Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: stockman_scott who wrote (82365)	7/30/2010 8:16:40 AM
From: T L Comiskey	1 Recommendation Respond to of 89467

"concluding that the heat-trapping influence of carbon dioxide was bound to overwhelm The Cooling Influence of Aerosols that dominated in the middle of the 20th century." Lessons From Two Important Climate Forecasts This is a tale of two climate forecasts — one successful, the other not. The successful forecast is described in a nice post on Realclimate.org commemorating the approaching 35th anniversary of “Climatic Change: Are We on the Bring of a Pronounced Global warming?” This pivotal paper was written by Wallace Broecker, one of the deans of modern climate science. (To get a feel for Broecker’s work and approach, please read this fine 1998 profile by my onetime colleague William K. Stevens.) As the post explains, Broecker’s 1975 paper appears to have been the first in the scientific literature to use the term “global warming” to describe climate change driven by the buildup of human-generated carbon dioxide. More importantly, it provided a remarkably accurate prediction of what has transpired since it was published. It also constitutes evidence refuting assertions of pundits who have periodically proclaimed that climate scientists warning about warming cannot be trusted because they were proclaiming the dawn of an ice age in the 1970s. Broecker wrote: The fact that the mean global temperature has been falling over the past several decades has led observers to discount the warming effect of the CO2 produced by the burning of chemical fuels. In this report I present an argument to show that this complacency may not be warranted. It is possible that we are on the brink of a several-decades-long period of rapid warming. The post on Realclimate.org, by Stefan Rahmstorf, focuses on the overall robustness of Broecker’s work concluding that the heat-trapping influence of carbon dioxide was bound to overwhelm the cooling influence of aerosols that dominated in the middle of the 20th century. But in reflecting on the value of the accumulated body of research pointing to a growing human influence on climate, I find it just as valuable to recall, along with Broecker’s achievements, one of his missteps. He gained widest fame for his warning, derived from studies of past climate fluctuations, that great flows of fresh water from melting ice sheets could disrupt Atlantic Ocean currents and cause regional cooling (such an idea was caricatured in the Hollywood disaster film “ The Day After Tomorrow“). As data and analysis accumulated, he freely moved beyond his forecast of a big regional chill driven by warming and began to assert that Turbulent Climate Disruptions like those at the tail end of the last ice age appeared to be more likely during the world’s cold spells. Warming, in fact, could limit chances of such events. A great scientist is defined not only by his or her achievements, but by the ability to follow the data, whichever way it flows. Broecker fits the bill. There are others who come to mind, including Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In climate science, who else do you see following the data? dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com

To: stockman_scott who wrote (82365)	7/30/2010 12:17:21 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 89467

<<...The BP Spill: Has the Damage Been Exaggerated?...>> NO...Never before in history has over 2 million gallons of the toxic dispersant Corexit been used...wait about a decade and lets examine the water column and the health of the BP oil spill clean up workers...and we still don't know what this historic oil spill will end up doing to the seafood supply from the Gulf. No one is saying that its not the worst oil spill in US history. What they are saying is that certain media and eco pundits exaggerated the extent of the damage for their own gain. And if that is true, they need to have their asses kicked.........HARD! All IMO, of course.

To: stockman_scott who wrote (82365)	8/1/2010 7:34:42 AM
From: T L Comiskey	Respond to of 89467

Strange (and Tragic...) how.. Real Life events keep unfolding.. just as Peer Reviewed Climate Specialists have predicted.. ...................................... Death toll from Pakistan floods rises to 1,100 The BBC Online By RIAZ KHAN, Associated Press – PESHAWAR, Pakistan – The death toll from massive floods in northwestern Pakistan rose to 1,100 Sunday as rescue workers struggled to save more than 27,000 people still trapped by the raging water, officials said. The rescue effort has been aided by a slackening of the monsoon rains that have caused the worst flooding in decades in Khyber-Pakhtoonkhwa province. But as flood waters have started to recede, authorities have begun to understand the full scale of the disaster.

To: stockman_scott who wrote (82365)	8/1/2010 8:21:51 AM
From: T L Comiskey	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

YUM......!!! Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., released a letter Saturday that said instead of complying with the EPA restriction, "BP often carpet bombed the ocean with these chemicals and the Coast Guard allowed them to do it."

To: stockman_scott who wrote (82365)	8/1/2010 11:54:53 AM
From: T L Comiskey	1 Recommendation Respond to of 89467

"Boehner, in effect, argued that he has nothing to do with the plan he voted for, and which was crafted by his own caucus." DON'T BLAME BOEHNER; HE JUST WORKS THERE.... President Obama hosted a meeting at the White House with the leadership of both parties, from both chambers, and the discussion reportedly turned to Bush's tax cuts. GOP leaders want all the cuts to remain in place, no matter how many billions of dollars it adds to the deficit. The president wants to keep the cuts for everyone except the very wealthy. By all accounts, the chat wasn't especially constructive, but I was glad to see this exchange took place. Mr. Obama, who did not join the Senate until 2005, reminded Mr. Boehner and the Senate Republican leader, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, that the tax cuts' architects purposely left the deficit problem to a future administration, according to aides from both parties. "I wasn't there," Mr. Boehner quickly countered. "I didn't structure that deal." The room briefly went quiet as participants seemed to ponder that statement from a legislator first elected in 1990. "How long have you been here?," a Democrat asked Mr. Boehner, and the others broke out in laughter. They're laughing at you, John, not with you. It's a telling anecdote. The White House vision is to largely follow the game plan crafted by congressional Republicans less than a decade ago. It was the GOP's idea -- they passed tax cuts, which overwhelmingly benefited the wealthy, and set the cuts to expire at the end of 2010. The point was to obscure the cuts' cost, play a dangerous budget game, and make it so that the GOP wouldn't have to pay for their own experiment. We saw the results, which can only fairly be described as "total failure." Obama is prepared to do part of what Republicans included in their own plan -- letting tax rates for those making more than $250,000 return to the same levels that existed when the economy was strong, as was outlined in the Republican plan of the Bush era. Reminded of whose idea this was in the first place, Boehner, in effect, argued that he has nothing to do with the plan he voted for, and which was crafted by his own caucus. Indeed, Boehner was, at the time, responsible at the committee level for helping shape the tax-cut package, and was on hand at the White House for the bill-signing ceremony. No wonder the room broke out in laughter. As for the substance, Boehner told the president allowing the higher rates to return to pre-Bush levels would be bad for small businesses (small businesses that need some help, which Senate Republicans have blocked). As a policy matter, Boehner's argument is patently ridiculous, but the fact that he's pushing it in a private meeting confirms my suspicions -- Boehner actually believes his own nonsense, and isn't quite sharp enough to realize he doesn't know what he's talking about. In the meantime, Boehner is also urging Republicans to stop referring to the Bush tax cuts as the Bush tax cuts. GOP members are supposed to fight for the failed former president's tax policy, but avoid using the failed former president's name. They really do think voters are fools. —Steve Benen