See other Immigration Articles
Title: How much longer will California remain a part of the United States?
Source:
www.dvorak.org
URL Source: http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2010/06/ ... n-a-part-of-the-united-states/
Published: Jun 6, 2010
Author: Dvorak
Post Date: 2010-06-06 11:50:16 by Mind_Virus
Keywords: None
Views: 5533
Comments: 283
How much longer will California remain a part of the United States? Published on June 6th, 2010 California’s white population has declined since 2000 at an unprecedented rate, hastening the day when Hispanics will be the state’s largest population group, according to newly released state figures. Analysts said the decline can be attributed to two main causes – a natural population decrease as Baby Boomers enter their later years and die at a faster rate than younger whites have children, and a migration from California since 2001 among whites who sought affordable housing as real estate costs soared. The study also confirmed projections that a steadily growing Hispanic population will surpass whites as the state’s largest racial demographic in 2016. Hispanics are expected to become a majority of all Californians in 2042, Heim said. A University of New Mexico Chicano Studies professor predicts a new, sovereign Hispanic nation within the century, taking in the Southwest and several northern states of Mexico. Truxillo, 47, has said the new country should be brought into being “by any means necessary,” but recently said it was unlikely to be formed by civil war. Instead, its creation will be accomplished by the electoral pressure of the future majority Hispanic population in the region, he said.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 202.
#1. To: Mind_Virus (#0)
Just wait until the next two earthquakes flatten the state. They will also be plagued by race riots as soon as the US dollar collapses and debt increases will not buy more free stuff. You cannot project our past to predict our future.
Just wait till the Mexicans take over "Atzlan" (their fictional land). They will turn it into the same kind of $#ithole they are trying to escape.
I've had some recent contacts in the CA food industry, and many crops that were normally grown in the state are started to get imported directly from Mexico. They pay laborers less down in Mexico than growers are obligated legally to pay them here, and I imagine there is less agricultural oversight to have to deal with too.
Where are they getting the water? I actually have been seeing more produce from Mexico too.
Water in CA is being depleted, polluted, and there are also government regulations to try to spread what remains around more equitably. So the agribusinesses are complaining, but generally speaking there has not been much of a focus on getting anybody anywhere to use and conserve wisely.
bullshit
bullshit Mono Lake? Salinas Valley? Sacramento Delta? Bakersfield, Taft? Any reason for running sprinklers in the daylight instead of night, potty mouth?
Environmental kool-aide drinker.
Says the self-styled farmer who can't figure out any benefits running sprinklers at night.....
Just a quick point: farmfriend has consistently updated the water shortage issues in California based upon federal restriction guidelines, particularly in the central valley area which used to be the breadbasket of the world (now just a dustbowl with farming communities dying and where unemployment runs as high as 25%). She knows what she is talking about when the federal government steps in and restricts private farming/ranching productive efforts when the government has some kind of new fish or game to save. BTW, I have always enjoyed your posts (as I do farmfriend's). Please keep doing so on 4um.
I don't believe we have an either/or choice where it's choosing production or saving species. All across the US the entire ecosystem has been trashed in little more than 100 years. When the Great Plains were first cultivated there was over 12-18 inches of topsoil just about everywhere. Then by the 1930's we had the "Dust Bowl," and today the norm for good soil there is about 4 inches. The silt has clearly washed down the Mississippi/Missouri river basin and dozens of miles into the Gulf - where now it gets mixed with oily goo. People back then just didn't care about the future, until big bad government decided to make them care. Not that the government choices thesmelves were always right, but at least it was movement into the right direction. So all this talk about the goodness of private enterprise and the badness of govenment control is really a big joke. Then take Colorado/Nevada/Arizona/Imperial Valley. The same type of waste and trashing of water resources. Added to this the violation of water treaties promising a certain amount of water to go into Mexico they can use for their own agriculture. The US has never delivered on those commitments to Mexico. Then some Americans complain when Mexican farm labor comes north to where the water is. Working west, the misuse of Sierra water for placer mining in the Gold Rush, then the construction of huge inefficient irrigation projects to move San Joaquin Delta water into parts of the Central Valley where lots of it evaporated, and some of the rest leached poisons into toxic cesspools like Kesterson. Even further west, over pumping of Salinas River Valley water causing salt water intrusion into the ground water table. Meanwhile in all these places listed above there has been heavy and sprawling construction activity with a heavy bias to generating sprawling urban and suburban tracts going in all directions. Last but not least, massive sheep and cattle raising in nearly every state which has seriously destroyed ground cover, making both water conservation more difficult, and major flooding easier. All these practices could have and should have been done more carefully and more with an eye to conserving for future generations. They weren't done that way because so-called free market forces were allowed to run rampant. And now we have the consequences of this systematic destruction of what was only 200 years ago was pristine agricultural land from sea to sea. Bottom line is the government is going to step in, and there are some people who are motivated to keeping and even improving what is left, and any people who don't like it are just going to have to get off the train and walk to where they're going. Because the train is not going to stop to please them. All the blather about eco-weenies, smelt-lovers, Gaia worshippers, leftists, property rights, Brave New World, government tyranny, etc. is not going to cut it because the "free market" forces have made a substantial hole in the system in little more than 100 years, and there are enough people wanting to see that hole start to get plugged that it will happen.
Last but not least, massive sheep and cattle raising in nearly every state which has seriously destroyed ground cover, making both water conservation more difficult, and major flooding easier. Why? Because of greedy, tight-fisted local farmers/ranchers or the demands based upon world markets? I grew up in Redding. As any Californian who has ever picked up a fishing rod knows, the region around this small north state city supports some of the best angling in the state. Lake Shasta and Whiskeytown Reservoir are literally in our backyard. The Trinity River, home to fine steelhead fishing, is an hour’s drive to the west. The Upper Sacramento River, Trinity Lake, the small, alpine lakes of the Trinity Alps Wilderness, Lake Shastina, Lake Almanor, the Pit River, the McCloud River and Hat Creek are all nearby, and all afford spectacular trout fishing. But it is the Lower Sacramento River — the portion that begins just north of Redding, below Keswick Dam — that historically has been the biggest draw for sport anglers. For one thing, this section supports a lunker native rainbow trout fishery. Drift boaters come from around the West to float the 30-mile stretch between Redding and Red Bluff, hoping — and usually succeeding — to tie into some of our football-size ‘bows. More to the point, the “Lower Sac” has long been sacred water to salmon fishermen. In 2008 and 2009, California’s salmon season was closed entirely due to low numbers of fish. This year, we’re having a very limited season — salmon numbers have bumped up a little, but not enough to warrant any celebration. Not so long ago, however, hundreds of thousands of big, beautiful, fall-run chinook salmon ran up this river to spawn. There were plenty of fish to sustain the runs, with plenty left over to catch. Each year, the anglers would be there in the thousands to greet the homecoming salmon. I was one of that crowd, both as a fishermen and a professional guide. I’ve always loved fishing for salmon — but more than that, as a guide, the salmon put (so to speak) meat and potatoes on my table. The salmon fishery on the Lower Sac was a recreational fishery, but it wasn’t just about recreation: It was about jobs. And jobs are a deadly serious issue in the north state. High unemployment is a relatively recent development in the San Francisco Bay area and Southern California, but it has been a concern with us for decades. The recreational salmon industry was big business in this area. Further, it was reliable, sustainable business. As long as the fish got what they needed — mainly adequate downstream flows — they returned, giving us what we needed: income. A 1992 University of California at Davis study concluded that each salmon caught in the sport fishery was worth $900 to $1,200 to the local economy. So when I boated a client’s salmon, I wasn’t the only one getting paid. The motel owners, the restaurateurs, the waiters and cooks who worked in those restaurants, the gas station owners — everybody got a cut And that’s just direct expenditures from the clients. The guides who fish this river also put a lot of money into the local economy. I run a $50,000 jet boat. Local mechanics work on that boat. I buy my fuel and tackle locally — and when the salmon are running, believe me, I buy a lot of fuel and tackle. So we can’t just view our salmon as noble, attractive, hard-fighting fish that happen to be incredibly delicious — certainly, they’re all those things. But they’re also something more than all that: They’re revenue multipliers. They generate wealth. Each fish represents life for Redding and all the other towns along the river. When we had full salmon seasons, some full-time guides made $70,000 to $80,000 a year — very good money for this part of the state. Guiding supported my family, and helped support the community. But now, more than 90 percent of my guide business has vanished — gone with the salmon closures. And it’s not just a matter of losing my salmon trips. Guiding is synergistic — I booked many of my trout trips while salmon fishing. The clients would get so excited after hooking into a few big fall-run chinook that they’d want to come back and try for our monster trout. If you don’t have that ongoing face-to-face interaction with your clients, if you don’t constantly cultivate and follow up contacts, if you don’t get that word-of-mouth buzz going, you’re not going to make it as a fishing guide. A fishing closure is like a monkey wrench thrown into a jet engine — everything stops, and it can be impossible to get things going again. It took me 20 years to build up my client base. Even if we eventually go back to full salmon seasons, it’s going to take me a long time to get back to where I was. What am I doing today? Like everybody else in this area, whatever it takes to survive: construction, remodeling, anything. My income, obviously, has fallen dramatically. These are tough times on the river — both for the fish and the fishing industry. Somehow, this debate over water has become characterized as a matter of “fish versus jobs.” The argument is that we can have salmon or we can have farming in the Central Valley, but we can’t have both. I think this is ridiculous. We can have both a healthy salmon fishery and a vigorous agricultural sector — we just have to allocate the water fairly and rationally. We need to change the way water is delivered, we need more habitat restoration, and we need to emphasize crops and technologies that conserve water. We also need to adjust water deliveries to accommodate the basic biological requirements of the fish. Spawning salmon need cold water in the river to successfully reproduce, and the young fish need adequate flows to ensure their successful migration to the sea. These baseline conditions must be met if we want to save our salmon and the jobs they generate. Unlike human beings, salmon are unable to compromise or to adjust: they simply need what they need. And what they need isn’t all that much — we can conserve them without disrupting, or even adversely affecting, state agriculture. Recent agreements on the Klamath River and the San Joaquin River have resulted in true “win-win” situations that accommodate both fisheries and farmers. We can do the same for the Sacramento River and the Delta. For my business, the bottom line is this: If we take care of the salmon, they’ll take care of us. Let’s quit all this bickering and get on with it. Mark Mlcoch is president of the Northern California Guides Association. The fact is, California *IS* running out of water. And the reason is because of the HUGE population increases over the last 60 years, drying up the once MEGA-ECONOMY into one in deadthroes and destined into national shock. Remember the once popular polititical quote by MSM pundits... "where California goes, so does the rest of the nation"????/ The water table has been seriously lowered EVERYWHERE simultaneously with an increasing average temperature while the demands of a swelling, unsustainable population base has eroded our quality life.
Bravo Buckie! I just love the way you slid the disinformation in at the end first by setting up with a sob story and some true information, such as the draining of the aquifer in the Imperial Valley, with the assumption that it is true and therefore what follows logical - even when it is not. Har, har, har, har. Such a humorist you are. With declining average temperatures over the last decade your song remains the same. Declining temperature? Why it's glowbull warming. Every glacier on Mt. Shasta growing? Why it's Glowbull Warming. You're such a card Buckie. And why has the population in Kahlifornyah increased so much? Why, you guessed, massive illegal immigration which the corrupt government not only will not stop but wants in order to disrupt our culture and separate us into groups. All the easier to turn into a totalitarian slave state.
In response to my general comment, Mr. O_I contends: According to NOAA: So, for the last past century the Earth has been generally experiencing increasing temperatures, year after year. Now, the rate of increase of change for temperature increase has flattened somewhat over the past few years, the upward trend is climbing. Single point phenomena doesn't discount the general phenomena just because you have found an almost manic shangri-la to cling to concerning over-all temperature changes. The temperature changes in California are diverse, so let's start off with a recent picture for your viewing pleasure to set the facts: Those changes are in just one year. Now, lets talk about the general changes: | NAVIGATE HOME | |
#3. To: Horse (#1)
Just wait until the next two earthquakes flatten the state.
#6. To: James Deffenbach, Horse, abraxas (#3)
#7. To: AGAviator (#6)
#8. To: abraxas (#7)
Where are they getting the water? I actually have been seeing more produce from Mexico too.
#10. To: AGAviator, abraxas (#8)
Water in CA is being depleted, polluted, and there are also government regulations to try to spread what remains around more equitably. So the agribusinesses are complaining, but generally speaking there has not been much of a focus on getting anybody anywhere to use and conserve wisely.
#12. To: farmfriend (#10)
Water in CA is being depleted, polluted, and there are also government regulations to try to spread what remains around more equitably. So the agribusinesses are complaining, but generally speaking there has not been much of a focus on getting anybody anywhere to use and conserve wisely.
#13. To: AGAviator (#12)
potty mouth?
#14. To: farmfriend (#13)
Environmental kool-aide drinker.
#16. To: AGAviator, farmfriend (#14)
(Edited)
#17. To: buckeroo (#16)
(Edited)
She knows what she is talking about when the federal government steps in and restricts private farming/ranching productive efforts when the government has some kind of new fish or game to save.
#18. To: AGAviator (#17)
Meanwhile in all these places listed above there has been heavy and sprawling construction activity with a heavy bias to generating sprawling urban and suburban tracts going in all directions.
Mark Mlcoch: No water, no fish, no jobs
#20. To: buckeroo, farmfriend, James Deffenbach, AGAviator (#18)
The water table has been seriously lowered EVERYWHERE simultaneously with an increasing average temperature while the demands of a swelling, unsustainable population base has eroded our quality life.
"... with an increasing average temperature ..."
#42. To: Original_Intent, farmfriend, James Deffenbach, AGAviator (#20)
The water table has been seriously lowered EVERYWHERE simultaneously with an increasing average temperature while the demands of a swelling, unsustainable population base has eroded our quality life. -- buckeroo
Bravo Buckie! I just love the way you slid the disinformation in at the end first by setting up with a sob story and some true information, such as the draining of the aquifer in the Imperial Valley, with the assumption that it is true and therefore what follows logical - even when it is not.
Har, har, har, har. Such a humorist you are. With declining average temperatures over the last decade your song remains the same. Declining temperature? Why it's glowbull [sic] warming. Every glacier on Mt. Shasta growing? Why it's Glowbull [sic] Warming. You're such a card Buckie.
Published November 2004 / (updated) October 2005 All Rights Reserved 
California Weather Predictions Show Higher Rainfall Rates, Winter 2004 and 2005 is nothing more than a wet memory for many residents of southern California. Early mountain snowstorms (before Halloween) shattered historical records for celebratory skiers. By the end of its rain season (30 June) Los Angeles recorded 37 and one-quarter inches of rain for the previous 12 months. This amount of rain is more alike New York City's annual average of 44 inches of rain or Dallas' 38 inches, which are typically spread out over a 12 month period. Los Angeles received the bulk of its rain in October 2004, and January, and February 2005. Such a pattern is more common for India during its three-month Monsoon. Eight confirmed tornadoes in the Los Angeles basin also made for an active severe weather period. * Monthly updates to San Juan Capistrano, CA weather may be of interest to readers. In Orange County mountains the rainfall storm total during a four-day period of 7-10 January hit 20 inches, or closer to what Saddleback Mountain range typically records in 12 months. Almost anything goes in California; however, long-range forecast models did predict a wet-winter for the Southwestern United States and indicates that such a year could be more common in decades ahead. The science of long-range weather prediction is an educated guess, but computer models provide information to use for practical purposes and planning rather than alarming residents. In California, the largest economy in the United States, healthy rainfall and snow pack is the greatest challenge for the state as water demand exceeds what nature typically provides. Figure 1 combines model data for rainfall projection increases in California for the next 100 years. Figure 2 combines model data for expected increases in temperatures in California for the next 100 years. Trend Models For the period 2010-2080, the future of water --indeed the state's most valuable resource-- is no sure bet. Canada's department of science for climate change models conflict with worst case drought predictions from the Union of Concerned Scientist, a California-based climate study organization. Canada actually offers California a big break in the long-range forecast, predicting rainfall totals of 150 percent above what has become "average" by year 2080. California governmental agencies are preparing for the drought model. All long-range models conclude that California's temperatures will warm on the average of 3 to 6 degrees. Meaning, a current average temperature of 50 degrees (high and low temperatures averaged together) would warm to between 53 and 56 degrees. That in and of itself means little without folding out data into average high and low temperature plan at the regional level. For a city with an average high and low of 60 and 40, the temperature could change to 76 and 36 in a drier climate or 66 and 46 in a moist environment. Statewide, the greatest increase in temperatures is expected during wintertime months. For sunshine lovers, the prediction of yearlong warm weather is good news -- for skiers however, the snow season across the Golden State maybe left to old photographs and memories. Warmer winters mean less snow, more rainfall, thus more rapid and dirty runoff, and little runoff in dry months. To compare extreme models, we've calculated both possibilities using California's climate study group data, and Canada's research models along with some microclimate data known about California. For the graphics in this story, we've used Canada's data for rainfall estimates and both models for temperature. California has numerous microclimates. Depending upon inland temperatures and cooler Pacific Ocean temperatures, the future of California's onshore flow hangs in the balance. Many of California's microclimates are in place due to existing climate trends and the availability or absence of the onshore flow. As these trends change, the microclimates will evolve accordingly. They could simply disappear. The Pacific Ocean currents are dependent upon salinity levels and temperature, as well as northern latitudinal ice melt. An increase in salinity levels and warmer water temperatures could lead to permanent waning of the onshore flow, warming coastline temperatures, and a increasing the monsoon influence in southern California during summer months. When summertime monsoon flows infiltrate the desert regions, coastal areas from San Diego to Malibu experience less onshore flow and warmer temperatures due to cooler and cloudy weather in the desert regions. After two significant tropical waves in summer 2003 brought heavy July rains to the Sacramento Valley, the infamous onshore flow into the Bay Area subsided for the duration of this event as well. It is conceivable that even northern California summers may experience an increase of tropical weather, thus warming the coastline during these spells. What often dissipates tropical waves at the present time is cooler Pacific Ocean temperatures. As the Pacific water warms however, tropical waves are more likely to hold together and in fact maybe enhanced much in the way they are along the Eastern seaboard with warmer ocean temperatures. Drought? On the other hand, the monsoon flow over Mexico, Arizona, and desert regions of California has its own set of dependencies. Both Arizona and New Mexico are in a cycle of less than robust monsoonal seasons, with only that of 2005 registering close to normal after a decade of weak monsoons. Should climate change cause the opposite effect, and decrease moisture influence from the tropics, the desert southwest's climate would be similar to that of the Persian Gulf and drop average rainfall totals to half of what they are today. Natural desert plant life would vanish and underground wells would run dry. The coastline of California's weather would be more alike that of Baja Mexico's dry, cool winters and long, hot dry summers. Should California experience the worst case drought scenario, technology and resources could make ocean water ready for consumption at the current cost of inland water. Predictions for the Midwestern United States actually fair much worse that California at present time, and conclude that between years 2050-2100, the eastern front range of the Rocky Mountains may become the nation's largest desert region without means to secure consumable water. If the worst case drought predictions prove correct for California --rainfall in Los Angeles (current 30-year average is 16 inches) will fall to an annual average of 12 inches by year 2050 and 9 inches by 2100-- or more like Las Vegas is today. San Francisco's average annual rainfall (currently 21 inches) would drop to 17 inches in 2050 and 13 inches in 2100. San Diego would drop from 11 inches to 7 inches. Warmer In viewing the past 30 years of average temperatures across California and comparing them to the previous block of 30 year cycles going back 90 years, there is no doubt that average temperatures have increased especially during winter months. Predicting future temperatures is easier for Los Angeles and San Diego as they would more reflect those current temperatures along the Baja Mexico Peninsula. San Francisco's temperatures are more dependent upon the tug of air and water currents in the Pacific. But if the eastern Pacific waters warm as some models indicate, water temperatures of 70 degrees are possible in summertime along Northern California and 80 degrees in Southern California -- the onshore flow would diminish a great deal, and could result in coastal city temperature increases of as much as 15 degrees from today's averages. Warmer coastal cities like Santa Cruz would jump from 73 to 83, Long Beach from 81 to 90, and Del Mar from 78 to 87. Warmer ocean temperatures along California are also dependent upon a diminished NW-wind flow. The average July-August high temperatures in Los Angeles could rise from 85 degrees today to 92 degrees in 2100, while San Francisco's average summertime high temperatures could rise from 71 to 77. San Diego could see a rise from 78 degrees to 86 degrees. Western-facing beach cities, Monterey, Oxnard, Santa Monica and Oceanside will warm as well, although not as much as those coastal cities facing southern exposures. Wet If Canada's predictions are correct for rainfall, Los Angeles could see an average annual rainfall total of 23 inches, San Francisco would rise to 32 inches and San Diego would rise to 18 inches in 2050. Due to Los Angeles' and San Diego's proximity to warmer Pacific Ocean waters and the tropical monsoon zone, some of this rainfall could arrive in the form of two or three tropical waves each summer, such a change would be drastic to the current climate in southern California, especially if waters off the coast begin to support hurricane activity, which would pose great threats to residential and commercial property. Northern California's increase in rainfall would primarily be due to more intense Pacific winter storms. For native plant life across all of California, Canada's prediction treats plant life very well. It is unknown whether or not the migration North of tropical waves would impact Mexico with widespread drought. Mexico is heavily dependent upon long periods of tropical rain showers in summertime for both residential consumption of water and for growing crops. Averages are, after all, "average," one year's extreme weather averages out over time. For the past 50 years in Los Angeles the rainfall range is 6 inches to 38 inches. Using the new model of average, a dry year in Los Angeles could be 11 inches and a wet year closer to 50 inches. Fifty inches of rainfall in southern California could prove catastrophic without precautionary measures in place. Contrarily, on the dry models, three decades of rainfall less that 10 inches would wipe out all native species of plant life found in the region today. Live oaks, pine trees, and hillside shrubs would die and expose soil to erosion. Additional and refined research could help long-range preparations for nation's most populous state. While there are no clear answers yet, preparation for climate change is a responsible action when time is on your side. Think & Ask, reproduction of any kind is not permitted without written consent.---
Warmer Temperatures
Warming of the earth's surface creates more extreme weather events as the earth dissipates excess heat. As weather systems spawn and track East the influence upon California weather means:
#45. To: buckeroo, farmfriend, abraxas, James Deffenbach, AGAviator (#42)
Spam. Climate has throughout geologic history been variable. A short window of time, and geologically that could be as much as several thousand years, is barely sufficient to establish a clear trend. Temperartures go up, temperatures go down. Climate is variable and cyclical. And as usual your climate model maps are curiously cut off and the scale contracted to manipulate the data to fit the conclusion. The beginning of your graph is the end of a several century period known as "The Little Ice Age". What happens at the end of an ice age that lets us know it is over? Hands Please!? Correct! It warms up and that is how we know the ice age is over. If we look at a graph of a longer period of time the picture becomes clearer - note that the graph before and after the little ice age is very similar i.e., about the same temperature ranges we experienced throughout much of the 20th century. 
Note: I just love the way your graph cuts out the little ice age and the cooling period we are in now.
#50. To: Original_Intent (#45)
Yeah .... and you neglect to add the HUGH, burgeoning population growth in just past few decades. This same human population base is sucking up the resources while simultaneously aiding global warming phenomena.
Climate has throughout geologic history been variable. A short window of time, and geologically that could be as much as several thousand years, is barely sufficient to establish a clear trend.
#52. To: buckeroo (#50)
Again an ASSertion absent any proof. We know now that the Glowbull Warming propagandists have been falsifying data, excluding data, and Scientists, which provide contradictory confirmation etc., ... Oh, and where's that Nobel Prize winning liar Al Bore these days?
This same human population base is sucking up the resources while simultaneously aiding global warming phenomena.
#54. To: Original_Intent, buckeroo (#52)
This same human population base is sucking up the resources while simultaneously aiding global warming phenomena. Again an ASSertion absent any proof. So you want to ASSert that burning 19 million barrels of oil per day every day year in year out, while deforesting 214,000 acres per day - an area larger than New York City, every day year in year out - have nothing to do with climate change. Or the fact that the ice caps over the North Pole have shrunk so much that polar bears who live on them year round are drowning because they have to swim so far to find food they become exhausted. Just a coincidence with all other human activity, no? Slam Gore and Gaia all you want, most people aren't going to wait until the disasters caused by these factors are undeniable to every denying soul on the planet.
#55. To: AGAviator (#54)
A. We do have environmental problems. B. Antropogenic Glowbull Warming is not one of them. It is a distraction from the real problems - such as toxic pollutants both water borne and atmospheric. Hydrogen Sulfide and Mercury from Coal Fired Power Plants IS real, however Glowbull warming is a distraction and is a stalking horse for other hidden agendas.
#57. To: Original_Intent, buckeroo (#55) (Edited)
Burning millions of barrels of oil every day, which introduces thousands of tons of pollutants into the atmosphere, while at the same time deforesting hundreds of thousands of acres of vegetation, removing the capacity of that vegetation to absorb increased thousands of tons of extra CO2 and other by products, causes additional burdens and pollutants to go into the ecosphere/atmosphere. This increased pollutant load also interferes with radiation of heat into space, besides temperature increases coming from the burning fuel itself.
Antropogenic Glowbull Warming is not one of them. It is a distraction from the real problems - such as toxic pollutants both water borne and atmospheric
#58. To: AGAviator, Original_Intent, buckeroo (#57)
CO2 is not a pollutant. It is necessary for life. BTW, the forests, especially the rain forests, are not the major sink for CO2 anyway. The biggest sink for CO2, also the biggest source of CO2, is by far the oceans. The only deforestation that is taking place is in third world countries thanks to the NGOs that shut down domestic forestry.
Burning millions of barrels of oil every day, which introduces millions of tons of pollutants into the atmosphere, while at the same time deforesting hundreds of thousands of acres of vegetation, removing the capacity of that vegetation to absorb increased millions of tons of extra CO2 and other by products, causes additional burdens and pollutants to go into the ecosphere/atmosphere.
#77. To: farmfriend, buckeroo, Original_Intent (#58)
CO2 is poison. You seem to be confusing it with oxygen. While algae in the oceans does convert CO2 into organic food, some of that algae like the red is poison itself. And when algae levels get too high, either from over fishing or from allowing farming chemicals and by products to slosh into the waterways, the algae mass becomes toxic itself. Lower Ocean Oxygen Levels Predict Catastrophic Change A cascade failure is the progressive collapse of an integral system. Many scientists also call them negative feedback loops, in that unfortunate situations reinforce one another, precipitating eventual and sometimes complete failure. The agricultural practices relate to “factory farming,” in which farmers grow crops using more and more chemical fertilizers, specifically nitrogen and phosphorus, which are the first two ingredients (chemical symbols N and P) listed on any container or bag of fertilizer. The last is potassium, or K. But farmers aren’t the only culprits. Lawn enthusiasts add to the problem with their massive applications of fertilizer designed to maintain a species of plant that doesn’t provide either food or habitat, and is grown merely to add prestige. And groundskeepers at parks and large corporate headquarters are equally guilty. In fact, a whole generation needs to rethink its addiction to lawns. Whoever is guilty of applying the fertilizer, these megadoses are eventually washed off the fields and lawns and into waterways. From there, they migrate to the nearest large bodies of water, where they spark such tremendous and unnatural growth in aquatic plants that the result is eutrophication , or lack of oxygen in the water as bacteria act to reduce the sheer mass of dying organic matter. One of these aquatic growths is algae, or phytoplankton. Moderate algal growth can produce higher fish yields and actually benefit lakes and oceans, but over- stimulation leads to a whole host of problems whose integral relationship to one another threatens not only aquatic but human life. A classic example would be the Baltic Sea, where phytoplankton are raging out of control. The Baltic Sea is, as a result, home to seven out of ten of the world’s largest “dead zones,” aquatic areas where nothing survives. One of the other three is the Gulf of Mexico, where a 2008 dead zone the size of Massachusetts is expected to grow in future years thanks to the U.S. government’s biofuel mandate. Most of the crops for biofuel are grown along the Mississippi River, which drains directly into this dead zone. In the Baltic, as elsewhere, overfishing has exacerbated the problem. Fish feed on smaller aquatic organisms, which themselves feed on the algae. Take the fish out of the equation, and the balance is lost. It’s very much like removing the wolves that keep down the deer population in order to protect the sheep, and it doesn’t work in the ocean any better than it works on land. Absolutely false. Brazil's government personnel attempting to rein in slash burning and cutting of Amazonian rain forest are vastly outnumbered by would-be settlers and often try to stop the madness at the risk of their lives.
CO2 is not a pollutant. It is necessary for life. BTW, the forests, especially the rain forests, are not the major sink for CO2 anyway. The biggest sink for CO2, also the biggest source of CO2, is by far the oceans.
There is a cascade failure going on in the world’s oceans that promises nothing but trouble in the future, and the problem stems in part from agricultural practices developed over the last half-decade aimed at growing more food on the same amount of land to feed rising populations.
The only deforestation that is taking place is in third world countries thanks to the NGOs that shut down domestic forestry.
#79. To: AGAviator, buckeroo, Original_Intent (#77)
Right, that's why greenhouses increase CO2 to 1000 ppmv. It is fertilizer for plants. Currently CO2 is at historic lows for the planet. Mankind even does better at higher CO2 levels because we evolved when levels were higher. Without CO2 we have no forests, no agriculture, no life on this planet. CO2 is poison. You seem to be confusing it with oxygen.
#80. To: farmfriend, buckeroo (#79) (Edited)
CO2 is poison. You seem to be confusing it with oxygen. Right, that's why greenhouses increase CO2 to 1000 ppmv Do I need to amplify by saying CO2 is poison for humans? Are you better off breathing in an environment that has more CO2, or less CO2? How can you accuse anybody else of pseudo science after making a statement like you just did. Flies eat waste. This does not mean waste is food for people. Comprende?
#81. To: AGAviator, buckeroo, Original_Intent (#80)
Are you better off breathing in an environment that has more CO2, or less CO2? Actually according to the US Navy you are better off breathing an atmosphere of around 500 ppmv. That's higher than what we have on the planet. Man evolved at higher CO2 levels and has better brain function at higher levels. Yes if the levels get too high it will kill you but then too much water will kill you as well.
Do I need to amplify by saying CO2 is poison for humans?
#82. To: farmfriend (#81)
Lungs expel CO2 just like kidneys expel urine. People who are sick get pure oxygen to increase their chances of survival. Increasing oxygen capacity and its transport within the human body are the goals of: Athletic training, and health care, and spirituality - all at the same time. Your attempts to rationalize the amount of CO2 to promote some pet theory, and against these empirical facts, don't even rise to the level of junk science.
Actually according to the US Navy you are better off breathing an atmosphere of around 500 ppmv. That's higher than what we have on the planet.
#90. To: AGAviator (#82)
Hey kid - wanna buy a bridge? I'll make you a great deal. You can even pay in Carbon Credits. 
#114. To: Original_Intent, buckeroo (#90) (Edited)
I'll make you a great deal. You can even pay in Carbon Credits Hey kid, wanna wash down your CO2 swig with a piss chaser? After all, if CO2 which your lungs expel from your body is good for you, why not urine which gets ejected from your kidneys? It's unfortunate you've felt the need to use your tactic which so clearly is contradicted by facts a 5 year old can understand to push an antigovenment theory. There's plenty of other positions which are much more criticizable.
Hey kid - wanna buy a bridge?
#115. To: AGAviator, farmfriend, James Deffenbach (#114)
I'll make you a great deal. You can even pay in Carbon Credits Hey kid, wanna wash down your CO2 swig with a piss chaser? After all, if CO2 which your lungs expel from your body is good for you, why not urine which gets ejected from your kidneys? It's unfortunate you've felt the need to use your tactic which so clearly is contradicted by facts a 5 year old can understand to push an antigovenment theory. There's plenty of other positions which are much more criticizable. The first step in being able to sort out the truth of the situation is having the courage to look at the actual data and ask: "What does the data tell me?" Throwing temper tantrums and holding your breath until you turn blue do not change the data set. If one is actually applying the scientific method to the understanding of a problem that also requires a willingness to accept what the data tells us not what we would prefer it tell us e.g., confirming our preconceptions or PsyOps lines which we have been sold, accepted as true, and then only to find out it was not. Accepting or rejecting data based upon ones preconceptions is NOT science. At this point we have a substantial data set which as it continues to build demolishes the "CO2" as a greenhouse gas threat. The chief advocates of the theory have been caught lying, cooking the data to make it fit the theory rather than adjusting the theory to fit the observed phenomena, etc., ... The chief environmental groups supporting the theory (Sierra Club, World Wildlife Federation, etc.,...) are all largely recipients of Historical studies, based on ice core analysis, have shown that CO2 is a lagging indicator in planetary warming and tends to lag increased temperatures. In other words the warming occurs before the increases in atmospheric CO2. While proponents of Glowbull Warming have tried various means to explain away the inconvenient ice core data the data is what the data is. CO2 levels in the paleoclimate record show CO2 as lagging significantly behind increases in global temperatures. As well are the affects of increased CO2 on plant and animal life. Increases in CO2 (and again actual studies using real scientific method approaches have been done). What occurs? Plants grow faster and larger and they absorb a greater volume of CO2 while giving off O2, Oxygen, as a byproduct. So, while CO2 may be a poor greenhouse gas, methane as being released in great volume in the gulf - which the bought off major environmental groups are silent on - is a much more powerful greenhouse gas, it is a great growth stimulant for plants - they love the stuff and when more is available they absorb more and increase the richness of the atmospheric Oxygen content with their respiratory byproduct - oxygen. And then we look at the record of scientific honesty. Over and over and over again the proponents of Glowbull Warming have been caught lying, cheating, and fudging data to force it to fit the model rather than developing a model that accommodates the data. You are welcome to believe in any fairy tale you wish, but do not try to call it science. Anthropogenic Glowbull Warming from human created CO2 is not selling. The science does not support it and the body of data validating that view is growing. Now that the CRU and their attempts to prevent the publication of data injurious to their "pet" theories have been exposed we can see how the climate debate has been manipulated, with contrary data excluded, data cherry picked and perfectly valid data (such as selected continental readings taken in Russia) thrown out because it does not fit the theory. You are welcome to believe in anything you wish, but believing does not make inconvenient facts and observations invalid. In real science it means they have to be accommodated in any theory and the theory revised to accommodate the data - not the data thrown out because it doesn't fit the theory which is bass ackwards as far as true science goes. As for me I believe I'll have another cup of coffee.
Hey kid - wanna buy a bridge?
bribes grants from the people who benefit financially from pushing CO2 as a greenhouse gas and Glowbull Warming from anthropogenic CO2 (which is about 3% of the planetary CO2 production).
#120. To: Original_Intent, buckeroo (#115)
The first piece of actual data you need to look at is that CO2 is a waste product expelled by your lungs, which you then claim to be beneficial even though the body works day and night to get rid of. If you cannot get past this first piece, all subsequent claims are irrelevant. Some projection on your part. I repeat, what rationalization can you possibly come up with justifying consumption of items your body expels as waste? Data is based on observable facts. Observable facts about waste products is the body gets more healthy when they are expelled, and less healthy when they are consumed. Deal with it. Let me know whether you've been "sold" that ingesting CO2 or any other waste product is beneficial for people. Not trees, not algae, but people. You really have a horrible mental/emotional block about physical bodily reality. Try living in the physical world, instead of intellectual/emotional conceptual concepts.
The first step in being able to sort out the truth of the situation is having the courage to look at the actual data and ask: "What does the data tell me?"
Throwing temper tantrums and holding your breath until you turn blue do not change the data set. If one is actually applying the scientific method
Requires a willingness to accept what the data tells us not what we would prefer it tell us e.g., confirming our preconceptions or PsyOps lines
We have been sold, accepted as true, and then only to find out it was not.
#121. To: AGAviator, farmfriend, James Deffenbach, TwentyTwelve, wudidiz, all (#120) (Edited)
I said: The first step in being able to sort out the truth of the situation is having the courage to look at the actual data and ask: "What does the data tell me?" You said: The first piece of actual data you need to look at is that CO2 is a waste product expelled by your lungs, which you then claim to be beneficial Which is hyperbole completely unresponsive to the point. The point is not what do I prefer to believe or how many hissy fits can I throw - along with throwing up irrelevancies. All mammals exhale - they take up Oxygen (O2) and exhale Carbon Dioxide (CO2) as a respiratory byproduct of normal metabolism. All plants take up CO2 and give off O2 as a respiratory byproduct of normal metabolism. In case you hadn't noticed the two are complementary. Kind of neat how that works eh? That is called science. Throwing a hissy fit is NOT science. Your argument is so confused and emotional it is hard to tell what point you are trying to make other than you resent people breathing. Throwing a hissy fit is NOT science. Adhering to a disproved idea is what led the Roman Church to try Galileo for heresy. Nevertheless it still moves - as Galileo is reputed to have said under his breath at his forced recantation. I said: "Throwing temper tantrums and holding your breath until you turn blue do not change the data set. If one is actually applying the scientific method ..." You said: Some projection on your part. I repeat, what rationalization can you possibly come up with justifying consumption of items your body expels as waste? Thus throwing forth a tantrum and a point irrelevant to the scientific question of is anthropogenic carbon dioxide either a greenhouse gas or a problem on the global scale? Needless to say you present nothing supporting your hissy fit, or your "Warmist" position in a factual way. I have to presume from the complete absence of any credible data that you cannot. And please no statistical trickery and b.s. such as the, now infamous, "hockey stick". I said: "... Requires a willingness to accept what the data tells us not what we would prefer it tell us e.g., confirming our preconceptions or PsyOps lines You said: "Data is based on observable facts. Observable facts about waste products is the body gets more healthy when they are expelled, and less healthy when they are consumed. Deal with it." Of which only the first sentence is relevant to the discussion you are trying to avoid. The rest is purely a hissy fit not very well expressed. It has what to do with the scientific validity of anthropogenic global warming caused by CO2 (which is at best a minor greenhouse gas, and of which only 3% is produced by human activity)? The rest of your blather is unworthy of comment as all you are doing is repeating the same tiresome, emotional, and irrelevant point as though repeating an irrelevancy somehow makes it relevant. Yawn. In something around 5 short paragraphs you managed to totally avoid any of the relevant issues while repeating over and over the same mantra that has evidently been programmed into you - the intellectual equivalent of 2+2= 12.1926. So, get back to me when you can actually address the issues without throwing a temper tantrum or stamping your little foot. I think the cow you had just became Roast Beef. even though the body works day and night to get rid of.
#131. To: Original_Intent, buckeroo (#121)
You again and again sidestep the main point which that to anything living above the level of vegetation, CO2 is a poison. More apt descriptions of your "respiratory byproduct" are "waste," and "poison." Look them up if you are unclear of their meanings Yes, good and bad are complementary also. So are health and sickness. You choose the ones that benefit you and minimize those that do not. Prima facie evidence of your own confused, emotional hissy fit. People should not be promoting large scale increases of toxic substances in their environments. And to humans CO2 is toxic. World class weaseling with 50 cent words trying to obfuscate the simple English statement that CO2 is toxic to human beings and even animals. How many times have you repeated your "hissy fit" mantra now while sticking your fingers in your ears and humming loudly to yourself to try to blot out my statement that CO2 is poison? Breathing is not "credible data?" "Hissy fit....hissy fit....hissy fit....hissy fit.....hissy fit.....hissy fit..." "Hissy fit....hissy fit....hissy fit....hissy fit.....hissy fit.....hissy fit..." Hold your breath for 5 short minutes and we'll see how much of a "relevant issue" respiration is, blowhard. Or if you prefer, inhale pure CO2 for the same length of time. Like you've been doing throughout this thread Don't quit your day job.
You said: The first piece of actual data you need to look at is that CO2 is a waste product expelled by your lungs, which you then claim to be beneficial
Which is hyperbole completely unresponsive to the point. The point is not what do I prefer to believe or how many hissy fits can I throw - along with throwing up irrelevancies.
All mammals exhale - they take up Oxygen (O2) and exhale Carbon Dioxide (CO2) as a respiratory byproduct of normal metabolism.
All plants take up CO2 and give off O2 as a respiratory byproduct of normal metabolism.
In case you hadn't noticed the two are complementary. Kind of neat how that works eh? That is called science.
Throwing a hissy fit is NOT science. Your argument is so confused and emotional it is hard to tell what point you are trying to make other than you resent people breathing.
Throwing a hissy fit is NOT science. Adhering to a disproved idea is what led the Roman Church to try Galileo for heresy.
I said: "Throwing temper tantrums and holding your breath until you turn blue do not change the data set. If one is actually applying the scientific method ..."
You said: Some projection on your part. I repeat, what rationalization can you possibly come up with justifying consumption of items your body expels as waste? ..Thus throwing forth a tantrum and a point irrelevant to the scientific question of is anthropogenic carbon dioxide either a greenhouse gas or a problem on the global scale?
Needless to say you present nothing supporting your hissy fit, or your "Warmist" position in a factual way.
I have to presume from the complete absence of any credible data
You said: "Data is based on observable facts. Observable facts about waste products is the body gets more healthy when they are expelled, and less healthy when they are consumed. Deal with it."
Of which only the first sentence is relevant to the discussion you are trying to avoid. The rest is purely a hissy fit not very well expressed.
All you are doing is repeating the same tiresome, emotional, and irrelevant point as though repeating an irrelevancy somehow makes it relevant. Yawn.
In something around 5 short paragraphs you managed to totally avoid any of the relevant issues
So, get back to me when you can actually address the issues without throwing a temper tantrum or stamping your little foot.
I think the cow you had just became Roast Beef.
#133. To: AGAviator, Original_Intent (#131)
Invalid. CO2 is not poison. CO is. Many things are. CO2 is not.
my statement that CO2 is poison
#134. To: wudidiz (#133) (Edited)
CO is. Many things are. CO2 is not. Wrong. CO is more lethal than CO2 because it binds to oxygen-carrying cells, permanently removing their capacity to carry oxygen, while CO2 simply displaces oxygen and prevents those cells from absorbing O2. In either case you will eventually die if either substance prevents enough oxygen from getting through. WILL EXPOSURE TO CARBON DIOXIDE RESULT IN HARMFUL HEALTH EFFECTS? Exposure to CO2 can produce a variety of health effects. These may include headaches, dizziness, restlessness, a tingling or pins or needles feeling, difficulty breathing, sweating, tiredness,
CO2 is not poison.
#179. To: AGAviator (#134)
In any case you will eventually die. True enough. It is also true that you might die today if you drink too much water or take too many aspirins. Your argument that CO2 is some kind of killer gas might have some merit if you meant that breathing only that would kill you. But no one has made any such claim and have made the claim, scientific fact, that CO2 is beneficial to us because plants need it and we need the oxygen they give us in return.
In either case you will eventually die if either substance prevents enough oxygen from getting through.
#183. To: James Deffenbach (#179)
Huh? CO2 is beneficial because it is body waste? We breathe CO2 out because our body rejects it. It is not any more beneficial to us than the expelled products of our bowels and kidneys.
Your argument that CO2 is some kind of killer gas might have some merit if you meant that breathing only that would kill you. But no one has made any such claim and have made the claim, scientific fact, that CO2 is beneficial to us because plants need it and we need the oxygen they give us in return.
#185. To: AGAviator (#183)
We breathe CO2 out because our body rejects it. It is not any more beneficial to us than the expelled products of our bowels and kidneys. Carbon dioxide and health Carbon dioxide is essential for internal respiration in a human body. Internal respiration is a process, by which oxygen is transported to body tissues and carbon dioxide is carried away from them. Carbon dioxide is a guardian of the pH of the blood, which is essential for survival. The buffer system in which carbon dioxide plays an important role is called the carbonate buffer. It is made up of bicarbonate ions and dissolved carbon dioxide, with carbonic acid. The carbonic acid can neutralize hydroxide ions, which would increase the pH of the blood when added. The bicarbonate ion can neutralize hydrogen ions, which would cause a decrease in the pH of the blood when added. Both increasing and decreasing pH is life threatening. Read more: http://www.lenntech.com/carbon-dioxide.htm#ixzz0qdcu2QJL
Huh? CO2 is beneficial because it is body waste?
#187. To: randge (#185)
Unfortunately, the outrageous claims being made here, are not that CO2 should remain at status quo, but that increased CO2 in the world atmosphere, combined with daily reduction of hundreds of thousands of acres of vegetation capable of processing this CO2, combined with this increased CO2 in the oceans destroying coral reefs, is somehow beneficial because of an irrational conspirokook theory about Bilderburgers or similar bogeymen.
The carbonic acid can neutralize hydroxide ions, which would increase the pH of the blood when added. The bicarbonate ion can neutralize hydrogen ions, which would cause a decrease in the pH of the blood when added. Both increasing and decreasing pH is life threatening.
#191. To: AGAviator (#187)
CO2 in the oceans is not destroying coral reefs. You really have to quit buying into these media reports.
combined with this increased CO2 in the oceans destroying coral reefs,
#194. To: farmfriend, buckeroo (#191)
The reports of CO2 destroying coral reefs were originally published in a paper contributed to by the science panels of scientists of 69 countries, you brainless zombie. The media then reported the conclusions of this international scientific conference, which is their job. You shamelessly lie as if this statement of CO2 destroying coral reefs, and the science panel's prediction of marine habitat being irreversibly destroyed by 2050, were invented in some news media office. The rate at which the oceans are turning acidic because of rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere is faster than at any other time since the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, the scientists said in a joint statement issued today in advance of this week's pre-Copenhagen conference on climate change in Bonn. As carbon dioxide increases in the air above the ocean, more of the gas gets dissolved in the surface water of the sea, creating carbonic acid. Since the start of the industrial revolution, the acidic activity of the oceans has increased by 30 per cent. At current rates, they will become so acidic that few shell-forming organisms and coral reefs will be able to survive by mid-centuryCO2 in the oceans is not destroying coral reefs. You really have to quit buying into these media reports.
Rising acidity in oceans is leading to a global catastrophe that would be unparalleled in tens of millions of years, according to the national science academies of 69 countries which want governments to take the issue more seriously in the run-up to the December climate change conference in Europe.
What a shameless liar you are pretending to be seeking debate and scientific facts, then dismissing scientific facts that rebut your kookblather as "media reports." The only suitable word to describe your intellectual dishonesty is "disgusting."
#195. To: AGAviator (#194) (Edited)
The oceans are not turning acidic. The oceans are base. They have always been base and will always remain base. Ask yourself how the coral reefs survived much higher CO2 levels in the past. Remember, CO2 is at historic lows for the planet. And remember, computer modeling is not science.
The rate at which the oceans are turning acidic
#197. To: farmfriend (#195)
A panel of scientists from 69 countries has stated in its report released at an international conference in Europe that the increased supply of CO2 in the atmosphere - predicted over 100 years ago by John Tyndall and Svante Arrhenius - will irreversibly destroy marine habit and biodiversity by 2050. In your usual manner, you blithely dismiss anything which contradicts your own point of view, while demanding science from others. Hers is the link: Again. The oceans are not turning acidic. The oceans are base
Cut emissions or acidity will kill coral reefs, scientists say: 'Underwater catastrophe' is imminent without action
#198. To: AGAviator (#197)
Repeating the same crap doesn't make it true. From your link: As I said before, computer models are NOT science. The study you are citing is nothing more than computer projects designed to force a political outcome. No reality involved.
"Global atmospheric CO2 concentrations are now at 387 parts per million ... model projections suggest that by mid-century, CO2 concentrations will be more than double pre-industrial levels and the oceans will be more acidic than they have been for tens of millions of years," the panel said.
#199. To: farmfriend, AGAviator, all (#198) (Edited)
D-d-d-d-oes that mean that Tron wasn't real? Computer modeling is wholly dependent for its outcome upon the design of the modeling software and the input parameters and assumptions made by the modeler. You could make a model quack like Daffy Duck with the right controlled inputs. The integrity and the accuracy of Climate Modeling for CO2 in particular, given the revelations of the CRU e-mails and the campaign of fraudulent science they promoted for over a decade, the backtracking of the IPCC, Algore's repeated lies, etc., ANY Computer Model coming forth from the interested parties MUST be presumed to be false and manipulated until proven otherwise by at least one or two independent sources.
The study you are citing is nothing more than computer projects designed to force a political outcome. No reality involved.
#200. To: Original_Intent (#199)
Gavin Schmidt used to post on the climate forum but stopped when the guys just tore him apart over the modeling. Of course he is the one who started Real Climate which is nothing more than a propaganda arm designed to push AGW. And yes he was involved in the CRU climategate. BTW, the Michael they were talking about in the "hide the decline" email was Michael Mann of the infamous hockey stick. There is a DA going after him now.
#202. To: farmfriend (#200)
Good. That was out and out criminal fraud. It blows my mind that people so gullibly take as factual the results from easily manipulated computer modeling. And I do mean E-A-S-Y. The results of a model can be changed, slanted, stilted, manipulated, and deformed by simply controlling the input parameters to the program model. The mode is NOT reality. In honest usage it is at best a tool to look at and explore questions of "what if"? What IF the CO2 levels double does not mean the CO2 levels are going to double. It is an assumption and an input parameter designed for exploring a variety of scenarios of which none may come to pass. One can go further and point out that computer models, particularly ones on climate, NEVER account for all of the variables. The "Butterfly Effect" is always present, and any "Model" may leave unaccounted for any number of "Butterflies" as well as including "Butterlies".
BTW, the Michael they were talking about in the "hide the decline" email was Michael Mann of the infamous hockey stick. There is a DA going after him now.
Replies to Comment # 202.
#203. To: Original_Intent (#202)
One of biggest problems with climate modeling is they don't take into account clouds. Since they can't model water vapor and clouds they can't possibly be correct in the climate "predictions". Some models have shown clouds to be a positive feed back while some show a negative feed back.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
End Trace Mode for Comment # 202.