interesting study and pictures. Very clear and concise.

I take a couple of things out of the maps. First, the supposed devil country of the Earth clearly is not so according to the map. We need to look at the North Sea and southeaast China as the real problems of the planet. And Second, this study is essentially based upon a dislike of human beings. Third, the study is based upon a made up set of criteria as admitted in the article. Fourth, I like the statement by one of the researchers, as warming continues and humans move toward the poles, the area will no longer be pristine. LOL. yep, not sure about anyone else, but I already have a 10 acre estate purchased right on the coast at Anartica. Lovely view, for at least 6 months of the year. I mean even with warming it will be balmly there right?

And the AGWers were saying that the don't buy into alarmism?

Seems like a serious study with the usual AGW gratuities attached, to get the paper some media attention.

"And Second, this study is essentially based upon a dislike of human beings."

I see Darren and Mary have been drinking the same kool-aid. I guess calling those who agree with the scientific consensus regarding AGW "anti-capitalists" and "anti-American" lost its effect after a while, so now they have to change things up -- now they're anti-human! LOL!!

I have seen four different maps,from watts,noaa,nasa, and national Acadamies. They all look to be different images,but show the same result as seen above. Patrick,you really showed your un-proffesional side, and should not even entered the Hansen ridicule. I used to think,well Patrick is a conservative, but he is fair;but now I think your are doomed to your own dislike of anything that goes against your pre-concieved world of, America is for money,and money makes America. Since as a young scientists you were deprived of any human contact,you should start to become objective and accepting to another person's right to say what they will.Have you lost it?
Kipp

Mark.

"I see Darren and Mary have been drinking the same kool-aid. I guess calling those who agree with the scientific consensus regarding AGW "anti-capitalists" and "anti-American" lost its effect after a while, so now they have to change things up -- now they're anti-human! LOL!!"

Oh, how sweet Mark dear, you remembered me.

In return, I would like you to know you played a big part in my critical analysis of AGW studies that denigrate the human impact on the earth, and my subsequent conclusion that; yes, indeedy, these studies are anti-human.

"human activities SPREAD into these areas (as in disease??), there is a great risk of rapid degradation of these relatively PRISTINE ecosystems,"

Surely, the above taken from the article is not a resounding celebration of the positive contribution to the earth due to humans?

Apparently, the subliminal solution to stop humans from destroying pristine areas is for a very large group of volunteers to make the supreme sacrifice at the altar of AGW.

Volunteer Mark??

Mary:
Sorry to butt in, but what scenario can you give about man, that does show him aiding his enviroment. Or giving back to the planet. In a Harvard speach Ralph Waldo Emersom,a sixth generation Unitarian Minister, gave one of his famous lectures called Beauty. In it he describes commodity,not in the wall street scense, but in a Philossphical one.He regards nature as our home, and that from our home, we have been given all the bounty, from the Earth that has met every need, and has allowed us to exist, to feed our families, and ultimately work! His theistic religion, as a Universalist Unitarian,allows all faiths within it's boarders. It also has high regard for the Earth, not in a anthropomorphic way
but in healthy respect for it. I am not one of them. But don't you think that we have lost our connection to nature and have misused our words,to describe a world goverened by the few,who have stolen much of it's wealth. The reason that government now comes more blatantly in our lives is that if it didn't, we would destroy ourselves, as we have most of nature. Why should the people pay for corporate greed. They shouldn't. But American's as they would like to be regarded, have put the corporation, in a higher noble place. Yet these noble ones have stolen your money,your time and your lives to benefit the few,and you know it. And all want to do is aspire to and be one of them. But you won't. They have destroyed our planet, and now we have to pay for it, not them. You have been checkmated by playing a game in which their Queen will always win. How does it feel. Unfair,not right. Doesn't it make you mad.Don't blame corrections made by our peers, for the mistakes of DOW or The coal companies. Somebody must stop and smell the roses and say, I want to save this place.If not for me,then my grandchildren. When your house gets dirty, you see it and want to clean it up. That is an instinct born in you from the time we lived in caves. Now is the time we should clean up our first home, the Earth.
Kipp

OK, first off, I don't really like Kool-Aid, I'm more of a Pepsi drinker.

Secondly, please refrain from the standard liberal/AGW tactic of spinning a statement to your own worldview. What I said is that the people who created this study seem to exhibit a dislike of humans. I suppose I should have clarified and stated emphatically that really they are against modern human society. I did not, however, say, or even imply, they are Anti-human.

That to me, and most rational people, is a more drastic and scary statement. Mark, your trying to imply that I think that the researchers want humans dead. That's not really the case. I do think though that they want humans to revert back to a less intrusive effect on the planet. That's fine to a degree but the article is all about alarmism and nothing else. When you take that in the context that they admit to entirely making up the review procedure, you can plainly see that GW is not the cause but rather the vehicle for promoting an agenda about the environment.

I have come to the conclusion that AGW is not really about science or warming, but rather an extension of the environmentalist movement that gained popularity 60's.

Look at the post by Evan, well written and thoughtful, but in the end it was all about his view on the environment, GW was nothing more than a vehicle. He could have just as easily replaced GW with just about anything and came to the same ending statement.

The east coast of North America? The last two years have seen a cooling in average temperatures in the SE Coastal Atlantic. Even the Gulf was much cooler last year - high temps at Clearwater never got over 85F, whereas they were 90F by late June in both '04 and '05.

Been swimming in, say, Jacksonville Beach in the last year? From NE FL to SE Va ocean water temperatures have been generally cool for quite a long period, including all of the so-called warming episode.

The problem I have with these submissions is that they are predicated upon sets of imprecise criteria [and the measurement of same]....so we have blobs of colors, the results of human interations with the sea. Well, we've been interacting with the sea since the beginning. Harvesting from it, and yes, polluting it. Some of those are done deliberately, weighing the positives, negatives and risks [such as drilling for oil]. Some are done in ignorance and indifference.

But in the end I do have a problem with such a map that will get roundly circulated and typically used as proof certain of man's inhumanity to the earth when it is really just a reflection of qualitative opinion and interpretation.

You think fishing is harmful and it occurs in this area...put yellow or orange down; what that's? there's an oil rig in the same area? change it to dark orange or red.

But you might depend upon the fish from that area, or the fuel as well. And your perspective would be different.

The problem is as much as how these "maps" will be politicized used and portrayed vice giving a jumping off point to consense on what the concerns and nature of our seas are.

Kipp
I rarely understand what you are trying to say, maybe you are writing as a stream of consiousness, I don't know. Anyway, some time ago I stopped trying to figure out what you were getting at, but I saw my name, so I attempted again to decipher your thoughts. Holy cow..

All I can say is you do not know me or what I think , nor will you ever know me, and you probably don't really care to.

I haven't lost my connection to nature, I live it everyday in a beautiful wooded rural part of the country and I love the earth and I feel lucky and proud of being an American and I recognize there is no such thing as "fair" in nature and in life. You take what life gives you and you take responsibility for your actions. I try to treat everyone like I would like to be treated except for a jab here and there to Mark and BT. I avoid the "woe is me" crowd, the "chicken little" crowd, the "save the planet for the children" crowd and the "lets make everyone feel guilty" crowd.

The planet is not doomed and if you understood the science of climate change, you would know that. And if by some unexpected misfortune, a giant meteor hits us, or some crazy world leader sets off a nuclear weapon, and Earth "goes away", then so be it. No one will every know. Enjoy your time on Earth now.

DARREN;
People that believe in a better tomorrow,don't use your rhetoric, you are someone that is frustatrated with the truth and have no Scientific ability to prove that you are correct.
INVALID ASUMPTIONS:
1.people that believe in AGW are liberal.
2.AGW is a liberal tactic.
3.People want to debate as they did in the sixties about AGW, to further their conservation concerns.
4.People that drink cool aide, are either suicidal or dumb.
5. Our planet is The Devil County of Earth.
6. AGW is a tactic.
DARREN: DARREN: DARREN: YOU SAID THIS BULLLL!!!
If you believe that global warming is a hoax,or is false, MAKE YOUR CASE!PROOF.SHOW US!!!
DONT'T DEGRADE MANKIND BY YOUR LOW OPINION OF EVERYONE ELSE!ARE YOU BEING LIBERAL IF YOU DRINK PEPSI!!
Kipp

The answer to global warming is simple and a few billion dollars. Simply put into space a sun shield into space. Not into orbit around earth but around the sun between the earth and the sun.A 12 foot shield a million miles from earth, properly placed would block the heat of the sun over a 1200 mile area (do your own math) in either of the poles. On the rotation of the planet this would cool the earth by degrees. If too cool simply move the satellite. If you think about it this would also work with a refractive lens. It could heat as well as cool just as a magnifing glass does. How about a cooler venus and a warmer mars?

MARY:
Finally,you have chosen to write as a civil person. But you are not.
I don't write in a stream of conciousness. I have a Philosophy major,so were talking depth of understanding.
If you don,t understand me,than how could you respond so exactly to the points that I have made(contradictory).
You start your rant with I am proud to be an American. Than you over genralize about AGW people i.e.
chicken little,save the planet for the children,and lets make everyone guilty.
Than you say I don't understand Climate Science.
Prove it. Stop your right wing rhetoric.Who do you think you are fooling when you put people into groupings, like Hitler did. Keep quiet, and prove that AGW is not real. Do that.
But listen; You said there is no such thing as fair. What happened to you, that gives you such a jaundiced view of life. Helping other people is fair. Try that! Save Energy,why not,love ya!
Kipp

Kipp

I think you have a bee in your bonnet because you are really trying to put people on the offensive for some reason. What you said to Darren was pretty bad. You are waaay over analyzing people and ascribing characteristics and traits based on a quickie post and abbreviated statements. I don't get where you are going with this strange behavior.

I'm sorry, but I'm guessing that English is not your first language because much of what you write is not that clear nor does it make much sense. But I do applaud that at least you are trying.

Anyway, I will no longer respond to nor read Kipp, Mark, or BT negative and tiresome postings or anyone else that goes off on personal attacks.

Brett, not that I post that much (mainly just read and learn), but I will only post stuff related to climate change in the future and not post anything that generates postings such as Kipp's. Life is too short to waste.

Mary,
Thanks for your concern. What I said to Darren if you read it,is, don't use inflammatory, and clever speak to make a point. That it is better to be honest than right,and cheating in conversation,will hurt you more than the people you hold contempt for. Honesty always wins, no matter if global warming exists or not. What I am saying is neither negative or positive, but honest, with no verble strings to leave hanging.
I share your love of nature,and the enviroment.If I offended you,I am sorry.
Kipp

Brett - I believe that Kipp Alpert's postings have exceeded any standard of decorum. The insults and ranting diatribes add nothing to any debates. I do not belieive in censorship (such as on realclimate.com) but there comes a time when certain individuals should be reined in. Incidentally, for a "Philosophy major" he shows a deplorable inability to spell or punctuate correctly.

Mary:

Don't let Kipp, or BT, or Mark or any of the the other AGWers bug you too much. They are just presenting their concerns based upon their personal view. Besides, it does not matter what you write, you will still be lambasted for not ascribing to AGW theory lock, stock, and barrel.

Kipp:

I am not really sure upon which heading you are going with your response to my comments. I can tell you quite plainly that the idea of AGW being a liberal cause was postulated by conservatives a long time ago. If you look at the vast majority of the public figures who have bought into the AGW cause, most of them are blatantly liberal in their mindsets. Beyond that, we see quite plainly in this blog that those who see AGW as a real problem are very liberal in their stance on most things.

Not sure if you were around here then, but a poster by the name of Chris created a survey that accurately predicted a person's take on GW based upon a set of politically based questions a couple of weeks ago. The response was unaminous, if you are liberal, you wholeheartedly agree with AGW. If you are conservative in nature, you may or may not buy into AGW with most not buying it.

The statement that AGW is an extension of the environmental movement is borne out in the proposed solutions and the rhetoric used in the arguments. Seriously think back to the 60'2 and 70's, the same rhetoric is prevalent about pollution.

AS a skeptic, it is not up to me to prove that AGW is false. I only need to bring up the inconsistencies in the theory. Besides, the only part I have a real issue with is the "A" part. Though, based upon another thread that Brett put up, I'm starting to wonder if there is really any GW occurring at all.

A 12 foot shield a million miles from earth, properly placed would block the heat of the sun over a 1200 mile area (do your own math)

Hi Doug Bennett,

OK - let's do the math. Assuming the sun is a point source and 93 million miles form earth. The shadow of a 12 foot shield one million miles from the earth would be 93/92 * 12 feet = 12.1 feet wide (not 1200 miles.) Now factor in diffraction around the shield and the fact that the sun is not a point source, and the net effect of the shield is a big zero.

Consider that the shadow of the moon is barely large enough to cover the earth during an eclipse, and it becomes obvious that you need a huge object to make any difference in the amount of sunlight reaching the earth.

I'd suggest some remedial math. You were off by a factor of 528,000.

Kipp,
I remember reading that speech many moons ago. BTW, Emerson probably gave that speech in a timber/stone building, which resided in a patch of property that was once a forest -home to who knew how many species of fowl, beasts, and incests. That building was probably heated by wood and coal, which emitted tons of CO2 each year. Emerson and his bretheren probably ate beef, poultry, and venison; I'm sure they also ate vegtables from fields that were long ago clear cut for farming and grazing. Even as long ago as the 1820s, small villages and towns began to spread westward, especially after the construction of the Erie Canal, which Emerson thought very useful for comercial enterprises.

Yes, it is wonderful to behold a pristine view of nature. But even asthetes like Emerson liked to eat, draw a paycheck, and wear nice clothes.

"Surely, the above taken from the article is not a resounding celebration of the positive contribution to the earth due to humans?"

Wow, this is one of the more ridiculous comments I've read on this blog. Our "positive contributions" to the Earth deal with minimize our damage to the Earth. What you said makes absolutely no sense. It's like saying a spousal abuser is making a positive contribution to his wife's life by not hitting her as hard as he used to. Not the great analogy but it's the same concept.

"Beyond that, we see quite plainly in this blog that those who see AGW as a real problem are very liberal in their stance on most things."

We see quite plainly in this blog that those who deny AGW are very conservative in their stance on most things.

Actually, I didn't even realize I was a liberal. But when you're on a board filled with radical right-wingers, I guess even guys in the middle seem like socialists. LOL.

One only needs to drive down the interstate highway to see how man affects the environment. Trash everywhere. Pieces of rubber tire. Oil and of course the smog.

Where I live we have a beautiful beach bordering one of the largest fresh water lakes in the world. That beach is many times polluted with cigarette butts, empty beer cans, used tampon applicators and other trash that washes up during storms. This on a "FRESH WATER" lake that, 200 years ago, you could probably drink from. Many times in the summer, beaches are closed to swimming, because fecal coliform bacteria is too high and would make you sick. Whether you believe in anthropogenic global warming or not, man does have a profound affect on the earth. A lot of times, it isn't positive.

IMHO, a lot of the problems could be fixed with good science and education. Too often though, money is wasted on the wrong things, and the environment/education/science, take a back seat.

I'm not proposing that everyone become an environmentalist. I'm also not proposing that the earth would be better off without humans. I'm only saying that all of us could do a better job taking care of the planet, as we live our daily lives.