Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Global Warming Deniers on the Rise
According to The Wall Street Journal, Australian Senator Steve Fielding recently met with the Obama administration seeking reassurance that human-caused global warming was a real concern. After the meeting, Fielding promptly returned Down Under and announced he would not vote for any climate change legislation.
Apparently, Fielding isn't alone:
It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as "deniers." The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S.
The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N.—13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers.
This possible change in public opinion may be the reason the
administration is ramming through cap and trade today (vote any minute!). My suggestion? Every
member of the U.S. House should visit with President Obama before
casting their vote on any climate legislation.
Read the full article here.
Reason global warming coverage here.
Syd Henderson|6.26.09 @ 5:21PM|#
Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists
who disagree with the U.N.
That's nice. Are any of them meteorologists?
Gilbert Martin|6.26.09 @ 5:35PM|#
"This possible change in public opinion may be the reason the
administration is ramming through cap and trade today (vote any
minute!)."
You bet.
There is no climate "crisis".
The crisis is a political one. The boosters of this massive
government power grab feel that political window of opportunity to
ram this through is not going be getting any better than it is
now.
hammeredHead|6.26.09 @ 5:35PM|#
Great news, a phony non-testable science is losing adherents. Climatology is the bite-mark analysis of the physical sciences.
Tricky Prickears|6.26.09 @ 5:44PM|#
I've heard so many bullshit alternative arguments it boggles my
mind. Like global warming is being caused by an increase in the
number of sun spots and solar flares. Really? Wouldn't that
interfere with E-M telecommunication transmissions, also?
Or my favorite is the argument that melting polar regions will
actually lower the sea level. The idiot that tried to make this
argument cited a 7th grade science experiment, where, if you take a
beaker of ice water, measure the volume, then let the ice melt, the
resulting volume will be less. I guess this guy doesn't realize
that the ice in Antarctica is not displacing
water. It's over a land mass.
But, I do believe Gore et al used bullying tactics. But hey,
sometimes you just have to beat it into the brains of some people.
Some people can't grasp a simple scientific principle, that CO2
holds heat energy in the atmosphere. It's like putting a layer of
insulation in your attic.
Cal Lipigian|6.26.09 @ 5:53PM|#
The idiot that tried to make this argument cited a 7th grade
science experiment
Yes, only an idiot would reduce a complex system like the world
climate to a simplistic model.
It's like putting a layer of insulation in your
attic.
Um.
stuartl|6.26.09 @ 5:57PM|#
Wouldn't that interfere with E-M telecommunication
transmissions, also?
Why? It depends on frequency, db levels, etc. Any change in the
sun's behavior obviously has the potential to change the earth's
temperature.
The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to
life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the
U.S.
The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma
Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree
with the U.N.-13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007
climate summary for policymakers.
The article doesn't give much evidence for these assertions.
Cabeza de Vaca|6.26.09 @ 6:01PM|#
Tricky,
The ice that is melting is in the artic ocean. The ice in antartica
is INCREASING, not decreasing.
Gilbert Martin|6.26.09 @ 6:02PM|#
"Look, a rebuttal to this very piece of crankery:"
Nope - the crankery resides in the piece you linked to.
JG|6.26.09 @ 6:17PM|#
Take note that the Deniers usually don't argue using scientific
reasoning, rather they argue about the institutions that produced
the research.
Like I have said before, if you arguments against climate change
are SO compelling then, they should easily, easily stand up to Peer
review:
http://www.realclimate.org/
How to talk to a climate skeptic:
http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/
Jordan|6.26.09 @ 6:17PM|#
A
petition signed by over 9,000 science Ph.D.s which reads in
part:
"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of of the Earth's climate.
You can read the qualifications of the signers at the above link
too.
On a similary note, Here is a report
authored by two leading climate researchers, with 35 contributors
and reviewers which debunks the pathetic IPCC report. Author
qualifications and executive summary available at the site.
Jordan|6.26.09 @ 6:18PM|#
There you go, JG. 880 pages of peer-reviewed scientific reasoning. Have at it!
|6.26.09 @ 6:19PM|#
Sen. Fielding could've just peaked in on fellow Aussie and generally insufferable lout Tim Lambert to reach the same conclusion.
|6.26.09 @ 6:19PM|#
GM, only because you don't subscribe to Tony's bizarre form of
the truth. To him, that article makes perfect sense.
I mean any article that starts out with, "In her Wall Street
Journal op-ed column today, Kimberly Strassel spurts out a
mish-mash of global warming denier factoids: " just screams
objectivity to him.
cmace|6.26.09 @ 6:23PM|#
CO2 is increasing by all accounts, global temperatures are
either falling or (adjusted)flat. Therefore the CO2 warming model
does not work.
"Like global warming is being caused by an increase in the number
of sun spots and solar flares."
Yes, the temperature of the sun affects the earth.
Randall|6.26.09 @ 6:26PM|#
"I've heard so many bullshit alternative arguments it boggles my
mind. Like global warming is being caused by an increase in the
number of sun spots and solar flares. Really? Wouldn't that
interfere with E-M telecommunication transmissions, also? "
Wrong. The number of spots and flares has been zero for more months
than ever before. That's the whole point. Global warming is caused
by the sun. Go figure!
It is corroberated scientifically, by a similar shrinking of the
Martian icecaps. And you can't blame the rovers NASA sent there
because they're both solar powered.
|6.26.09 @ 6:33PM|#
Through lies, manipulation, intimidation and bribes, Obama's
jobs killing, economy killing cap and trade bill passed!
Obama's Cap and trade is another giant step towards Marxism - and
the corruption, poverty, enslavement, destruction and despair that
Marxism entails.
Obama is working much faster than Hugo Chavez at destroying the
economy and imposing Marxism. No wonder the Russians are
gloating:
From Pravda: "…the American descent into Marxism is happening with
breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless
sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people…"
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/107459-american_capitalism-0
We are NOT hapless sheeple! We must do whatever is necessary to
defend ourselves and our children from the Marxist dictatorship
that's being set up in Washington.
|6.26.09 @ 6:33PM|#
I second Kyle Jordan's question re: Ron Bailey. Is he preparing another reversal, figuring out a way to maintain his last position on climate change, or negotiating his separation package from Reason?
Randall|6.26.09 @ 6:38PM|#
http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTczNjE5YmZjNzkwN2ZkNjQ1OTI1MWU3MTEwMWQwYzE=
MNG|6.26.09 @ 6:42PM|#
Well, shit, the WSJ says that public opinion is shifting on the matter, so, hell, that PROVES it, human caused global warming ain't no problem!
hammeredHead|6.26.09 @ 6:44PM|#
Is he preparing another reversal
I have no problem with a reversal. He is trying to go with the
evidence and be unbiased. Once the corrections to satellite data
showed warming along with the ground based stations, he changed his
position. Unfortunately, these corrections are mostly being
performed by people who are funded to show global warming.
Legitimate corrections the other way are far harder to have
enacted. In fact the adjustments to historical temp data is so
extreme that the raw data itself is not legitimate. Now that
evidence for cooling is starting to appear despite the corruption
of the data, Ron is justified in changing his opinion.
MNG|6.26.09 @ 6:45PM|#
To paraphrase joe, Ron Bailey is, reluctantly, trying to save
certain dumbasses from themselves (because many of said dumbasses
make up the libertarian base his magazine lives off of).
When all of those professional scientific organizations start to
reverse their positions, then you may have a point...Until then,
your theory that all of these scientists have just collectively
gone mad or are part of some communist conspiracy is, well,
nuts...
hammeredHead|6.26.09 @ 6:54PM|#
your theory that all of these scientists have just
collectively gone mad or are part of some communist conspiracy is,
well, nuts...
Actually, that is not my theory. Mine involves climatology being a
science in its infancy. One which has unfortunately been corrupted
by massive amounts of money and political pressures. This has led
researches to elevate untested hypothesis' to the level of proven
theories. That makes them nothing more than partisan hacks and con
men.
mark|6.26.09 @ 6:55PM|#
The very title of this bill is doublespeak: The American Climate
Energy and Security Act. Energy security can be purchased for a
relatively low price compared to cap and trade.
Speaker Pelosi just said the House can vote for this bill for four
reasons, "Jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs!" Well if the goal is to reduce
carbon emissions, then you're talking about destroying jobs, not
creating them.
Tricky Prickears|6.26.09 @ 6:58PM|#
Damn, those links are profiteers, spammers and (?)William F.
Buckley(?)
Next you'll be sending me to The Canada Free Press.
154 dollars. Give me a break!
|6.26.09 @ 7:02PM|#
The funniest thing about the global warming debate is how neatly it is divided along partisan lines. Now, that says something to me; I don't know about the rest of you.
Xeones|6.26.09 @ 7:09PM|#
Epi, what it says to me is that, above the fray or not, we are all about to get equally fucked.
|6.26.09 @ 7:14PM|#
Agreed, X, but I can at least be amused by watching people claim
they are arguing science when they're arguing the same partisan
bullshit as always.
I mean, what else is there to do? Get drunk? Hey, that's an
idea...
Tricky Prickears|6.26.09 @ 7:19PM|#
I can agree with that. It's turned into a wedge issue like abortion, gay marriage, and stem cell. We can debate for the next 100 years about global warming. But there's one fact that's unavoidable. Fossil fuels will eventually run out. Should we wait until reserves get so low, the price of oil hits $400/ barrel, or should we pay a little now to start making the transition to biofuels? I don't agree with the cap and trade policy, I say put a floating tax on fossils and a subsidy on renewables is more desirable. We have the technology to produce these fuels without cutting into the food supply. Jatropha and algae are very easily converted to biodiesel. Cellulostic biomass from underbrush from forest management for ethanol. The problem is the cost of production. But as mass production increases and refinements are made to the operations, the cost will come down. Any questions about the technology I suggest the NREL website.
|6.26.09 @ 7:21PM|#
I had a recent collaboration with some climate change
scientists. Their research question was "How can we generate a big
$$$ consequence to support Obama's cap and trade proposal?" They
felt the current research being put out by the scientific community
wasn't scary enough. Sort of woke me up to the realities of many of
the "scientists" working in the field.
I took their doomsday scenario and calculated the associated
economic effects, which were virtually zero (albeit for only a few
very specific effects of global warming). What these climate
scientists don't understand is that people will adapt to global
warming consequences, especially in the U.S. They also don't
acknowledge any of the positive aspects to global warming, which
isn't a very scientific approach.
Saul Alinsky |6.26.09 @ 7:27PM|#
"I can agree with that. It's turned into a wedge issue like
abortion, gay marriage, and stem cell."
Hee, hee, hee.
Al \"Hal Lindsey\" Gore|6.26.09 @ 7:29PM|#
We're all doomed!!! Doomed I tell ya!!! DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|6.26.09 @ 7:43PM|#
The problem for the global warmers is that their phallic symbol
of global temperatures has stopped going up and started
deflating.
Or as the actress said to the global warmer:
"A pity ... it looked so promising!"
|6.26.09 @ 7:48PM|#
"I mean, what else is there to do? Get drunk? Hey, that's an
idea..."
Episiarch reaches for the ultimate solution, displaying insight and
wisdom far beyond that of the majority.
Epi, cheers!
Mike Laursen|6.26.09 @ 8:11PM|#
I predict rising levels of repetitive debate.
Seriously, almost every debate gets off on the wrong track
immediately, because both sides are careless about mixing
scientific questions with political questions.
Chad|6.26.09 @ 8:20PM|#
Dear Senator Inhofe:
700 scientists out of how many?
Can you be explicit on who and does not qualify as a scientist
under the definition you are using? Are you including all branches
of science under your definition? Or only relevant branches? Or
only relevant sub-disciplines within those branches?
Thank you for your time,
Chad
Chad|6.26.09 @ 8:24PM|#
Cal Lipigian | June 26, 2009, 5:53pm | #
Yes, only an idiot would reduce a complex system like the world
climate to a simplistic model.
The simple model, developed over a hundred years ago, predicted a
5-6C rise in temperature for a doubling of CO2.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/simple.htm#L_M018
It must have been a left-wing conspiracy.
Jordan|6.26.09 @ 9:04PM|#
Dear Senator Inhofe:
700 scientists out of how many?
Can you be explicit on who and does not qualify as a scientist under the definition you are using? Are you including all branches of science under your definition? Or only relevant branches? Or only relevant sub-disciplines within those branches?
Thank you for your time,
Chad
Dear Chad,
Please see my link for a list of 9000 scientists with
qualifications included.
Thanks you for your time,
Jordan
Michael Ejercito|6.26.09 @ 9:06PM|#
Fossil fuels will eventually run out. Should we wait until reserves get so low, the price of oil hits $400/ barrel, or should we pay a little now to start making the transition to biofuels? I
Yes.
t6he transition will be made precisely because of rising
fuel prices.
The simple model, developed over a hundred years ago, predicted a 5-6C rise in temperature for a doubling of CO2.
Has there been a 5C to 6C rise yet?
|6.26.09 @ 9:13PM|#
According to most of the graphs I've seen it's been a .6C rise.
They have to fudge the numbers using "feedback" to make the more
catastrophic models work.
I'm looking for sources now.
|6.26.09 @ 9:13PM|#
Everyone who is interested in global warming should subscribe to
the blog of Anthony Watts, a weatherman who launched the Surface
Stations project, which found that numerous US weather stations
have accuracy problems, often due to poor siting.
Watts Up With That?
blog
Chad|6.26.09 @ 9:18PM|#
The simple model, developed over a hundred years ago, predicted a
5-6C rise in temperature for a doubling of CO2.
Has there been a 5C to 6C rise yet?
Have CO2 levels doubled yet?
My point were that first the complex models and the simple models
essentially agree on the general scope of the problem, and second
that the models came before the politics, not vice versa.
Chad|6.26.09 @ 9:23PM|#
Dear Jordan. That petition was spam mailed to everyone in our
chemistry department. None of us do any related research. Anyone,
including the first year grad students, could have signed it.
By that low of a bar, you had millions of possible signers, you got
only 9000? Holy pathetic, batman!
Not only that, a careful reader would note that the first part of
the petition is true (there is no convincing evidence WILL cause a
catastrophe...only evidence that it MIGHT cause a catastrophe and
PROBABLY will cause serious problems), and that the second part is
a value judgement, and therefore not science.
Oh well, thanks for trying.
Ebeneezer Scrooge|6.26.09 @ 9:28PM|#
Tricky,
But there's one fact that's unavoidable. Fossil fuels will
eventually run out.
In fact, this is far from a known or proven fact. There is evidence
that dinosaurs are not the primary source of fossil fuels, that the
earth produces them on a more or less continuous basis and that --
get this -- life actually occurred on this planet because
the oil was here.
Ebeneezer Scrooge|6.26.09 @ 9:28PM|#
Mike,
I predict rising levels of repetitive debate.
Yup.
...almost every debate gets off on the wrong track immediately,
because both sides are careless about mixing scientific questions
with political questions.
Both of which are getting mixed up with economic questions.
And all of those, getting mixed up with moral questions which are
rarely asked starkly.
|6.26.09 @ 9:32PM|#
The simple model, developed over a hundred years ago,
predicted a 5-6C rise in temperature for a doubling of
CO2.
Have CO2 levels doubled yet?
To the first comment, back in those days they had no concept of
resonance absorption or anything of that nature.
To the second, global CO2 according to ice core data and the Mauna
Loa observatory have gone up approx 100 ppm in the since 1860, or
about 30 percent. Only 5.3 precent is contributed by human sources,
though, and that's counting the feedback effect of water vapor.
Jordan|6.26.09 @ 9:38PM|#
Well, the list is broken down by discipline, so feel free to
actually look at it...
By that low of a bar, you had millions of possible signers, you got only 9000? Holy pathetic, batman!
Actually, it's 9000 Ph.D's. 30,000 overall.
|6.26.09 @ 10:59PM|#
The model of AGW actually says that a doubling of the C02 in the atmosphere will warm the planet by 1.6 degree's C. We did get up to .8 degree's C but have lost .4 degree's C of that so the planet is up .4 C. When the C02 doubles and that will be past all of our lifetimes, the planet could go up another .8 C. So the total in F is 2 degrees. However your Congress just passed the global warming bill which will reduce the US to a 3rd world country and kill all jobs for.....1 degree F. So no worries, except how are you going to pay for heat and food, forget about transportation, there will be no where to go.
Chad|6.26.09 @ 11:21PM|#
Ebeneezer Scrooge | June 26, 2009, 9:28pm | #
In fact, this is far from a known or proven fact. There is evidence
that dinosaurs are not the primary source of fossil fuels, that the
earth produces them on a more or less continuous basis and that --
get this -- life actually occurred on this planet because the oil
was here.
Wow! You should publish your theory of spontaneous oil generation
in Science or Nature. You would win the Nobel prize.
It really is simple. There are only so many carbon atoms down
there. When we pull them out and put them in the atmosphere in
oceans, they aren't underground anymore. There is, of course, a
natural rate of generation for things like oil and coal, as younger
biological material gets crushed and heated. Things like the tar
sands in Alberta are basically half-formed oil, for example.
However, this natural rate of generation is many orders of
magnitude smaller than how fast we are pumping oil out.
You are almost as crackpot as the little old ladies at my family
church who believe that climate change is irrelevant because Jesus
is coming soon anyway.
Chad|6.26.09 @ 11:25PM|#
Jordan | June 26, 2009, 9:38pm | #
Well, the list is broken down by discipline, so feel free to
actually look at it...
By that low of a bar, you had millions of possible signers, you got
only 9000? Holy pathetic, batman!
Actually, it's 9000 Ph.D's. 30,000 overall.
So now you have 30,000 signers out of tens of millions of potential
signers...
Do you really think you are helping yourself by lowering the bar
even further?
Btw, there is NO vetting process for that petition. I could have
signed it anyway I wanted and nobody would have known the
difference.
wuestefuchs|6.27.09 @ 12:04AM|#
I actually compiled almost 90 years of temperature data for a
previous employer. Based on what I saw, I have no respect for the
global warming scaremongers. Not because there was not an upward
trend in temperatures- There definitely seemed to be a slow
increase in average temperatures for the time and region that the
data came from.
The big problem is how much the data gets cherry-picked to help an
agenda. Many of the studies that I have seen tend to show data
starting in the late 50's or mid 60's. The problem is that the
temperatures 50 and 60's were actually colder than the previous
decades (many believe this was a consequence of nuclear testing).
Naturally, omitting data prior to 1950 makes it appear that
temperatures are increasing faster.
A synopsis in one of the Seattle newspapers showed that migratory
birds are wintering further north every year. Again, the data
started in the late 50's. Complete rubbish. I cannot be convinced
that supposedly impartial scientists have simply forgotten to look
at a larger data set. The article was simply propaganda disguised
as science.
Then again, it is easy to argue that there is nowhere near enough
to data to make any kind of sound conclusion.
|6.27.09 @ 1:28AM|#
I don't have much energy for these arguments anymore, so I
recommend the following YouTube series:
http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610 updated regularly
http://www.youtube.com/user/wonderingmind42 old but decent
kerena|6.27.09 @ 1:45AM|#
Hi,
We have just added your latest post "Global Warming Deniers on the
Rise - Reason Magazine " to our Directory of Environment . You can
check the inclusion of the post
here . We are delighted to invite you to submit all your future
posts to the directory for
getting a huge base of visitors to your website and gaining a
valuable backlink to your site.
Warm Regards
greenatmos.com Team
http://www.greenatmos.com
Tricky Prickears|6.27.09 @ 4:21AM|#
A synopsis in one of the Seattle newspapers showed that
migratory birds are wintering further north every year.
The problem where I live, is that migratory birds,
specifically Canada Geese, are not migrating anymore. They stay
here year round. It's causing one hell of a problem. Their
droppings are polluting our lakes and steams and causing very high
levels of bacteria. In fact, one of the solutions being tried, is
to introduce Mute Swans into the smaller more susceptible lakes .
The Swans are very territorial and do not get along with Canada
Geese, and it is believed the Swans will chase away the Geese.
Cardboard cutouts of wolves are being placed in large open fields.
And, many locales have heavy fines for feeding the geese. Canada
Geese are a protected species and can not be shot.
Tom|6.27.09 @ 5:22AM|#
I'm so glad that Reason Magazine are citing the biggest and most
scurrilous enemy of liberty in Australian politics as a beacon of
reasonable debate. If he didn't turn to Obama, he would have turned
to the Bible instead.
Steve Fielding is a senator with the Christian party Family First.
This is the same party that wants to close down pubs at 6pm, filter
the internet for "objectionable content" and turn Australia into a
bigger nanny state than it already is. What sucks is this guy,
despite having one senate seat out of 76 has the deciding vote how
climate change is approached in Australia.
Tricky Prickears|6.27.09 @ 5:27AM|#
There is evidence that dinosaurs are not the primary source
of fossil fuels...
This is true. It wasn't dinosaurs that are the primary
source. The primary source is microbes that lived in the oceans.
One of the first forms of life to evolve on this
planet. The heat from the Earth's core, and the pressure from the
weight of the ocean, transformed these microbes into oil.
I must say, I am surprised this discussion hasn't degraded to a
debate on evolution or whether or not there was a lunar landing.
It's been my experience that many of the global warming deniers
also deny evolution and the lunar landing, among others. And their
denial of accepted scientific principles ties in very nicely with
their religious beliefs. I hate to quote Bill Maher but "if you
give me a choice between science and religion, I'll choose science
every time".
Chad|6.27.09 @ 6:28AM|#
Sam-Hec | June 27, 2009, 1:28am | #
I don't have much energy for these arguments anymore, so I
recommend the following YouTube series:
http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610 updated
regularly
I have heard Peter speak in person several times. Great guy.
I quadruple dog dare the denalists here to watch his "Climate
change crock of the week" series on youtube. He rips you guys a new
one....in terms that a few of you may even be able to
comprehend.
hampshire|6.27.09 @ 7:49AM|#
Yes, only an idiot would reduce a complex system like the world climate to a simplistic model.
|6.27.09 @ 9:51AM|#
It's been my experience that many of the global warming
deniers also deny evolution and the lunar landing, among
others.
It's been my experience that AGW advocates try like hell to sell
this kind of package dealing, instead of trying to refute the
dissenting climatologists like Lindzen.
-jcr
|6.27.09 @ 9:55AM|#
Years ago Dad showed me how oil carbon and life carbon molecules are different. I'm surprised he was able to make such a good living as a plasma physicist with such wacked out notions as abiotic oil. Then again he didn't believe co2 would destroy the world either.
|6.27.09 @ 9:56AM|#
The primary source is microbes that lived in the oceans. One
of the first forms of life to evolve on this planet. The heat from
the Earth's core, and the pressure from the weight of the ocean,
transformed these microbes into oil
There's also a hypothesis that the oil is entirely abiogenic, which
I remember hearing about sometime back in the 1970s. As I recall,
it was some Russian geologist who proposed it.
In a nutshell, his contention was that petroleum was just the
result of volatile carbon compounds being squeezed out of the
mantle over time. He didn't claim that it was inexhaustible, just
that there was far more of it at greater depths than we currently
can reach.
-jcr
Michael Ejercito|6.27.09 @ 11:59AM|#
The problem is that the temperatures 50 and 60's were actually colder than the previous decades (many believe this was a consequence of nuclear testing). Naturally, omitting data prior to 1950 makes it appear that temperatures are increasing faster.
To fight climate change, all we have to do is resume nuclear
testing.
JB|6.27.09 @ 12:07PM|#
How about we wait for another 10 years of actual warming? It's
seems the height of folly to pass this bill after 10 years of
cooling.
If we can't wait another 10 years according to the screamers like
Chad and Tony, then we are screwed anyways and should pump up the
economy so we can invent technology to solve the problem or get us
off this planet.
Greens are nothing but communists in drag.
Vehical Driver|6.27.09 @ 12:59PM|#
The real question is, why don't the people who are so freaked
out about global warming support the most obvious solution?
Technology exists right now to build nuclear reactors that are
physically impossible to meltdown, don't require or produce any
weapons grade material, and whose waste will lose all radioactivity
in 200 years (as opposed to 10,000 years using old reactor
technology).
Not only that, because it wouldn't require any reduction in energy
consumption, and in the long run would make energy cheaper, it
would be a far easier sell politically than the dubious neo-Marxism
pseudo-environmental policies.
Obviously, the most adamant global warming alarmists don't really
believe their own propaganda... or otherwise they would compromise
on nuclear power, and figure out some other way to promote their
neo-Marxist agenda.
|6.27.09 @ 1:03PM|#
"Dear Senator Inhofe:
700 scientists out of how many?
Can you be explicit on who and does not qualify as a scientist
under the definition you are using? Are you including all branches
of science under your definition? Or only relevant branches? Or
only relevant sub-disciplines within those branches?
Thank you for your time,
Chad"
Amazing. Chad, if only you and like minded global warming
religionists had been so strict in your standards for the IPCC
scientists.
Double standard? Nahhhh.
Ebeneezer Scrooge|6.27.09 @ 1:10PM|#
Whether nuclear energy is really cheaper in the big picture,
when you factor in de-commissioning costs and get rid of government
subsidies, is open to debate.
Nonetheless, it seems highly probable that nukes would be much
cheaper than what the Al Gores of the world want to do.
But as you said, fixing the problem isn't really what they're
after.
|6.27.09 @ 1:12PM|#
"I hate to quote Bill Maher but "if you give me a choice between
science and religion, I'll choose science every time".
Brilliant! Precisely why I reject the man-made global warming
religion. Seriously, you people are clowns. You're basing your
faith on a bad movie by Al Gore and a hack team of politically
motivated scientists, WHO, by the way, used computer climate models
that even they themselves have now admitted are flawed.
Nutshell - bullshit in, bullshit out.
The old "hockey stick" chart is a sham. Why are the temps rising on
other planets in our solar system? Why is ice increasing in
Antarctica? Why have global temperatures flat lined for the last
decade?
I believe in the lunar landing and evolution, you elitist snob,
because these events/ideas are backed by overwhelming empirical
evidence, not some flimsy democratic "consensus." What kind of
science is that!?
Ebeneezer Scrooge|6.27.09 @ 1:17PM|#
He didn't claim that it was inexhaustible, just that there
was far more of it at greater depths than we currently can
reach.
There was an American physicist who proposed a similar theory in
the 1960's. I recall it being the same guy who predicted that all
they'd find up on the moon is dust and rocks.
What he said is not that oil is inexhaustible, but that it is
produced at some rate which we have not yet discovered. I'll search
a little and see if I can remember who the guy was, I learned about
this way back in a grad course (on Second Law Analysis of Steam
Power Plants). It was many years ago now.
The same people who claim "we will run out of oil" are the same
people who buy into Malthusian "we're going to over populate
ourselves to death" theory. But if you look at the BP Statistical
Survey of World Energy Reserves, the total known reserves of fossil
fuels has gone up every decade since they started publishing
it.
When the Greenies drop the socialist agenda and start treating this
like a technology problem, as it should be -- assuming it really is
a problem that needs worrying about -- then I'll start taking them
serious.
Until then, it's just a convenient guise to jam collectivism down
our throats.
Ebeneezer Scrooge|6.27.09 @ 1:21PM|#
"Can you be explicit on who and does not qualify as a scientist
under the definition you are using?"
For those who believe, no explanation is needed and they are the
anointed scientists.
For those who do not, no explanation is possible and they are
anointed crack pots.
All of this on the incredible AUTHORITY of Al Gore and his 573rd
level lieutenant, Chad.
Peter|6.27.09 @ 1:28PM|#
I thought that methane tore holes in the atmosphere, so why
don't we just let cows fart a lot more, make some holes, and then
get the carbon out that way? Economic crisis avoided.
However, if this does pass the Senate somehow I for one and going
to do everything I can to get one of those permits and frame it on
my wall just to fuck with the market.
|6.27.09 @ 5:06PM|#
It's been my experience that many of the global warming
deniers also deny evolution and the lunar landing, among others.
And their denial of accepted scientific principles ties in very
nicely with their religious beliefs. I hate to quote Bill Maher but
"if you give me a choice between science and religion, I'll choose
science every time".
The last sentence is awesome; the rest is an example of the
aphorism "the plural of anecdote is not data." Nice try,
though.
|6.27.09 @ 7:22PM|#
At this site is over 9000 Ph.D's with degree's in hard sciences.
Edward Teller, Noble Prize Winner in Physics is among the
signatories, there is so many that they are grouped in alphabetical
order and they say that Al Gore is a scam artist and charlatan and
has made fools of those who believe in him and his bullshit. Here
is the site, you can google the names up and look at their
curriculum vitae. Take the site URL down and send it to all your
'green' idiot friends; if everyone would do this we just might have
a chance not to give the whole United States bankroll to Gore and
his friends.
http://www.petitionproject.org/ 9029 Ph.D's say Al Gore is an idiot
and those that believe in him have the intelligence of slugs.
|6.27.09 @ 7:23PM|#
Ya, global warming models predict the weather 100 years from now, yet these same model makers can't get next week's fucking weather forecast right! Sure I'll give them every dime I have! Ever hear of the ice age dumb ass? Gee, when the Ice Age ended, that would be GLOBAL WARMING, all before modern man, automobiles, and domesticated farting cows ever existed.
|6.27.09 @ 7:28PM|#
Tricky: There is a correlation between lack of sunspots and cooler temperatures, like the Maunder minimum.The mechanism is obscure, since sunspots are cooler than their surroundings, but they do stir up a lot of magnetic storms and solar flares. Also, much of the Antarctic ice is contained in the Ross and Ronne ice shelves, which are mostly over water.
|6.27.09 @ 7:28PM|#
He rips you guys a new one....
No he doesn't, he just reiterates the same tripe the MSM has
freaking out about for the last ten years, and just doesn't cover
data he doesn't like.
|6.27.09 @ 7:46PM|#
That's nice. Are any of them meteorologists?
More than signed on to the UN document, guy.
|6.27.09 @ 7:51PM|#
The weasel Obama and the corrupt scum Democrats are using the
lie of global warming to scam the public and steal their money to
pay off their cronies.
Face it, Obama is about as pure evil as they come.
|6.27.09 @ 7:55PM|#
Isn't it funny that the people most worried about global warming/climate change are the same people who always wanted to grow the government and raise your taxes?
|6.27.09 @ 8:03PM|#
but they do stir up a lot of magnetic storms
Actually they're the result of the magnetic storms.
|6.27.09 @ 8:13PM|#
Mentioning global warming is like mentioning Ron Paul. It brings the cultists out with their righteous indignation and arguments that look stunning like the ones they attempt to ridicule.
|6.27.09 @ 8:19PM|#
"It's been my experience that many of the global warming deniers
also deny evolution and the lunar landing, among others. And their
denial of accepted scientific principles ties in very nicely with
their religious beliefs. I hate to quote Bill Maher but "if you
give me a choice between science and religion, I'll choose science
every time"."
Funny its been my experience that Global Warming Religionists focus
on insults and ridicule rather than scientific arguement, and hey
look, here you are proving it again!
|6.27.09 @ 8:23PM|#
Idiots. All this global warming bullshit. Global temps have been falling for the last nine years. Explain that? No scientific mumbo-jumbo needed. This Gore-induced religion needs to stop. The concept of man-made global warming is a farce and will bankrupt this country. Dumb asses...
|6.27.09 @ 8:38PM|#
it doesn't seem like the global warming *enthusiasts* really
believe their own hype about how global warming is gonna kill us
all dead the day after tomorrow
it really just comes down to them strengthening their political
party so they can wreck the american economy
never give a socialist an even break
|6.27.09 @ 8:40PM|#
"Fossil fuels will eventually run out. Should we wait until
reserves get so low, the price of oil hits $400/ barrel, or should
we pay a little now to start making the transition to
biofuels?"
This sounds familiar - here are some comments from Jimmy Carter
(our first smart oil guy)
Our decision about energy will test the character of the American
people and the ability of the President and the Congress to govern.
This difficult effort will be the "moral equivalent of war" --
except that we will be uniting our efforts to build and not
destroy.
I know that some of you may doubt that we face real energy
shortages. The 1973 gasoline lines are gone, and our homes are warm
again. But our energy problem is worse tonight than it was in 1973
or a few weeks ago in the dead of winter. It is worse because more
waste has occurred, and more time has passed by without our
planning for the future. And it will get worse every day until we
act.
The oil and natural gas we rely on for 75 percent of our energy are
running out. In spite of increased effort, domestic production has
been dropping steadily at about six percent a year. Imports have
doubled in the last five years. Our nation's independence of
economic and political action is becoming increasingly constrained.
Unless profound changes are made to lower oil consumption, we now
believe that early in the 1980s the world will be demanding more
oil that it can produce.
The world now uses about 60 million barrels of oil a day and demand
increases each year about 5 percent. This means that just to stay
even we need the production of a new Texas every year, an Alaskan
North Slope every nine months, or a new Saudi Arabia every three
years. Obviously, this cannot continue.
And he is part of the "smart" party. It is all about control -
government control. Another person said it first - we know very
little about climate science - but the party of big government does
know if you control energy, you control everything, including
taxes.
We obviously have been given bad information for quite some
time.
Here is the link to carters speech given on PBS:
www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/filmmore/ps_energy.html
|6.27.09 @ 8:41PM|#
"That's nice. Are any of them meteorologists?"
Some of them will probably be economists. You know how all those
charts show carbon damage and/or emissions rising per year instead
of carbon content parts per million in the atmosphere? That's
because they project industrial growth trends. I think some of
those graphs, such as anticipated temperature gain, would be better
if they were by C02 ppm, but I'm not exactly the guy in
charge.
Some of them will be physicists. Those are the guys that determine
carbon's absorption of various infrared frequencies.
Some of them will be geologists. Ice core samples and probably a
whole lot more. Geology overlaps with a great deal of the
non-biological parts of environmental science.
You'll also get chemists and biologists. Basically EnviSci covers a
great deal of territory besides meteorology. So it invites a lot of
criticism from the specialists.
|6.27.09 @ 8:50PM|#
"In spite of increased effort, domestic production has been
dropping steadily at about six percent a year."
the oil is there, it's available for drilling right now, but your
definition of "increased effort" is a bit vague
demand is increasing constantly, and the supply exists, but it has
been cut off by the green lobby
mhend|6.27.09 @ 8:50PM|#
If you green folks are so worried about Co2, why isn't there any nuclear energy in this ridiculous climate change bill?
|6.27.09 @ 8:51PM|#
Some of the comments on this thread show that you cannot reason
with global warming cultists.
They would burn you at the stake for daring to blaspheme
"established science" - except for all of the CO2 it would
produce.
|6.27.09 @ 9:12PM|#
The name you're looking for on abiotic oil is Thomas Gold. Petroleum geologists have an easier answer to Gold's theories - if they're true why isn't anyone making money finding oil in places Gold's theories would suggest it should be and coventional geology says it wouldn't be? Gold's ideas have been around long enough that if they provided a real advantage someone would be using them in the field.
|6.27.09 @ 9:14PM|#
Tricky-"Should we pay a little now to start making the transition.." No, we should start drilling for our own oil, right here, right now. No need for the "we`re gonna run out" bullshit until we find out how much we have. And- Please tell me, who in the F--k decided that the temperature that the earth is right now is what it "should be"? Who is this God? What proof do you have? How do you know warmer isn`t better? Was earliest man found where it`s warm or cold? C02 was almost 9 times higher than it is now millions of years ago- what caused it, Suvs? None of those questions have been answered yet by GW alarmists.
|6.27.09 @ 9:16PM|#
I'm probably just a simpleton, but if the earth is 70% water, aren't we attributing a lot of hot air (CO2) by the remaining 30%?
|6.27.09 @ 9:33PM|#
GFT- CO2, from what I've read, only accounts for only (at max) 6% of the "greenhouse effect," with almost all the rest being caused by water. Also the percentage of all of the CO2 emitted every year, we make around 3% of it.
Don Meaker|6.27.09 @ 9:37PM|#
Fossil fuels are caused by wood being buried in the case of
coal, or by planckton being buried in the case of oil. Plankton is
being buried as we speak where ever there is a river delta. Think
of the deltas of the Nile, the Mississippi, the Amazon.
It has been known for many years that reduced solar output is
manifested by fewer sunspots. 200 years ago it was known that fewer
sunspots correlated with higher grain prices.
|6.27.09 @ 9:50PM|#
I kind of liked it when people called me a global-warming-denier. But now they call me a flat-earther; for not buying into faith.
Real|6.27.09 @ 9:53PM|#
CO2 levels FOLLOW temperature change, not drive it. Drop the politics, blinders and emotions; we might then get somewhere scientifically.
|6.27.09 @ 10:10PM|#
Ebeneezer:
The physicist's name is Thomas Gold. He worked across several
disciplines; one of his early successes was his hypothesis that the
ear's cochlea operated using a feedback mechanism. Since the
"scientific consensus" at the time among the "credentialed" ear
specialists and physiologists was that a feedback mechanism was
impossible, his theory was ignored. Years later EXPERIMENTAL
researchers discovered that he was correct.
Gold also made predictions about the moon's regolith that were
ridiculed, but the Apollo 11 mission confirmed that his theory
about moon dust was correct. Gold also challenged the idea that
NASA could operate 50 shuttle missions per year (and was punished
by having his research grants held back). He was also ahead of the
"scientific consensus" on pulsars, to the point where (from the
Wikipedia article) "Gold's conclusion was initially not
well-received by the scientific community; in fact, he was refused
permission to present his theory at the first international
conference on pulsars. However, Gold's theory became widely
accepted following the discovery of a pulsar in the Crab Nebula
using the Arecibo radio telescope, opening the door for future
advancements in solid-state physics and astronomy. Anthony Tucker
of The Guardian remarked that Gold's discovery paved the way for
Stephen Hawking's groundbreaking research into black holes."
Gold was apparently wrong when he, Hermann Bondi and Fred Hoyle
proposed the steady state theory of the universe. He later agreed
that current evidence (such as background cosmic radiation) tended
to disprove the steady state theory, although he apparently died
before being able (as far as I know) to weigh in on the
implications of dark matter for the steady state theory.
There is much more with which to evaluate Gold's abilities in the
complete Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Gold
Gold's experiences illustrate perfectly the value of "scientific
consensus".
Jack Lifton|6.27.09 @ 10:14PM|#
The change we need is of the makeup of the Congress; I urge everyone to simply vote for the opponent of whomever their incumbent representative may be. This Congress takes its infallibility for granted, and that's a sure sign of being too long in the same job. These people just need to go.
miriam|6.27.09 @ 10:24PM|#
All the "scientists," who believe in global warming, most of them not meteorologists, find it in their interest to believe. They want federal funding for their "research."
|6.27.09 @ 10:28PM|#
Miriam:
Here is link to an interesting site (the name says it all):
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/
The AGW hysterics use of the word "deniers" rather than "skeptics"
perfectly illustrates their commitment to science and rational
inquiry.
Syl|6.27.09 @ 10:41PM|#
Actually we are CO2 poor now. Over the last billion years the
level of CO2 in our atmosphere has been dropping. About 600
thousand years ago we started dropping into ice ages.
I read a paper re paleo plant stomata studies that had this little
line: No glaciation occurred when the CO2 PPM was greater than
about 500.
And to think we were only around 280 PPM a bit over 100 years ago!
Scary.
My mantra is if CO2 drives climate, as some climate scientists
claim, then it's 500PPM or bust!
If CO2 does not drive the climate, then there's nothing to worry
about.
|6.27.09 @ 10:42PM|#
phwest:
I cannot yet vouch for the following, but it appears the Russians
have been using abiotic theory to explore and drill for oil for
more than 50 years!
http://www.questionsquestions.net/docs04/peakoil1.html
Estarcatus|6.27.09 @ 11:07PM|#
In any conversation dealing with AGW, you must, invariably, run
across at least one person who lumps in skeptics with those who do
not believe in evolution.
I am moved to ask this question: since when is the theory of global
warming as settled, scientifically, as the theory of evolution? I
must have missed this, somehow. Someone care to enlighten me on
when this happened?
Milton Recht|6.27.09 @ 11:12PM|#
CNET is reporting E-mails indicate EPA suppressed report
skeptical of global warming.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10274412-38.html
Estarcatus|6.27.09 @ 11:13PM|#
Oh, and forgot, one final question to those proponents of the
theory of AGW. Under what circumstances may one disprove this
theory? It seems simple to me, but I can never quite pin this down
when speaking to the typical AGW believer.
For instance, if temperatures cool for x number of years while
atmospheric CO2 concentrations increase, would this disprove AGW?
Fill in the number of years, here: 10, 20, 21, whatever. Or, if
mean temperatures decrease or stay the same over a, oh, decade,
does this disprove the theory? What if mean temperatures on other
planets increase or decrease in proportional numbers to those of
Earth's?
I would have a much easier time with all of this if even one
believer might be able to tell me under what conditions the theory
might be invalidated. It would seem more like real *science*, and
less like religious dogma to me.
|6.27.09 @ 11:17PM|#
Some of the comments on this thread show that you cannot
reason with global warming cultists.
I noticed that Chad seems to be rather more shrill than he used to
be. Seems like a couple of months ago, the AGW crowd were
insufferably smug, and now they're acting like they'd better keep
escalating the put-downs, lest people figure out that they don't
have a leg to stand on.
-jcr
|6.27.09 @ 11:19PM|#
For instance, if temperatures cool for x number of years
while atmospheric CO2 concentrations increase, would this disprove
AGW?
Well, you know they can never agree to that, because the ice core
data show that we've had far higher concentrations of CO2 during
far colder periods in our past.
-jcr
|6.27.09 @ 11:23PM|#
"Models" used to proselytize the Anthropogenic Global Warming
(AGW) hoax are not valid scientific experiments, they are nothing
more than computer games that will produce any outcome
desired.
To date, there have been no valid scientific experiments shown to
prove the atmospheric greenhouse hypothesis. Earth's atmosphere is
far more complex than a simple greenhouse. There have been
hypotheses made that suggest the atmospheric greenhouse hypothesis
is at odds with the laws of thermodynamics. If I recall the
scientific method (generally first taught in 6th grade) correctly,
proven scientific laws trump idiotic hypotheses.
Also to date, there have been no valid scientific experiments shown
to prove that the anthropogenic contribution of CO2 to the
atmosphere has been responsible for any change in climate, global
or otherwise.
What has been shown with actual legitimate reproducible scientific
experiments (not lame-o computer games), is the effect of cosmic
radiation on cloud formation, so yes, sunspots are much more likely
to affect climate than the AGW computer-game quackery.
Science is not decided by computer games, popular vote, consensus,
or the IPCC's political summary that contradicts its own report.
Science is decided by those who can actually prove their hypothesis
with legitimate reproducible experiments performed using the
scientific method.
TallDave|6.27.09 @ 11:58PM|#
When you look at the raw data, anthropogenic global warming as a
theory rests on very shaky evidence. The proxies are spaghetti. The
GISS is horrifyingly corrupted -- 80% of stations do not meet
standards and the data is administered by a man who calls coal
trains the equivalent of Aushwitz and runs "corrective" algorithms
that just happen to create warming trends. The satellite trend (the
only reliable data we have) is short and relatively flat.
http://www.surfacestations.org/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/11/making-holocene-spaghetti-sauce-by-proxy/
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
Even if we accept a modern warming trend beyond a recovery from the
Little Ice Age, tying it to CO2 is very problematic. Changes in CO2
levels generally trail warming historically so the cause-effect
relationship there is dubious at best. GCMs simply assume such a
relationship exists ("forcing" just means they don't have another
explanation) on no real evidence (and please don't tell me about
Venus; Mars's atmosphere is 95% CO2 as well and it's frigid; the
difference is density not composition) and generally using the
flawed data above.
TallDave|6.28.09 @ 12:00AM|#
Even stipulating both the previous uncertain notions, modeling
future temperature changes with any predictive reliability is just
not possible, and anyone who tells you differently is lying or
ignorant, regardless of how many letters come after their name.
Most of the projected rise is due to strong positive water vapor
feedback, which is probably actually strongly negative. The GCM
grid sizes are too large for good modeling, and Navier-Stokes
turbulence puts a limit on them getting any better.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/14/the-thermostat-hypothesis/
We can't rule some level of AGW out, but the certainty being
attached to forecasts based on the theory is completely
unwarranted, as forecasting scientists have pointed out. As they
put it, there is "no scientific basis" for these claims of 90%
certainty out of IPCC. Where is the SciAm article on the real
scientists?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/28/forecasting-guru-announces-no-scientific-basis-for-forecasting-climate/
Finally, even granting all the unlikely global warming claims
above, the likely consequences of global warming have been grossly
exaggerated, while benefits have been ignored (vastly more people
suffer or die from excess cold than excess heat). There is no
possibility any significant portion of Antarctic ice will melt, and
the possibility of a Greenland melt is extremely remote given how
stable climate has been since Antarctica separated and became a
giant heat sink millions of years ago. While global warming
advocates may tell you differently, the truth is we have very
little idea whether we may instead be on the verge of entering
another Ice Age, the consequences of which would be to nearly
exterminate humanity, a far worse outcome than any realistic
warming scenario (and don't think CO2 concentrations rule this out;
we have had Ice Ages at ten times current levels).
|6.28.09 @ 12:01AM|#
The claims of peak oil rely on the faulty suppositions that
exploration/recovery/production technology will never improve, and
that current price resistance levels will never change.
Current reserve estimates are based on the economical recovery of
less than 50% of the oil present in any given field. As technology
improves and prices increase, it becomes practical to extract
considerably more oil from fields once thought to be tapped
out.
Beyond the additional oil available in existing fields, much of the
planet has yet to be explored for potential oil fields.
Ebeneezer Scrooge|6.28.09 @ 2:57AM|#
Jack Okie,
Thanks for that! It was too many years ago for me to remember his
name now.
I cannot yet vouch for the following, but it appears the
Russians have been using abiotic theory to explore and drill for
oil for more than 50 years!
:)
In spite of communism, I have admired Russian science for a very
long time. Not because they're always right. Because they're so
completely out of touch, when it comes to the politically correct
themes that drive us here in the West.
Scientists get upset when I say this, but scientists are no more
immune to group think than any other segment of the population.
They just group-think different stuff.
Ebeneezer Scrooge|6.28.09 @ 3:20AM|#
I'll level (again) one of my chief criticisms of the computer
climate models they're using.
I'm a PhD (aerospace engineer), and I lead R&D teams of PhD's.
My teams are invariably multi-disciplinary. I love the specialists
for all the power they can bring to bear on specific problems,
but --
There is what I call a grey space that exists between all the
specialists. If I have six specialists working various aspects of a
given problem, each of them has a specific knowledge base, and none
of them overlaps. On a materials problem you will, for example,
have a chemist and a mechanical (structural) engineer, attempting
to predict the behavior of the material in a given context. You
quickly learn there is a huge chasm between what each of them
knows.
There is a proverbial "quantum" gap between microscopic and
macroscopic theory, and it exists all up and down the science and
technology spectrum. We've had R&D results that looked great in
the lab, but it failed in the field. Many times this has been due
to the gap between the micro and the macro theory.
In aerospace the rules are simple: if it flies, then it must work.
Every time. The End of The Rules.
We've developed rigorous processes and procedures to insure we
don't miss a thing. It's beauracrat, it's painfully slow, but it's
effective. And yet, sometimes we still do miss something. The
Airbus that just went down after leaving Brazil is another stark
reminder of what's at stake in our work, to people like me.
In today's computer climate models, I have yet to see anything that
looks like even a first order stab, at the kind of rigor that we
have learned to apply in aerospace.
I can tell you something else too. The PhD's who are so good at
coming up with the bright ideas, are most often the worst when it
comes to systematically "shaking the tree down", to make sure we
haven't missed something. Shaking things down is one of those few
places in the world where the bureaucratic mindset can actually be
a virtue. We'd probably have crashed a lot more planes over the
years otherwise.
My end conclusion: there is very good reason to doubt that these
computer climate models are giving correct predictions yet. Because
I'm sure the global weather system, and all the things that must
interact with that in predicting the future, are at least as
complicated as a modern commercial airliner.
|6.28.09 @ 7:15AM|#
Dear Syd Henderson,
Do you mean like the anthropologist and economist at the IPCC, who
are promoting this scam? As it turns out, the IPCC administrators
have misrepresented what the scientist say. One must be very
careful when refering to "scientist." The so called "scientist" who
are promoting this scam won't even submit their work to objective
peer review; and, their big guns (Mann and Hansen) have been caught
publishing fraudulent results; or, do you mean like the real
scientiest who have admitted that in order to pretend that
anthrogopenic global warming is real everyone must also pretend
that the middle ages warm period (when the Vikings grew grapes on
Greenland) never really occured. In the words of your heroine,
Hillary Clinton, one must be "willing to suspend disbelief." As
Andrea Harris said about the global warming scammers:...my, what a
bunch of glass-half-empty gloomy gusses your global warmy climate
changenist are. Human ingenuity managed to survive the last great
Ice Age, and that was when we were a small, fragile population that
used bones and rocks as tools. And in fact, we increased and
civilization was formed as the climate started warming - yes floods
and all - and the glaceirs receded, leaving more land to learn to
grow stuff in. You're saying the human race is now too weak and
stupid to survice a possible moderate increase in global
temperature (which actually seems to be decreasing, but never
mind)? Maybe we should start a new slogan: "Surviving climate
change: so complicated, only a cabeman could do it."
|6.28.09 @ 8:21AM|#
Hey Syd Henderson,
You think if my local meteorologist, Sunny Skies, were to sign on
to those who disagree with AGW you'ld be more apt to take them
seriously.
John D|6.28.09 @ 8:33AM|#
It should be very easy to determine whether AGW is a real danger
or if what is proposed will help.
First the AGW proponents should send us all a link to the
scientific study showing the causative link betwee human produced
CO2 and GW.
Remember coincidence is not causation.
Also remember that the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is a
tiny percentage of the total CO2 emitted each year.
They should show how that tiny percentage of CO2 and NOTHING ELSE
is causing GW.
Peer-reviewed, of course. We want ot be scientific.
|6.28.09 @ 9:44AM|#
Well, shit, the WSJ says that public opinion is shifting on
the matter, so, hell, that PROVES it, human caused global warming
ain't no problem!
MNG - public opinion PROVED that AGW was a problem, so why not?
|6.28.09 @ 9:51AM|#
Ebeneezer,
In today's computer climate models, I have yet to see anything
that looks like even a first order stab, at the kind of rigor that
we have learned to apply in aerospace.
I'm glad you made this point. I was educated as an aero engineer,
and have read a bunch of the peer reviewed AGW lit. That was my
impression as well, though I lack the requisite resume to assert
this. In fact, not long back MNG or one of the others (apologies if
I'm mis-remembering) asserted the opposite - that few scientific
disciplines had achieved the rigor that climate science has. Having
watched engineering equations with 12-16 variables achieve 1% error
levels in predicting the results of wind tunnel testing - I know
that that assertion just doesn't seem right.
Chad|6.28.09 @ 9:53AM|#
Dark Eden | June 27, 2009, 8:19pm | #
Funny its been my experience that Global Warming Religionists focus
on insults and ridicule rather than scientific arguement, and hey
look, here you are proving it again!
Our data is here
www.sciencemag.com
www.nature.com
among many other places. Please educate yourself so that you are
able to understand articles written at a college level, then get
back to us.
Now where is YOUR science?
www.crackpot.com?
www.iheartrush.com?
www.rightwingthinktank.com?
www.formercigarettecompanylawyer.com?
There is little point debating science with people like you, as you
are both incapable of understanding real science, and too partisan
to admit it even if you were. Your arguments have been shot down
again and again, but you simply aren't smart or honest enough to
know it.
That's why I just have fun insulting you.
|6.28.09 @ 9:54AM|#
My biggest problem with global warning is the absolute certitude
held by some of its' proponents; IE: Al Gore claiming that "the
science is settled".
Let's try for some perspective, time-wise.
For those comfortable with the metric (S.I.) system, imagine a line
about 4.6 kilometers long (a bit under 3 miles). That would
represent the 4.6 billion year age of the Earth at 1,000,000
years/meter; 1 mm (about the thickness of a paper clip) would
represent a THOUSAND years.
That line would span the downtown area of quite a few large cities,
with some to spare. Here in Houston, the downtown streets are 16 to
the mile, making their spacing about 100 meters. Thus, that line
would be about 46 blocks.
The reign of the dinosaurs ended around 65 million years ago (65
meters, about 2/3 of a city block down that line from today).
The first of our ancestors verging on intelligence may have emerged
from 2 to 4 million years ago (2 to 4 meters, say 6.5 to 13 feet;
your living room could be around 4 meters in one of its'
dimensions).
What we call "modern" man may go back 40,000 years or so (40 mm,
TWO finger-widths on that line).
Written history goes back 6000 years (six millimeters, 1/4 inch on
that line).
Fahrenheit's thermometer is around 300 years old ( 0.3 mm, you're
approaching the thickness of a business card now, or the diameter
of a grain of salt).
The portion of that time-line during which precise temperature
measurements were recorded would be literally microscopic.
And from that portion, we dare to make really long range
climate predictions, and mandate actions based on
them?.
I live about three miles west of some of Houston's major downtown
buildings, so I can easily visualize that line.
Looking at that time-line of Earth's history (the universe's may be
four times that), and the flyspeck of our own existence upon it,
the notion of asserting that ANY science has been "settled" strikes
me as arrogance beyond comprehension (as in "only a politician
could possibly believe that").
-
Estarcatus|6.28.09 @ 10:56AM|#
Perhaps Chad might answer this question: under what conditions might the theory of AGW be invalidated, Chad?
|6.28.09 @ 11:10AM|#
Chad:
There you go again. There is a back-and-forth from 2007 posted on
the link I referenced earlier:
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/
Why don't you check it out and see how well the "debunking of the
deniers" went? Perhaps in your world snottiness is an argument and
sneers trump facts, but for rational and reasoned argumentation, I
commend to you Ebeneezer's post above re aerospace R&D. I also
wonder why no comment from you about Thomas Gold's repeated
experience with "scientific consensus".
Science can never be considered "settled". Just one example out of
many thousands is Rutherford's experiments on the nature of atoms.
The "scientific consensus" was that atoms were more-or-less
consistently mushy inside. When experimentation showed that a
stream of alpha particles mostly passed undeflected through gold
leaf, but some were reflected back, "It was, a surprised Rutherford
stated, as if one had fired a large naval shell at a piece of
tissue paper and it had bounced back". (quote from article
here:
http://www.worldandi.com/specialreport/rutherford/rutherford.html)
So Chad, should we expect some on point comments back from you, or
just more snottiness?
Chad|6.28.09 @ 11:13AM|#
Estarcatus | June 28, 2009, 10:56am | #
Perhaps Chad might answer this question: under what conditions
might the theory of AGW be invalidated, Chad?
Given the extraordinary amount of physical and theoretical evidence
for the theory, any claims to the contrary would have to include
substantial evidence. Several decades of rising greenhouse gas
concentrations without any warming, and with no outside causes of
cooling, is what you would need. You would also need a theoretical
framework explaining the data.
Right now, you have a few years of flat temperatures WITH known
causes of cooling (the solar cycle and La Nina, for example). So
you have, scientifically, nothing.
Imagine you put on a blanket, and start getting hot. But being an
opponent of the "blankets cause warming" theory, you claim that
there is no PROOF that blankets causing warming, despite the fact
that
1: You put on a blanket and got warm
2: You didn't fiddle with the windows, thermostat, or anything
else
3: Every level of scientific theory, from common sense to
second-year college thermodynamics to the world's most
sophisticated computer models, predict that you will get warm if
you put on a blanket
4: The specific manner in which you are getting warm is highly
consistent with blanket warming, and not any other kind. For
example, your nose, which is sticking out so you can breath, is not
getting hot - in direct contradiction to the "the room is just
hotter" theory.
What evidence would you need to invalidate the BCW theory? Just as
before, you would need evidence that you could put on heavy
blankets and NOT get warmer without something external like the
temperature changing, AND come up with a theoretical explanation of
how this is happening. Good luck with that.
Chad|6.28.09 @ 11:21AM|#
Jack Okie | June 28, 2009, 11:10am | #
Chad:
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/
I cite the worlds leading journals, you cite a crackpot. I
win.
Why don't you check it out and see how well the "debunking of
the deniers" went?
Plenty of people smack this stuff down all the time, though
unfortunately the folks over at realclimate.org seem to have tired
of playing whack-a-mole with the skeptics.
Perhaps in your world snottiness is an argument and sneers
trump facts
No, peer-reviewed science trumps crackpots.
Science can never be considered "settled".
Agreed. Therefore, it is absolutely illogical to wait until it is
"settled" to act. You act NOW, based on the preponderance of
evidence. Again, I win, you lose.
|6.28.09 @ 11:30AM|#
The Michelson-Morley Experiment was one of the most elegant
experiments in physics. The "scientific consensus" was that light
required a medium (the "aether") in order to be propagated.
Michelson, who had earlier accurately determined experimentally the
speed of light, devised a clever way to demonstrate the affect of
the "aether". Much to his surprise, the experiments (there were
several) failed to detect any "aether". He was at first reluctant
to give up the idea of the "aether", (and it took Einstein to take
the matter further), but I don't think anyone labeled him an
"aether denier". Or maybe they did, given how insular, back-biting
and downright reactionary scientists can be.
Link to good article here:
http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/michelson.html
Chad|6.28.09 @ 11:55AM|#
Paul Gordon | June 28, 2009, 9:54am | #
My biggest problem with global warning is the absolute
My biggest problem with deniers is that they don't realize that
scientists AREN'T certain despite the fact that the uncertainty is
well-documented, and that everyone acts despite uncertainty all the
time.
|6.28.09 @ 11:56AM|#
Chad, the more you wave your arms about and shout "crackpot",
the less compelling your arguments become. You assure us that "the
world's leading journals" support your views, and that opponents
are, again in your words, "crackpots". But you don't give us any
refutation, just rhetoric. Currently at Climate Skeptic they are
eviscerating the GCCI report. Here is a sample:
http://tinyurl.com/klmlvn
Care to rebut, Chad? I mean, "scientifically".
Are you a scientist, by the way? Or a used-car salesman?
Neu Mejican|6.28.09 @ 1:04PM|#
This is old, but still seems relevant.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
Many details about climate interactions are not well
understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to
provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The
question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But
there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic
climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make
this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.
Neu Mejican|6.28.09 @ 1:17PM|#
More recent:
http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/CPNSS/projects/ContingencyDissentInScience/DP/DPOreskesetalChickenLittleOnlinev2.pdf
A nice summary of the history of the debate.
|6.28.09 @ 1:41PM|#
OK, Ebeneezer:
Time for some straight talk. The first flight of the SR-71 was in
1964(!). The first powered flight of the X-15 was in 1959(!!), and
the first flights in the high mach (4-6) range were in 1961(!!!).
The XB-70 achieved over Mach 3 before its last flight in 1968. And
the best we've done in aerospace materials science since then are
the tiles on the Space Shuttle? So the X-37 will be flying soon -
seems like we've been wandering in the technological desert for
quite a while now. Any thoughts?
BTW - Is it true that McNamara ordered the SR-71 tooling destroyed?
WTF?
Neu Mejican|6.28.09 @ 1:47PM|#
Re:NIPCC
http://www.nipccreport.org/index.html
I notice an interesting juxtaposition in their own description of
their report.
The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is what its name suggests: an international panel of nongovernment scientists and scholars who have come together to understand the causes and consequences of climate change. Because we are not predisposed to believe climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, we are able to look at evidence the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ignores. Because we do not work for any governments, we are not biased toward the assumption that greater government activity is necessary.
Is followed by this...
Dr. Singer, Dr. Idso, and the contributors and reviewers of NIPCC donated their time and best efforts to produce this report out of concern that the IPCC was provoking an irrational fear of anthropogenic global warming based on incomplete and faulty science.
So, the NIPCC says upfront that they started their study with a
conclusion, and then went to find evidence for it. Apparently "not
predisposed to believe climate change" means..."predisposed to not
believe."
That's a pretty big grain of salt.
|6.28.09 @ 1:51PM|#
Neu Mejican:
I gave several examples of the value of "scientific consensus"
up-thread. You might want to check them out. But in fact there is
no "scientific consensus" for AGW, or ACC. Shout it from the
rooftops, it won't make it so. There is compelling evidence, from
the liberties taken by the IPCC when summarizing the scientists'
findings, to major defects in surface temperature measurements, and
a whole lot more. All this specific, detailed refutation is easily
found on the good ol' WWW. Your "scientific consensus" more closely
resembles "Marcia is a dweeb and we won't let her hang out with us
(the cool kids)".
Neu Mejican|6.28.09 @ 2:00PM|#
Jack Okie,
Did you just call me a dweeb?
Really, no need ...I read both sides of the issue.
Current evidence is in favor of the AGW conclusion. Things could
change, but that's where things stand as I read the evidence.
As for the "consensus" issue. It really depends upon what you mean.
Scientific arguments are about very narrow and specific claims.
Some are relatively settled, some are more controversial.
|6.28.09 @ 2:07PM|#
Aw, come on, Neu Mejican:
Most science begins with a hypothesis, then the research to prove /
disprove the hypothesis. Whatever the NIPCC's motivations, their
conclusions can be evaluated on the merits.
Of course, the arrest of a prominent NIPCC scientist at an
environmental protest could certainly call his objectivity into
question Oh, wait a minute...
http://www.wvgazette.com/News/200906230449
Neu Mejican|6.28.09 @ 2:07PM|#
To balance the NIPCC...(which you should, of course read for
yourself)...
Here is a response to its major points.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/not-the-ipcc-nipcc-report/
|6.28.09 @ 2:10PM|#
Whether the science is settled or not, asking for a solution from the corrupt halls of government will only make things worse.
|6.28.09 @ 2:50PM|#
Geez, Neu Mejican, more homework?! Well, there's no gettin'
around it, I guess.
And thanks for the civil discussion.
Ebeneezer Scrooge|6.28.09 @ 3:04PM|#
domoarrigato
In fact, not long back MNG or one of the others (apologies if
I'm mis-remembering) asserted the opposite - that few scientific
disciplines had achieved the rigor that climate science has. Having
watched engineering equations with 12-16 variables achieve 1% error
levels in predicting the results of wind tunnel testing - I know
that that assertion just doesn't seem right.
My position is definitely that you are correct. Climate science has
not yet come anywhere near the rigor that has been achieved in many
other technological disciplines.
An aside, but when aero models miss, it's most often in the
prediction of drag, and it's most likely the engineers will
under-predict it. But that's another story.
And btw, this is why I'm all in favor of continued research on
climate science. While I sincerely doubt we're destroying the world
right now, I concede the prospect that we could be doing some kind
of damage, at some point along the line. It behooves us to reach
for a better understanding.
The question that's gone through my mind is: how do we turn this
subject into something that the free market actually cares about,
in a valid and rational manner? And I don't mean things like the
idiocy of jamming battery powered cars down everybody's throats. I
mean, the long term climate in the big picture.
Fundamental problem with batteries is energy density. Go look at
the energy storage density of any battery you like (LiPo is cheap
COTS stuff now), and compare that to a gallon of oil in whatever
form (jet fuel, gasoline, fuel oil, whatever). Anybody who thinks
we're going to fly battery powered 747's any time soon is nuts.
Ebeneezer Scrooge|6.28.09 @ 3:23PM|#
Jack,
Time for some straight talk. The first flight of the SR-71 was
in 1964(!)......the X-37 will be flying soon - seems like we've
been wandering in the technological desert for quite a while now.
Any thoughts?
We've made advances in materials over this time frame. We've got
better engine alloys and insulation materials, for example. The
advances we have made, have lead to greater reliability in
commercial flight. But while composites manufacturing has improved
it is still far from having perfect process control.
You're basically right, we've been wandering in the technological
desert for a very long time. Some progress has been made, but it's
been slow. The two fundamental limitations on how fast an airframe
can go, are a) materials to build the airframe out of, and b)
stuffing enough energy on board to overcome the drag once you get
going supersonic (let along hypersonic).
They've been talking about hypersonic aircraft that could drop a
commando team anywhere on the globe within a few hours since what,
the 1960's? We're not really much closer to that being a reality
now, than we were in the '60's.
I've watched the Air Force play warm up to this idea, and then
abandon it again, several times at least.
BTW - Is it true that McNamara ordered the SR-71 tooling
destroyed?
Yes, dammit!
WTF?
That pretty well sums it up.
btw, GE-Honeywell, or whoever it is that now owns what used to be
Allied Signal -- just a couple of years ago, they moved their
commercial jet engine work (engineering, manufacturing, and I
believe most of it not all of R&D) over to India. US facilities
are shut down, or in the process of shutting down, as far as I
know.
These kinds of technologies typically don't go offshore until
they've gotten fairly mature. One of the key requirements of
maturing any technology, is understanding how to produce the
necessary materials. They're now saying the Titanic went down
because somebody made a batch of brittle rivets that. When the
Titanic hit the iceberg, the rivets fractured and the whole side of
the ship opened up.
A century ago, making ductile rivets was high tech stuff. Today,
it's much closer to mixing up a batch of brownies.
So yes there's been progress, but it's more along the lines of
improving what we started at least half a century ago, and much
less along the lines of radical new break-throughs.
My feeling -- hypersonic flight isn't going very far until we find
a higher density energy source than fossil fuels, to power such
aircraft. Until then, the motivation to really solve the airframe
materials problems probably isn't going to be strong enough to push
us up over the mountain top on that front (though some limited
progress has been made on this front).
Energy density and materials are, in my view, the really
fundamental limitations we face in aerospace.
Ebeneezer Scrooge|6.28.09 @ 3:36PM|#
Paul Gordon,
I agree with what you're saying. Though I will point out that the
foundations of what today is Al Gore scare-mongering, were coming
together back in the 1950's. A friend of mine's dad was doing
research on the topic way back then.
But look at the maturity of modern materials. It's not too far off
to say that we understand metals better than anything else. People
were making castings and bronze swords at least 5,000 years
ago.
Polymers, on the other hand, have only been commercially available
since what, the 1930's. That's when rubber injection molding got
kicked off. [ceramics fall somewhere in between]
Finally, by the end of the 20th century, we can make metals with
good confidence that we know what their properties will be. But
PMCs (polymer matrix composites) are still a major pain in the rear
to work with, because we don't yet know enough about process
control or their overall properties.
We deal with this in aerospace by doing crap loads of empirical
testing. It's expensive but it works, if you're careful.
I don't see anybody trying to be anywhere near that careful with
climate science. And in fact, I don't see the right personality
types involved with the movement, that I know are necessary if
you're going to achieve that level of rigor. Like I said, the whiz
kids with the PhDs usually aren't so good on this front, and in
fact don't even want to be doing that kind of work.
|6.28.09 @ 5:51PM|#
Ebeneezer:
Thanks for the response. I guess my main concern is re-entry from
orbit, or even a longer range sub-orbital than Rutan's project.
NASA's back to the future Orion sure looks messed up to me. I'm
just a GA pilot, but dammit, there's got to be a better way to
return from orbit than in a tin can suspended under a parachute!
It's undignified!
Now if they were to revive the original Orion concept....
Ebeneezer Scrooge|6.28.09 @ 6:55PM|#
Yeah, if....
Sad truth is that NASA hasn't been able to figure out its purpose
in life since the Apollo missions.
I agree, we need work on re-entry vehicles. Which is a materials
problem and there's work going on there. Big break throughs? I
haven't seen it yet, though some of the thermal spray coatings at
least looking interesting.
The chemistry issues at play during re-entry are way different from
normal aircraft flight though. I've only gotten to work in this
area a little bit. Carbon-carbon composites largely work, to the
extent I 've looked at it. But the cost remains outrageous.
|6.28.09 @ 7:37PM|#
Well, maybe the private folks can work out a way to bring the
costs down. LA to Tokyo in 2 hrs or so might be pretty attractive
to enough folks.
Got to go. Thanks for the discussion.
Neu Mejican|6.29.09 @ 10:27AM|#
Of course, the arrest of a prominent NIPCC scientist at an
environmental protest could certainly call his objectivity into
question Oh, wait a minute...
Gimme a break.
My point about the NIPCC wasn't that scientists don't approach
problems as people with views and perspectives, but that the STATED
purpose of their activity was not scientific, but political.
And the result is that they do a piss poor job of reviewing the
science.
Neu Mejican|6.29.09 @ 10:35AM|#
Another look at NIPCC
http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2009/06/13/the-nipcc-report/
Does a pretty good job sticking to the science (mostly).
|6.29.09 @ 1:56PM|#
Well the studies from the Climate Change enthusiasts state that
we need to reduce Global CO2 emissions by over 80% in the next 20
years or it'll be "too late".
So clearly we should unilaterally reduce our emissions by by a very
small amount over the next 5-10 years.
And anyone who thinks this is a bad plan should be castigated for
not agreeing with the scientific science involved in this cap and
trade plan.
We're willing to blow trillions of dollars out of the U.S. economy
for this plan which won't reduce CO2, won't help, and even if it
did what is reported wouldn't be enough according to the scientists
who support us.
What are you willing to do deniers? Are you willing to waste
billions of dollars on a plan that can't possibly help? No? Then
you clearly don't care enough.
We'll destroy the nation to pretend we're helping... why won't you
destroy something to make a failed useless gesture?
|6.29.09 @ 2:50PM|#
all politicians should set an example to reduce co2 emissions by holding their breath.
|6.29.09 @ 4:39PM|#
Now where is YOUR science?
I find this to be a very handy
summary for the layman. From the executive
summary:
* The potential planetary warming from a doubling of atmospheric
carbon dioxide from pre-Industrial Revolution levels of ~280ppmv to
560ppmv (possible some time later this century - perhaps) is
generally estimated at around 1 °C.
* The guesses of significantly larger warming are dependent on
"feedback" (supplementary) mechanisms programmed into climate
models. The existence of these "feedback" mechanisms is uncertain
and the cumulative sign of which is unknown (they may add to
warming from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide or, equally
likely, might suppress it).
* The total warming since measurements have been attempted is
thought to be about 0.6 degrees Centigrade. At least half of the
estimated temperature increment occurred before 1950, prior to
significant change in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Assuming
the unlikely case that all the natural drivers of planetary
temperature change ceased to operate at the time of measured
atmospheric change then a 30% increment in atmospheric carbon
dioxide caused about one-third of one degree temperature increment
since and thus provides empirical support for less than one degree
increment due to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
* The natural world has tolerated greater than one-degree
fluctuations in mean temperature during the relatively recent past
and thus current changes are within the range of natural variation.
(See, for example, ice core and sea surface temperature
reconstructions.)
* Fluctuations in atmospheric carbon dioxide are of little
relevance in the short to medium term (although should levels fall
too low it could prove problematic in the longer-term).
Ben Kalafut|6.29.09 @ 6:14PM|#
Can we give a doubleplusgood doublespeak award to the WSJ writer who calls "scientific debate" argument between people who don't even bother to learn the science?
kiralık tekne|7.6.09 @ 1:33PM|#
Very nice blog.Thanks for the valuable contributions to this
site. Have good works.
Thanks for your help
tekne gezisi
tekne turu
tekne
organizasyonu
tekne kiralama
kiralık tekne
Paul|7.8.09 @ 1:05PM|#
That's nice. Are any of them meteorologists?
Hopefully not. I would like to see some climatologists, though.
Jim Treacher|7.8.09 @ 6:04PM|#
Well, shit, MNG doubts that public opinion is shifting on the matter, so, hell, that PROVES it, human caused global warming is a problem!
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245