GOP presidential candidate and Texas Gov. Rick Perry told the Dallas Morning News that “there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they would have dollars rolling in to their projects. We’re seeing it almost weekly or almost daily, scientists who are coming forward and questioning the original idea that manmade global warming is what is causing the climate to change. The cost to the country and to the world of implementing these anti-carbon programs is in the billions if not in the trillions of dollars.” Perry said he would refuse to regulate greenhouse gas emissions based on questionable research.
Reality,
1) the military is much more leftard than you think, especially in the Administrative areas that direct the silly crap you quoted.
2) Huntsman isn’t a RINO. He couldn’t qualify to be a RINO. Don’t understand why you would use his words to mean anything to anyone to the left of Communists.
3) you funny Bro!!
I thought conservatives were pro-military??
“Climate change is a national security challenge with strategic implications for the Navy. …A preponderance of global observational evidence shows the Arctic Ocean is losing sea ice, global temperatures are warming, sea level is rising, large landfast ice sheets (Greenland and Antarctic) are losing ice mass, and precipitation patterns are changing…. Climate change is affecting, and will continue to affect, U.S. military installations world- wide. Melting permafrost is degrading roads, foundations, and structures on DoD and USCG installations in Alaska. Droughts in the southeast and southwest U.S. are challenging water resource management. Sea level rise and storm surge will lead to an increased likelihood of inundation of coastal infrastructure, and may limit the availability of overseas bases.”
– US NAVY: Roadmap on Global Climate Change
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/documents/CCR.pdf
“I think when you find yourself at an extreme end of the Republican Party, you make yourself unelectable. … The minute that the Republican Party becomes the anti-science party, we have a huge problem.”
–GOP Presidential Candidate Jon Huntsman – speaking about tea party candidates Perry and Bachmann
Yea, you’ve got a problem…
Neal,
thanks for the alarmist claptrap. Now, please explain how the US and Europe helps decrease population increases by allowing anyone to run across the border and start popping out kids here with much higher survival rates? At some point your leftard politics will run up against the fact that one the one hand you are talking about killing off a significant percentage of the world’s population while on the other hand your policies are ENCOURAGING that population growth.
Sorry, wealthy societies are mcuh more selfish and liable to self limit their population increases. Guaranteeing the poverty of most of the world makes the problem WORSE!!!! I would also point out as the US and Europe generally became better educated and wealthier they had more time to worry about the environment. Destroying our educational system and our economy WILL make things worse.
EcoAlert: New Research –Explosive Growth of Cities Endangers Global Environmment
“Every week humans create the equivalent of a city the size of Vancouver.”
The explosive growth of cities worldwide over the next two decades poses significant risks to people and the global environment. Researchers from Yale, Arizona State, Texas A&M and Stanford predict that by 2030 urban areas will expand by 590,000 square miles — nearly the size of Mongolia — to accommodate the needs of 1.47 billion more people living in urban areas.
“It is likely that these cities are going to be developed in places that are the most biologically diverse,” said Karen Seto, the study’s lead author and associate professor in the urban environment at the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies. “They’re going to be growing and expanding into forests, biological hotspots, savannas, coastlines — sensitive and vulnerable places.”
Latest Myth Debunked:
Get The Facts On The US Chamber Position on Climate Change Here.
http://www.USChamber.com/Facts
Urban areas, they found, have been expanding more rapidly along coasts. “Of all the places for cities to grow, coasts are the most vulnerable. People and infrastructure are at risk to flooding, tsunamis, hurricanes and other environmental disasters,” said Seto.
The study provides the first estimate of how fast urban areas globally are growing and how fast they may grow in the future. “We know a lot about global patterns of urban population growth, but we know significantly less about how urban areas are changing,” she said. “Changes in land cover associated with urbanization drive many environmental changes, from habitat loss and agricultural land conversion to changes in local and regional climate.”
The researchers examined peer-reviewed studies that used satellite data to map urban growth and found that from 1970 to 2000 the world’s urban footprint had grown by at least 22,400 square miles — half the size of Ohio.
“This number is enormous, but, in actuality, urban land expansion has been far greater than what our analysis shows because we only looked at published studies that used satellite data,” said Seto. “We found that 48 of the most populated urban areas have been studied using satellite data, with findings in peer-reviewed journals. This means that we’re not tracking the physical expansion of more than half of the world’s largest cities.”
Half of urban land expansion in China is driven by a rising middle class, whereas the size of cities in India and Africa is driven primarily by population growth. “Rising incomes translate into rising demand for bigger homes and more land for urban development, which has big implications for biodiversity conservation, loss of carbon sinks and energy use.”
The Daily Galaxy via Yale University, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.
The worlds population is increasing geomerically. Useable land is decreasing in productivity. Food supplies are decreasing. The icecaps are melting because the oceans are warming and undermining them. (See the new data showing the Antarctic icefields accellerating towards the sea) (European Space Agency,
Revealed: an ice sheet on the move
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMNVJOT9RG_index_0.html
…Deforestation in Brazil’s Amazon increased by 15 percent during the past 12 months,
The National Institute for Space Research (INPE) said.
From July 2010 to July 2011 the vast South American rainforest lost 2,654 square kilometers (1,649 square miles) of vegetation in the states of Mato Grosso and Para, according to a preliminary analysis of satellite photos.
The year before, 2,295 square kilometers (1,426 square miles) were destroyed over that time period.
This July, 225 square kilometers (139 square miles) were lost to deforestation, though this was significantly less than the 485 square kilometers (301 square miles) destroyed in July 2010.
In April 477 square kilometers (296 square miles) were destroyed, with more than 95 percent of the devastation taking place in Mato Grosso, which is a major agricultural frontier used for cattle ranches and soybean farming.)
http://www.care2.com/causes/global-warming/blog/gop-senate-candidates-deny-climate-change/
…Human created dust and ash is aiding in the ice melt. Forests are disappearing. There is only gloom on the horizon unless those who are making their fortunes from oil, coal and other easily accessible sources of energy and chemicals use their great fortunes and increasing enlightenment to save this wonderful world we are now destablizing.
Your information is accurate but it will not help in the long run. Over-population is the limiting variable in this equation. CO2 is building up and it has to go somewhere. CO2 disolves in water creating cabolic acid and carbolic acid disolves CaCO3 used by animals to build defensive and supportive shells. If they die out the food chain fails. Oh, and we are destroying the top of the food chain while depleating the bottom. We, at the moment are acting like a cancer to the whole Earth.
But we can heal the Earth if we evolve our attitude and slow our destruction and do for our children’s children what is right in the long run. Gravity and over-polpulation can not be ignored…
Neal,
you restated your talking points without presenting anything I can discern as data.
Bye.
To say that the trees are growing back is nice as long as you fail to realize that the forests of America were filled with 100 – 500 year old trees. The new ones are very small in mass and the human footprint, cities, roads, factories, and parking lot, etc. have reduced the ballance. Brazil, the lungs of the world is being denuded as is South East Asia. You say that CO2 accumulating in the oceans will not effect us anytime soon, but it will. We over fish the food chain, polute the rivers and the land as our over popultion grows. This will not go well for us if we disreguard these ills. When the forests were allowed to grow unregulated they ballance the world. They are mostly gone and the world has emphazina…
Neal,
your claims of deforestation would be important IF the world were still being deforested. The advanced countries, yes even the US, have been increasing their natural areas for decades. Even though not all is “natural” we actually have about the same acreage in forests as before colonization!! The few countries who ARE greatly reducing their forests won’t last long.
So, your complaint must be more general as you specify droughts along with deforestation.
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Greening_of_the_Sahel
The Sayhel has been greening over the last decade. This is something that has been accepted by pretty much everyone. The reasons are diverse but three primary reasons. 1) the drought and loss of vegetation forced large numbers of people to move reducing the strain on a fragile ecosystem. 2) it appears that the climate may be changing to more precipitation again. 3) extra CO2 in the atmosphere allows plants to reduce the size of their pores reducing water loss and allowing them to grow better in hot and dry conditions. (growing better is a relative statement here. They grow better than they were growing without the extra CO2, not better than with more water and less heat)
What we are seeing is a huge increase in the earth’s biomass in the oceans and on land!! One recent study actually found a non-intuitive change. As plants grew on areas that used to be permafrost, it was found the foliage prevented heating of the soli and further melting of the below ground permafrost!!!!!
Basically we are at the end of a warm cycle and the only real issue you have mentioned that is a problem is the deforestation. It COULD be worse if the economies of the world get worse as there will be little in the way of organized governments who would try and stop further deforestation. Being relatively wealthy has allowed the advanced countries to restore their environments. We need to help extend this relative wealth to the poorer countries so they also have a reason to protect their environments.
Neal,
first, the claims of acidification are highly speculative. The most recent paper using POOR data going back over a hundred years is an exemplar of how poor this claim actually is. There simply is not good data on what the PH of the ocean was tocompare to modern POOR data. No, we cannot within any reasonable error bounds say that the oceans are getting less alkaline. They absolutely NOT becoming acid any time soon.
The best data I have seen are paleo studies that estimate that the oceans are actually MORE alkaline now than for large periods of the past.
http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/releases2002/mar02/noaa02r305.html
Oceans are about the same as 20,000 years ago during ice age when the oceans should have held more CO2.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/acidification.pdf
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Ancient-Marine-Creatures-Adapted-to-Ocean-Acidity-148800.shtml
http://www.physorg.com/news161877580.html
Ocean acidification, even if it does happen, is NOT going to be a big issue. http://www.co2science.org lists many papers associated with biological effects of CO2.
One fact that can not be refuted is that deforestation and desertification will end our hopes of rebalancing the atmospheric CO2.
Two, the oceans are getting more acidic and this weakens the food chain by making it harder for the oceans biota to form protective shells. We are trading our dependance on oil, gas, and coal for a very good chance at breaking the food chain that we depend on. To counter this process and keep our economy running we need to find other sources of energy and learn to be much less wasteful. Solar, wind, geothermal, and the use of ocean currents can reduce our addiction to fossil fuels. Nature balances itself and we need to learn to do the same.
How about you projecting the future of our planet where the population keeps growing and the food supply dwindles while the forests disintegrate. Can we continue on this course forever?
Is this the only way to live on this planet. By the way why is it so hard to fund new technologies employing AMERICANS and yet so easy to fund old ones? Do you think that there are people in the world who would start wars like in Iraq, etc. for the astronomic profits made selling oil and coal? We are burning our house down to keep warm and we have no insurance. You mistake the iceburg for icecream! By the way, the condensation hypothisis can be observed around other stars and we can assume that we were formed the same way. Do you think we magically appeared like in creationist fairy tails? Show me the evidence that the science is flawed. Oh, by the way what if you are wrong? What should we do differently?
Neal,
are you going to show us the videotape of this Disney fairy tail now??
Look, there are a number of hypothesis of how the universe and planets began. The fact that the current consensus settled on a condensation model does NOT mean it is correct. In fact, based on previous consensus views, it has a much higher chance of being wrong than tight. Please don’t start locking your mind into what some others IMAGINE is fact when it is only hypotheses.
By the way, since you are bashing Bush, ever think of who is making excess billions due to the increased price of oil caused by Obie’s messing with the energy and other markets?? That’s right, the Saudis have been maintaining their pumpin at maximum levels pocketing all that over $50/bbl profit themselves. Well, not ALL of it as Iran, Libya, Venezuela, Canada, Mexico, and Russia are definitely making a few dineros out of this also!! Venezuela, Mexico, Iran, and Libya have dropped off a little due to not reinvesting the appropriate amount of money into upgrading their operations though!!
Yup, ignorance IS deadly, and you are showing many of the symptoms of immersing youself in propoganda and ignoring reality.
PS: When you find someone who can present us with real FACTS as to why Venus emits multiples of the amount of energy it absorbs and still has a surface temperature of about 450C, which Greenhouse could never manage, we might get a little closer to some Scientific Based facts instead of modern mythologies..
In the beginng the Earths atmosphere was like Venus’s, 90% CO2.
It took billion and billions of years to sequester all the CO2 in the form of coal and natural gas, etc. to .04%. Now we are releasing enormous amounts it back into the atmosphere and the oceans. They are now more acidic than they have been since the astroid impacted 65,000,000 yrs. ago, We are killing the food chain. When coal burns it releases huge quantities of dust, some of which caries RADIOACTIVE elements that you are now breathing.
The dust speeds the melting of the glaciers. Check this at NASA, and the European Space Agency, etc.
These simple FACTS are absolute. If we were not, at the same time, denuding the Earth of its forests that are made up of 80% CO2 by weight, then maybe there would be a chance a balance could be obtained.
This is now impossible. Mankind has changed everything and all your finger pointing at the scientific community will not change these facts.
The idiot from TEXAS is an OIL MAN as were BUSH and CHAINY. They are great friends with the “SAUDI OIL FAMILY”. All of these people need to keep thing “STATUS QUO” and they can afford to keep it that way.
Should we not try to find ways to find other sources of energy?
“IGNORANCE IS DEADLY”. “Mr. “C” average PERRY is a fool and you are being led by him….
Ben,
Ron is pointing out that it took a long time for Perry to lose a bad idea that he earlier accepted. What idiot idea will he fall for next?? We do not know. He should get rated based on past performance like everyone else. What they have said and done in the past MUST matter or we could continue electing Obies.
It is also a lesson to others that you cannot be a part of lunatic schemes that damage our country without having to pay for it!! Yes, punishment must happen for people to learn that they can’t get away with shoddy evaluation of scams. You know, like the housing bubble, the tech bubble, fancy drugs, One payer health care, fiat money run by the Fed…
Ron, Perry switched sides several years ago, about 2006 if my memory holds. We cannot hold ancient history against him, especially as the data is far more certain now than in the past.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61428.html
Rick Perry backed Al Gore in ’88 on the climate change issue.
He is a politician and as such will follow any popular cure to any popular issue regardless of the merit of the issue or the cure in order to get elected. This activity is rampant with career politicians on both sides of the aisle.
“A small number of scientists did manipulate some data”. Thanks for that admission. The bigger but ignored issue is that your “large majority of scientists” continue to use this manipulated data
Robin (and everyone else on that matter), let’s stop the conspiracy theories on both sides. I prefer to go with the “Not Evil, Just Wrong” philosophy as it tends to fit the majority of people.
Here are the fact.
1: The world has warmed by 0.7C the past century.
2: Neither the maximum temperatures or the rate of warming are unprecedented, with evidence being clear that the Medieval Warm Period had higher temperatures than today and began over the course of a single century. Data from the Roman Warm Period is shakier, but it also occurred over a relatively short period of time and was as warm or warmer than today.
3: CO2 does warm the atmosphere by 0.5C per doubling (it’s logarithmic). Therefore, we should have had about 0.25C of warming from CO2, and we can expect a maximum of 1.5C at 2000 ppm CO2 after all fossil fuel is consumed.
4: The number from point three is modified by other chemical and biological process. Le Charlier’s Principle indicates that these should reduce the change.
5:However, the IPCC’s conclusions state that there is no natural warming. Thus, the amplification is on the order of tripling the warming by CO2, causing them to believe that we are expecting 4-5C of warming, which would have a noticable impact (Even in this situation, it is questionable whether the impacts would be devastating as there would be a great increase in precipitation and vast expanses of land would become arable).
I could go on, but let me be clear. The science of global warming is far from certain or settled even excluding consideration of manipulation and falsehood. can someone not just be wrong?
Robin – You’re making progress (but you’re still a “progressive”), so perhaps you would do well to determine if that “small number (who) did manipulate some data” were the same ‘scientists’ who actually keep and store the data.
When you understand that, you’ll be able to enter into an “informed” discussion.
iheartagw – Before you look even more foolish than you already do over your wholehearted buy-in to AGW, perhaps you should look up the definitions of the words “macro” and “micro” and see if you can figure out how those relate to global climate variations on the planet and the AGW scam.
No Robin, what that proves is you WANT TO BELIEVE IN GOREBALL WARMING!!!
(like they did with the breast implants that resulted in many women dying of breast cancer because they used them)
Except nobody died of cancer due to breast implants. That was a hoax used to extract money from a growth segment of the economy, created and maintained by Fenton Communication – the same people, hired by AL Gore, who brought you Real Climate dot org.
Robin What is at stake is MONEY. Human caused climate change is an excuse to extract more money. CO2 does not cause warming it follows warming caused by the sun.
Not sceptic. Climate realist. As our beloved Dr. Lindzen has said, the term sceptic implies doubt. We no longer have any doubt whatsoever that CAGW or CACC is man induced. This is now abundantly scientifically clear.
He is a “Johnny come lately” skeptic. A few years ago, he was a big supporter of Al Gore. He is also heavy handed and self center. Check out what Michelle Malkin thinks of him.
Curse the stars that force me to repeatedly vote for this man. I can’t stand the sight of him yet he always seems to go against someone I feel is even worse.
A small number of scientists did manipulate some data. What that proves is that a small number of scientists manipulated some data, not that global warming isn’t real. A large majority of scientists did NOT manipulate any data about it, and scientists manipulate data sometimes, such as scientists who work for corporations who don’t want you to know how toxic the product they’re selling really is (like they did with the breast implants that resulted in many women dying of breast cancer because they used them). The Republicans simply don’t want you to believe global warming is real because then you’ll do something to slow it down, such as want alternatives to fossil fuels. Oil baron billionaires the Koch brothers who control the Republican party don’t want you to stop buying their product, it would cut their profits. It doesn’t matter to them if you die or suffer, they have enough money to make sure they will be safe from the ravages of global warming. Global warming is real, and responsible politicians will tell you a few scientists manipulated some data, most did not, we know it’s real and here’s what he will do as president to help protect us from it. But he’s not protecting you, he’s protecting his puppet masters the Koch brothers. He doesn’t care what happens to you.
Daneel
It takes one to know one. Who better to recognize a con than a politician?
Really? A politician accusing people of lying to gain money? You must be kidding me.
This is so ironic that it went back in time and made my irony meter explode a week ago.
Whoops! “electorate”
Anyone who reads this blog is almost certainly a climate sceptic (spelling correct – I live in England!). My scepticism with Gosier is simply what’s his real motive, other than catching the crest of a wave to get elected, and then screw the elctorate for his own ends just like all before him?
Great! We finally have a major candidate stepping forward and telling it like it is. Global warming claims are pure baloney. The science is terribly flawed and a front for the real objective: a grab for political power. Don’t stop Mr. Perry, lay it on them!