “unprecedented” about it.

How about if we spend our money on adapting to climate change instead of trying to stop something that we cannot stop?

dentarthurdent on April 12, 2012 at 3:45 PM

You don’t seem to be aware of the systemic, widespread evidence of climate change impacting ecosystems around the world. What’s occurring to species on every continent is unprecedented in its speed, making it incredibly hard for biologists to fully grasp how it will affect the biodiversity of the affected areas.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0409/feature3/index.html

bayam on April 12, 2012 at 2:48 PM

Two points here.
1) Yes, climate changes, and when it does, living things are impacted. Nobody disputes that.

2) Who’s to say that any particular impact, regardless of cause, is good or bad? The event that wiped out the dinosaurs allowed mammals to dominate. Perhaps man is sowing the seeds of his own destruction – if that’s so, what’s wrong with it? As climate changes (again, regardless of cause) some animals will adapt, others will die. Such has always been the case.

If liberals had their desired level of control on some other planet, it would only be populated with single-cell organisms. Because libs would not allow the changes that lead to evolution.

hawksruleva on April 12, 2012 at 3:59 PM

How about if we spend our money on adapting to climate change instead of trying to stop something that we cannot stop?

dentarthurdent on April 12, 2012 at 3:45 PM

Because a seawall is cheaper than a tax on all CO2 emitted by everything. That would mean the government’s reach isn’t extended as much.

Note how the greens never talk about how to lessen the impacts of environmental changes, though EVERYONE agrees that climate does change. They see a problem, and they see only one solution: giving them your money.

hawksruleva on April 12, 2012 at 4:01 PM

China is making by far the largest investments in nuclear technology of any country in the world. Of course, a few in the US are also pushing nuclear, especially a group backed by Bill Gates:

WryTrvllr on April 12, 2012 at 3:29 PM

China’s also rolling out coal-fired power plants faster than Obama can hold fund-raising dinners.

hawksruleva on April 12, 2012 at 4:02 PM

That’s a very good point. It’s a common mistake the assume that global warming science demands the most developed countries to aggressively cut back on carbon emissions. The science and policy response are completely separate issues.

bayam on April 12, 2012 at 3:07 PM

I tend to agree and if it’s possible that global warming can be disassociated from the iron-fisted statism and severe reductions in the standard of living that the greens push as a policy response, I bet you’ll see skepticism go down. On the other hand, the greens and the left would probably lose interest if that were to happen.

NukeRidingCowboy on April 12, 2012 at 4:05 PM

Please tell us what the perfect temperature of the earth is, and when did we have it?

In the mean time, I agree – the climate is changing. Always has, always will.

Now try to effect it, and when you can show your work call me back.

Wander on April 12, 2012 at 4:18 PM

Note how the greens never talk about how to lessen the impacts of environmental changes, though EVERYONE agrees that climate does change. They see a problem, and they see only one solution: giving them your money.

hawksruleva on April 12, 2012 at 4:01 PM

If there was real concern of sea level rising, we’d be seeing scientists and engineers (on a global scale) solving the problem of where and how to move all the people in low-lying areas to higher ground.

We’d also see local governments, like Miami and New York City, undertaking similar studies.

A tax won’t stop climate change. So if the consequences are real, lets start hearing about solutions to those consequences.

BobMbx on April 12, 2012 at 4:20 PM

Please tell us what the perfect temperature of the earth is, and when did we have it?

In the mean time, I agree – the climate is changing. Always has, always will.

Now try to effect it, and when you can show your work call me back.

Wander on April 12, 2012 at 4:18 PM

Well today is a pretty nice temp here in Ga. 74, which is quite cool for us. I like 85 best. But then I’m what they call a flat earther. ; ) Oh and a Tea Bagger. ; )

Bmore on April 12, 2012 at 4:24 PM

Please tell us what the perfect temperature of the earth is, and when did we have it?

Wander on April 12, 2012 at 4:18 PM

An excerpt from the Intergalactic Planet Design Requirements Document (PDRD):

“The climate of new habitable planets shall be as follows:

At the equator and extending towards the poles a distance of 1000 miles, the climate shall be Tropical. See Appendix QQ for daily and annual temperature and humidity limits

From the Tropical Zone and extending towards the poles for 2000 miles, the climate shall be Temperate. See Appendix QR for daily and annual temperature and humidity limits.”

And so forth. I don’t have a digital copy, otherwise I would email you a copy.

BobMbx on April 12, 2012 at 4:26 PM

2008:

The SCIENCE is SETTLED!!!

2012:

We’ve still got some “bumps and wiggles” that we know nothing about.

Bruce MacMahon on April 12, 2012 at 4:30 PM

If climate change weren’t real, I’d be typing this from underneath a half-mile thick sheet of ice. How pray-tell did that manage to melt away without any coal-burning power plants, SUVs, or plastic grocery bags around?

Bruce MacMahon on April 12, 2012 at 4:32 PM

You don’t seem to be aware of the systemic, widespread evidence of climate change impacting ecosystems around the world. What’s occurring to species on every continent is unprecedented in its speed, making it incredibly hard for biologists to fully grasp how it will affect the biodiversity of the affected areas.

Climate changes; it always has and always will. Climatic changes always affect ecosystems; sometimes positively, sometimes negatively. Ecosystems that adapt thrive. Those that don’t die and are replaced by those that do. This has happened many, many times in Earth’s history. There is absolutely no factual basis for the claim that the climatic changes we’re experiencing are unprecedented in any way. In fact, there is evidence that some climatic swings have occurred much faster than anything we have ever observed.
There is a saying that nature abhors a vacuum. When anything dies out something else takes its place. 99% of all species that have existed are extinct. We are not going to control it.
There is no reason to believe that the climatic conditions we know are the optimum conditions for the earth. What we consider normal is actually an anomaly in geologic history. Current conditions are probably optimum for our civilization since this is what it developed in and is adapted to. As conditions inevitably change our civilization will adapt or die just like everything else. In the history of civilization there are many that failed to adapt to changing conditions and died out to be replaced by others that rose up in their place, or changed into completely different forms. The Anasazi are an example of the former; the Maya are an example of the latter.
To the warming cultists, everything is going to kill us and the only solution is statism and a lower standard of living. Rational people have watched Chicken Little try to get us to panic and submit to slavery for so long that whenever the warmist nitwits start their Luddite and Malthusian nonsense we just laugh and point, roll our eyes, shake our heads, and mutter, “Morons!”

single stack on April 12, 2012 at 4:52 PM

The Little Chu Chu who Couldn’t…
The sea level isn’t rising at all, Mr. Chu. There’s been nothing, or effectively nothing, no discernable rise in sea level rise in 20 years, and more. Go to the beach and see for yourself. What undisguised trash, criminal baloney.
The diminutive Mr. Chu, or I like Chu Chu, the Little Chu Chu who Couldn’t, couldn’t keep gas prices from skyrocketing, couldn’t resist but to give himself an A grade for this obvious failure, couldn’t tell the truth about the sea level remaining the same, as we can all see with our own eyes.
This is the little chu chu who said he’d like gas at a European $9 a gallon, but that’s an understatement for sure, as we know Chu would relish $15 or $20 a gallon. And Chu would also get ecstatic over electricity at a $2 a kilowatt hour (vs. apx 10 cents per KW hour now). $2?
$2 per KWhour?? and $20 gas? Then, as the leftists dream, we are headed back to the stone age, because at these prices a lot of people just wouldn’t bother having electricity at all, or a car. Of course, the economy would tank, incomes shrivelling, jobs vanishing by the scores of millions, industrial production cratering.
Civilization doomed, no exaggeration. No change in climate, though. A hungry dirty diseased violent world. These people like Chu are criminal.

anotherJoe on April 12, 2012 at 5:04 PM

Why can’t this moron present credible evidence that supports his position? Everything presented has been debunked by even those responsible for the creation of the content presented. Climate change is the ultimate means of global control and basically that is where is originates…in the mind of those who “think” they are so much more intelligent that the people. They should go back to the world where there mental illness can flourish, their clasrooms and leave the real decisision-making to those who can create rather than expound on unproven theories.

volsense on April 12, 2012 at 5:05 PM

99% of all species that have existed are extinct.
single stack on April 12, 2012 at 4:52 PM

Well it’s obvious us evil humans must have killed them all somehow. I’m sure there must have been cavemen with CO2 spewing SUVs of some sort that killed off the dinosaurs, woolly mammoths, sabre-tooth tigers, and such…///
Or maybe they’re all just hiding from the evils humans who are trying to exterminate them…..//
Because because well Bill Gates, Larry Ellison and Warren Buffett are really smart people, so there.. /bayam

dentarthurdent on April 12, 2012 at 5:08 PM

Climate changes; it always has and always will. Climatic changes always affect ecosystems; sometimes positively, sometimes negatively. Ecosystems that adapt thrive. Those that don’t die and are replaced by those that do. This has happened many, many times in Earth’s history. There is absolutely no factual basis for the claim that the climatic changes we’re experiencing are unprecedented in any way.

You truly are special. The scientific evidence of very rapid changes driven by climate change in some ecosystems is broad and well documented.

Don’t worry, the idiots who believe in global warming science will keep the internet and your iPhone working so you don’t have to think too much. It just works, like magic!

bayam on April 12, 2012 at 5:09 PM

The sea level isn’t rising at all, Mr. Chu. There’s been nothing, or effectively nothing, no discernable rise in sea level rise in 20 years, and more. Go to the beach and see for yourself.
anotherJoe on April 12, 2012 at 5:04 PM

Why suuure it is – in fact it rises several feet every day – twice a day – then goes back down again. I’ll bet he’s been to the beach to see it for himself – but only saw the tide going up – didn’t wait to see the tide go back out again – so it’s totally “unprecedented”…..

dentarthurdent on April 12, 2012 at 5:12 PM

the idiots who believe in global warming
bayam on April 12, 2012 at 5:09 PM

Well you finally got one point right. You get a gold star.

dentarthurdent on April 12, 2012 at 5:15 PM

China is making by far the largest investments in nuclear technology of any country in the world. Of course, a few in the US are also pushing nuclear, especially a group backed by Bill Gates:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HxI3-DzPWU

bayam on April 12, 2012 at 3:07 PM

Chu hates nuclear energy. This administration has held up nuclear plant or research approvals, and Gates has moved his development to China as a result.

Also, China has stopped building solar facilities for themselves because that technology isn’t economically viable. They’ll build them for us though… they’ll gladly take advantage of this administration’s stupidity.

theCork on April 12, 2012 at 5:52 PM

Why suuure it is – in fact it rises several feet every day – twice a day – then goes back down again. I’ll bet he’s been to the beach to see it for himself – but only saw the tide going up – didn’t wait to see the tide go back out again – so it’s totally “unprecedented”…..

dentarthurdent on April 12, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Astute point. I noticed the outside warming up dramatically since the sun rose this morning. At this rate, the world will be unlivable in just a few days!

theCork on April 12, 2012 at 5:54 PM

You truly are special. The scientific evidence of very rapid changes driven by climate change in some ecosystems is broad and well documented.

Um, yes. That’s what I said.

Climate changes; it always has and always will. Climatic changes always affect ecosystems; sometimes positively, sometimes negatively. Ecosystems that adapt thrive. Those that don’t die and are replaced by those that do. This has happened many, many times in Earth’s history. There is absolutely no factual basis for the claim that the climatic changes we’re experiencing are unprecedented in any way. In fact, there is evidence that some climatic swings have occurred much faster than anything we have ever observed.

single stack on April 12, 2012 at 5:56 PM

Astute point. I noticed the outside warming up dramatically since the sun rose this morning. At this rate, the world will be unlivable in just a few days!

theCork on April 12, 2012 at 5:54 PM

Where I am it appears the sun is going down now. So you’re wrong and the science is settled.//
I don’t really know what I did to cause that, some kind of bump or wiggle in my daily routine, but I’m afraid we’re now doomed to darkness forever. Oh the horror – what did I do????

dentarthurdent on April 12, 2012 at 6:06 PM

Don’t worry, the idiots who believe in global warming science will keep the internet and your iPhone working so you don’t have to think too much. It just works, like magic!

Actually, the idiots that adhere to the global warming cult are trying to shut down the industry that makes iphones (I don’t have one and don’t want one. It’s an expensive luxury I don’t need.) and the internet possible.
I hold a BS in botany with a minor in meteorology so I’m trained in the scientific method and logic. My position on global warming is the result of ten years of study and thinking a lot. I don’t adhere to the fallacy of appeal to authority. I check the science myself and use reason to draw my conclusions.
All you’ve done in this thread is parrot the warming cult’s party line. It’s time you learned the Rule of Holes.

single stack on April 12, 2012 at 6:11 PM

Why suuure it is – in fact it rises several feet every day – twice a day – then goes back down again. I’ll bet he’s been to the beach to see it for himself – but only saw the tide going up – didn’t wait to see the tide go back out again – so it’s totally “unprecedented”…..
dentarthurdent on April 12, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Dentarthurdent… this seems kind of related. A December comment I did on a another channel, so to speak:

I’ve been going to this tide-pooled rocky beach for ~40 years.

As a little tike I would name the big rocks (as Farm Minor & “Major League Rock” etc), and from shore throw rocks at them. With my own eyes: the sea level has not changed. Further, recently I was there at a low tide of -0.5 and went out to Major rock. There was a few inches of water between Minor & Major rocks.

This is EXACTLY as it was 40 years ago. Only when the tide was lower than -1.0 would there be no water at all between Minor & Major. I reported this to my scientist (bio) “trust the experts” brother. He said “ok, that is some anecdotal evidence.” Me: “ANECDOTAL?!! It’s me! And you see the same thing.” Him: “Anecdotal in that it’s not scientific, or… systematic.” In a bit, he said “Those [huge] rocks have moved.” I took this as sarcastic, saying “Haha. Yeah. Another thing I hear is that the ‘land has risen.’”

Maybe the sea has risen everywhere else, while it’s just at Big Sur that it remains the same.

anotherJoe on April 12, 2012 at 6:11 PM

So he wants to follow the path set by China? Ok.

Two easy steps.

1) Ramp up production of “green” energy for export.

2) Use all the COAL you can internally, because it’s cheaper, more reliable, and provides stable power.

I’m good with this plan… what, that isn’t Chu’s plan? Does he not know what China is doing? It’s not complicated, why can’t he figure it out?

gekkobear on April 12, 2012 at 6:13 PM

anotherJoe on April 12, 2012 at 6:11 PM

Yes – I’m an engineer – and I see exactly the same things. I grew up near the beach in Maine – but have lived in Colorado for the last 30 years. Same observations as you on the other side when I go back to Maine – the tide still comes and goes to the same levels as back then, the rocks are still in the same places relative to the land and the waterlines. It’s illuminating to me that the grandpoobah of AGW – who claims the oceans are rising to catastrophic levels – should buy a $10M mansion on the beach in Malibu. Doesn’t appear to me to be the move of a “really smart” guy who seriously believes the oceans are rising at “unprecedented” rates.

dentarthurdent on April 12, 2012 at 6:43 PM

gekkobear on April 12, 2012 at 6:13 PM

I’m with you on that one – let’s start emulating China. Shoot, they’re already more capitalist than we are under Obummer.

dentarthurdent on April 12, 2012 at 6:45 PM

The scientific evidence of very rapid changes driven by climate change in some ecosystems is broad and well documented.

Don’t worry, the idiots who believe in global warming science will keep the internet and your iPhone working so you don’t have to think too much. It just works, like magic!

bayam on April 12, 2012 at 5:09 PM

So:

The scientific evidence of very rapid changes driven by climate change in some ecosystems is broad and well documented.

You drop this small pile, without substantiating:
1. How much of the documentation you can provide is from data that is fully transparent, and fully available for review?
2. How much of the research that produced this evidence was done by researchers who did not derive economic benefit from promulgating GCC?
3. Where is the proof that the change you decry is caused by mans’ actions?

massrighty on April 12, 2012 at 6:54 PM

bayam on April 12, 2012 at 5:09 PM

Shorter; we’d by happy if you’d take a crack at settling some of this so-called science.

massrighty on April 12, 2012 at 6:55 PM

Don’t worry, the idiots who believe in global warming science will keep the internet and your iPhone working so you don’t have to think too much. It just works, like magic!

bayam on April 12, 2012 at 5:09 PM

By that I assume you reference the people who keep the power grid running and the oil and natural gas industries, ’cause your renewables ain’t cutting it.

WryTrvllr on April 12, 2012 at 6:58 PM

You truly are special. The scientific evidence of very rapid changes driven by climate change in some ecosystems is broad and well documented

well bayam, I realize you are all taught to ignore Wiki but perhaps you could just read the FIRST SENTENCE under the section headed “Great Famine”. It, by the way, ushered in the end of the medieval warm period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1315%E2%80%931317

WryTrvllr on April 12, 2012 at 7:04 PM

You drop this small pile, without substantiating:
1. How much of the documentation you can provide is from data that is fully transparent, and fully available for review?
2. How much of the research that produced this evidence was done by researchers who did not derive economic benefit from promulgating GCC?
3. Where is the proof that the change you decry is caused by mans’ actions?

massrighty on April 12, 2012 at 6:54 PM

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0409/feature3/index.html

You can Google for a extensive data and research collected by biologists in ecosystems around the globe. Even more can be found in scientific literature. It’s not tied together by a single ‘climate science’ organization, so you don’t need to worry about a conspiracy of biologists.

And not all the news is bad news-
http://www.centerforoceansolutions.com/news-events/featured-stories/super-corals-lend-hope-reef-survival-warmer-oceans

But biologists don’t doubt man made global warming based on very clear and fast changes in local ecosystems.

http://www.aspendailynews.com/section/home/152446

bayam on April 12, 2012 at 7:31 PM

OBAMA WANTS A NEW ICE AGE!

profitsbeard on April 12, 2012 at 7:35 PM

If there was real concern of sea level rising, we’d be seeing scientists and engineers (on a global scale) solving the problem of where and how to move all the people in low-lying areas to higher ground.

We’d also see local governments, like Miami and New York City, undertaking similar studies.

Are you actually serious? Those governments have or are undertaking studies and working on plans to address expected changes.
For people who claim enough knowledge to overrule scientific consensus at Stanford, Michigan, MIT, and every other major research university in the US, this statement is telling.

http://nytelecom.vo.llnwd.net/o15/agencies/planyc2030/pdf/nyc_climate_change_report.pdf

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2012/0314/Sea-level-studies-US-coasts-even-more-vulnerable-than-previously-thought

bayam on April 12, 2012 at 7:38 PM

Yes – I’m an engineer – and I see exactly the same things. I grew up near the beach in Maine – but have lived in Colorado for the last 30 years. Same observations as you on the other side when I go back to Maine – the tide still comes and goes to the same levels as back then, the rocks are still in the same places relative to the land and the waterlines…
dentarthurdent on April 12, 2012 at 6:43 PM

Yes, I’m not crazy. The sea has not risen! Or its risen some insignificant barely observable paltry amount. Dentarthurdent, if we combine both of our senses on this, we seem to have reasonable doubt proof contradicting the Chicken Littles. And this shows that the current predictions of extreme future sea level rise to be absolutely ridiculous, laughable.
I think that this point about sea level could and should be made to the public in an organized funded (self-funded via contributions from ads?) PR / advertising campaign. This TV / web ad campaign would promote a couple of main points, and subsidiary points (as sea level), and should be backed by a website that provides extensive additional documentation and references for claims.
The two main points would be: 1. there is no empirical evidence that CO2 causes climate scale temp changes, and 2. there is nothing unusual about current temps (hockey stick debunked).
On the CO2 question, most of the debunking can be done in a seriously abridged version of this already super short ~ 3 minute video (that also shows Al Gore in the key AGW deception): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK_WyvfcJyg

anotherJoe on April 12, 2012 at 8:05 PM

http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps

just for fun.

WryTrvllr on April 12, 2012 at 8:40 PM

http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/

play with it

WryTrvllr on April 12, 2012 at 8:42 PM

bayam on April 12, 2012 at 7:31 PM

Its cool stalinist, you will be picked first when it comes time to chose the best boxcar stuffers.

You will do Gaia proud with your mass executions.

tom daschle concerned on April 12, 2012 at 8:49 PM

is rising even faster than we thought. The number of violent rainstorms have increased faster than we thought,” he said at the event in New York, adding that though there are “bumps and wiggles” that are not understood, trends are clear in the long term

Now I know Chu is some sort of AA student. Where does any rain or snow come from? Certainly not from some mysterious bucket in the sky. Rain does not cause the sea levels to rise. Idiot. Nor does rising levels cause more storms.

AH_C on April 12, 2012 at 9:28 PM

The two main points would be: 1. there is no empirical evidence that CO2 causes climate scale temp changes

There has for some time now been proof that it does not.
The ice cores taken at Lake Vostok, Antarctica in 1998 give a 420,000 year record of temperature and so-called “greenhouse gas” concentrations.
The ice cores show that temperature change precedes CO2 change by 200 to 1000 years, whether rising or falling, without exception.
There is a clear correlation between CO2 and temperature but causation is not established. If there is a cause and effect relationship the warmists have it backward. That which follows cannot cause that which comes before.

http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/ice-core-graph/

http://globalwarming-arclein.blogspot.com/2009/01/vostok-ice-core-interpretation.html

single stack on April 12, 2012 at 9:30 PM

bayam on April 12, 2012 at 7:31 PM

Non-responsive; your fundamental answer to my point:

1. How much of the documentation you can provide is from data that is fully transparent, and fully available for review?
2. How much of the research that produced this evidence was done by researchers who did not derive economic benefit from promulgating GCC?
3. Where is the proof that the change you decry is caused by mans’ actions?

massrighty on April 12, 2012 at 6:54 PM

Your answer was that I could google for more information.
But, you didn’t even try.

massrighty on April 12, 2012 at 9:38 PM

For people who claim enough knowledge to overrule scientific consensus at Stanford,

Consensus isn’t science, it’s politics.
Science is the quest for objective truth through the scientific method.
The global warming hoax is not science. It started with a conclusion and all subsequent research has been an effort to support that conclusion. We are supposed to accept as “settled science” (there in no such thing) an unproven theory based entirely on computer models which are notoriously inaccurate. Testing has shown them to be fatally flawed and contradictory to observation and empirical evidence. They make projections far into the future and they can’t even predict the recent past.
Dissent from AGW orthodoxy has ruined careers. AGWs foremost proponents have been proven to have falsified research and destroyed data while attacking the character and reputation of anyone who dares to challenge their conclusions.
These are not the actions of scientists. They’re the actions of charlatans pursuing a political agenda.

single stack on April 13, 2012 at 12:09 AM

These are not the actions of scientists. They’re the actions of charlatans pursuing a political agenda.

single stack on April 13, 2012 at 12:09 AM

But it’s the approved political agenda, so there. Now shut up and eat your green energy flakes. You want soy milk with that?

swinia sutki on April 13, 2012 at 6:56 AM

You want soy milk with that?

No thanks. Soy is estrogenic in men.

single stack on April 13, 2012 at 8:46 AM

eat your green energy flakes.
swinia sutki on April 13, 2012 at 6:56 AM

Soylent green IS PEOPLE!!!!!

dentarthurdent on April 13, 2012 at 10:53 AM

Are you actually serious? Those governments have or are undertaking studies and working on plans to address expected changes.
For people who claim enough knowledge to overrule scientific consensus at Stanford, Michigan, MIT, and every other major research university in the US, this statement is telling.

http://nytelecom.vo.llnwd.net/o15/agencies/planyc2030/pdf/nyc_climate_change_report.pdf

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2012/0314/Sea-level-studies-US-coasts-even-more-vulnerable-than-previously-thought

bayam on April 12, 2012 at 7:38 PM

Total fail. NY is a lib/Dem run city making use of lib/Dem federal grants to do studies – doesn’t prove anything.
CSM does not impress me as a true science source.

Tell me – how do research universities survive? They live on research grants. Since the AGW alarmists are controlling the major media, peer-review publication processes, and the government grant process, how much research money would you get if you proposed a study to disprove AGW? None.
Follow the money and you’ll find out why there is such “consensus” in favor of AGW – cuz if you’re not on that side you don’t get the money.
As single stack said – consensus is NOT science – open, repeatable proof of fundamental fact is science – and the AGW side has none of that.

dentarthurdent on April 13, 2012 at 11:04 AM

Hey, it’s 40 degrees in Chicago today. Climate change, my @ss!?! So folks, if you want another four more very painful years of being LIED TO by this administration, just vote for Obastard.

Colatteral Damage on April 13, 2012 at 4:23 PM

Comment pages: 1 2