Show Schedule:
Weekday
Saturday
Sunday
[ Times shown are EST ]Listen to The Nicole Sandler Show at 11pm.
Thousand Hurt in Anti-G8 Protest, Police Arrest 128 People
News:
German police said on Sunday that 128 people were arrested after a demonstration by anti-G8 protesters in Rostock the previous day which left up to 1,000 people injured.The organizers of the protest in northern Germany, which came four days before the start of the G8 summit in nearby Heiligendamm, have claimed that at least 165 people were arrested.
Once again,
a few radicals fuck it up for everybody. Sounds like the Republican Party.
On some great & glorious day the plain folks will reach their hearts desire at last, & the White House will be adorned by a downright moron. - H.L. Mencken
frustration leads to violence...
“Some of them were arrested in such a brutal manner that they had to be hospitalized,
I'm waiting for Europe's level of political passion
to grip the citizens of this nation so's we can clean house and start with a fresh, preferably intelligent, preferably honest, preferably peaceful, preferably secular administration.
Carpe fidelis!
clean up
"...clean house and start with a fresh, preferably intelligent, preferably honest, preferably peaceful, preferably secular administration..."
And where are you going to get these people, from Mexico?
Well, at least we know where NOT to look!
The repub party.
How could this have happened?
80,000 frustrated people and a few thousand guys armed with clubs, gas, etc...
Thumping
Maybe they could water-board a few of them, that just might mellow them out some.
http://www.investors.com/editorial/cartoons/IMAGES/cartoons/toon060407.g...
No problem
We can start with you.
The Iraq occupation: slow grind to nowhere.
G8, UN and sunny days
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2575639,00.html
"...UN experts have warned that limiting global warming to two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) is the threshold level to stop the worst impacts of climate change..." Hmmm, now the UN believes it can control the earth’s temperature!
And..............
"...There has always been climate change on earth, Schmidt said...,
...We've had warm- and ice-ages for hundreds of thousands of years," he said, and added that the reasons behind the multiple climate changes have been "inadequately researched for the time being...,
...To assume that global climate change can be altered by any plans made at the Heiligendamm summit is "idiotic," he said."
Seems the consensus is breaking apart too.
no the consensus is still the same
It is just your head breaking apart because you are always proven wrong on this issue.
Don't tell Huffy the truth.
He can't handle it. NASA said the same thing last week; more study on Global warming is needed before we can determine the real cause.
Submitted by Jim2244 on June 4, 2007 - 11:49am
Hey Jimmy,
Have you found all those references to God in the 'Founding Father's Documents' yet?
I am still waiting.
Why don't you leave now and avoid the embarrassment.
"Invest In America Buy A Congressman"--evolvefish
One election at a time......
Here's an answer for JimmyDumbshit
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&add...
MYTH 1: The US was founded on Christian principles.
TRUTH:
This is incorrect.
The Constitution never once mentions a deity, because the Founding Fathers wanted to keep their new country "religion-neutral." Our Founding Fathers were an eclectic collection of Atheists, Deists, Christians, Freemasons and Agnostics.
George Washington, the Father of our country, and John Adams (Second President of the USA) CLEARLY stated in the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli: "The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion.
The NASA administrator (a Bush pick)
is such a chickenshit that he doesn't even have the guts to stand up to the administration. He has the unmitigated gall to say we are arrogant in saying the climate we have should be preserved, and even implied a warmer climate would be of benefit to everyone. By that logic, we should not try to put out fires, as that means we are arrogantly assuming everyone is better off with their homes unburned. Who knows, maybe every fire victim is actually better off after their house burns down. Don't be arrogant and stop those floods either. It's obviously better when all that property is destroyed. Why not extend that reasoning to man-made events? Why bother rebuilding NYC after 9-11? Maybe the city and its citizens are better off after the billions of dollars of destruction and the loss of 3000 lives. This guy is in the league of Brownie, and should be shown the door. What a Bush tool!
Wrong? Me?
Come on PuffRosie, you should know betterthan that by now. Q: Does CO2 increase temps?
No Hitler all Day on the History Channel Herr DeeTeeDee?
two posts on global warming? Sounding shrill little bootlicker.
Question with boldness even the existence of God; because if there be one, He must approve the homage of Reason rather than that of blindfolded Fear. -- Thomas Jefferson
Less than 1%
And we all know that CO2 levels increase after temperatures warm up , not the other way around.
http://www.muskogeephoenix.com/opinion/local_story_154213535.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSo2VSsDqsk
No, not only do we not know that, it is pure garbage.
That is like saying that the flame on your BBQ only starts after the burgers are cooked.
HaHAHA!!
good one!!
Man
Ask the Weather Channel how it works or take a look at the Scientific Consensus.
Time for more fantasy from Exxon I guess
By the way, NASA's administrator thinks its arrogant to say we should keep the climate the way it is, and that things might be better with global warming. So, if brush fires sweep across CA, just remember, it is arrogant to think we should keep your state unburned. You may be much happier with everything burned to the ground. Those damned arrogant people in New Orleans should be happy their city was destroyed by Katrina. It may be better now after the hurricane, right?
Submitted by deiter dickless on June 4, 2007 - 12:07pm.
And we all know that CO2 levels increase after temperatures warm up , not the other way around.
Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming
Catherine Brahic, NewScientist.com news service
16 May 2007
The ice ages show that temperature can determine CO2 as well as CO2 driving temperature. Some sceptics – not scientists – have seized upon this idea and are claiming that the relation is one way, that temperature determines CO2 levels but CO2 levels do not affect temperature.
To repeat, the evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas depends mainly on physics, not on the correlation with past temperature, which tells us nothing about cause and effect. And while the rises in CO2 a few hundred years after the start of interglacials can only be explained by rising temperatures, the full extent of the temperature increases over the following 4000 years can only be explained by the rise in CO2 levels.
What is more, further back in past there are examples of warmings triggered by rises in greenhouse gases, such as the Palaeo-Eocene Thermal Maximum 55 millions years ago.
Finally, if higher temperatures lead to more CO2 and more CO2 leads to higher temperatures, why doesn't this positive feedback lead to a runaway greenhouse effect? There are various limiting factors that kick in, the most important being that infrared radiation emitted by Earth increases exponentially with temperature, so as long as some infrared can escape from the atmosphere, at some point heat loss catches up with heat retention.
"He prayeth well, who loveth well, Both man and bird and beast." - Samuel Taylor Coleridge
Oh brother, it's all mans fault and not nature?
"...There's nothing wrong with the basic physics. There's nothing wrong with laboratory physics, with measurements taken in the laboratory. They can be made very precisely, and under controlled conditions. Unfortunately, the atmosphere is not a laboratory that you can put into a building and control. The atmosphere is much more complicated.
For example, as carbon dioxide increases, you would expect a warming. But at the same time that you get this warming or this slight warming, you get more evaporation from the ocean. That's inevitable. Everyone agrees with that. Now, what is the effect of this additional water vapor in the atmosphere? Will it enhance the warming, as the models now calculate? Or will it create clouds, which will reflect solar radiation and reduce the warming? Or will it do something else? You see, the clouds are not captured by the models. Models are not good enough to either depict clouds or to even discuss the creation of clouds in a proper way. So it's not possible at this time to be sure how much warming one will get from an increase in carbon dioxide..."
Dr. Singer; atmospheric physicist at George Mason University and founder of the Science and Environmental Policy Project.
90% of climatologists disagree
case closed!
PuffRosie
Where in the hell do you get that number? I will agree with you that there is no real scientifc consensus regarding GW! The issue of global warming is media and $$$ money driven moreso than is the concern over the earths temperature rise or decline. One only need look back to the 1970's and see the hysterical out crys of the next ice age that was so close upon us.
Ahhhh, chicken little is alive and well.
you are wrong
have been proven wrong everytime, and will always be wrong. You are not a climate expert. Almost all climate experts disagree with what you few neonuts say. You can stay in your make believe world as long as you want, but arent you getting even a little embarrassed by now? SHEESH!!
Experts
I love the 'your not an expert' line. Outside of anyones expertise, if we were to adhere to your line of thought, no one here would have anything to discuss. What is your field of expertise PuffRosie, besides spasmodic attacks on the brain.
Still using the 70's as your proof that global warming isn't
happening? Why not use a textbook from the 50s, or the 30s? I'm sure that if I looked at my grandmother's set of encyclopedias from the 30s, I would get a very accurate view of the latest thinking in science, history, and politics, right?
Let's follow your advice, and not make any decisions about anything until we are 100% sure, and every single person is in agreement with an action. Gee, I don't recall that happening when we invaded Iraq. I don't recall that with the surge. I don't recall that on funding abstinence-only programs in our schools for AIDS prevention. I don't recall that on Bush's selection by the Supreme Court to be president in 2000. Why oh why didn't we wait until we were 100% sure?? Those must all be horrible mistakes, right?
Sure?
So there is an absolute conclusion that the earth is warming up because of man's influence? Not from nature or hell for that matter that we are (the EARTH is) coming out of an ice age!?!
Yeah let’s spend billions of dollars to figure out...what? That climate models can NOT account for clouds accurately or in the sense of science account for the unpredictable nature (there's that word again) of clouds, thus without clouds you can GUESS all you want but you will be no closer to figuring out GW'img; in fact you could just be headed in the wrong direction, such as Al Gore.
Socialism...what a fucking waste of money & talent.
every where but in
dt make believe world. Just because global warming frightens you, does not mean it will go away if you ignore it. Children do that, not men.
Scary GW
Global Warming frightens me? No, can't say that it does PuffaRosie, but than again if you would stop speaking for others you would not get yourself into bent over positions as you always do; didn't your parents teach you ANY manners?!!
"...There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we've seen will amount to anything close to catastrophe. What most commentators—and many scientists—seem to miss is that the only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes. The earth is always warming or cooling by as much as a few tenths of a degree a year; periods of constant average temperatures are rare. Looking back on the earth's climate history, it's apparent that there's no such thing as an optimal temperature—a climate at which everything is just right..."
yes I know
the earth is flat, war is peace.
Remember the clouds
"...The current alarm rests on the false assumption not only that we live in a perfect world, temperaturewise, but also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman's forecast for next week..."
"There is no compelling
"There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we've seen will amount to anything close to catastrophe."
Naming your attributions makes it a lot quicker to knock down your arguments.
Lindzen's comments are dissected here;
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/maccracken_on_l...
By Dr. Michael C. MacCracken, Chief Scientist for Climate Change Programs
On the contrary, there are various effects that we're beginning to see at the moment. Melting ice is effecting the salinity of the oceans, melting tundra is releasing sequestered methane, increasing sea levels will effect acquifers and coastal areas, glaciers that used to supply sublimated atmospheric water vapour are disappearing. Insects and plants that have their breeding seasons triggered by temperature are appearing to move 'out of season' with the rest of the food 'web' that supports eco-systems, including the pollination of fruit bearing plants. And that's a sample of the effects that we're seeing now, not some hazy far-off problem.
"Socialism...what a fucking
"Socialism...what a fucking waste of money & talent."
You're mis-characterising the debate by trying to annoy people. I know that you're a troll, but apart from being an extremely low blow, you should know that climate problems, natural disasters and diseases are all notoriously and aggressive non-partisan issues. Unless you know of another planet you can escape to, this is going to effect you as much as me. Possibly you more because you're not taking any steps against it.
"So there is an absolute conclusion that the earth is warming up because of man's influence?"
Pretty much. The largest temperature increases have occurred during a time of increased CO2 production, and this is no longer the actual debate. It was several years ago amongst the fringe deniers, but even the most vociferous have shifted to 'technology will save us', or 'we can't do anything, and it'll be nice to be warmer'. Science doesn't work with absolutes as a rule because there's always a chance that it's wrong. In this case it's between a 5-10% chance of being wrong, and shrinking.
"That climate models can NOT account for clouds accurately"
It doesn't really have to. The modelling tends to include error bars for the upper and lower bounds that aggregate over time, providing a 'zone' of possible temperature increases. Even taking the lower and most optimistic figures shows a year on year increase and forms the basis of the IPCC report. The median is more concerning, and the maxima is downright alarming.
"in the sense of science account for the unpredictable nature (there's that word again) of clouds"
Unpredictable? Someone should alert meteorologists about your insight and avoid us spending billions on weather prediction systems.
As stated before, clouds provide 'uncertainty'. 'Uncertainty' is a specific scientific phrase to indicate that there is a probability curve for a given figure to be reached. In particle physics we live and die by uncertainty, which is completely different from 'unpredictable'. I'd suggest some books for you to read on the subject, because it's facinating getting down to mesoscale interactions that are uncertain, but allow you to type on your computer.
"thus without clouds you can GUESS all you want"
Ah, the 'guess' gambit. Time to go through the scientific method again. You posit a theory. You test the theory. You adjust the theory according to observation and repeat.
In global terms you publish your theory and test results and other people try to replicate your experimentation. There may be some that refute based on their experiments, experience or variables you may have missed, but there's a general movement towards a concensus of whether the theory is good, or bad. This is 'peer review' and involves publishing your experimental details, theory and results.
Compare and contrast against 'opinion' which blogs are.
"in fact you could just be headed in the wrong direction, such as Al Gore."
The sad fact of the matter is that I'd doubt you'd be willing to lay money down on this as a bet, because apart from Al Gore, we have the IPCC, 2500 scientists in a general, if politically manipulated consensus of opinion. The political manipulation was there to insert the 10% doubt into the concensus.
Submitted by deiter dickless on June 4, 2007 - 3:40pm.
I will agree with you that there is no real scientifc consensus regarding GW!
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Naomi Oreskes, Science Magazine
IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise". The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue".
Others agree. The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling.
[...]
This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.
"He prayeth well, who loveth well, Both man and bird and beast." - Samuel Taylor Coleridge
Naomi Oreskes
You just invalidated anything you think you know about GW by quoting that quack!
Submitted by deiter dickless on June 4, 2007 - 4:08pm.
You're the only quack around here.
Feel free to wallow in your ignorance elsewhere.
"He prayeth well, who loveth well, Both man and bird and beast." - Samuel Taylor Coleridge
Submitted by Xanadu on June 4, 2007 - 2:11pm.
Xanadu
when you found that troll's IP address was from a law firm representing republican interests was that IP for Evil_Conservative? I went back to look and I may have misunderstood. Was it him or just a troll from the past that you caught?
I found a company called netvocates, now called custom scoop, which was founded by the guy behind townhall.com. This company makes software that can monitor blogs and discussion boards and alert you if certain topics are brought up. In other words if global warming is being discussed on a board and you are a company against fighting GW then your software would alert you of what is going on.
I found that many sites reported having trolls post from netvocates ip address.
Here is the verbage form their site desribing their software:
Read more here:
http://www.customscoop.com/products/bloganalysis.cfm
If the trolls on this blog are any example
I'd argue that there is no actionable intelligence being presented.
"And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth? And the answer is not very damned many."
—Cheney, at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Washington, August 1992.
"The issue of global warming
"The issue of global warming is media and $$$ money driven"
No, it's actually driven by science, which has had a hell of problem getting into the media, because the media is filled with people who barely understand the level of science that is taking place. The scientific media; Nature, Physics Letters and NewScientist to name a few have been publishing papers for years.
The media obsession with appearing to sound balanced means that they report on the IPCC (Which, incidentally has been charged with damping down how bad things actually are), then call up some guy on the other side to state how there isn't actually a concensus. Like you, although generally they go for someone in a 'think tank' which is actually an opinion mill.
"One only need look back to the 1970's and see the hysterical out crys of the next ice age that was so close upon us."
They weren't hysterical, they were fairly well-considered papers by very few physicists in a fledgling field, the first being a paper from 1971.
This garnered fairly sensational media coverage that was sometimes completely out there, and failed to understand that ice ages are gradual events, as you can see from studies of ice cores. We _are_ in an unusually long interval period, because we're hazy on geological timescales; however, when you're talking about the past few hundred years of weather recording, we're bang on talking about an increase in temperatures.
We've come a _long_ way in thirty years to modelling and describing how the atmosphere works. Computational Fluid Dynamics, for example, really needed the computing power supplied by the supercomputer revolution to describe atmosphere.
"Dr. Singer; atmospheric
"Dr. Singer; atmospheric physicist at George Mason University and founder of the Science and Environmental Policy Project."
Do you mean Professor Fred Singer, the Professor Emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia? The same Fred Singer who disputes a link between smoking and lung cancer, and once stated that the glaciers are advancing, even though no-one could find the article he referred to?
Fred Singer, the founder of the SEPP, which received payments from Philip Morris and ExxonMobil as shown by public record? A member of the Heritage Foundation and the Cato institute?
The same Fred Singer who consulted for EXXON, Shell, Unocal, Sun Oil, ARCO?
Fred Singer, the man who stated in 2003;
""The irony is that there is no convincing evidence that the global climate is actually warming...Mr Gore and company are stirring the pot, trying to create public anxiety in order to impose a form of energy rationing on the economy - like the recently defeated Senate bill of McCain-Lieberman, which would have forced a cap on emissions, equivalent to an energy tax. President George W. Bush has termed such a policy 'fatally flawed'.""
And ironically shifted position, in 2006, to;
"The current warming trend is not unusual: Climate is always either warming or cooling, and ice is either melting or accumulating. ... The human contribution to global warming appears to be quite small and natural climate factors are dominant."
Is that the 'Dr Singer' that you're quoting?
Hate to tell you this, but he's not the most convincing to quote, especially when you remove the temporal context The interview you're quoting is seven years old. The modelling now includes water vapour as a contributor to warming effects. Funnily enough those models are closely echoing observable measurements and get better all the time.
The main problem is that the systems that he describes _are_ complex, and most people won't remain engaged enough to read this post, let alone read the hundreds of peer-reviewed (not published on the PBS website) articles regarding the complex interplay of solar radiation on the layered blanket of vapour, oxygen and nitrogen that we have the fortune to breath.
DT, you're not a scientist. You're not even that effective at arguing the opposition point. Your guff about exiting an ice age is a very old talking point when it was pointed out that that the ice age was 100,000 years ago, but we have measurable changes in the past fifty years. Glaciers are melting. Greenland and Iceland are reporting _gross_ changes.
I believe the current fashion is to blame solar output and draw correlations with temperature increases on other planets without noting that we measure solar ouput directly. You might have more luck with that, because generally speaking the field is moving forward on a weekly basis and you're just looking foolish.
Submitted by jamesdiss on June 5, 2007 - 6:57am
A most excellent debunking of the climactic changes, sir. You should blog here more often.
"Invest In America Buy A Congressman"--evolvefish
One election at a time......