Joe for President!!!!! Nuff said??

J. Bastardi's frustration with the current state of affairs is justified. Unfortunately I am not sanguine that it will be relieved any time soon. Stupid public policy is still being proposed and, worse, implemented. That we may possibly be denied access to a national stategic resource because it may slightly reduce one segment of the polar bear population would pass as farce if it were not so regrettable.

Joe Bastardi:
I think your idea of putting scientists together to make it clear to the President the relative facts is essential. As far as Alaska is concerned, the oil there will not amount to much. George Bush just came back from begging the Saud i's for more production, but they told him that they had just boosted their production last month, and the real problem here is a week dollar and our inability to refine what we need. I think if truth be told this AGW although not presently a threat to Americans, is starting to effect our planet. I also think we are at the beginning edge of what we call the tipping point,and that we should act now, if we are not to late already. I appreciate the universality of your paper, and the realities that you covered.
Thank's KIPP

While I agree that the fourth paragraph contains the best (and only good) advice in the letter, it will be difficult to find five SCIENTISTS on the "skeptic" side of the issue (at least who are not in the pay of Corporate America), since there is an overwhelming consensus in the scientific community that AGW is real and we need to do something about it, soon. The only debate should be about what we need to do.

I agree that the fate of polar bears is not the overriding issue, since there are much more compelling reasons to take action against AGW.

Mr. Bastardi cannot possibly be more wrong about the solution to our current oil crisis. The only conscionable long-term solution to our dependence on foreign oil is to reduce demand. Put a scientist or two on the panel to detail what measures we can take with regard to our profligate use of gigantic motor vehicles. Tougher fuel economy standards are a good start. However, we need to think in the long term: our goal must be to wean ourselves of fossil fuels at the earliest possible time.

The letter is riddled with spelling and grammatical errors, which does not help Mr. Bastardi's case.

No problem as long as they have all published at least 6 peer reviewed papers in major science journals (if I remember correctly, no denying scientists meet this standard).

So, what is your opinion of Joe's letter?

I think Bastardi is an embarrassment to Accuweather.

Perhaps it's time for Accuweather to demonstrate the same integrity that Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory displayed in their handling of similarly embarrassing outbursts of Dr. James Watson.

If, that is, Accuweather has the same integrity as Cold Spring.

Wow,
I didn't have much of an opinion on Joe B. before...but now I do: Awesome!! Great message that cuts to the chase.
Keep it up Joe!!

This is a little sad. While Joe's science as pugilism metaphor is creative and (as far as I can tell) completely original, it would be very strange if he actually thinks the letter will get attention from any of the candidates as opposed to just being passed around the campaign staffs as a joke. OTOH if Hillary reads it I doubt she'll see much humor in his implication that all of the relevant leading scientists are men.

Brett, you say you like his idea about opposing teams of scientists. Do you think there are five denialist scientists with anything approaching the qualifications of the top five on the consensus side? (Reply: Not sure, but there certainly could be.) How would it not be giving the denialists way too much credit since they are so much less qualified?

In any case, such a debate won't happen. While there are many details and mplications that remain open for discussion, the debate over whether AGW is happening and needs to be a governmental priority is over. Do you disagree?

Anyone who hasn't perused the IPCCs reports is doomed to misrepresent them at every turn; misrepresenting the process, the detail, the evidence, the uncertainty, the claims and the time frame. Get reading,candidates, and don't delegate. George Bush's incumbency has been a sad example on how not to run science and energy policy. Joe's definitely right that the candidates should stop watching people who aren't the main event, and he's demonstrated why he's one of those people.

It is as an interesting idea. The only problem is that according to Al Gore and the head of the IPCC, there aren't five scientists in existence with any serious doubt about catastrophic global warming.

Anyone who says they have doubts is clearly on the payroll of Exxon, and can't be trusted. They can talk all they want, but if sea level keeps rising at the current rate Manhattan will be submerged within 20,000 years. Only a huge gas tax, immediate implementation of spectacularly repressive government regulation, and buying carbon credits from Al Gore can prevent this tragedy.

Deja vu - Jimmy Carter 1978

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h-wpxs1Re-8vx2Zk5xnYygW1W67w

I didn't realize that I needed the permission of any other country to set my thermostat. Maybe I should plead my case to the EU or the UN?

Joe should've just stuck to the last paragraph and left out the silly boxing analogy.

I don't bother to visit Bastardi's blog and didn't read the letter.
I'm familiar with a presentation he makes and has posted online.

It is a collection of favorite misleading climate skeptic points, some disproven 50 years ago. That is probably about the time his education ceased.

I've better uses for my time than wasting it reading his opinions.

This letter looks confused and confusing. The global warming is not a boxing issue. The experts of the IPCC represent the scientific consensus on this issue.
The question is, is our society able to perform the huge change we need to cut our CO2 emissions?
Such a move needs a tool a lot of you dislike: a carbon tax tu put a price on this pollution.

ANWR is not likely to make a significant dent in US dependence on imported oil. The most optimistic estimates put the total reserve at about 10 billion bbls with a maximum annual production of roughly 375 million bbls. But the US consumes over 20 million bbls per day so ANWR would only cover about 5% of annual US consumption. Simple conservation practices, restoration to previous levels of govt investment in transportation infrastructure - roads and bridges as well as mass transit (things we need to spend on anyway), upgrading the power grid to make it more reliable and efficient (again, something we need to do anyway), perhaps a tax rebate program to provide an incentive for consumers to trade in gas-guzzlers on existing model vehicles that get 30+mpg -- all of these things combined would cost the US govt and economy far less while reducing US consumption far more. ANWR is a red herring.

Translation:

An open letter to the Presidential Candidates:

YOU CAN'T CONTROL THE WEATHER, THE CLIMATE,OR THE EARTH'S NATURAL CYCLES WITH YOUR MARXIST TAX AND MADATES AGENDAS.

Good Job Joe. But I am sure our leftist friends on here will come right out and say "stick to forecasting the weather, Joe (you philistine)." In their infinite arrogance as well.

Does anyone care to joint me in joining the Constitution Party so we can TAKE BACK OUR COUNTRY????

DENY DENY DENY THE GLO-BULL WARMING LIE!!!!!!!

On reflection, I don't think this approach makes a lot of sense. Assuming the range of scientific views is a bell curve, what Bastardi is proposing is that a non-scientist sit down with a small group from each end of the curve and come up with an intelligent synthesis or an intelligent choice between the two. The IPCC, with 2500 scientists from around the world with a wide range of expertise and perspectives, focused untold hours on forming a synthesis that hits somewhere in the fat part of the bell curve based on intense review of the available data. Does this approach present the Truth from the Mountaintop? No, but it's clearly better to form policy based on this kind of synthesis than on making a choice between the two extremes.

Awesome!

Speaking of Obama, he dropped this bombshell...

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.

"That's not leadership. That's not going to happen," he added.

So what is he going to do? Any of you supporters care to chime in on what his plans are?

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h-wpxs1Re-8vx2Zk5xnYygW1W67w

My opinion? I like it, but it has about as much chance of happening as I do of being voted to the NFL Pro Bowl as a Quarterback.

None of the current crop of candidates has demonstrated ANY interest in making a policy decision based on a factual analysis. ALL are simply pandering to what makes them sound the most concerned, caring, and valiantly 'fighting for the common person'.

Sen McCain's desire to 'reduce CO2 to 65% below 1990 levels by 2050' demonstrates his total lack of caring about any form of analysis based policy.

Sen Clinton's desire to go Sen McCain one better by promising to reduce CO2 to 80% below 1990 levels is demonstrative proof of the same.

Sen Obama's calling of Sen Clinton's CO2 reduction bet and his recent statement implying that the US is a bad, greedy country because we use 25% of the world's energy production with only 3% of the population (as idiotic a statement as I have heard on the campaign trail to date) and implying that the cost of gasoline is due entirely to the oil companies 'jacking up the price' shows that he has no interest or desire to base his policies in analysis. I'd like to let the good senator know that energy production is NOT a zero sum game and that if the US produces X energy it is not taking X energy from someone else. In the long run (even though competition for oil does limit energy production to some extent) in the final analysis all nations can produce as much energy as they wish, the production of one country does not affect the production of another. I'd also like to let him know that energy use/capita is not a good metric for measuring the 'right of countries to % of energy use' (not that I think this is a meaningful concept in the first place), the proper metric would be energy use/% unit goods produced. If you measure the US energy use this way the rest of the world comes off wasteful and greedy, not the US.

LOL! Never happen!
Answering a letter like that would involve the ability to actually make decision based on logic and science. Obviously expecting a decision based on real science instead of obtuse political pandering is totally out of the question. Politicians by vocation and definition lack vertebrae and the ability so see past getting elected. Two of the three candidates lack ANY science/math background and all three just don’t want to offend ANY voting block because after they win, their next priority will be re-election.
Getting elected and then reelected is what being a Presidential candidate is all about.

It's a fine letter. It amuses me the way the AGW crowd tries to link their agenda with that of energy independence for America; in fact, the two are often opposed, as Dr. Bastardi points out. That being said, there is no chance that what he proposes will ever happen.

Kinda fanatical?

Nice try but ........all these candidates have shown that they are willing to pander to attract votes or media attention.

This position, on this topic, is neither popular nor politically correct.

It will probably suffer the same fate as the heretics who tried to show that the world was not flat.

I'm sure Joe is a nice guy and sure hope that he doesn't get tar and feathered or burned at the stake in the public square .........LOL

I used to think our elected Republican & Democrat officials were too extreme in their views for the average American. Now my opinion is that the sides are not strong enough in their conservative/liberal roots for most people, because they are trying to win fans and voters on both sides of the aisle. I agree with what Bastardi says in the first part of his letter. Please choose a side and fight for it. I realize this is not the most popular view because of the current administration (would you call it stubbornness, or conviction? Depends on how you look at it.)

I would love to see paragraph 4 myself, but I'm afraid that, of the three candidates left, they will be more worried making decisions based on what the polls say, rather than what is right. I feel that the media runs this country more than the government right now. The government as a whole used to be relatively unchecked, and few questioned what they did, at least outwardly. Now, fortunately, we have the media, which keeps the government in check, but there are few checks on the media. The media tells the people how to think, and the people tell the government what to do.

It's difficult to do, but I try to remember the words of my grandma, years ago: "Don't believe everything you read (or hear)". What is most difficult is not believing what you *want* to hear. If we can stay open minded about issues, we can - as individuals - determine what the polls tell our next president, rather than the media.

Time to get off the soap box, I think I'm getting vertigo...

Stay cool

As one who truly believes the " science " is not settled I would support a true review of the facts but you only have to look at the weaving & ducking that has gone on over Micheal Mann's hockey stick & it is obvious the Global warning crew don't want to know the truth. Far too many careers are now based on this house of cards for the promoters to willingly under go a scrutiny.
Has anyone else noticed that the peer review process never finds the faults in the papers or the process & that is left to the skeptics like Anthony Watts or Steve M.
Brett, the leaves are just opening on the trees in Calgary, I don't recall a spring this cool & late in the 28 years I've lived here. At least we've lucked into a spell of nice weather for the long weekend & temps are well into the 20's but cooling off nicely at night.

Joe makes a lot of good points. The science has to be cut away from the politics and dealt with. What are the odds of that happening????? I'm still waiting for someone to seriously deal with Zbigniew Jaworowski's work instead of just calling him names.
Jim

Sadly, I believe the three aspirants have already made up there minds and are not even aware that the planet has been cooling for the past 10 years. Joe represents a common sense approach but the global warming mania has now evolved into a religion and it would be blasphemous if they were to listen to the agnostics and deniers.

Joe is to be commended for his stance as one who is best qualified to speak on the subject.The question arises though, who gets to decide who the ten scientists are?
BTW, I hope you let JB know you were going to post it this time Brett!

Reply: Actually, he sent it to us to post.

Everything's fine, what a crock, poor Joe can't look reality in the face (like most americans). No president can save us from what's coming. What do you mean "a sign of what's coming"- did Joe not see the reports stating the last few months have continued to be some of the warmest on record.
What about the historic flooding, record tornadoes, the extreme heat this week in places where they were getting record cold just a couple weeks ago. I have to assume he does not really pay attention to what's going on instead he is busy watching his favorite cow steriod pro team.
Good job Bastardi with brainwashing a few more uneducated americans that everything is going to be fine!

Hey Rob. Just try one of the 31,072 skeptics on this petition.
http://www.petitionproject.org/index.html

As far as being on the corporate payroll, why are they to be discounted more than the scientists who have sold out to the communist masters?
A scientist who submits a grant proposal stating that there is nothing to worry about and nothing that needs further study is generally called "unemployed" the sucessful ones are called "waiter" or "commentator"

Science is not decided on rhetoric. The scientific truths do not come from a group of scientists arguing with each other. It comes about slowly in the quiet moments in one's office, pouring over data, working out equations, debugging computer code until you can succinctly codify your work in a paper. After which your fellow scientists, in their quiet offices, attempt to rip your ideas to pieces.

It's a system which is reasonably robust and doesn't always come to the definitive answer which Joe wants. And sometimes it provides answers which people don't like. While you can argue whether the temperature is increasing, you can't really argue that C02 has upset the energy balance of the planet. The equations are really not that complicated. The response of the planet however is complicated and is what is really being debated in the scientific community.

Brilliant! A similiar letter should be sent to your colleagues in the main stream media.
Now watch the global warming believers try and discredit you by suggesting you are been paid by "big oil" etc. You know, the usual line of attack.
Also watch for these same AGW believers to demand that skeptical scientists stick to "true scientific methods" ( like peer review etc.) while at the same time, accepting without question, a supposed "scientific" conclusion, based entirely on "consensus".

So, what is your opinion of Joe's letter?

I think Bastardi is an embarrassment to Accuweather.

Perhaps it's time for Accuweather to demonstrate the same integrity that Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory displayed in their handling of similarly embarrassing outbursts of Dr. James Watson.

If, that is, Accuweather has the same integrity as Cold Spring.

REPLY: I KNEW IT!!!! I KNEW IT!!!!...BT, why don't you just come out and call him a philistine? Why don't you just come out and say that accuwx should send Joe to the dungeon? But it's OK for Heidi Cullen of the WX Channel to spew here opines, right? Cause she's on the bandwagon. Gee, BT, I thought you were an open minded person, open to other's ideas and opinions, right? (hence the real definition of liberal)hahaahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Joe expresses his obviously biased one-sided opinions in 5 of the 6 paragraphs, then in one paragraph he asks for the presidential candidates to have a spirited debate among the top 5 scientists on both sides. If his letter is intended to present a challenge to the candidates to put together this "independent" forum in order to develop a more informed understanding of the debate, then I think a more neutral letter without his personal opinions would have been more appropriate here.

The key question is, who determines who the top 5 scientists are going to be and what criteria will be used to establish the scientists level of credibility? Is it based on the number of peer reviewed studies that they published? Will it be based on how many times the person appears in the mainstream media? Should there be a consideration on who pays for their research?

I hope Mr. Bastardi is not planning to be part of the proposed committee that will be responsibile for choosing the top 5 candidates on either side. Although he is an excellent weather forecaster, I don't think you can classify him as a credible climate researcher, especially with his biased views. I think a more neutral panel of scientists would necessary for any sense of credibility to come out this debate.

I think presenting those are the types of issues that Mr. Bastardi should have presented in his letter and not just simply expressing his biased opinions. The candidates reading that letter would already be biased by what he has expressed. Maybe those were his intentions anyway.

So much for neutrality.

The problem with Bastardi's letter, and with the entire right in general, as evidenced on this blog, is that they insist on equal time and equal representation for what is an inherently unequal idea. To even suggest that there somehow be equal representation of a denialist viewpoint that strives to spin and otherwise ignore the harsh fact of global climate change is conceited and irrational.

Why is it that the right always believes in the "marketplace," including the "marketplace of ideas," until something happens in that marketplace that challenges their world view. At that point, they immediately devote themselves to the creation of an entire alternative reality that exists only in right wing media and cultural outlets where adherants can be safe from having their viewpoint opposed.

Logic is a funny thing, isn't it? It's logical to assume that since the AGW proponents believe science is on their side, they would welcome debate. But what we get instead are comments like it will be difficult to find five SCIENTISTS on the "skeptic" side of the issue (at least who are not in the pay of Corporate America) and Do you think there are five denialist scientists with anything approaching the qualifications of the top five on the consensus side?

The logical conclusion is the AGW proponents don't want an open debate. That's funny, because an open debate could actually persuade many skeptics.

"Helping to drag America, kicking & screaming, into the Age of Enlightenment"

I believe one shortcoming in Joe's paper has been revealed: his omission of a debasement in the gene pool.

The insanity that is AGW will be replicated again even as several decades of global cooling euthanizes this emergence of a fascist coersion motivated by a perverse moral rectitude.

We are fighting the unfortunate result of medical science and economic wealth. May the coming Dark Age redeem us.

Thank you for bringing fresh spring air into the debate on global warming.
Sincerely,
T. J. Huerena

Exactly Joe!

"What about the historic flooding, record tornadoes, the extreme heat this week in places where they were getting record cold just a couple weeks ago." Bushlovera

Weather has absolutely nothing to do with Climate, remember.... yeah right! It does when it benefits the cause of the AGW fanatics.

The fact remains that the SO HEM SEA ICE content contnues to grow at record levels, the SO HEM TEMPS are spiraling downward etc.

Big Business Carbon Credit Offsets is a scam beyond ridiculous proportions that will ultimately bring the burden of funding back to the middle class taxpayers.

This whole AGW deal is beyond that of Salem Witch Hunt days.

A following is a list of reputable peer reviewed climate scientist that are not on "the take, are deniers of this AGW scare and can partake in Joe's "Clash of the Titans" in the Oval Office on Feb 1, 1999:

Richard Lindzen, Ph.D, Robert Balling, Ph.D., Vincent Gray, Ph.D., William M. Gray, Ph.D., Fred Michel, Ph.D., David Legates, Ph.D., James J. O�Brien, Ph.D., Paul Reiter, Ph.D., Fred Singer, Ph.D., Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D...... and the countless of hundreds of other renown peer reviewed scientists grows each month that can partake in this clash.

Solving the climate change question by having a debate club in the Oval Office?
Open ANWR for oil drilling when it has been shown that the amount of available oil would barely put a dent in oil imports, and the long lead time it would take to locate, extract, transport, refine and distribute the oil production will be decades at best?
Claiming that last winter's cold MAY be a preview of what's to come?

By including his own conclusions and personal opinions in this 'open letter', JB short-circuits any impact it may have. It doesn't foster the neutrality he attempts to seek in such a 'meeting of the minds' but rather pushes his own anti-AGW agenda.

A letter came out today signed by over 31000 US scientists who doubt gloabl warming, 9000 who are Phds. are you going to use as an excuse tyhey are all being bought off. I work in a university lab, if researchers write a proposal that is out of step, they get no funding , so who is really being paid off. What is a more resonable explaination some CO2 , of perhaps fluctuations in in the sun, I do believe its the main source of heeating for the earth, and it does not run of a thermostat

they insist on equal time and equal representation

Hi GSN,

What an awful concept. I favor book-burning and decertification.

GSN,

"The right"? What are you talking about? Is anyone who is skeptical of the role of CO2 in warming and the extent of the climate's sensitivity to CO2 levels automatically right wing (not that that's a bad thing one way or the other)??

I have read alot of comments. I didnt realize by me suggesting we actually have opposing viewpoints of each side ( if the one side is not qualified as is suggested in some letters, they will quickly be dismantled) it would cause such anger. Why so tense. Things like this have been commonplace even back the time of Katherine the
Great.

There is nothing wrong with debate in a free society. This nation has always had the freedome to debate and compete among each other. My message to people who think there is no debate here, and that science, not politics, should take control, is that this nation was built on competition and correction. What is one to be afraid of they are founded in fact and freedom.

I will tell you what. The kind of things that one person suggested, that I be canned because I spoke my mind. Of course that was not the America I was born and raised in...so far.

ciao for now

So our Climate Cooling Contrarians [AGW Alarmists] Don't think there are Five worthy representatives for the Skeptical side Huh? OK, I nominate the following: 1) Dr. Roy Spencer[Meteorologist & Cloud Feedback Researcher]; 2} Dr. Rodger Pielke [Land use Albedo Feedback Researcher]: 3} Lord Montock [Lead Author -IPCC- Climate Sensitivity to CO2] 4} Steve MacIntyre [Statistitian and Modeling Analyst] 5} Anthony Watts [ Temperature Data Reseacher ]. If anyone has a suggestion for better candidates, let's hear it . Let's see how many names we can come up with to argue against the AGW garbage.

Excellent idea here Joe (btw, which oil company does Joe work for, I forget?). Only problem is that the alarmists will refuse to debate because their entire position rests on theoretical computer models which are notoriously wrong in their predictions. Their purpose is not to save the planet but to control it's wealth through mandated redistribution. We could have 20 additional years of cooling and they will still cling to their pitiful little computer printouts while real data is ignored, because their true goals will not change regardless of the facts, real facts, not computer generated ones. Besides, with all the adjusting they miraculously find the need to do, they can make those darn figures jump through hoops if they need to.

I admire Joe's passion, but I'm afraid it's too late.
The pro-AGW crowd has won. All we as individuals can do is to adapt to the higher taxes and more stringent restrictions we'll soon begin to see. There is no presidential candidate (none of the three, anyway) that has the courage to stand up to this nonsense. The terrorists out there are lapping this up, because they're seeing a U.S. government more worried about the weather than defending against the real enemy.

No problem finding qualified scientists for both sides of the debate. Here are my suggestions:

Roy Spencer
Richard Lindzen
Paul Reiter
Nils Axel Moerner
Roger Pielke Sr

Gavin Schmidt
James Hansen
Michael Mann
Ray Pierrehumbert
kerry emanuel

I have heavily weighted the AGW defenders with climate modelers since that seems to be where AGW is now hanging its hat.

Brookline Tom:
Your comments and criticism Of Joe Bastardi, and the integrety of ACCUWEATHER is a farce. I have not only seen Brett enter comments that had him the recipient of someones footprint, but find the facts Steve Bloom to be very closed minded. I didn't read Joe Bastardi's comments about woman scientists,but Steve you just made that up. I think ACCUWEATHER should be applauded for the objectivity that they display. The debate will not end by one Scientists remarks, but thank you Joe for sharing your's. Some people are just negative,so what else is new.
KIPP
P.S. Haven't Katie's video's always been objective?

Paragraph 4 is the wrong approach. The politicians are driven by what the public thinks, so it's the public that has to be shown all the evidence and make a decision. The model here should be a trial, not a debate, not a back-room deal. Each side can bring in all the experts it wants and cross-examine the other side's experts.

It seems to me that a few of the posts are rather bitter for some unexplainable reason. The year Katrina slammed southern La, people were fingering global warming and shouting the sky is falling. But if memory serves the next year fell far short in such lackluster that it barely received a side note. From my studies the Earth has been much warmer, much colder with periods of almost perfectly blissful temperatures all without so much as a hiccup from human involvement. There is still a large debate about global warming. Does that mean we stop all endeavors in alternative fuels... No, in fact we should continue our pursuit of renewable energy sources. But to lash out because someone wants an open debate forum where real progress can be made, shows just how far we have NOT come in our enlightened age. Joe Bastardi thank you for your opinion and I am thankful we are in a country were we can express our opinions freely and openly. Keep up the good work.

Kevin

Thanks Joe for speaking your mind. Apparently there are alot in the AGW camp that are greatly offended by intelligence and questioning. You are very correct as that is not what this country was found on. I guess a few of these people would actually feel better being ruled by a Dictator as then they wouldn't every have to worry about debating a thing then, it would already be settled as they like to say. Strange indeed.

Do you think there are five denialist scientists with anything approaching the qualifications of the top five on the consensus side? (Reply: Not sure, but there certainly could be.)

I, armed only with a decent knowledge of physics, will take on 500 AGW scientists and the IPCC if they wish to participate. In fact, I would be referencing a great deal of their own material.

This would be a perfect opportunity to show what consensus and credentials are worth. Nothing when it comes to science, and everything when it comes to fantasy.

However, there will be no such debate, if the AGW mystics had any confidence in their work they would have proposed the debate themselves or would have accepted any of the number of proposals by Non-believers in the past.

In addition, both Republicans and Democrats profit from AGW, why would they risk losing that money.

Perhaps AccuWeather would host a debate between the top 5 AGW believers and Non-believers that post here. (Reply: Actually, we have discussed that possibility Steve.) Or heck, I would gladly debate any AGW believer(s) especially the top 5 Consensus scientists, no matter their credentials as long as it is recorded and in a public forum.

Over the NET makes it easy to wiggle out of debate and would take too long. No bad language, no personal attacks, just a plain debate.

Be a great opportunity to shut me up :)

Maybe a mock trial where CO2 is accused of the High Crime of contributing greatly to Global Warming. AGW believers could be the prosecution and the Non-Believers could be CO2's Lawyers.

Scotty W, here's the link to that story. http://www.uncommondescent.com/education/beneficial-natural-warming-31000-scientists/

Regards,

Steve

If man-made global warming is happening (I always try to remember that the warming during the last ice age had nothing to do with cars and power plants!), then it is a foregone conclusion. There is no way that the developing world will go back to the stone age in order to prevent CO2 emissions from increasing. It won't matter what a few hundred million people in North America do over the next 50 years if another billion people or so get cars, AC etc.

Instead, North America needs to develop a defensive mentality to position our housing, agriculture, industry, and infrastructure so that impacts (e.g. ocean-side flooding and inland droughts) are minimized. This alone will take enormous political courage. It will mean that that building McMansions along hurricane-prone beaches will be funded only by the homeowner and not back-stopped by the state and fedreal governments. It will also mean that farming water-hungry corn in semi-desert areas will be seen as ludicrous.

Our dependence on oil from unstable countries in the Middle East and other areas means that redcuing the demand for oil is more of a national security issue than a global warming issue. If we don't want more wars like Iraq, then we need to stop driving large SUVs and take other similar measures. With large reserves of coal, it would make more sense to develop coal for synthetic liquid fuels than ethanol with its large demand for energy and water.

Since many of the measures make sense under normal circumstances (past history with drought in 1930s, hurricanes along Eastern Seaboard, Florida, and Gulf Coast, etc.), the already obvious benefits of these measures are amplified when the global warming part of the equation is thrown in. Protecting ourselves may ultimately help the world more than the bleating coming from all the politicians.

Sorry, Joe, but you lost me a few months ago with your statement to the effect that signs of an unusually strong La Nina proved that global warming was a hoax. You seem to have fallen into the trap of confusing short-term fluctuations with long-term trends, and I expected better than that from a professional meteorologist.

personal opinions

Scientists should never have an opinion. They are the keepers of absolute truth and there is no wiggle room there!

I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions
Richard Feynman

jep- I didn't say there weren't 5 denialist scientists- I said there weren't 5 who had a significant number of peer reviewed papers published in respected scientific journals.

The dichotomy of the two sides here is truly remarkable.

On one hand you have a group who feel that Bastardi, ACCUWEATHER, and any scientist who might disagree with them are idiots and should be disregarded.

On the other, you have people who think this is a good idea and certainly one worthy of further discussion. They even further the idea by providing suggestions.

So, this is why the debate is settled?

The logic presented in both of these lines of reasoning is telling.

So, allow me to paraphrase: a person or group is only allowed to gain wealth if they buy into the AGW line of reasoning.

Frankly put, I would love to go back to the good ole "cold" days of yesteryear, when I could walk around the yard in the Middle of May without wearing a sweatshirt and jacket just to keep warm.
Good thing we have AGW now or I'd be shoveling instead of cutting grass.

Funny though, even though it is 20 degrees below normal, the local weather guys talk about it being just a bit chilly. Yet if the temp is 5 degrees above normal, you'd think it was earth shattering change brought on by the start of the prophecy of the Goreacle.

There is a double standard out there. Betcha out west, they are talking about how AGW created the heat and I'm certain the Goreacle is running "give me money ADS".

Kipp:

Seriously, you are the best contributor because I don't think any of us have any idea where your coming from. Ever. Keep it up.

I've always enjoyed Joe Bastardi's long range weather forecasts. He is a character for sure.

I agree with many here, a more neutral position, would potentially have more leverage with the three candidates, all of whom, in some form or another support AGW. All of them endorse carbon offsets. Being anti-AGW will get Joe labelled as a crackpot and his letter thrown in the dead letter file, so to speak.

Somehow, the science and politics should be kept separate. Not possible in the 21st century, I know.

Just my opinion, but alarmism is the same whether you support global warming or global cooling. Doom and gloom is the same whether it's death by heat, rising seas and droughts or death by freezing cold, failing crops and wars for food/energy. Climate alarmism comes from both sides of the debate.

Brett, you've censored posts here in the past that have used name calling and insulting comments. I wonder why Gary Gulrud gets a free pass with his insinuations about those who accept the theory of AGW? Are AGW proponents somehow genetically inferior or incapable of deep intelligent thought? I guess I am trying to figure out what the rules are. If we conceal our insults in cheap sophistry, then insults are OK? Please clarify. Thanks.

Reply: If the name calling is directly at a particular person, whether on commentator on this site or a public figure we will take it out. Some things directed at AGW's, skeptics or deniers in general (non-specific) have been allowed through. Obviously, there are also times when I miss stuff that should have been deleted.

Regards,
Gary

i like joes idea about the debate the next president should listen to but he also should be aware of what the public wants and thinks before the debate occurs

in cal two years ago the governator put four propositions to the public about various issues
although they all went down to defeat the idea of letting the voters decide on key and pertinent issues was a good one. for this reason
when we elect the next pres we should also be voting on the following energy related issues

1 should anwar be opened up for more oil
2 should the gulf of mexico and cal coast
be opened up for more oil
3 are you in favor of moe nuclear power plants
being constructed
4 should we streamline the process for the oil
cos to build more refineries

most of these issues are left up to our representatives who have their own agendas its time for these issues to be put on a national ballot for everyone to chime in on

Patrick Henry:

As usual, you miss the point. A minority viewpoint regarding an objectively determined scientific conclusion has not earned equal representation. It deserves proportional representation, at best. Bastardi's letter would have been a fair proposition if he had suggested just that.

It's easy to see why your open letter brings such anger to the pro-AGW side Joe, one by one the house of cards is crumbling which in turn makes them scream louder and bring the timelines nearer to impart even more of a sense of urgency to this non-problem. Even Prince Charles has said we only now have 18 months to avoid a tipping point. The brain just seems to shut down amongst most believers when their dogma is shown to be false.
"Let's get out the pitchforks and burn Joe at the stake. Yeah, that'll teach him! And anyone else who dares to question the "truth".""

Kipp,

I am usually very critical of your words, but I must applaud your post here. I think it is good that you can look past "team" mentality when you think someone is out of bounds.

Adamant: No problem as long as they have all published at least 6 peer reviewed papers in major science journals (if I remember correctly, no denying scientists meet this standard).

It seems you remember incorrectly. Roy Spencer has been lead author in dozens of peer reviewed papers. MIT professor of meteorology Richard Lindzen has written over one hundred peer reviewed papers.

"get the top five SCIENTISTS on both sides of the issue in front of you in the oval office and let them argue it out."

Forget about top five -- are there even five credible scientists who deny AGW? The only "scientists" I see quoted by Deniers are Homer Simpson, South Park characters, Star Trek characters and Michael Crichton.

Perhaps we should remind Joe that we went through this in the 2000 election. Bush's position was that we need to "study" the issue further before we act on it. Well, guess what? Bush appointed a panel to study climate change and they arrived at the same conclusions as the IPCC. Doh! Don't you hate it when the science isn't on your side? Apparently Joe wants to "study" the issue until oil hits $200 per barrel.

And, if Joe doesn't like buying foreign oil, then perhaps he should encourage others to trade in their SUV. It's amazing to me how those who shout the loudest about freedom against tyranny and terrorism are the same people who drive big pickup trucks. As Thomas Friedman once said: The price of oil is inversely related to the spread of democracy throughout the world. In other words, as the price of oil goes up, democracy starts crumbling across the world. And vice versa.

Actions speak louder than words.

The letter will never see the light of day in the primary media outlets. This is the power of the media, selective publishing. It seems that the age old method of holding on to power, withholding information, is alive and well.

I agree with other comments on this blog. We are screwed, especially with the polar bear announcement. The only thing we can do is to keep on doing what we can to stop this ecological nonsense.

bb

Al gore is a very intelligent man but he is pushing the extreme with this. Not much different than your local weathermen who blow 2" of snow completely out of the water by making it sound like it is going to be 12". I think in part it is because that is the only way people will pay attention and we do need to pay attention. I don't believe that global warming is going to end the human race. I believe this planet has an unbelievable way of balancing itself out. I do however believe we are ruining this planet through pollution and dirtying a much more important natural resource than oil.... water. I am not a scientist but I do know that most if not all living things on this planet need clean water for survival and we are effectively taking that away. There is no doubt we need to start taking care of this planet better and if it means scaring the you know what out of people to think the world is going to end to do it then by all means scare the you know what out of them Mr. Gore. I have been reading Joe's page on accuweather for 4 or more years now and he has never come acrosses as dumb or ignorant so some of you who are posting on here need to open you minds a little bit and not judge people for there thoughts and opinions. We all have them and rarely do we all agree, this doesn't mean a great great forecaster should lose his job over his opinion. Wake up people.

Jason

In my opinion while these heavy weights duke it out the Arctic Ice melts away. 2008 is fast approaching 2007 record melt.

See link:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png

As more ice melts you can say goodbye to more polar bears.
See link:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g_jWwGoKVd8C5dxsswWHt8LN6z8wD90LMEI00

If you would listen to me and build the "TUNNELS" none of this would happen.

Great post Brett, Great letter Joe, almost wished I would have taken off work to join in the fun here today. Its amazing that the alarmist do not want a debate, if they have the facts and know whats happening what are they afraid of, talk the talk well then walk the walk.
GSN: equal time and equal representation on an unequal idea. Thats right global warming is someones made up idea and what is wrong with equal time and an equal debate, but make the rules for the debate 1 hour warming nuts to 1/2 hour "skeptics" Dennis Hlinka: Joes biased and you wouldn't want him on a commiteeto pick the scientist, Having a personal opinion does not mean your biased everyone is allowed to express there opinion, you just did in your blog, the rule for the 5 candidiates, each side picks their own 5 best. Bushlovera: Brainwashing, well turn on the t.v thats all you see. Heck if having the news only show one sided stories and now the weather channel and national geographic do it, that is brainwashing. Kipp: some people are just negative, you mean the ones that are worrying and yelling stop driving stop having fun the earth is warming. It is so funny that all the alarmist are saying No! No! debate, just listen to what we say and we will save you. LADIES and GENTLEMAN.....this bout scheduled for one fall, in one corner standing well crouching with their eyes covered at 3' and weighing a combined 500lbs the greenies and in the other corner proudly standing 6' and a combined 1000lbs the Hot Headed Truthmen.....ding..ding...ding.. What has caused past ice ages..come back greenies..come back..Ladies and gentleman due to forfeit the championship belt will remain with the Truthmen.

float like a butterfly, sting like joe B....lmao...your a trip "SMOKIN JOE B"...and not just the polar bears, we need to quit dancing around the ring with the save the whales, sage grouse, spotted owls with the spotted poop, ect and get on with giving big oil and king coal tax incentives to develop energy independence for the united states of america (god bless it)...nice counterpunch joe....have a nice day, bro!!

GO JOE! YOU TELL THE CANDIDATES HOW IT REALLY IS!!! It's about time somebody stood up to those stinkin environmentalists who are all BREAKING us literally & eating our lunches!!

I'm an environmentalist in a sense - I eat organic foods & put organic lawn care on my yard & I use organice soaps & shampoos ---- BUT NOT BECAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING!!! Just to be healthier! Global Warming is a bunch of B.S.! In fact, their proving we are entering a period of Global cooling -- weather always works in cycles!

There is enough oil in Alaska to sustain the US for 200 years!!! Check out the information on Reverand Lindsey Williams who spent time for years in that region AND find out what is REALLY going on!

I'll believe in Global Warming as serious issue when the trend of human population growth reverses because of it. If Global Warming is making our planet inhospitable, it sure hasn't shown any stress on our ability to reproduce and live longer.

Deja vu - Jimmy Carter 1978

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h-wpxs1Re-8vx2Zk5xnYygW1W67w

I didn't realize that I needed the permission of any other country to set my thermostat. Maybe I should plead my case to the EU or the UN?

REPLY: An Obama Presidency will be 30 times worse than that of Jimmy Carter. If you think it's bad now and was bad then, just wait until the Obama (socialist) policies are implemented. You will see gas lines that will dwarf the 70s. As for being told (via more mandates) not to keep our homes at 72 degrees, just let them try it with this American, Bucco! Cauz I am good and stroked right now (for more than one reason).

As for this:

Why so tense? There is nothing wrong with debate in a free society. This nation has always had the freedom to debate and compete among each other. What is one to be afraid of if they are founded in fact and freedom. I will tell you what. The kind of things that one person suggested, that I be canned because I spoke my mind. Of course that was not the America I was born and raised in...so far.

REPLY: Joe, You must remember that there are people out there who FEAR freedom of speech when it doesn't suit their (political) agenda. Translation: They are all for freedom of speech when everyone agrees with them. If not, those of us who disagree are laughable uneducated nerdiwells who these elitests look down upon with contempt, anger, and sometimes worse. Who's voice should not ever be heard. That is exactly how it was in the old USSR, and we all know what a success story that was. They fear you and us, Joe. Because we don't march to their latte lapping leftist tripe. Because we question. Because we are skeptical of their motives. Laugh back at them. This is America (at least for now -- Can't wait to see what it's like after next November). Continue to question this fraud. My fear is that our next White House occupant will, like these other utopians, ignore the rest of us. We are losing this country, and it's very scary and upsetting.

DENY DENY DENY THE GLO-BULL WARMING LIE!!!!!

I wish Joe would subject his writing to some careful editing, but that doesn't seem to be his style. He writes almost as if he was talking off the cuff. I worry that nit-pickers will use his style against him, but I myself find it refreshing and enjoyable. I know I am in contact with a mind that is honest, and a heart which is earnest and without guile.

I wish I felt the same way about Hansen, Mann, Schmidt and Realclimate, but I have to be blunt, and state I feel they have been brimming with guile, right from the beginning. They have poisoned the entire discussion with politics, and in my humble opinion have been guilty of feeling "the ends justify the means," and have "adjusted" computer codes and data in a cynical manner.

Our political leaders have to depend on various sources of information, because they can't be everywhere all the time. We have seen what can happen if the source of information is inept or incorrect, in Iraq. (Saddam may well have done too good a job scaring Iran, by making them fear he had weapons he didn't have, for in the end it faked out the entire world and got his dictatorship invaded, his sons killed, and his self hung.)

In that case the source of information was the CIA, but in terms of Global Warming the source of information is basically Hansen, Mann, Schmidt, Realclimate, and I suppose the IPCC, with some Soros funding sprinkled about to lubricate the process. This team may have done too good a job of scaring the world, just as Saddam did too good a job of scaring the world, because a lot of people who didn't care a hoot about "Climate-science" now have started caring. And when serious people get serious, the consequences are serious, as Saddam found out.

What Joe is doing is urging the politicians to depend on a wider range of "sources of information." He is not the only one trying to get their attention, as is shown by the petition with the names of more than 30,000 scientists.

Please note that Joe is not stating those who feel they see solid evidence of warming should be silenced. He instead is urging politicians to wake up to the fact the science isn't "settled," and to listen to the entire range of opinions before leaping to conclusions.

What do you think of Bastardi's letter? ---> It's so sad. He talks about freedom of speech but he's trying to impose his own ideas. But hey, same story again... After all, AGW "proposers" are all evil marxists and want to play God. That's how you want to keep politics away from the debate?

VEETS:
Thanks for the compliment. I respect your blogs as well, even though I believe in AGW.I think it is the quality of your character and not what you believe is most important. I am not a team player, unless it involves my family or country, and have no allegiance to other believers. I hate green-stuff for a better word and abhor those TV docu-drama's of Ice crashing off some glacier. How stupid can some people get. I bet they superimpose the background and always use the same Glacier to save money. At least they would save GAS!
Peace, KIPP

Dear Mother, it is a little after 8 p.m and the fight continues. The opposition does not bring much too the fight. They came with guns but no bullets, no strategy, no thought. We took in several pow's today. One Mark thinks that General Joe B should encourage others to trade in SUVs because he does not like buying foreign oil, General Joe says we need to use our own and quit depending on foreign oil, so Mark came with no thought, also captured a good guy in Jason but he said Al Gore is an intelligent man, so he came with no strategy, another man was Patrick Cyclonebusters who yells all the ice is going to melt while the battle rages and the Polar Bears drown, he brought a big gun to the fight but no bullets, GSN just charged in yelling and didn't know why he was here. Other than that another boring day on the front. The weather has been crappy and wet and miserable as it has been all spring, but I know when the first hot day of summer comes, the opposition will yell their battle cry, see I told you so, see its hot, global warming..global warming you evil denier. But thats the way they are and see ya soon and stay warm in this cold world.
Sincerely, Josh

Darren:
Thanks for the compliment I think? I am a Photograper, and my dad was a great jazz musician, so i didn't grow up in a typical family enviroment. Are you being sarcastic with me or what. Could you explain your remark. Thanks.
KIPP

1. I like the 100 day "face-off' in paragraph 4, but I'd rather see it happen before the election.

2. Once the election happens it may be too late. Especially if Obama wins, Gore is his environmental guru and there are 60 or more democratic senators.

3. If that scenario does happen and there is a massive groundswell of citizen protest, oil prices continue to spike and temperatures continue to drop, we might see the real measure of who Obama really is. Will he be able to morph the Gore carbon cap and trade scheme/taxes into something that saves face but doesn't hurt the worlds poor and our economy or will he be drooling over the potential increased Gov't revenues that can fund socialist agendas? Obama w/Gore would be a potential massive catastrophe. If Obama had some experience to evaluate, it might not be such a risk, but he has none.

4. If McCain wins, he doesn't seem to be as committed, so could be able to bail on has cap and trade position easier.

5. Hillary comes across as the most intelligent and shrewd and therefore most likely to find a way to dance out of her position. If she pulls off a miracle I just hope she doesn't bring Gore in.

Note: I actually believe that carbon taxes could make sense but only if you eliminated the income and corporate tax completely for energy intensive type businesses. Knowledge based businesses with low energy use might still have an income tax.

Caleb,

Well stated and right on. I love the Iraq info analogy.

Pete

Joe,

I want to thank you for having the courgage to give a real scientific evaluation of the bogus Global warming issue. I remember when you made the long range forecast a few months ago that this spring was going to be a cold one and you were right on the money. Making a call like that gives you credibility these global warmers do not have.

With an Ophra type scientific approach where feelings are all that matters, these GW people are dangerous to our way of life and standard of living. They are the new brown shirts of our age which is why they do not want any debate.

If they get their agenda passed, we will see a new depression within a couple of years. They want to control people as suggested earlier and make them serfs. That is what their agenda is really all about. Only the selected elistists get the resources.

Joe Bastardi is right! He may not say things the way you want, but, he is on the mark. There has NEVER been a public debate over AGW, and from the comments on this blog I see from the alarmists, they can't handle the concept.

When addressing the idea of skeptical scientists, ad hominems and insinuations of improper funding from energy companies are simple minded, and characterize the alarmists arguments. They don't have science on their side.

Someone has even referenced the 2000 Presidential elections and the price of oil, as if this had any relevance to anything at issue.

The world has been getting warmer (for a while), but, there is NO falsified scientific hypothesis showing that the warming trend is NOT within natural climatic variations.

Joe Bastardi is a man of considerable accomplishment in his field. He has the right idea, and deserves respect for his efforts to get consideration from those who would lead our country, and are currently clueless about the real world relating to climate issues.

bb

Global Warming? I live in the mountains of VA. Grandam would tell me that when she was young they would cut ice out of the river, and cover it with sawdust, then sell it to keep things cool well into summer. However, her mother would tell me about when she was young, how you couldnt do that, it was too hot.. I honestly believe its just a cycle. If you look at the CO2 levels, the "underlying" cause of GW, 98% of it it caused by natural causes. Acid rain, trees, photosynthesis. It may be a little less than 98%, but the point is, humans arent the main cause. Besides, the number 1 greenhouse gas IS water vapor. Not CO2, give me some real, hardcore FACTS, that global warming is really caused by us, and I'll listen.

Great letter Joe! I am also very angry that they actually had the ignorance to add the polar bear to the endangered species list. With populations increasing, it sure does seem counterintuitive. I tend to feel that those making these laws aren't very intellectual to start with anyway. I personally believe that we just recently reached the top of the slope in a warming trend and will slowly begin back down soon enough. The Earth is very cyclical and the warming and cooling is a cycle. I may or may not be right, but at least I am not sacrificing the nation's economy with my idea. We need to drill for more oil starting yesterday, build more refineries starting yesterday and many more Nuclear plants starting yesterday. That is what will solve our current crisis. Eliminate some of the senseless regulations passed by senseless lawmakers and do what is right for the economy of this country. We can do everything we want in the USA to try and combat the fictitious global warming beast, but even if it were true, there are other countries that are polluting many more times than that of the USA and that will not stop, no matter what you do. The only thing that making laws to prevent global warming and stop polar bears from extinction will do is make our economy extinct. I want my children to live in a thriving United States when they grow up, not living in a tree wearing hemp clothing and eating bark.

Really great letter.
Amusing to see the GW Cultists try and dismiss the critics by denying they exist or claiming they are illegitimate.
They won't argue the facts because they can't.
Science always needs skeptics, science doesn't need cultists but appears to have more than a few.
Paycheck before principles..exactly what they claim deniers are doing.

Exactly. Thanks Joe. It is exactly the radical global warming theory and solutions that leads to comments like Obama's today that we can't drive SUVs or keep our homes temperature set at 72 degrees.

Even if global warming was happening, doesn't the Earth's system adapt and change all the time. Isn't that the precious evolution that most liberals trust their worldview on. Won't the earth and the species evolve to adapt?

The fanaticism is much more scary than the global warming. See this article:
"Global warming: the chilling effect on free speech"
www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1782/

Hi GSN

I get the point. Anyone who disagrees with the orthodoxy needs to be silenced.

"There is nothing new under the sun."
Ecclesiastes 1:9

GSN,

"A minority viewpoint regarding an objectively determined scientific conclusion .. "

The problem with your argument is that there is no 'objectively determined scientific conclusion', even the IPCC does not make that statement. They indicate that it is their opinion that it is 'likely' or highly likely (and they misuse the statistical meaning of that phrase), not that it is a certitude.

As long as it is 'likely' and not certain, there is room for debate and there should be debate. The issue is too important to get wrong.

So, what is your opinion of Joe's letter?

Naive. Asinine. Flawed. Goofy, like most weathermen.

Enough of you Propagandist AGW people. You can't find 5 legitimate scientists who question the legitimacy of this greatest hoax in the history of mankind? Where are your heads stuck? You must truly fear the obvious ultimate conclusion to this folly. There are thousands of reports backed by sincere scientists that question the "rush" to judgement by the leftist involved in this fraud. I don't need your approval, you need mine. Eric

Patrick,
Perhaps you will be less inclined to panic if you access the site below. It reveals a good overview of sea ice extent and anomaly over several years.

arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

It would be very useful to get the politics out of this issue and the science back into it. I hold little hope it will happen though. For one thing most of the population live for the 5 second sound bite and will never understand a complex situation. Regardless, Joe please keep up the great work of trying to get the right thing to happen!

More evidence that Obama's science adviser is incompetent.

new (NCAR) research suggests that the number of hurricanes each summer could decrease by about 18 percent.

Major hurricanes - those with winds in excess of 110 miles (177 kilometers) an hour - could decline by about 8 percent.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/05/080519-hurricanes.html

Hansen wrote this in 1987. Anyone else see a problem?

The warm period in recent years differs qualitatively from the earlier warm period centered about 1940; the earlier warming was focused at high northern latitudes, while the recent warming is more global.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1987/JD092iD11p13345.shtml

accuweather aught to have an official statement on CC and the impact it expects on future weather. All based on the current science of course.

Reply: There is a statement.....

http://www.accuweather.com/global-warming/global-warming-position.asp?partner=accuweather&traveler=0

you don't need any scientists to see that the world is warming (rapidly) - this warming is going to be detrimental to our civilization - we can do something about it if we try.

I've never posted before but after reading Joe's comments I have to show my 100% support for him. GO JOE!!!!! Finally some reason!

Right on, Joe. You hit the nail on the head. Get the politics out of this, and let credible scientists from both sides of the argument speak up. I, as many, just wish this would actually happen, but unfortunately it probably never will.

There is no need to create public policy that is founded on something that is unproven.

paulm,

"the world is warming (rapidly)"

Why don't you need scientists to tell you this?

As for warming rapidly I'd have to say .6 C (or less depending on how this year turns out) in 120 years is hardly 'rapid'. There have been several periods in the past in which we have warmed far more rapidly, in the early 18th century worldwide temps rose 2.5 C in less than 30 years for instance (of course they came down again without runaway 'global warming').

Right now the rate of warming over the last 120 years works out to .05 C/decade on avg.

There is actually nothing we can do about it because it is part of a natural cycle IPCC estimates that even if we meet Kyoto targets in full this will result in a total 'cooling' of .00005 C by 2050 (a figure that is not detectable). If we were to cease all CO2 production (which would entail reverting to the stone age without fires) we might see a .15 degree change in worldwide temps over the next 100 years (this is the amount of warming caused by human created CO2 using the Stefan-Boltzman radiative transfer equations (after accounting for grey body albedo and such like).

How many times have you heard that there is not enough oil in ANWR to permit drilling? That seems to be the boilerplate excuse to not drill there, when it's pointed out that we must explore for our own oil and not rely on other countries to supply our lifeblood.

If there is too little for it to be worth it, then just open up the area to all domestic producers and if there is not enough for it to be worth drilling, then nobody will drill for it. The area will be left in it's pristine, frozen, useless state.

If there is enough oil there to make the area worth exploring then the market will decide. See if the oil companies call the bluff of the socialists intent upon our economic demise.

I think Joe's letter is worthy of attention and needs to be heard however unlikely it will be by the likes of these 3 feinds who pretend for popular vote.

Joe is right, Earth has been cooling and all signs point to continued cooling based on what he does he knows the PDO just flipped cool (this is why they just post-poned AGW) the AMO is on it's way to flipping cool and solar activity continues to drop.

These alarmists claim the natural climate forcing aka the SUN was long since over-powered by mans CO2 then how is just 1 LA Nina cause a 0.7F temp drop in 1 year or the PAcific going into it's cycled cool phase to do what's been supposedly 'over-powered'!? then imagine when all 3 'known' major natural climate factors flip cool at the same time???

There are actually more qualified scientists on the skeptic side then on the alarmist side, the powers that be are doing everything in their power to fool the public to believing the opposite to keep their dream of carbon taxing and population reduction alive period.

It's apalling to see some of these comments here still completely uneducated to what is fact vs what is propaganda, people our very future is at stake...don't tell me you actually trust these invested talking heads?

All in my humble opinion and thank you JOE!

It is an interesting debate on these pages whether there should even be a debate on the science. One side feels a debate over the scientific merits of AGW is warranted and would be productive. They virtually beg for a debate.

The other side insists shrilly that the debate is over, and those that disagree with them(not about the science necessarily but even just the need for further debate) should be fired, silenced, ridiculed. It's very interesting in an Orwellian kind of way -- although concerning to those that value free speech.

I started monitoring this blog to see if I could get some clarity on the opposing positions. It's been illuminating.

you don't need any scientists to see that the world is warming

Hi paulm,

You are absolutely correct - all we need are religious types.

Most of the rest of us are confined to visibility of the weather in our own neighborhood. It is definitely warming where I live, as we approach summer.

Make a record of Joe's forecasts. Then decide if you really want to take this man's advice seriously.

Even apart from the weather, I am not sure than he even has a rudimentary knowledge of energy facts. Drilling in Alaska will not make much difference, and it's inconvenient and costly to drill there. Save the polar bears, and drill off of the Florida coast and the Atlantic seaboard. Much more convenient.

It's sad to see someone with Joe Bastardi's courage attacked by people who are simply ignorant of what's going on. We've been in a cooling trend for a decade, and more cooling indicators are piling up practically every day. Especially intriguing is NASA's recent confirmation of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation moving into its cold phase--I seem to recall a PDO cold phase 30 to 40 years ago being a major contributor to the Ice Age scare that preceded the Global Warming scare. What an appalling comment on our current mental state that a scientist practically qualifies for definition as a hero if he has the backbone to point out observable reality.

Consensus?

AGW isn't a popularity contest. We the people do not vote it into being or out of existence.

Debate?

Only hubris allows us to think we can 'debate' AGW into or out of existence.

Far better to stop framing AGW as a popularity contest and get serious about facts and hardnosed about data - I'd rather see the politicians call off the 'debate' and lay down fundamental research goals.

The issue is like a trial with copious circumstantial evidence, often tampered with by the detectives. Mistrial!

A little late on this one. I hate to rush into anything.

Looks like Joe B. has general support, but I just heard and read that the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine either has, or is about to publish a petition with over 19k signatures of scientists uneasy about the theory of AGW. Over 7k of those PhDs. If nothing else, this should keep AGW proponents busy for a while individually trashing each signatory in turn.

Anyone else heard anything about this?

Aaron

Let me get this straight. There is a widely used number, 2500, that is used by proponents of AGW as to having a consensus. That is where the 'consensus' comes from.
We now have a list of over 31,000 that says AGW is not occuring.
Both sides need to be assumed to be made up of certified individuals with credentials to validate their position.
That said, from everything I have ever seen, there are more people 'on record' that fall on the the 'denier' side. Would it be accurate to now say that the AGW proponents are actually the 'deniers'? Just looking at the numbers, I think one must now come to that conclusion.
Do I think that is fair to say? No. Just as its not fair to label people that dont agree with the main point of AGW as deniers/denialists/ect.
An open debate wont solve the question of 'is it real or not' but it will allow the impartial and objective science to take place. The playing field needs to be laid out fairly before anything can be done.
Keep up the good work JB. You do very important work and you have a voice that can be heard.

And so there is a statement. Well done. However, it basically says were sitting on the fence.

You are professional weather and climate gurus.

Our politicians, policy makers and planners need your accurate portrayal of how the climate is changing and what the consequences might be. Hey thats what weather persons are for - its going to hail; theres a tornado coming! Get cover.

With out your support with this this are probably going to get pretty bad. Lets start moving to solutions on what is undoubtedly a big problem

Try to keep the two parts of this issue separate:
1. Is there global warming?
2. What should we do about it?

Part one is science, not politics.
Part two is the place for politics.

I hope part two has some scientific input too,
else there is a risk of "reverting to the stone age without fires" (as Bill said) if the fanatics get what they wish for.

I am not a weather professional, but rather a weather obsessed attorney. I have been a loyal subscriber for several years and began as a big Joe B. fan. I enjoy Joe's forecasts and musical references, but his opinionated content has totally turned me off. Joe's ego has grown out of control to the extent that it is more important for him to advocate his quasi political views, than it is for him to deliver the forecast service I pay for. Enough already !!!

Kipp:

Just keep it rolling, your thoughts are always intriguing. It seems that sometimes you are on the AGW side and sometimes not.

To me, it is sad that we all end up on sides. Fact is, this debate is more about our different political persuasions more than whether or not warming creates adverse conditions for humans or the planet.

My thinking on you is that your concerned for the environment. And your comments reflect that. Simply put, we ALL are, I no doubt that even Joe B., Bush, and OIZNOP are. None of us what a screwed up environment. How does a wrecked environment help any of us?

Look at the context of the statements made by the most vociferous of us on the site, myself included, and you will see this is ideological not scientific. The more interesting part is when you look at the context of the vocal scientists for and against AGW and you see the same ideologies.

"An Obama Presidency will be 30 times worse than that of Jimmy Carter. If you think it's bad now and was bad then, just wait until the Obama (socialist) policies are implemented."

Hahaha...such typical fear-mongering coming from a right-winger. Considering that historians will consider the Bush presidency one of the biggest failures in our country's history, an Obama presidency -- even if it's 30 times worse than Jimmy Carter -- would be regarded as better.

"Joe, You must remember that there are people out there who FEAR freedom of speech when it doesn't suit their (political) agenda."

Yeah, that's right, Joe! They hate freedom! They hate America! A-murrrrh-ica! Hahaha

Joe is supposed to be a scientist, yet he's having a political discussion. Sad.

I liked Joe's letter because it attempts to redirect attention to the science and away from the politics. The only problem is that the candidates are all politicans who want to be president so their focus is on getting votes. They will take the side that is perceived to be the most popular or is supported by their key backers. Once the election is over then it's business as usual with campaign promises quickly forgotten.

The facts surrounding AGW are hard to ignore:

1. No scientific link between warming and CO2.
2. No real warming since 1998 while CO2 continues to rise.
3. "Solutions" to AGW by its promoters are actually harming the environment (biofuels) while doing nothing to reduce CO2 emissions.

Keep trying to bring common sense and reason into the debate Joe, but I'm afraid you can't persuade the AGW crowd with facts as their minds are already made up.

While JB is probably correct about the weak short-term efficacy of co2 warming, it's unconscionable he would support oil drilling in ANWR! Hence, he supports the continuation of hydrocarbon pollution which has only just recently gotten slightly better with higher gasoline and diesel fuel prices.

I'm trying to determine if we are going to have a not so hot, hot, or too hot summer here in north Texas. (as if it matters) Are there lots of sun spots now or none? Have not seen a report on this
forum about it lately.

paulm,

I agree with you. I have never been accused of being a scientist. Last week when it was 75 I felt of the earth in my garden. It was still cool. Yesterday when it was 95 the soil was warmer. Since the soil is connected to the globe, you guessed it, the globe is getting warmer. Absolute proof???

However, most folks around here just call it summer and don't worry about it. We just crank up the AC and drive to Colorado in our big SUVs.

"what me worry?"
Alfred E Neuman

paulm, looking at the AW statement (pasted below) we can see that other than the extremely vague second sentence (which read literally is neutral as to whether the influence is good or bad) it actually says *nothing* about the science. Rather it seems to be a formula for endless debate about the politics of climate change. Looking at the information that's available to the public as to the political leanings of the AW ownership, this is perhaps not a surprise. I find the timing of the establishment of this blog especially interesting in that regard.

AccuWeather.com Position Statement

Global climate change is a matter of intense concern and public importance. There can be little doubt that human beings influence the world's climate. At the same time, our knowledge of the extent, progress, mechanisms and results of global climate change is still incomplete. New data are becoming available every day - from tree rings to deep sea samples, ice cores, glacial changes and climatological models - while the greatest minds all over the world are working to better understand climate change and its impact on life on earth.

Scientific understanding emerges through full consideration of relevant data, appropriate debate and the application of the scientific method. Thus, we urge all scientists and members of the public to engage in the global warming discussion, including AccuWeather.com's experts. We encourage our scientists to express their personal views without the constraint of a corporate position they must follow. We are pleased to offer a major forum on AccuWeather.com for the wide-ranging consideration of this topic.

In the AccuWeather.com Global Warming Center, you will find links to the latest research, commentary by experts with various points of view on all aspects of climate change, and a forum for you to share your own thoughts, ask questions, and interact with the best scientific minds and knowledge in this area. From time to time, we may post questions about climate change for general consideration and to further stimulate debate. We welcome your contributions to the discussion.

We encourage you to visit global-warming.accuweather.com often to keep abreast of the discussion.

Me: Do you think there are five denialist scientists with anything approaching the qualifications of the top five on the consensus side?

Brett: Not sure, but there certainly could be.

OK, what would your criteria be?
Reply: I think you should ask Joe B, that question since he proposed the idea.

great letter joe.

those who attempt to silence definately realize that they have much to hide. It is very unfortunate for them that their hypothesis was not proven by fact. They stand to loose a lot of clout in the world of (climate) science.

You know you're scraping the bottom of the barrel when you have to nominate this guy as one of the 5...

http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2005/aug/business/pt_wsj.html

Here's a list of the top 100 climatologists that believe in anthropogenic global warming (Lubos Motl). Maybe we can get a few of them to sit on the panel. Although, there would probably be a big fight as to who was most qualified.

Celebrities

Al Gore, B.A. Government (no science degree)
Alanis Morissette, High School Diploma
Bill Maher, B.A. English (no science degree)
Bono (Paul Hewson), High School Diploma
Daryl Hanna, B.F.A. Theater (no science degree)
Ed Begley Jr., High School Diploma
Jackson Browne, High School Diploma
Jon Bon Jovi (John Bongiovi), High School Diploma
Oprah Winfrey, B.A. Speech and Drama (no science degree)
Prince Charles of Whales, B.A. (no science degree)
Sheryl Crow, B.A. Music Education (no science degree)
Sienna Miller, High School Diploma

ABC - Sam Champion, B.A. Broadcast News (no science degree, not a meteorologist)
CBS - Harry Smith, B.A. Communications and Theater (no science degree)
CBS - Katie Couric, B.A. English (no science degree)
CBS - Scott Pelley, College Dropout
NBC - Ann Curry, B.A. Journalism (no science degree)
NBC - Anne Thompson, B.A. American studies (no science degree)
NBC - Matt Lauer. B.A. Communications (no science degree)
NBC - Meredith Vieira, B.A. English (no science degree)

Al Sharpton, College Dropout
Alicia Keys, College Dropout
Alicia Silverstone, High School Dropout
Art Bell, College Dropout
Ben Affleck, College Dropout
Ben Stiller, College Dropout
Billy Jean King, College Dropout
Brad Pitt, College Dropout
Britney Spears, High School Dropout
Bruce Springsteen, College Dropout
Cameron Diaz, High School Dropout
Cindy Crawford, College Dropout
Diane Keaton, College Dropout
Drew Barrymore, High School Dropout
George Clooney, College Dropout
Gwyneth Paltrow, College Dropout
Jason Biggs, College Dropout
Jennifer Connelly, College Dropout
Jessica Simpson, High School Dropout
John Travolta, High School Dropout
Joshua Jackson, High School Dropout
Julia Louis-Dreyfus, College Dropout
Julia Roberts, College Dropout
Kanye West, College Dropout
Keanu Reeves, High School Dropout
Kevin Bacon, High School Dropout
Kiefer Sutherland, High School Dropout
Leonardo DiCaprio, High School Dropout
Lindsay Lohan, High School Dropout
Ludacris (Christopher Bridges), College Dropout
Madonna (Madonna Ciccone), College Dropout
Matt Damon, College Dropout
Matthew Modine, College Dropout
Michael Moore, College Dropout
Nicole Richie, College Dropout
Neve Campbell, High School Dropout
Olivia Newton-John, High School Dropout
Orlando Bloom, High School Dropout
Paris Hilton, High School Dropout
Pierce Brosnan. High School Dropout
Queen Latifah (Dana Elaine Owens), College Dropout
Richard Branson, High School Dropout
Robert Redford, College Dropout
Rosie O'Donnell, College Dropout
Sarah Silverman, College Dropout
Sean Penn, College Dropout
Ted Turner, College Dropout
Tommy Lee (Thomas Lee Bass), High School Dropout
Uma Thurman, High School Dropout
Willie Nelson, High School Dropout

Politicians:

John McCain, B.S. (Graduated 894th out of 899 in his class)
Newt Gingrich, Ph.D. Modern European History (no science degree) (Hypocrite)
Pat Robertson, B.A., J.D., M.A. Divinity (no science degree)
Robert F. Kennedy Jr, B.A. Government, J.D. Law (no science degree, 'recovered' Heroin addict)

Scientists:

Bill Nye, B.S. Mechanical Engineering (Bill Nye the Science Guy)
Gavin Schmidt, B.A. Ph.D. Applied Mathematics (RealClimate.org)
James Hansen, B.A. Physics and Mathematics, M.S. Astronomy, Ph.D. Physics (NASA, Gavin Schmidt's Boss)
James Lovelock, Ph.D. Medicine, D.Sc. Biophysics
Lonnie Thompson, Ph.D. Geological Sciences
Michael Mann, A.B. Applied Math, Physics, M.S. Physics, Ph.D. Geology & Geophysics (RealClimate.org)
Michael Oppenheimer, S.B. Chemistry, Ph.D. Chemical Physics
Richard C. J. Somerville, Ph.D. Meteorology
Steven Schneider, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering and Plasma Physics

Social Scientists:

Ronald Bailey, B.A. Philosophy and Economics (Science Correspondent, Reason Magazine)

Why should there be any hessitation from the AGW camp to put up thier best guys to argue the AGW scare science against the global cooling camp? Truth and science are supposed to be the same. So when can I get tickets to see the debate!

Joe's piece looks like Shakespeare compared to this rambling, paranoid, irrational diatribe from Dr. Hansen.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20080410_YankeeTicketPrices.pdf

Personally Joe, I am glad you feel responsible enough to write this letter.Focusing the attention of the candidates may actually do something to get the government on track, and responsible enough to take corrective action.

Secondarily, Joe...please take note of what I am about to say about the hurricane season. Here in North Port Fl we had our first tropical downpour Monday May 19th. Now the hurricane years of 2004 (Charlie, which took out Port Charlotte) and 2005 both had tropical downpours starting June 1st. And 2006-7 did not get tropical downpours until much later, and of such lesser intensity I do not even have dates for them. So per this, I am predicting a greater than normal hurricane season!!! So Joe, some more info for your weathered mind.
Thanks, "Dallas" Dave

Hi Mark,

If you don't want to or are unable to debate - simply declare something to be "right wing," close your mind, and descend further into your intellectual slumber.

I just want AGW or no AGW settled once and for all!

Right now it appears Obama will win the White House. We know his stand on AGW. So in his 1st year he makes big changes to curb our use of CO2. He should have the votes in congress to get any of his ideas into a bill and passed than he signs them into law. Fine, I just hope the changes are HUGE. No minor changes. If we are so sure than lets do it.

Two things would than happen.
1. The weather becomes warmer or cooler. Hopefully, dramatically cooler or warmer. Lets hope it doesnt stay flat or both sides will claim victory....One side says the sun will make the world go cooler. The other has to have some sort of continuing temp rise or they lose credibility. That will help the American people decide ON THEIR OWN. Everybody knows when its warmer or cooler, they don�t need scientists or bloggers to tell them so. Dont under estimate the folks. They are pretty darn smart.

2. When the American people see what our government is asking/telling them to do and what it will cost each of them, they wont stand for it. The media, which is in the business of creating controversy, will report on the hardships we will endure so yes the message will get out. In two or four years, depending on when the new laws take place, the PEOPLE will make the political change IF needed.

Than at least its over with.

So Adamant, you think Steve McIntyre is scrapping the the bottom of the barrel huh? Fantastic !!! Now I definitley want to see him on the debate. Tell you what, how 'bout we have Michael Mann on the other side - see who scrapes who off the bottom of what barrel !!

The fifth paragraph contains six sentences. The first three are understandable. The next three are unintelligible and an offense to the English language, our mother tongue.

Grade: F

Revise and resubmit for partial credit.

Considering that historians will consider the Bush presidency one of the biggest failures in our country's history, an Obama presidency -- even if it's 30 times worse than Jimmy Carter -- would be regarded as better.

REPLY: Only an apologist for the looney hypocritical (see list above) political left, who trys to hide his true political colors by calling himself a "moderate," would make a statement like that. But yet will continue to promote his own brand of fear mongering over a non-existant crock by screaming for the government to continue to grow and even the econiomic and social playing field with the rest of the world.

"Joe, You must remember that there are people out there who FEAR freedom of speech when it doesn't suit their (political) agenda."

Yeah, that's right, Joe! They hate freedom! They hate America! A-murrrrh-ica! Hahaha

REPLY: Prove me otherwise. I challenge you. Say something good about America. Because in the year that I have been posting on this thread, you have yet to say ANYTHING!

Joe is supposed to be a scientist, yet he's having a political discussion. Sad.

Yep, and James Hansen, "scientist" was a huge financial supporter of the John Kerry Campaign in 2004. GASP!!!!!! So much for "campaign finance reform."

I wrap this post up with a quote from G.H.W. Bush:

"The #$%@ard didn't lay a glove on me." ....;-D

P.S. 7:38 A.M. EDT..May, again I emphasize, MAY 21, 2008..Current Temperature in Western PA...45 DEGREES F.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GLO-BULL WARMING!!!!!!

And if to prove my point, a "Mark" post ends up right after mine. May 20 1:37 and 1:44

Please read both and see the context. Quite striking in my humble opinion.

Thor:

Don't we all emit hydrocarbon pollution? Are you implying by proxy that the AGW position is population reduction as a means by which to "save" the planet from its' fever?

Oh and it is a myth that ANWR would be harmed by drilling. Well, let me rephrase that, I suppose that it really would be harmed, but frankly, the area involved is so incredibly small relative to the whole tract of land, that it would not matter to the planet in the least little bit. And I can safely say that 99.9999% of the World's human population have never, nor will ever, see that piece of land with their own eyes. And I guarantee you that there will never be a better use for the land.

Don't like $4 gas, well, I guess the AGWers like it, but for the rest of us, don't like it? Thank you local Democrat or environmental activist. It is they who have created this entire mess by restricting our ability to provide our own supply of oil and the means by which to refine it efficiently, economically, and cleanly. You could even posit the argument that these ideals and policies have led to the entire Middle East problem the world faces. For if we had a stable supply of oil and refining capability, they would have a hold of the noose as tightly or at all.

Paul:

Fantastic list. Kudos to your research prowess. I am intrigued by the number of dropouts among the actors. I mean jeez that is a bunch.

Mark,

"Considering that historians will consider the Bush presidency one of the biggest failures in our country's history,"

Yes, liberal-minded hisorians... big surprise. 15 years from now people will STILL be blaming Bush for state of our nation. You can take that to the bank.

Hi adamant,

All of the criticism's of Steve McIntyre in your article seems to revolve around the fact that he isn't a member of the AGW good-ol-boy network. Did you actually read the article? There isn't a single substantive comment.

McIntyre has repeatedly uncovered basic errors in data and methodology at GISS, so he is attacked by the religious true believers. Nothing more.

PH:

Not to doubt your word or anything, but are you certain this is from the esteemed Dr. Hansen? (Reply: Yes, PH is correct, it is from Dr. Hansen.) If so, it provides strong further proof of this entire subject being an ideological topic in lieu of actual science.

I'm trying to determine if we are going to have a not so hot, hot, or too hot summer here in north Texas. (as if it matters)

REPLY: Gee, wish we had that problem up here in the land of the lousiest weather in the U.S.and A!

Are there lots of sun spots now or none? Have not seen a report on this
forum about it lately.

www.solarcycle24.com

And the answer is not good, for we radio geeks and lovers of warmth ***SIGH***

Unfortunately, Joe will just get laughed at and his letter will end up in the burn bag. Politicians do not care about science. The Democrats do not care if this issue is real or not. The way they look at it is that is is a very effective tool to use to try and control as much of our lives as possible, from the cars we drive to the food we eat. This issue will never go away. When I was growing up it was called The Greenhouse Effect, now it is called Global Warming, soon will be called Climate Change, and in the future will be called by another name.

Hi Darren,

One of the most bizarre things about Hansen's spiel is that he personally commutes 85 miles to work from Pennsylvania in NYC. How can he complain about evil oil companies? They are getting rich because of hypocrites like him.

I commute five miles on my bicycle, yet am quite grateful that there is food in the stores when I need to shop. Hansen sounds more like Lenin or Trotsky, than an official representative of the US Government.

Patrick Henry, I did read the article and I don't think Steve McIntyre qualifies as a respected scientist with a strong history of peer reviewed studies and publications. If I'm wrong about that, I stand corrected.

Joe's piece looks like Shakespeare compared to this rambling, paranoid, irrational diatribe from Dr. Hansen.

I think the web must be directing my browser to a different Hansen piece than Darren and PH. PH chooses adjectives like "rambling", "paranoid", and "irrational". I find this especially hilarious given PH's comparison to the thread-starter.

I offer two sentences from Bastardi's piece:

1. Sir or Mam, if you are absolutely convinced, after seeing people who don't think polar bears are as important as the people you are elected to serve, that argue out the science, then commit the American people on a path that will basically spend their hard-earned money on a problem our chief rivals are probably simply paying lip service too, then I will support you.

2. But if you have doubt, after clearing away the feelings and looking at the facts, then by proceeding you will put yourself in a rush to judgement before the facts are clear that has left many Americans disillusioned about our nation in other matters.

I can't even parse the first one. Where does "that argue out the science" fit? Whatever it is, my high-school English teachers would never have let me get away with it. What does either sentence mean?

I'd like PH or Darren to offer comparable quotes from the Hansen piece that are "rambling", "paranoid", or "irrational" in comparison to these two choice Bastardi excerpts.

I'm particularly interested in the "irrational". Can one of you please offer some excerpts from Hansen's piece that you deem "irrational"?

PH

I hope you arent trying to follow Hansen the 85 miles on your bike. :)

Darren:
Unfortunately I think your right. Take Paul's blog
for instance. Wouldn't he be better off, counting the mice,Lenny. What a waste of good time and energy. I mean you have got to be a high school graduate to know about AGW. I have read the IPCC reports and other theories related to global warming. I have learned chemistry, Earth science and Physics. But I am willing to change my mind, if I am convinced otherwise. The truth is best,so whatever it is , that is what makes the difference. I don't have a dog in this fight.
Best, KIPP

Joe just by skimming over I'd say you have at least an 80% approval rating, keep up the good work, currewntly at 4:15p.m it is 46 degrees and yesterday was cool and rain and in the 40's, and Yes it is May 21, think I'll have to go north or south to warm up, possibly to New York as everyone sounds as if its like the Bahamas up there.

PH

"new (NCAR) research suggests that the number of hurricanes each summer could decrease by about 18 percent.

Major hurricanes - those with winds in excess of 110 miles (177 kilometers) an hour - could decline by about 8 percent. "

They seem to be comparing different things. One is major hurricanes and one is just plain ol hurricanes. Not comparable.

"Thank you local Democrat or environmental activist. It is they who have created this entire mess by restricting our ability to provide our own supply of oil and the means by which to refine it efficiently, economically, and cleanly. You could even posit the argument that these ideals and policies have led to the entire Middle East problem the world faces. For if we had a stable supply of oil and refining capability, they would have a hold of the noose as tightly or at all."

This is the predictable response of Darren and those who think narrowly like him. They preach about "personal accountability," yet all they do is blame others for their problems. I'm guessing you drive a SUV, Darren. If that's the case, then YOU, my friend, are largely to blame for the problem.

It's funny how so many people in this country think it's their birthright to drive a SUV and fill it up with cheap gas. Now all they do is whine and complain.

We went through a similar problem thirty years ago. Only back then, technology was very inefficient and our economy was more dependent on oil prices. There were two lessons learned from that era. 1) We learned that we needed to be more efficient and 2) We needed alternative energies. The first lesson was addressed in the form of government regulations (ooooooh, that word sounds like fingernails on the chalkboard to most of those here) mandating stricter efficiency standards. Thanks to those regulations, our economy is more efficient and, thus, oil prices don't have quite the impact they did back then. The second lesson, however, was derailed. Oil got cheap again, and the anarcho-capitalists, who always focus on the short-term and never the long-term, chose a path for us to be addicted to oil.

We're back to the same boat again, and we're going to keep going back until we decide to take action on the second lesson learned. The anarcho-capitalists continue to want to force us down a path of eternal addiction to oil and a global economic slowdown, but I suspect that, this time, they will not get their wish.

BT:
It seems the current tactic of the AGW alarmists is that if you can't defend the position, you attack their grammar. Can't you look past that and deal with what you know they are saying. I hope you aren't too confused with a few dangling participles or split infinitives to be able to see the real gist.

MARK;
I agree that we have a false sense of entitlement.In Europe they have always had to drive small vehicles, and in France they build with more rock than wood. They don't have this middle class addiction to CHINA-Mart and shopping,and don't live to work but work to live.In Europe there is more socially responsibility towards their young, the elderly,and rights for minorities. NO they are not socialists, as they choose their way of life, and therefore have a right to be selfish the way we are. The capitalist defense is always punctuated with commie socialist greenie weirdo's, but why are they living as an American Jacksonsonian democracy, and we just care about ourselves. And really what is it we have to fear.
Have you ever really considered, because of our gas dependence what we could produce and how much money we could make, if we went full throttle into the Alternative Energy business.
KIPP

Josh,No heat wave up here in Binghamton,NY either.56 yesterday,52 predicted today.I would have to agree with Darren,we need to drill here now.And no Mark,I don't drive an SUV,I drive a small car.Right now gas prices aren't hurting me but they are hurting alot of people I know. Why can't people just get out of the way so we can drill? Great letter Joe but unfortunately it will probably just fall on deaf ears.

I really don't see anything alarming with the piece Hansen wrote in 1987.What I do see alarming is the adjustments he has made to temps to try to justify what he said in 1987.

bernie wrote:
It seems the current tactic of the AGW alarmists is that if you can't defend the position, you attack their grammar.

Excuse me, Bernie, but it was Patrick Henry who wrote:

Joe's piece looks like Shakespeare compared to this rambling, paranoid, irrational diatribe from Dr. Hansen.

The comparison was PH's. The adjectives ("rambling", "paranoid", and "irrational") were PH's. "Rambling" is a grammatical criticism, one that I responded to. I'm still waiting to see excerpts from the cited Hansen piece that support a characterization like "paranoid" and "irrational" -- especially in comparison to the Bastardi piece.

The IPCC report is the summary of the world's best climatologists. Bastardi proposes some sort of mano-et-mano boxing-match style confrontation. Regardless of grammar, which is the more "rational"?

Can't you look past that and deal with what you know they are saying. I hope you aren't too confused with a few dangling participles or split infinitives to be able to see the real gist.

I invite you to please do the same. Please compare "the real gist" of Bastardi's piece to that cited by PH. What is "the real gist" of Bastardi's piece, and how does it compare to "the real gist" of Hansen's?

Adamant,

You link to a story dated August 31, 2005. http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2005/aug/business/pt_wsj.html

A lot has happened since then. McIntyre's patient efforts have picked away at both Mann's and Hansen's "code," and discovered serious flaws.

You need to catch up with the news. In the end NASA had to confess there were flaws in the "code" it used. This occurred around last August 1. McIntyre posted his tongue-in-cheek response August 7, 2007.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1880

I had felt a growing unease about the NASA and NOAA data, before that point, because the IPCC report made the MWP vanish. However my interest was only as a historian. I had no reason to doubt NOAA or NASA, because, after all, they only looked at a thermometer and told me what it read. Right? No, wrong. I was very upset when I became aware they were "adjusting data," but I had no inkling it was going on until last August.

I first heard the news while surfing the web, reading an article in the Toronto Star. They linked me to Climateaudit for the first time. I was amazed at all the stuff I discovered in their archives.

A short time later the news was apparently mentioned by Rush Limbaugh, and the Climateaudit site was overwhelmed by thousands of visitors. At that time I abruptly discovered that to even mention Climateaudit to some of my friends got me yelled at. I apparently was something called a "Ditto-head." I wasn't even asked if I ever listened to Rush's show.

That is only ten months ago. I have done a lot of research since then, and Mann and Hansen look worse and worse, the more I dig. Their "adjustments," hidden in their "code," seems a cynical and conscious attempt to frighten the public with false data, because they apparently feel the public is too stupid to do the right thing if told the truth.

McIntyre does not say this. He is far too polite, in my opinion. I state what I state because I personally don't like being lied to.

In any case, I appreciate the link you shared. It shows everyone the resistance some had (and still have) to facing the truth McIntyre stated, (and states.) It shows how "Environmental Science and Technology" smeared McIntyre, belittled him, questioned his motives and funding, and used the lame logic of "the science is settled."

I wonder, did "Environmental Science and Technology" issue any sort of apology, two years later, when NASA admitted its mistake?

This is the predictable response of Darren and those who think narrowly like him. They preach about "personal accountability," yet all they do is blame others for their problems. I'm guessing you drive a SUV, Darren. If that's the case, then YOU, my friend, are largely to blame for the problem.

REPLY: That's it, Darren. You is GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILT GUILT GUILTY!!!!!! AND DON'T YOUR FORGET IT!!!! It's not the fault of the all caring all feeling Democrats and RINOs in the Congress and their buddys at the Sierra Club and GreenPeace. Nah, it's we greedy capitalist American consumer hogs who work hard, support our families and pay our taxes to a bloated hubris government! That's it. Same old self lothing liberal puke for having the freedom to choose. And again, Mark, the question still stands (for about the 5th time). Just what exactly are you driving, old buddy?

Save The Planet From Hot Air. MUZZLE A LIBERAL!!!!

The above posting, addressed to "Adamant," was from me. Sorry about neglecting to identify myself.

In Hansen's article he states, "The fossil fuel industry is launching a disinformation campaign..."

He ought to know a lot about disinformation. The pot calling the kettle black?

Psychological projection? Paranoia?

I want to make it clear I myself have no idea whether it will be warmer or colder in the future. (The lack of sunspots makes me a bit nervous about cooling, but that is only a THEORY.)

I remain eager and interested, and fascinated by each new insight gained by true scientists who hunger for the truth. It doesn't matter to me if the insight favors cooling or warming.

However Hansen and Mann, by all indications I can see, have disqualified themselves from such a society. They do a disservice. It is high time they received some sort of official rebuke.

I am increasingly amazed some people can't see what they've been up to, and blindly defend them, ignoring the blatant writing-on-the-wall in favor of creating a smoke-screen of computer "code."

"Code" increasingly seems like a gobble-de-gook they hide within. I imagine them justifying, "Ordinary people can't understand "code," and therefore ordinary people must be ignorant peons. We alone can see the truth, for "code" is a holy ghost only the saintly can see. We are persecuted by the rabble, we who know, we who see, we who understand."

Time for those two to go outside and face a reality that isn't virtual. Unfortunately, I doubt they'll go until they are dragged out kicking and screaming.

BT:
I'm so sorry. I have again confused you. I was talking about the stuff you were referring to that your English teacher wouldn't let you get away with. Nice attempt to deflect to the Hansen piece, but that wasn't what I was addressing. I will try to make future comments easier to follow.

Though I have made it a habit to aschew direct comments in the past, I will, this one time make an exception...

Mark:

Your statements are the very definition of ignorance in the issue over gas prices. I wonder, could it possibly be that you, and your ilk, rather, are the ones just a WEE bit narrow minded?

To insinuate that the end users of a product that is as common and readily available as gasoline, are responsible for the vast cost increases is ridiculous. To further the statement by saying that a sub-set of the users, are more responsible shows that you are really talking about an ideology than a reality.

And yep, I have 2 SUVs, 1 truck and 1 van. Guess what, they ALL get the same mileage as the sedans that the SUVs replaced. And the SUVs have better emission controls. It cracks me up watching greenpeacers show up at a rally in a '68 VW bus that burns oil and has no emission controls. Or better, when they jet around the planet to save it.

In fact, my little fleet gets the same mileage as most cars on the road and a lot better than the cars and trucks I had in the past.

BT:

Would love to point out the stuff in Hansen's piece. But it is a PDF and I don't have time to write the statements down. The thoughts are scatter brained to a degree. More interesting is the insiuations that he is a member of a group that does not conform to the ideas of the masses. "for US, we consider this not to be acceptable" was one phrase that caught my attention. It sounds more revolutionary than it does doctoral.

Face it, AGW is an ideology not a reality.

"To insinuate that the end users of a product that is as common and readily available as gasoline, are responsible for the vast cost increases is ridiculous."

Then you obviously have no clue how supply and demand, or the free market which you claim to support, works. Demand comes from the end users. Those who trumpet the free market do so in part because they believe the system punishes those who make stupid decisions. Well, buying SUVs and pickups while gas was cheap was STUPID. It has driven up gasoline consumption to the point where we use 33% of the world's gasoline supply.

One weakness of our economic system is that all it takes is a few bad apples to bring down an entire sector or, worse, even the economy as a whole. We see it time and time again, most recently with the mortgage crisis. 98% of homeowners pay their mortgages on time, but it's the 2% that don't pay on time that not only brought down the system, but reduced property value of all the homes in their neighborhood because their houses foreclosed. Similarly, the SUV and truck drivers in this country have significantly increased gasoline demand and, consequently, gas prices. If anything, I am the one who should be upset with people like you, Darren, because even though I made a smart decision driving a fuel-efficient vehicle, I am paying high prices at the pump because of the driving habits of people such as yourself. In other words, I am paying a premium on gas because of your bad decisions.

"To further the statement by saying that a sub-set of the users, are more responsible shows that you are really talking about an ideology than a reality."

You're so out of the loop on this one, it's almost sad. All economists will tell you that the flaw in capitalism is strictly what you just said can't happen -- dumb decisions by a subset of people causing economic hardship for everybody else. That's one of the reasons we have restraints on our economic system. You simply have no clue what you're talking about.

"And yep, I have 2 SUVs, 1 truck and 1 van."

Then you have no -- I repeat, NO -- right to complain about gas prices. Also, you have no right to complain about Communism or problems in the Mideast, since you are directly funding those governments and preserving their social systems, Darren.

" Guess what, they ALL get the same mileage as the sedans that the SUVs replaced."

Then these sedans you've driven in the past must have been some real clunkers, Darren. Here's a hint: a V-8 engine on a "sedan" or some lemon from the 1970s isn't a fuel efficient car. If you value power over fuel-efficiency, that's fine, but don't complain, because it's you who not only contributed to the high prices, but chooses to pay them, as well.

Would love to point out the stuff in Hansen's piece. But it is a PDF and I don't have time to write the statements down.

I see. So you've got time to trash the piece, but lack the time to support your attacks.

Typical.

The master Bastardi has is stated correctly; however i doubt the presidential candidates will man-up and have the debate. They'll likely cave to special interests.

"One weakness of our economic system is that all it takes is a few bad apples to bring down an entire sector or, worse, even the economy as a whole."

Like a George Soro's short selling the British Pound on the international currency exchange? The pound collapsed overnight, and Soros made a quick $1 billion.

"...it's almost sad. All economists will tell you that the flaw in capitalism is strictly what you just said can't happen -- dumb decisions by a subset of people causing economic hardship"

Like the Federal Reserve Board cutting interest rates last summer from 5.25% to 2% now, or the Treasury Department's devaluing the Dollar, and allowing it to slide to 50% of its June 2007 value (hint: oil is bought and sold in dollars).

Or like 535 congressmen voting to mandate impossible corn based ethanol standards.

The Dot Com Bubble, the real estate bubble, and the current commodities bubble can be traced back to the goverment, as can the current price of oil/gasoline....I don't think the goverment can be trusted less than indivduals.

""And yep, I have 2 SUVs, 1 truck and 1 van."

Then you have no -- I repeat, NO -- right to complain about gas prices""

That is, unless he used that van or SUV to deliver you your last shipment of organic wheat germ, or your next pair of Birkenstocks, or used it to transport tools that were used fixed your toilet.

Besides, I never once heard you complain about ALGORE's garge full of SUVs, his 3 residences, or his jetset ways.

I just decided to abandon all links to weather.com and weatherunderground.com and switch to accuweather. Joe Bastardi shows that he has intelligence and integrity in spades. I don't think any current candidate is ready to take such an offer yet...not yet. But I feel certain that the truth will continue to gain traction, and that AGW will go away or (more likely) mutate into something else. They're already starting to call it "climate change". They invented a word for "climate change" a long time ago - "weather". It's likely to change any minute. Reply: Welcome to Accuweather.com, we're glad to have you!

Ever heard this one? "If you don't like the weather in ("x" state), just wait a few hours." Every freaking state in the nation seems to think it applies to their state more than others. I would not be surprised to learn that it was coined by the Greeks or Romans.

I see that once again, Mark, you need more enlightening:

Then you obviously have no clue how supply and demand, or the free market which you claim to support, works. Demand comes from the end users. Those who trumpet the free market do so in part because they believe the system punishes those who make stupid decisions. Well, buying SUVs and pickups while gas was cheap was STUPID. It has driven up gasoline consumption to the point where we use 33% of the world's gasoline supply.

REPLY: WRONG WRONG WRONG. What is driving up the consumption of gasoline is the demand for it from two of the most populace developing nations on earth. India and China. They are driving more. China and India have embraced capitalism, allowing them to grow. They are no longer living in the stone age as a result.

Similarly, the SUV and truck drivers in this country have significantly increased gasoline demand and, consequently, gas prices.

REPLY: You mean the truck drivers that bring the food to your supermarket so you can eat, right?

If anything, I am the one who should be upset with people like you, Darren, because even though I made a smart decision driving a fuel-efficient vehicle, I am paying high prices at the pump because of the driving habits of people such as yourself.

REPLY: You still haven't told us what it is you are driving? For the sixth time, Please advise. We all wish to know if you actually practice what you preach, and are not another John Revolting or Leonardo DiCraprio.

In other words, I am paying a premium on gas because of your bad decisions.
Also, you have no right to complain about Communism or problems in the Mideast, since you are directly funding those governments and preserving their social systems, Darren.

REPLY: No No No! The reason we are directly funding those governments and preserving their social systems is because WE HAVE NO CHOICE. Because of your touchee feelee environmental regulations that WON'T ALLOW US TO DRILL FOR MORE OIL IN ALASLKA, OFF SHORE, OR TO BUILD A NEW REFINERY. TO BE ENERGY INDEPENDENT!!! WHY DO WE HAVE TO KEEP TELLING YOU THIS? (I know why. Because maybe you are sympathetic to them yourself? Because you are watching too much CNN or reading too much New York Times) WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO WAKE UP TO THE TRUTH?????

Mark:

What exactly do you drive there Mark? Funny that dang near every person who doesn't buy into AGW has admittted what they drive, why they drive it and how they drive it, whereas the followers of the Goreacle don't say a dang thing.

Come on, just fess up that your tooling around town in an uncatalyzed 1981, Yugo with a 3 banger in it. I won't say nothing about the oil your probably burning, I promise.

You would have a great point if this was supply/demand.

That is not the issue here. The issue is that supply is restricted by the idiotic concerns of a vocal minority worried about the "raping" of the Earth. The supply is also fouled up because of unnecessary formulations of gas depending upon where you live. Supply is screwed up here.

When you throw on the points JP raised (which he is right on the money about), there is your $4.

Oh, and that same idiotic goverment is making at least 10 times per gallon than what the oil companies probably are. Sure, the oil companies might be making record profits, but the for the government, it's ALL profit. 100%. Tell me what the feds do to earn their portion of the money. They don't transport it, they don't drill it, or market it or anything. Wonder why the AGWers don't complain about that? Oh that's right, it fits right into your ideology. Take from everyone and spread it around. Whether or not we need it. Spare me the diatribes about roads and maintenance. Fact is, they waste the vast majority of what they take in.

BT:

Yep your right, I don't have the time and it is typical. Some of us would rather do real work than try to rehash something a leftist Phd wrote about a topic.

Just tell me who the "US" is in his letter. Funny thing to write, don't you think.

Hope you both have a nice Memorial Day weekend.

This response is directed to Rob the 4th post on May 18, 2008 11:00 PM and to those who agree with him. Rob writes

"While I agree that the fourth paragraph contains the best (and only good) advice in the letter, it will be difficult to find five SCIENTISTS on the "skeptic" side of the issue (at least who are not in the pay of Corporate America), since there is an overwhelming consensus in the scientific community that AGW is real and we need to do something about it, soon."

This is an absolutely absurd statement. The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine has a petition that is signed by over 31,000 scientist and geologist that do not believe in Man-made global warming. Here is the link http://www.oism.org/pproject/
I think that is proof that there is "NOT" and overwhelming consensus as he would like to believe. I'd suggest turning off the Communist News Network (CNN) and actually study some science. Especially about solar magnetic activity cycles.

Rob also states:
"Mr. Bastardi cannot possibly be more wrong about the solution to our current oil crisis. The only conscionable long-term solution to our dependence on foreign oil is to reduce demand."

My friend Rob again has not done his homework. The solution is to allow for domestic drilling. We have the Bakken Oil reserves in the Dakota's that have an estimated 400 billion barrels of oil, the ANWR has a low estimate of 10 billion barrels, and then there are reserves off the coasts of Florida, California, and Hawaii. We have plenty and there is no reason to import any oil and we are not even close to running out. By the way we only import 15% of our oil from the middle east, not much at all. Canada is America's largest importer of oil. How can we reduce demand, well congress is doing it now by not allowing domestic drilling and by forcing us to seek "non-efficient" and "expensive" green technologies. Imagine the jobs that will be created if we allow drilling!

Then Rob, like a good little liberal tries to discredit this article by questioning the authors intelligence.
"The letter is riddled with spelling and grammatical errors, which does not help Mr. Bastardi's case."
We should always expect this from a Liberal! As if spelling and grammar determine the truthfulness of any fact.

Anybody can feel free to contact me if they would like more facts that disprove liberal myths and talking points.

"Like the Federal Reserve Board cutting interest rates last summer from 5.25% to 2% now, or the Treasury Department's devaluing the Dollar, and allowing it to slide to 50% of its June 2007 value (hint: oil is bought and sold in dollars)."

Nice try, JP, but the fact of the matter is that Wall Street expects -- and demands -- that the Fed lower rates when the economy slows down. Why don't people like you ever blame Wall Street for anything? Oh wait, I forgot -- you're a corporate apologist. They can do no wrong in your eyes and the government is the source of all of your problems.

"That is, unless he used that van or SUV to deliver you your last shipment of organic wheat germ, or your next pair of Birkenstocks, or used it to transport tools that were used fixed your toilet."

Haha...you've got to be kidding me. The food at the grocery store is delivered with trucks, not SUVs. There are some people who need a pickup truck/SUV for their jobs, but for the vast majority of people it is a luxury. I don't feel sorry for them.

In twenty years, the modern full-size SUV will be a collectible antique, kinda like the 60s muscle cars are today. In the meantime, I will continue to laugh my a$% off at the Chevy Tahoes pulling up to the gas pump!

Oh and BTW, Oiz, my car gets 34 mpg. I know it's hard for you to find people that walk the walk and talk the talk amongst your circle of friends, but there are some of us out there.

Gas prices have not skyrocketed because of SUVs or pickup trucks. They have skyrocketed because of the limited refining capacity and the squeezing of what capacity is available by the government required boutique fuel blends required in various markets (all in the pursuit of cleaner air, but ironically many of which CREATE MORE air pollution issues). They have also skyrocketed because of the building demand of developing nations (in particular China and India) and the aforementioned devaluation of the Dollar which makes oil more expensive in world markets, plus lots of speculation in oil futures by hedge funds and the like. It's a bubble and will probabaly only burst once the little guy investors jump in and the hedge funds dump their stakes to realize their take.

While we're on the subject of demand, the fallacy of higher mileage vehicles causing reduction in demand must be mentioned. When people drive higher mileage vehicles, they tend to drive MORE, and generally overall consumption INCREASES rather than decreases. Dirty little secret of the whole "conservation" movement they don't usually mention while pimping little death trap cars loaded with batteries they haven't mentioned the disposal plans for.

BACK OT...

Joe's letter is commendable as an attempt to illuminate the three dim bulbs we've got as presidential candidates (their belief in AGW being absolute proof of their being dim bulbs). Although I support ANWR and offshore US drilling in order to increase use of domestic oil supplies, I'm not deluded into thinking that those sources - or all of the "alternative energy" in the world - is going to "get us off" imported oil. Far from it. For a good analysis of the "energy independence" delusions still being peddled in this country (since the 1970s), read "Gusher of Lies."

Sorry, JP, but I'm not following you.

Are you claiming that Soros caused the pound to collapse?

The Dot Com Bubble, the real estate bubble, and the current commodities bubble can be traced back to the goverment, as can the current price of oil/gasoline....I don't think the goverment can be trusted less than indivduals.

My understanding is that the primary driver for the current commodities bubble is the solvency crisis of the US banking sector, driven primarily by the sub-prime mortgage collapse.

It was the see-no-evil GOP "regulators" who let the bankers do whatever they wanted -- including St. Greenspan. When the institutional investors realized that all that bank paper was utterly worthless, they stampeded into commodities. After all, they have to put their money someplace.

It's no wonder the GOP does such a terrible job of running the government -- it's no secret that they hate government, and it's very hard for anybody to be any good at something they hate.

Instead of taking cheap-shots (Birkenstocks? Give me a break), why don't we instead ask what steps effective government COULD take to help break our petroleum addiction.

What is the proper role of government towards (just to enumerate a few):

a) Rail transportation, especially in comparison to air and highway travel
b) Safe and clean nuclear power
c) Fleet mileage standards for automobiles and trucks

Will you even entertain the possibility that if we weren't burning hundreds of billions of dollars a year in the ME, we might be able to more constructively address some of these immediate issues?

Oh and BTW, Oiz, my car gets 34 mpg. I know it's hard for you to find people that walk the walk and talk the talk amongst your circle of friends, but there are some of us out there.

REPLY: This doesn't answer my question. Again, for the sixth time. What kind of vehicle do you drive, Mark? I want the make, model, size of engine, and year, please. Just what is it that you are hiding? And just so everyone on this thread knows. I am going to keep asking you this question until you answer.

Save the planet from hot air. MUZZLE THE ECO-PHONIES!!!!!

BT,
Yes, and England even had a warrant out for his arrest at one point.

And yes, there is a problem with imported oil. In 1992, we imported only 35% of our oil. Prices per barrel were only $9 a barrel, and many domestic producers capped thier wells as a consequence. Today, we import about 68%. In most places domestically, it is still cost prohibitve to reopen the wells. Perhaps if oil prices grow to $200/barrel things will change. Personally I think there will be a commodities crash -esp in oil and gold. The dollar is 50% under valued -mainly due to ridiculously low interest rates, and a Treasury that is devoted to a weak dollar. Nothing lasts forever.

Here's what more and more people are doing because we are not allowed to drill here.
http://green.yahoo.com/news/ap/20080524/ap_on_re_us/environmental_survivalists.html

Correct me if I'm wrong..(and I'm sure the lefties will)...wasn't there a "global cooling" happening not too long ago?...It's called climactic CYCLES.../smirk

Yes, and England even had a warrant out for his arrest at one point.

Really? A warrant for his arrest? Can you please post a link to sources where I can learn more about this arrest warrant? Thanks ...

BT
I do remember the Panic in London during the Pound Sterling sell-off. And I can remember hearing on the radio that officials had ordered the arrest of Soros. However, I can find no evidence that one was issued, or even considered. Perhaps it was just angry bombast from Downing St.
If you want to read about the sell-off, there are plenty of online sources. Try Wiki.

"The issue is that supply is restricted by the idiotic concerns of a vocal minority worried about the "raping" of the Earth."

No, the issue is that you believe it is your birthright to drive a large SUV and fill it up with cheap gas. Let's face it: cheap gas during the 90s was a fluke. The prices we're experiencing now are more in touch with reality and it's going to stay this way from now until we siphon the last drop.

You can drill, drill, drill all you want, Darren, but it's only going to drop the cost of gas by a few pennies. The good thing about capitalism is that it punishes people for making stupid choices. It was your choice to buy a bunch of SUVs. It's people's choice to live 50 miles away from their jobs. You also have the choice to trade-in your SUV (though its resale value is terrible now). People can also choose to use public transit, or to live closer to work. But again, people such as yourself don't want to adapt. They want to drive alone, in your massive SUV, fifty miles to work. Well, that's fine, but then stop your complaining.

BT:

I really would like an answer to the question about who the "US" is in Hansen's diatribe.

Beyond that, you make a sound point about spending boatloads in the ME. Sad thing though is that the reason we end up spending that money is to keep the oil flowing since we are not permitted to either drill it or refine it ourselves on our land.

Could you concede that had we maintained a growing refining capacity and drilled our own oil wells, that we could have all writtten off the ME?

Seriously, when you mention "petroleum addiction", that lets the cat out of the bag about what this whole issue is about. There is no such thing as human induced heating on the planet, there is a hatred of using fossil fuels among a large vocal group. When couched in a certain way, it can become an issue. Or when the Goreacle gets it, it becomes a huge moneymaker.

Mark:

And your 34 mpg car is? DRUMROLL PLEASE.......

Congrats on the mileage, if only everyone else got 34 mpg we could solve all of problems.

LOL

I agree this is a poorly written letter, but Mr. Bastardi has done tremendous work throughout his career with AccuWeather.com, specifically in the area of challenging computer-model-generated longterm forecasts with his own predictions drawn from observations of large scale weather patterns. The exception he takes toward the "scientific consensus" on human-induced global warming is likely due to this background given that the IPCC temperature predictions rely largely on forecasts generated by computer models. Whether Mr. Bastardi is correct in his concerns over these specific computer models is beyond my realm of understanding, but would certainly be challenged and defended in his hypothetical debate. As for who would engage in the debate, the 5 ranking scientists on the IPCC should work for the human-induced global warming camp. For the other side, 5 extremely qualified scientists on the skeptic side do, in fact, exist. Of these, my choices would, like the issue, be global in scope:
1. Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem
2.IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a Ph.D meteorologist, scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project
3. Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists and a retired Professor of Advanced Physics at the University of Bologna in Italy
4. Czech-born U.S. climatologist Dr. George Kukla, a research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University
5. MIT's Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dr. Richard Lindzen

These men have impeccable credentials, though Dr. Lindzen has been smeared in the past (after gaining the ire of environmental activist Laurie David) so be wary of the information you gather through Google searches of his name.

Best,
Kevin

"However, I can find no evidence that one was issued, or even considered."

Translation: I made it up.

No, the issue is that you believe it is your birthright to drive a large SUV and fill it up with cheap gas.

REPLY: And just who in the (____) are you to tell people what they can and can't drive? Nobody is claiming a birthright, buster. But people do have choices and don't need your precious big brother to make decisions for them. For the common good.

Let's face it: cheap gas during the 90s was a fluke. The prices we're experiencing now are more in touch with reality and it's going to stay this way from now until we siphon the last drop.

REPLY: PANIC!!! PANIC!!! THERE'S NO MORE OIL!!!! BULL!!!! We are sitting on an ocean of oil right under our feet, but again, can't drill for it. Can't be energy independent. We might hurt a twig or a rock or something.

You can drill, drill, drill all you want, Darren, but it's only going to drop the cost of gas by a few pennies.

REPLY: I we drill, drill, drill all we want, we become energy independent (again, repeating, because you just don't get it). So we can tell the OPEC countries run by people and a religion that hates us to GO POUND IT!!! Thus sending them into a panic and forcing them to lower the price of gas by more than the few pennies you contend with your gloom and doom hate speech. Like Glo-BULL Warming, Ladies and Gents, just another CROCK from an angry member of the politcal left. The rich keep getting richer and poor keep getting poorer, yada yada yada.....

Oh, and again, for the 7th time, Mr. Travolta. What kind of vehicle do you drive? You still haven't answered the question.

"And just who in the (____) are you to tell people what they can and can't drive? Nobody is claiming a birthright, buster. But people do have choices and don't need your precious big brother to make decisions for them. For the common good."

I never said people can't drive SUVs. People have the freedom to drive a SUV and live 50 miles away from work if they so choose. However, they shouldn't be whining the way Darren has been about fuel prices. Their lifestyle was their choice, and thus, it's their choice to pay higher prices. It's called personal accountability. You know, those two words that people such as yourself always claim to vouch for, unless it applies to your own life, in which case...then it's government and everyone else's fault.

"PANIC!!! PANIC!!! THERE'S NO MORE OIL!!!! BULL!!!! We are sitting on an ocean of oil right under our feet, but again, can't drill for it. Can't be energy independent. We might hurt a twig or a rock or something."

It's just a drop in the bucket. Instead of importing 68% of our oil, we'd be importing 65%. Big whoop.

"Oh, and again, for the 7th time, Mr. Travolta. What kind of vehicle do you drive? You still haven't answered the question."

It doesn't matter whether it's a Chevy, Toyota, or BMW -- it gets 34 mpg.

Of course, the reason you and Darren continue to ask is because you believe it's anti-America to buy foreign cars.

Congratulations, You hit it right on the head. I"m old enough to have lived through several hot spells and global cooling and too dry and too wet. We people are just little ants when it comes to changing mother nature. All the scientists and politicians use the words "maybe" or "if" or "could" and they make the "models" they use in the computers so really it's all a guess but then it keeps a lot of people employed. Keep up your good work.

Sounds like a great idea to me. We know global warming is not credible anyways. Look who is promoting it... the self proclaimed wonderful inventor of the internet Al Gore. He lost his credibility a long time ago with me. What a worthless piece of crap. Look what he has started. I say drill, drill, drill.

Q "Oh, and again, for the 7th time, Mr. Travolta. What kind of vehicle do you drive? You still haven't answered the question."

A "It doesn't matter whether it's a Chevy, Toyota, or BMW -- it gets 34 mpg."

Translation: I made it up.

Mark:

WE ask not because we care whether it is American made or not, but rather, what kind of vehicle it is and whether or not it is up to snuff on environmental systems. Better yet, I just want to be nosy.

And, quite frankly, I'm not really whining as pointing out that the prices do not make sense given the fact that we, as a country, could be fossill fuel independent. The ONLY reason we are not is because of the false and incorrect actions of a vocal group of people. While this group whined, and they do really WHINE, about litter in the 70's, CFCs in the 80's, VOCs in the 90's, they now have resorted to an incorrect view of climate to further their agenda.

"WE ask not because we care whether it is American made or not, but rather, what kind of vehicle it is and whether or not it is up to snuff on environmental systems. Better yet, I just want to be nosy."

The funny part is that you've never told us what type of SUVs you drive. Let's hear it. Better yet, what clunkers were you driving before your SUVs which supposedly has poor gas mileage?

Mark,

I never bought into the commuting lifestyle. First it took the father from the home, and then the liberated mother. Now even babies commute to day-care. The end result is : Nobody is home. So why bother have one?

I prefer the idea of the farm, where everyone is home. That's where our nation's roots began.

However I also understand people want a place away from the squalor of the workplace. And I greatly enjoyed being young in the 1960's, when all you needed to do was hang out your thumb and people would pull over and drive you hundreds of miles for free. Highways can be beautiful avenues of freedom.

Despite the fact I have chosen to commute as little as possible, I feel for people who are getting hit hard by the rise in gas prices. I can't understand why some delight in this misery. You, Mark, seem to positively snicker.

Perhaps people should have seen this coming. However did it come because gas abruptly ran out, or was the shortage manufactured? It makes a very big difference. If it was manufactured, then someone is causing unnecessary misery to occur.

Q "Oh, and again, for the 7th time. What kind of vehicle do you drive? You still haven't answered the question."

A "It doesn't matter whether it's a Chevy, Toyota, or BMW -- it gets 34 mpg."

Translation: I made it up.

Caleb, manufactured perhaps?
http://moneynews.newsmax.com/max_whitmore/oil_speculation/2008/05/30/100169.html

OK...Let's try this again....

Q "Oh, and again, for the 7th time. What kind of vehicle do you drive? You still haven't answered the question."

A "It doesn't matter whether it's a Chevy, Toyota, or BMW -- it gets 34 mpg."

Translation: I made it up.

REPLY: L (Hysterically) OL!!!! How typical an answer.