Entire Antarctic Shelf splitting away from Continent.

[NotNow]

The Clean Air Act is clear in what is regulated.  This is an example of bureaucrats gone wild and will just cost millions in lawyer fees.  CO2 is an atmospheric gas, not a pollutant. 

I am not saying that CO2 levels do not have any effect.

I am saying that the EPA does not have any authority to do this.  And if they did, who decides what to regulate and what not to?  This is REAL political power.  EVERYTHING and EVERYBODY emits CO2.   No way I want the EPA or any "International Committee" with this kind of power.  It's silly anyway, one forest fire kicks in more CO2 than all of the coal plants in the world in a year.

[BridgeTroll]

Can they fine a volcano?  How about the state the volcano is in?  Perhaps we can encourage Alaska to cap that pesky Redoubt volcano.

[NotNow]

I don't quite know how to respond to that article.  To be capable of making such predictions without qualifying the doomsday scenario with a disclaimer of "this could possibly happen" or "we think this could happen" is irresponsible beyond words.  I hope that wiser heads prevail at any "UN Conference".

[jandar]

AGW being forced by politicians is the same as forced religion by the governments.

[NotNow]

Fortune telling is not a scientific endeavor.  Mr. Stern is portending the future and like predicting the stock market, the price of oil, or what mood my wife will be in that is a foolish venture.

Rather than rehash the last thirty something pages, let's concentrate on what we all agree on.  The future lies in an alternative to oil.  No matter what you or I, or even an "elite" say, cost will predominately guide what technologies rise to replace oil.  Even today, the proven resource of nuclear power generation is more costly than coal, thus the debate.  Solar, wind, geothermal and such are totally out of reach at this time, but there is great hope for them in the future.  Let's incentivize what we can do.  Solar panels on our homes can be subsidized and deductible if governments would simply do it.  Plug in electric and hybrid vehicles are a growing trend and with subsidized research and development, could start to be a viable replacement for short haul passenger loads within five to ten years.  Lets go ahead and set goals towards a cleaner and more efficient future in energy and reward inventiveness and ingenuity.  Lets develop efficient solar panels and methods of mega generation and clean, cheap nuclear.  Let's NOT give some UN panel legal authority over our citizens or our businesses.  Let's NOT beat our citizens and businesses down with a huge regulatory and fining establishment.  We can lead by example and simply make the Chinese/Indian pollution generating energy systems simply obsolete.  We can do this within a generation if we throw ourselves into it.  

But if a technology is not financially feasable, no amount of good intentions or government mandate is going to make it work.  Just as Mr. Stern claims that people will not stand for dislocation, they also will not stand for forced reduction in lifestyle or business opportunities.

[BridgeTroll]

Notnow, the science on this is getting crisper and more alarming by the day.

To be specific Stephen... Which science?  The climate is warming science?  The humans are causing the warming science?  The science needed to prepare for worldwide catastrophes?

I support limiting human development of coastal areas subject to flooding but am against arbitrary CO2 limits when a simple burp from a volcano spews as much as our power plants.  The climate cannot tell the difference.  So like many things that get blurry... which science?

[kellypope]

Is it possible to make a floating farm?

[BridgeTroll]

Hydroponics...?

[jandar]

interesting claim jandar.
prove it.

try and use the same quality data that Climatology relies on.
Until then, why not pipe down?

You are the one that posts stuff which turns out not to be true. I suppose that is common for someone who tries to fear monger AGW.

Your post on Glacial Rebound shows you do not understand all of the truth of the climate of the earth, yet you continue to purport your knowledge as so.

Your link on the Wilkins Ice Sheet breaking off was wrong, but I suppose that it is ok to just take anything at face value or what you are told and spread the falsities versus actually doing your own research into things before trying to sound smart about them.

All I do is post truth each time I prove you wrong or poke huge holes into your claims. You can deny them, but cannot prove them wrong.

Oh, BTW, did you know that the NSIDC had a sensor malfunction that they used to check ice pack coverage? It drifted away from its deisred location, showed no ice coverage until people finally saw that the data was suspect.(not the NSIDC mind you, why check your own equipment)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=aIe9swvOqwIY

Its only ice coverage the size of California that is suspect due to a bad sensor that reported the wrong area entirely. Surely not newsworthy.

BTW Stephen, why is it that when you are questioned or pointed out as wrong, must you come off as a total ass and not respond kindly? A true debater can keep his cool. You resort to HuffPost type rants and snide remarks to try to get under people's skin.

[jandar]

http://www.youtube.com/v/PPCFx1fMBeI&rel=1&fs=1&showsearch=0

Watch that Video.

Dr James Hansen has overstepped his bounds as a scientist by calling for a protest at a power plant.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/nasas-hansen-pushes-capitol-coal-protest/

Now tell me that is not AGW becoming political. He is one of the main guys behind AGW and should not be doing anything other than science.


BTW, this is the same James Hansen that accepted 720K from George Soros.

http://www.soros.org/resources/articles_publications/publications/annual_20070731/a_complete.pdf
Read on page 143 (PDF page 145).

The Strategic Opportunities Fund includes grants related to Hurricane Katrina ($1,652,841); media policy ($1,060,000); and politicization of science ($720,000).

Or read page 123 (PDF # 125)

The campaign on Hansen's behalf resulted in a decision by NASA to revisit its media policy

Or maybe we should ask his former supervisor who has PUBLICLY REBUKED James Hansen.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/27/james-hansens-former-nasa-supervisor-declares-himself-a-skeptic-says-hansen-embarrassed-nasa-was-never-muzzled/

[jandar]

Ignore the proof Stephen, you do yourself a great disservice.

[gatorback]

Here's a set back:

AFP - The module carrying a US satellite to monitor global carbon dioxide emissions failed to separate from its rocket soon after it was launched early Tuesday, NASA said.

"It appears that there were problems separating" and the satellite "did not achieve orbit," said NASA TV announcer George Diller.

"We are still evaluating the status of the location and the exact state" of the spacecraft, he said.

"We have not had a successful launch tonight," he added.

The satellite was launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California aboard a Taurus XL rocket at 1:55 am (0951 GMT), live images on NASA TV showed.

The mission of the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) was to map the global distribution of carbon dioxide and study how that distribution changes over time, NASA said in a statement.

It is NASA's first spacecraft dedicated to studying carbon dioxide. In January, Japan launched a satellite on a similar mission.

Carbon dioxide is the leading greenhouse gas driving climate change.

However "several minutes into the flight, launch managers declared a contingency when the fairing failed to separate properly," NASA said in a brief statement.

[jaxnative]

February 24, 2009
Rocket carrying global warming satellite plunges into Pacific: UPDATED
Doug Powers

At about 1:30 this morning, a Taurus XL rocket equipped with NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory satellite, which was set to record world-wide carbon emissions, lifted off from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.

Shortly after liftoff a mechanical failure caused the whole works to fall into the Pacific Ocean, leaving scientists with no way to record how much greenhouse gas this rocket needlessly spewed into the atmosphere or to measure exactly how much junk ended up polluting the delicate ecosystem that is the Pacific Ocean.

I'm calling on Al Gore to spearhead a push to calculate the carbon footprint of global warming scientists, so we can know exactly how much the study of global warming contributes to global warming.

UPDATE by Dr. Gregory Young:

We read from Bloomberg news today that NASA has just lost a satellite in a failed launch today because it was too heavy….  Apparently, they added some extra weight which disallowed the craft to enter orbit, sending it crashing somewhere into the Antarctic ocean.


Feb. 24 (Bloomberg) -- A satellite launched from California failed to reach orbit today, crashing into the sea near Antarctica and dooming a $273 million mission to study global-warming gases.  The craft contained a monitoring device designed to collect 8 million measurements every 16 days. Scientists hoped to use the data to find out how much CO2 is absorbed by the forests, grasslands and oceans, which are collectively known as “sinks.”



While launch and separation of the rocket’s first stage went as planned, a clamshell-shaped “fairing” covering the satellite failed to open, meaning it was too heavy to reach orbit, Brunschwyler said on NASA’s online television station.



“As a direct result of carrying that extra weight, we could not reach orbit,” Brunschwyler said. Indications are the satellite “landed just short of Antarctica, in the ocean.”


Let’s see if we understand this correctly.  NASA scientists actually built and approved of a craft that was too heavy to reach and obtain orbit.  Too heavy?   Don’t we have the competence within NASA anymore that can calculate the thrust necessary to lift a certain weight into orbit?  We’re talking nothing more complicated here than straight algebra.

Isn’t anybody doing the math?  Is anybody doing any checking?  Where are our Liberal Institutions of Higher Propaganda when we need them?

And of all things they were trying to launch, it was a satellite that was to measure how much CO2 was being absorbed by nature’s “sinks.”

But wait … haven’t global warming proponents at NASA been telling us that even slight CO2 increases above 385 ppm will prove catastrophic for Earth?

So how come they’re just getting around to admitting to us that they still haven’t determined how much CO2 the natural “sinks” can absorb, despite the fact that many scientists (including me ) have critically reminded them of these CO2 sinks.  A rational person would think that the relationship of the sinks to CO2 would be important to note before dramatically pronouncing to the world that even miniscule rises in CO2 levels will cause an extinction event! 

But as we know, slight increases in CO2 will not significantly harm life on this planet. Indeed, for those who have not kept up with the evidence, we already know historically that the earth and all of life on it can easily handle up to 7,000 ppm of CO2.  As I have written , more CO2 might even be good for the atmosphere and for life on earth.

More tomfoolery is surely on its way as NASA Global Warming proponents have extra stimulus money to throw at their dog and pony show for years to come.

www.americanthinker.com

[civil42806]

Our energy needs resolved

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/4731679/Hamsters-in-jackets-harnessed-for-energy.html

[jaxnative]

    Darn, if we would have known about this earlier we could have earmarked a few billion for hamster power.  Just think how many hamsters we could have had slaving away for us humans.  We had better check the methane output of that many rodents before we get carried away!!!