Under The Radar Media

Global warming fear-monger selected as Puppet Obama’s top science adviser

Posted in Barack Obama, Global Warming by maasanova on December 20, 2008

Maasanova


"I'm smarter than you."

A celebrated Harvard professor has been selected to whisper into President-elect Obama’s ear about global warming…uh, I mean global climate change, or whatever they call it these days. Professor John P. Holdren is expected to serve as Obama’s top science adviser, no doubt signaling that the Obama administration will attempt to pass a bill to tax carbon rather than fight real environmental issues.

And just who is Holdren? Well, take a look at him. Just look at him! We’ve all met the type. If this smug picture of the professor doesn’t tell you all you need to know about him and his attitude towards you, then take a look at one of his op-eds regarding people who think that global warming is a contrived crisis.

“The few climate-change “skeptics” with any sort of scientific credentials continue to receive attention in the media out of all proportion to their numbers, their qualifications, or the merit of their arguments. And this muddying of the waters of public discourse is being magnified by the parroting of these arguments by a larger population of amateur skeptics with no scientific credentials at all.”

See? He’s smarter than you. Yeah, I’m talking to you! The one with no scientific credentials. Holdren is obviously tired of debating with the fringe of “internet bloggers and cocktail-party conversationalists,” and has sought a larger audience where he can appropriately express his superior mental intellect.

And it takes all of two seconds to connect him to Al Gore and his global warming propaganda movie, An Inconvenient Truth, a movie that a judge in the UK prohibited from being sent to schools unless it was countered with “guidance giving the other side of the argument” due to the it’s nine factual errors. The Harvard professor, who is smarter than you, was Gore’s adviser on the film.

So why does Holdren feel that the average skeptic of common or sub-par intellect continues to deny global warming? It’s the fact that terms such as “climate change” and “global warming” have become public memes that don’t properly align with his chicken little views of the phony environmental crisis. He would prefer that the term “rapid warming,” or some other catchy phrase be used so that the commoners understand that it is a crisis that must be solved right now or the world will just melt away.

Holdren also misrepresents the people that view global warming as just another swindle that was concocted in order to squeeze the middle class. He asserts that they’re mostly just dumb Republicans, regardless of the fact that there are people from both sides of the political isle who believe that global warming is an insignificant issue.

Holdren must be oblivious of the public’s mistrust of government officials who scream about problems that must be solved right away. The government screamed about the problem of Iraq that had to be solved right away or else the US would be attacked with Saddam’s imaginary weapon’s of mass destruction. The government screamed about the banks that had to be bailed out right away by US tax payers or the entire financial system would collapse.

Holdren is simply the latest hack in Obama’s administration that has been cobbled together to ensure that the United States continues to head for the trash can of history.

About these ads

56 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Jamie Holts said, on December 20, 2008 at 8:00 pm

    I found your blog on google and read a few of your other posts. I just added you to my Google News Reader. Keep up the good work. Look forward to reading more from you in the future.

  2. Jamie Holts said, on December 20, 2008 at 8:12 pm

    I must say this is a great article i enjoyed reading it keep the good work :)

  3. Jamie Holts said, on December 20, 2008 at 8:25 pm

    Well said Great information, keep up the great work!

  4. Jamie Holts said, on December 20, 2008 at 8:27 pm

    Hi,

    I’m just getting started with my new blog. Would you want to exchange links on our blog-rolls?

    BTW – I’m up to about 100 visitors per day.

  5. Jamie Holts said, on December 20, 2008 at 8:53 pm

    Nice site. Theres some good information on here. Ill be checking back regularly.

  6. [...] Read the rest of this superb post right here [...]

  7. [...] [...]

  8. wadosy said, on December 21, 2008 at 2:10 am

    the big mystery about global warming deniers is this:

    when it comes to global warming, why do deniers believe the same people who lied us into these wars, and very probably staged a false flag attack on america to get their project rolling?

    Results 1 – 10 of about 20,400 for AEI exxon warming denial

    another interesting thing: co2 has been accepted as a greenhouse gas for over 100 years… it’s a physical fact that co2 is a greenhouse gas.

    it’s also a fact that burning one gallon of gasoline produces about 20 pounds of co2.

    it’s also a fact that last year, we put about 29 billion tons of co2 into the atmosphere.

    it’s another fact that the emerging economies are putting so many particulates into the atmosphere that the greenhouse effect from greehouse gases is being masked.

    so i guess we have a choice: we can have clean air to breathe while we’re moving to high ground, or we can stay in the flatlands and breathe soot.

  9. Mark said, on December 21, 2008 at 3:41 am

    If “global warming” is an undeniable fact, why has the average temperature of the earth gone down in the past few years? Why is the average temperature of the oceans lower now than five years ago? Why have hundreds of record L O W temperatures been measured all across the globe in the past 18 months? Las Vegas just got its first snow storm in 30 years last week. It snowed yesterday in Malibu California! Buenos Aires Argentina got its first snow in eighty years about 18 months ago. Australia too has experienced record low temperatures. Within the last 18 months there were record snows in Scandinavia and England. The Antarctic ice shelf is growing as is the ice pack in Greenland. Are we supposed to believe that global warming makes the world colder? Is that argument Mister Holdren wants us to believe? Well if it is, he and his evil ilk have another think coming. Sure BO was able to trick enough saps to get elected, however people are starting to awaken and realize that if the government tells us something, it is a safe bet that the opposite is true.

  10. wadosy said, on December 21, 2008 at 5:21 am

    first of all, you got to figure out if your data source is subsidized by the AEI or exxon, because they had the motive, means, opportunity, and character to stage 9/11 in response to global warming, and so they have to deny the existence of their motive…

    (the other main motive being peak oil, seeing as how israel must secure high ground in the west bank before its americanb protector goes tits up from oil shortages and looters who see the peak oil handwriting on the wall.)

    here’s a graph from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia and the Hadley Centre of the UK Meteorological Office, and this graph is global temperature…

    secondly, you have to realize that china just passed the US in co2 emissions, and china and other emerging economies are depositing so much particulate pollution that it’s shading the planet… the same mechanism was at work in the 50s and 60s in the US and europe, then laws were passed limiiting pollution, and the warming resumed.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/interactive/2008/dec/09/climatechange-carbonemissions

    http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=550&ArticleID=5978&l=en

    so if we are going into a cool spell, it’s not surprising, neither is it surprising that an israeli scientist discovered global dimming in the 90s… we can only wonder how his discovery played into the decision to stage 9/11.

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=1&ct=result&cd=1&q=global+dimming&spell=1

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=stanhill+dimming+israel

    if you cant accept the facts that co2 is a greenhouse gas —the second most important after water vapor— if you cant accept that burning a gallon of gas produces 20 pounds of co2, that we’re now depositing about 20 billion tons of co2 into the atmosphere, and that the concentration of co2 has risen by about 30% since we’ve started burning fossil fuels, and the concentration has risen by about 15% in the last 33 years….

    if you cant accept any of that, i dont know what to tell you.

    and i certainly dont understand why you choose to believe propaganda put out by people who probably staged 9/11, lied us into iraq, are attempting to lie us into iran, and hired people who lied about tobacco to lie about global warming.

  11. wadosy said, on December 21, 2008 at 5:28 am

    now then…

    if you people had a leg to stand on, you wouldnt have to resort to this chickenshit “awaiting moderation” stuff, would you?

    poor babies.

  12. wadosy said, on December 21, 2008 at 5:28 am

    LOL!

  13. maasanova said, on December 21, 2008 at 5:38 am

    Removing the approve comment moderation feature was something I had been meaning to do for a while so I disabled it after your first post. I am a firm believer in free speech so please feel free to say what you like how you like.

  14. wadosy said, on December 21, 2008 at 5:48 am

    just checking…. this is a repeat post, including the “Your comment is awaiting moderation.” that appears in italics at the top of the post…. which is a good deal, since it gives me a chance to correct a couple typos, and insert the original temp graph from the hadley center, which i had to resize at imageshack to fit into WUFYS…

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    first of all, you got to figure out if your data source is subsidized by the AEI or exxon, because they had the motive, means, opportunity, and character to stage 9/11 in response to global warming, and so they have to deny the existence of their motive…

    (the other main motive being peak oil, seeing as how israel must secure high ground in the west bank before its americanb protector goes tits up from oil shortages and looters who see the peak oil handwriting on the wall.)

    here’s a graph from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia and the Hadley Centre of the UK Meteorological Office, and this graph is global temperature…

    http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/comparison.html

    secondly, you have to realize that china just passed the US in co2 emissions, and china and other emerging economies are depositing so much particulate pollution that it’s shading the planet… the same mechanism was at work in the 50s and 60s in the US and europe, then laws were passed limiiting pollution, and the warming resumed.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/interactive/2008/dec/09/climatechange-carbonemissions

    http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=550&ArticleID=5978&l=en

    so if we are going into a cool spell, it’s not surprising, neither is it surprising that an israeli scientist discovered global dimming in the 90s… we can only wonder how his discovery played into the decision to stage 9/11.

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=1&ct=result&cd=1&q=global+dimming&spell=1

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=stanhill+dimming+israel

    if you cant accept the facts that co2 is a greenhouse gas —the second most important after water vapor— if you cant accept that burning a gallon of gas produces 20 pounds of co2, that we’re now depositing about 29 billion tons of co2 into the atmosphere every year, and that the concentration of co2 has risen by about 30% since we’ve started burning fossil fuels, and the concentration has risen by about 15% in the last 33 years….

    if you cant accept any of that, i dont know what to tell you.

    and i certainly dont understand why you choose to believe propaganda put out by people who probably staged 9/11, lied us into iraq, are attempting to lie us into iran, and hired people who lied about tobacco to lie about global warming.

  15. wadosy said, on December 21, 2008 at 5:48 am

    huh! i’m still “awaiting moderation”.

    cant you play on a level field?

  16. maasanova said, on December 21, 2008 at 5:49 am

    You think that American Enterprise Institute is behind the entire so-called skeptic’s movement just because it is a Zionists organization?

  17. wadosy said, on December 21, 2008 at 5:52 am

    if israel will eventually be threatened by sea level rise —and remember, we’re talking about a 4000 year tradition, here— and israel’s protector, america, is threatened by peak oil, and israel must use american armies to secure itself against sea level riser before america collapses from oil shortages…

    what the hell am i supposed to think?

  18. maasanova said, on December 21, 2008 at 5:55 am

    I just checked the moderation, it’s off but I still have to moderate for some reason. I just moved to WordPress from Blogger and it’s still new to me, but post all the links and data you want. But I have seen them from WUFYS several times and I have looked at them

  19. wadosy said, on December 21, 2008 at 5:59 am

    if you can beat the logic and the facts, and come up with a better suspects than israel, israeli americans, exxon and deathwish christians, please do so…

    …judging your new suspects by the traditional “motive, means, opportunity, and character”, and including evidence of premeditation like the AEI/PNAC document expressing the need for “a new pearl harbor”, and the decades-long intent of israel to rearrange the middle east.

  20. wadosy said, on December 21, 2008 at 6:03 am

    if you deny the existence of your motive, you can overlook the rest of it… the means, opportunity, character and premeditation, which israel and israeli americans and fellow travelers had in spades once they were installed by the 2000 election, the outcome of which was determined by an election recount in a state governed by the president-elect’s brother and PNAC member, jeb bush.

  21. Mark said, on December 21, 2008 at 7:19 am

    Wadosy:

    Please explain why the world is getting colder and stop with the red herrings.

    Explain the notion of “inter-glacial”

    Explain why the earth goes through warming/cooling cycles.

    Methane is a substantially more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. The major source of methane, aside from that escaping form the sea, is termite flatulence.

    I want scientists to study detonating atomic munitions on the sea floor to liberate methane to save humanity from the coming ice age.

    Get your facts straight prior to expressing AlGore’s thoughts.

    I bet you voted for one of the evil presidential candidates that “believe” in “global warming.”

  22. wadosy said, on December 21, 2008 at 9:17 am

    i explained why the world may be getting colder, now.

    i explained why the world got colder in the 70s and 80s.

    …global dimming caused by particulate emissions that shade the planet.

    maybe you’d like to contemplate what’s gonna happen when we run out of fossil fuels, seeing as how they settle out of the atmosphere in decades while the co2 will remain, heating, for hundreds of years.

  23. wadosy said, on December 21, 2008 at 9:19 am

    …and i really do wish you’d explain why you believe proven liars about global warming, when they have motive to deny that their motive to stage 9/11 exists.

  24. wadosy said, on December 21, 2008 at 10:46 am

    hadley center global temps… notice the downturn in the last few years

    wikipedia on “global dimming”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming

    Results 1 – 10 of about 96,100, google search for “global dimming”

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22global+dimming%22

    Results 1 – 10 of about 11,600 for google search of “atmospheric brown cloud”

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22atmospheric+brown+cloud%22+&btnG=Search

  25. Danny said, on December 21, 2008 at 4:21 pm

    Global warming and environmentalism are distractions. As the mass media creates climate illusions, Big Brother clamps down by opening our mail, suspending habeas corpus, stealing private lands, banning books like “America Deceived” from Amazon, rigging elections, conducting warrantless wiretaps and starting wars based on blatant lies. Prevent our loss of rights then handle the ‘environment’ crisis.
    Last link (before Google Books bends to gov’t Will and drops the title):

    http://www.iuniverse.com/Bookstore/BookDetail.aspx?BookId=SKU-000083883

  26. Mark said, on December 21, 2008 at 7:35 pm

    Moderator:

    Please remove the incoherent static spewed-out by wadosy, He/she has more loose screws than a Chevy and contributes nothing.

    Thanks,

    Mark

  27. wadosy said, on December 21, 2008 at 7:39 pm

    you cant defeat the logic or the facts, so you cant play on a level field, so you have to appeal to a moderator for a protecter environment to work in.

    wonderful

  28. MatthewM said, on December 22, 2008 at 7:47 am

    wadosy,

    You don’t provide a logical or factual claim to refute. You just spew forth links to biased sources and vested interests and think that settles the matter. It doesn’t. You’re more noise than signal. Try and put forth a clear and concise argument like I believe I have below. Then we can debate on specific points.

    The main things the debate needs to revolve around are:
    1. Is the world warming? Most people agree that there has been warming the past few decades.
    2. If it is warming, Is this warming man-made? I think the paleo record proves that increased atmoshperic CO2 provides only a small boost to the global temperature, and that this boost tapers off after a certain amount. Ancient records indicate CO2 in the past has been as high as 7000ppm.
    3. If it is warming and man-made, Is it a problem? That is, do the benefits of a warmer world outweigh the negatives. Given how many people die each year from the cold, I believe mild warming is overall beneficial.
    4. If it is warming, man-made and a problem, Is mitigation or adaption a superior solution? I believe believes human excel at adaption and should take this route over trying to terraform the planet with unproven and expensive scientific experiments.

  29. [...] Puppet Obama’s climate advisor Here’s an alternative view: global warming -obama’s science advisor [...]

  30. wadosy said, on December 22, 2008 at 11:54 am

    MatthewM said, “You don’t provide a logical or factual claim to refute.”

    okay.

    you are NOT parroting the people who lied about tobacco and iraq’s wmds.

    according to you, we have NOT known for over one hundred years that co2 is a greenhouse gas.

    according to you, co2 is NOT the second most important greenhouse gas after water vapor.

    according to you, burning a gallon of gas does NOT produce almost 20 pounds of co2.

    according to you, we did NOT deposit about 29 billion tons into the atmosphere in the last year.

    according to you, the concentration of co2 in the atmosphere has not increased by 30% since we’ve started using fossil fuels, half of that increase occuring in the last 33 years.

    according to you, there’s NOT such a thing as global dimming.

    according to you, there’s NOT any concern about the particulate emission levels in emerging economies.

    according to you, there’s NOT any concern about what’s gonna happen once the current batch of smog settles out of the atmosphere, thus allowing the warming effects of the greenhouse gases to become dominant again.

    .
    please post urls substaniating your claims.

  31. MatthewM said, on December 22, 2008 at 12:12 pm

    I have not stated one single thing you have accused me of saying.

  32. wadosy said, on December 22, 2008 at 12:18 pm

    and finally, you did NOT say “You don’t provide a logical or factual claim to refute.”

  33. [...] Posted by The Bulvater Here’s an alternative view: global warming -obama’s science advisor In the real world, the grownups are taking charge. Bush has only 4 weeks to [...]

  34. Mark said, on December 23, 2008 at 11:37 pm

    wadosy:

    You, just like a rude child, are simply shouting goofy and irrelevant nonsense. To use your methods, I could start ranting about the price of cabbage in Poland. What you are saying is pure nonsense.

    That F A C T S are:

    1) The world has, throughout its history, gone through warm spells and cold spells and none of it was caused by humans.

    2) The amount of contribution to “greenhouse gases” attributable to human activity is statistically insignificant compared to the natural sources.

    3) Carbon dioxide is GOOD. Plants require it to grow.

    4) Greenland was green when Europeans discovered it. The earth then went through one of its cooling periods and ice covered much of what was once green, vegetation-growing land.

    5) The average temperature of the earth is now lower than it was 10 years ago.

    8) Global warming is preferable to a new ice age.

    9) Record C O L D temperatures are being recorded in many places on the earth.

    10) You have absolutely N O training whatsoever in things scientific.

    11) You are incapable of discerning anything or of independent thought. You are only capable of regurgitating the putrid diarrhea that issues from the mouths those you worship, the “leaders” of the ongoing socialist movement.

    12) Trying to use truth, logic and facts with you is like trying to teach my dog differential equations. You are simply lacking the intellectual capacity to process the data.

    You should be ignored and encouraged to go back to your burger flipping or toilet cleaning job and stop insisting that thinking intelligent people pay attention to your childish rants.

  35. Anonymous said, on December 24, 2008 at 1:02 am

    you refuse to acknowledge the role particulate matter plays in slowing down the warming.

    once atmospheric concentration of co2 reaches 500 parts per million, and we run out of fossil fuels to replenish the particulates, what do you spose is gonna happen?

  36. Mark said, on December 24, 2008 at 1:22 am

    Anonymous:

    I suppose a few well placed hydrogen bombs could introduce particulate matter into the atmosphere if that is what you think is important. Anyway, there is enough “fossil fuel” in the earth to keep us well supplied with particulate matter for a VERY long time if it is indeed something we need.

  37. Anonymous said, on December 24, 2008 at 1:36 am

    why did american oil production peak in 1970?

    why has global crude oil and lease condensate production been flat for the last four years?

    and, assuming for the sake of argument that there’s an unlimited supply of oil, you seem to approve of your great-grandchildren breathing soot…

    …will another scientific marvel be discovered? …will your genes be re-engineered to enable your descendants to breathe soot, or will they all get gill transplants so they can live underwater?

    …and while your great-grandchildren are being overhauled, maybe they can have a few cockroach genes implanted so they can tolerate the radioactivity caused by your H-bomb solution to replenishing the particulates.

  38. Mark said, on December 24, 2008 at 1:53 am

    Hey, you are the one who thinks particulate matter is a good thing, not me.

    BTW, what about the price of cabbage in Poland? Why won’t you address that? Is it because it totally proves you are wrong?

  39. Mark said, on December 24, 2008 at 1:58 am

    Anonymous:

    One more thing. since you consume products that have a “carbon footprint” and breathe in air and exhale carbon dioxide and water vapor and emit methane also, perhaps the biggest positive impact you could have on the greenhouse gas “problem” would be to kill yourself. How do you sleep ant night? How can you look at yourself in the mirror each morning knowing that you are the cause of the destruction of the earth?

    Think about that.

  40. Anonymous said, on December 24, 2008 at 2:06 am

    yup.

    overpopulation is the basic problem… seeing as how fossil fuels, accumulate over hundreds of millions of years, have been subsidizing human population growth.

    too bad, if intelligence and honesty are genetic traits, your genes are not likely to survive, once the oil drys up.

  41. wadosy said, on December 24, 2008 at 2:07 am

    yup.

    overpopulation is the basic problem… seeing as how fossil fuels, accumulated over hundreds of millions of years, have been subsidizing human population growth.

    too bad, if intelligence and honesty are genetic traits, your genes are not likely to survive, once the oil drys up.

  42. wadosy said, on December 24, 2008 at 2:09 am

    of course, if we overheat the planet and the methane gets loose, and the co2 concentrations rise to the levels that existed when the oceans were algae soup, then we can start the process all over again.

    all we have to do is wait a few hundred million years for the new oil to form.

    cool, huh?

  43. Mark said, on December 24, 2008 at 3:02 am

    After a few hundred million years, I doubt that you will care.

  44. wadosy said, on December 24, 2008 at 3:12 am

    if people were as rational as they suppose they are, we could get out of this mess without killing anyone… the keys would be education and cooperation.

    but you are demonstrating the ignorance of masses of people who will be murdered by the tens of millions in wars for oil, water and food.

    and billions more will die from starvation… all because they were simply too fucking stupid to quit breeding, and too goddamned stupid to cooperate with each other.

  45. Mark said, on December 24, 2008 at 3:32 am

    Well, you still refuse to answer the questions so that proves that you are wrong and that I am right.

  46. wadosy said, on December 24, 2008 at 3:42 am

    i will confess i dont know the price of cabbage in poland… or anywhere else.

  47. Mark said, on December 24, 2008 at 4:42 am

    Ok, that settles that.

  48. [...] Posted by The Bulvater Here’s an alternative view: global warming -obama’s science advisor It’s just a sneer. The writer, and people like him, doesn’t believe in the possibility of [...]

  49. ChasP said, on December 29, 2008 at 1:58 am

    OMG, if water vapor is the most prevalent greenhouse gas, maybe we should put a tax on it! The entire global warming/global change claim that humanity is altering global climate is ludicrous. To think flatulent termites, cows and humans can cause the earth to heat up is a bit much. What about solar warming? Don’t you think our suns’ radiation might have something to do with the earths temperature? Solar flare (sun spots) activity has been at record low levels, resulting in lower temperatures recorded on all planets in our Solar System. The sun heats up causing planets to heat up. The sun cools down causing planets to cool down (duh). This ain’t rocket science.

  50. Rico Suave said, on December 29, 2008 at 9:17 am

    The human-caused global warming hysteria is just another example of humans’ infatuation with believing that they are in control of all natural processes.

  51. wadosy said, on December 29, 2008 at 6:16 pm

    http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/9750

    go to the url above to see this post properly formatted, including links.

    the big mystery about global warming deniers is this:

    when it comes to global warming, why do deniers believe the same people who lied us into these wars, and very probably staged a false flag attack on america to get their project rolling?

    AEI exxon warming denial

    AEI israel

    another interesting thing: co2 has been accepted as a greenhouse gas for over 100 years… it’s a physical fact that co2 is a greenhouse gas.
    it’s also a fact that burning one gallon of gasoline produces about 20 pounds of co2.

    it’s also a fact that every year, we put about 29 billion tons of co2 into the atmosphere.

    it’s another fact that we are putting so many particulates into the atmosphere that the greenhouse effect from greenhouse gases is being masked.

    it isnt surprising that an israeli scientist discovered global dimming, and published his findings in 2001… we can only wonder how his discovery played into the decision to stage 9/11.

    and what happens if the global economy crashes so bad that china quits making widgets to ship to walmart? …and what if the particulate matter settles out, quits shading the planet, and the co2 becomes dominant again, like it did after the US and europe cleaned up their particulate emissions?

    here’s what happens…

    greenhouse effect

    In the absence of the greenhouse effect and an atmosphere, the Earth’s average surface temperature of 14 °C (57 °F) could be as low as -18 °C (-0.4 °F), the black body temperature of the Earth.

    greenhouse gases

    Water vapor is a naturally occurring greenhouse gas and accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 70%.

    …air can hold more water vapor per unit volume when it warms.

    …water vapor concentrations in warmer air will amplify the greenhouse effect created by anthropogenic greenhouse gases while maintaining nearly constant relative humidity. Thus water vapor acts as a positive feedback to the forcing provided by greenhouse gases such as CO2.

    The concentration of CO2 has increased by about 100 ppm (i.e., from 280 ppm to 380 ppm). The first 50 ppm increase took place in about 200 years, from the start of the Industrial Revolution to around 1973; the next 50 ppm increase took place in about 33 years, from 1973 to 2006.

    greenhouse gases and contribution to greenhouse effect

    water vapor contributes 36–70%
    carbon dioxide contributes 9–26%
    methane contributes 4–9%
    ozone contributes 3–7%

    composition of atmosphere (dry)

    Nitrogen 78.084%
    Oxygen 20.946%
    Argon 0.9340%
    Carbon dioxide 0.0383%
    Neon 0.001818%
    Helium 0.000524%
    Methane 0.0001745%
    Krypton 0.000114%
    Hydrogen 0.000055%

    Not included in above dry atmosphere:
    Water vapor ~0.40% over full atmosphere, typically 1% to 4% near surface

    if water vapor, at a concentration of 1% to 4% in the lower atmosphere, and overall concentration of fourth tenths of a percent, contributes max 70% of the greenhouse effect that warms the planet enough to make it habitable, that must mean that the other 30% of the warming comes from the other greenhouse gases, of which co2 is dominant.

    meanwhile, emerging economies and the old standbys in the west are doing their level best to produce shade and cool us off by depositing gigatons of particulates into the atmosphere.

    too bad the particulates will settle out, and leave the co2 behind to warm the planet for hundreds of years after the shade has gone.

    atmospheric brown clouds… masking 2°C of warming?

    google search: “atmospheric brown cloud” dimming

    google search: “global dimming”

    google search: “atmospheric lifetime” co2

    if the fate of anthropogenic carbon must be boiled down into a single number for popular discussion, then 300 years is a sensible number to choose, because it captures the behavior of the majority of the carbon.

    A better approximation of the lifetime of fossil fuel CO2 for public discussion might be ‘‘300 years, plus 25% that lasts forever.’’

    fate of fossil fuel co2 in geologic time

    so the problem emerges: if the neocons are successful in gaining control of the world’s energy, if they’re successful in restricting consumption, if they hoard the remaining energy to enforce their policies, they will have to contend with global warming and sea level rise eventually. …global warming that motivated their PNAC/9-11/”war on terror” operation, global warming that they’ve tried so hard to deny.

    and how are they going to enforce their policies once their armies run out of gas?

    this is the neocons’ last chance to accomplish their “benevolent global hegemony” before the oil runs out.

    but maybe the main goal of whole dismal project is simply to loot the planet before the system collapses into a rotten, depleted heap.

  52. Jack said, on December 30, 2008 at 4:20 am

    Hmm. Looks like we can’t even control our own: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008558917_sludge25.html

    Global Warming is about risk management. We are releasing an unprecedented amount of previously stored carbon and we don’t really know what is going to happen. Probably warming, but maybe not. Doesn’t matter, because by doing so we’ve introduced a great deal of risk into our lives over something that we have very little control over (control being something quite different than having an effect upon).

    Probably warming. If we are causing more warming globally, we are adding heat energy to our global system. I would expect more violent swings in weather (not climate), so more snow and more hot summers, more drought and more floods.

    Risk. Risk. Risk.

    Cost? money, mostly, money mostly not in the hands of most of us. But there is no guarantee that the steps taken to address this risky situation won’t stimulate tremendous economic gains in technological innovation, energy independence, and lower health costs.

    Besides, there are people living on the Pacific islands who have a legitimate reason to fear that the activities of industrialized nations are going to obliterate their homelands by rising sea level. I think they must take it rather personally.

    As for colder ocean temperatures, if that is true, which I’m not sure of, one would have to establish that it is not the result of the mixing of the cold water from melting ice.

    Not all particulate matter causes global dimming. Black carbon particulate matter, caused by burning biomass (like woodstoves) and diesel, may have 60% of the global warming effect of CO2. And its bad to breathe. PM in general is linked to respiratory illness. Besides, it ruins the view. Great sunsets though…

    Anyway, people have to think about risk, and risk management, which rarely deals with certainties. But no sensible business or government (or people) ought to do without it.

    As for Mr. Holden being an elitist, well he might be, but one thing that I think is too often disregarded about scholars and scientists, is the amount of *time* that these people spend *studying* the subject of their interest. Even a well-informed hobbyist will have trouble matching the expertise of a climate scientist for the simple reason that all those hours spent on their day jobs is not time spend on studying the subtle details of the climate and the atmosphere. Experts really do have expertise. We don’t generally like it when someone says they’re smarter, more informed, or better than you, but sometimes it is true. I don’t know much about Mr. Holden, he might even be an arrogant prick, but I’ll bet this: he knows more about climate science than any of you. He knows more than me.

    A wise person listens.

  53. maasanova said, on December 30, 2008 at 4:45 am

    We can’t have a hack with that much influence who can’t even get his science straight in global warming propaganda movies in such an influencial place in government. Sorry it’s just common sense 101 to me. How about getting the pharmecuticals and rocket fuel out of the water supply in America.

  54. Jack said, on December 30, 2008 at 5:27 am

    maasanova, I’ll second that, as far as getting the other pollutants out of the environment. There are a lot of very practical environmental concerns that the focus on global warming obscures, for example, the fact that pollutants are causing havoc with sexual reproduction ( e.g. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/its-official-men-really-are-the-weaker-sex-1055688.html ).

    Still, I don’t think gw science is a hoax. I think it is real. I have too much respect for the expertise of the countless scientists who confirm it’s reality, and much less respect for the countless amateurs who disagree with them. The same dynamic exists with respect to human evolution, and I’m certain human evolution is a historical fact.

    Whether Holdren is a fool or a hack is something that no doubt we will find out, but my suspicion is that he is neither.

  55. maasanova said, on January 16, 2009 at 7:54 pm

    Jamie,

    I’m sorry it took so long to get back with you. I’ll be glad to exchange links with you.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 28 other followers

%d bloggers like this: