Yeah, just let Occam's Razor do it for us.

The simple reality is that scientists in a 1959 paper in Scientific American warned that climate change was happening because of fossil fuel use.

Some 52 years later following a binge of oil drug addiction and increasing use, the costs of such a blunder are obvious.

When massive ice caps melt (with the ultimate stored water power to raise ocean levels 200 ft) massive amounts of water enter the atmosphere to fall as rain, to disturb climate patterns, as they flow to the sea.

Floods, winds, and rising ocean levels are a natch.

Only the blind will continue to deny it.

Here's a way to explain this. Most people know the game Yatzi, which involves rolling five 6-sided dice. Having all five dice coming up 6s is a rare "Yatzi!" event, like a killer storm.

The impact of global climate change is to replace the "1" on a die with another "6", and altering more dice as time goes on. As this happens, Yatzi events happen with dramatically increased frequency (though still rare at first). Also, the observer (scientists) can say that the change is contributing to the outcome, but without being able to say which particular events are "natural" Yatzi's versus mutant (altered die) Yatzi's,

Thanks for sharing this with us, Brad.

Voting machines are one enabler of election fraud; the far larger fraud is the selling of manipulative lies in what the wealthiest stupidly think is their own self-interest. I'm happy that Bill McKibben's piece made the Post; I'm unhappy that it isn't on the front page of every "news" outlet in the world.

For those who think Bill McKibben is simply seizing on a local weather event, I would strongly urge that you take the time to read Storms of My Grandchildren (2009) by Dr. James Hansen.

Thanks Brad!
For others here is one of my favorite sites. It has become my go to location when I need to quickly address a skeptic and wrong information.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
Peace

Erinie @4,

That water will do havoc on its way to the sea (floods, storms), and that water will destroy civilization when it reaches up to a certain level.

Obvious.

any chance these bizarre weather outbreaks. could be caused by the weather modification programs created by congress?

Commontater@7:

You mean funding the Interstate Highway System and subsidizing suburbia while providing oil companies massive subsidies--those weather altering legislative activities and many others?

Making such connections is not a job for the layperson, but rather climatologists. It makes no sense for anyone to say that look, there are three feet of snow today global warming must be false. It also doesn't make sense to say its 100 degrees today, so global warming is true.

There are perhaps 300 climatologists who understand what is happening. I accept that global warming is a serious issue because the great majority of them say it is. Even though I have a significant background in physics and chemistry, I am certainly not competent to hazard any opinion of my own other than to accept what experts say.

It serves no purpose for those who do not have the background to claim that tornadoes, hurricanes, water spouts and other weather phenomenon are connected to global warming. It only makes them look ridiculous.

You can ignore what I purport if you desire, but here's a few things to ponder. Look at the radar flashes on the Youtube link. This guy Dutchsinse is good at predicting severe weather based only on radar flashes. Look at some of his other postings. Put that in your AGW pipe and smoke it.

http://www.youtube.com/w...;feature=player_embedded

http://www.nonaiswa.org/...ds/2010/10/M-0311101.pdf

http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/

Respectfully:
Mark

Right you are, Dredd. But perhaps I should have put Dr. Hansen's numbers into perspective.

Back up and review the videos of Japan's devastating tsunami.

Then consider this: The devastation of Japan's coastal cities was wrought by an upthrust of some five to eight meters of the sea bed.

Hansen refers to a 75 meter rise in sea level --- and that doesn't take into account the additional height that would be generated by a major storm, like Katrina.

Amongst other problems (and people should really read the book to get a grasp) are the multipliers of climate forcings. The ice in glaciers and the polar caps reflects heat back into space. The much darker ocean, absorbs heat. As the ice caps melt, the size of reflective surface is reduced as the size of the ocean surface that absorbs heat expands.

commontater @7 is correct.
Mark @10 is correct.
I am correct.
Dutchsinse is correct.

Being correct now is cause for being tagged as a troll, a gatekeeper, and attacking people, while simultaneously claiming one didn't have time to study the information, and continuing to spew the same old AGW talking points.

You won't be woken up? Go back to sleep then, a nice long sleep is just what you need.

None of the people I just pointed out are going to be able to wake you up. You don't want to be woken up, and that's okay. Sad but okay.

Another key Hansen observation pertains to storms driven by latent heat, which "include thunderstorms, tornadoes, and tropical storms such as hurricanes and typhoons."

M said @9

Making such connections is not a job for the layperson, but rather climatologists. It makes no sense for anyone to say that look, there are three feet of snow today global warming must be false.

I would respectfully disagree.

As citizens of planet earth, and especially as citizens who live in the nation which has contributed so much CO2 to the atmosphere, it is incumbent upon each of us to become informed. After all the politicians whom we elect will either adopt or reject policies that the climate scientists have determined to be vital to humanity's very survival.

M is definitely not informed. If he or she was, M would understand that the science of global climate change is not based on transient local weather phenomena, such as an exceptionally cold or hot day at a given location.

Another good book is Bill McKibben's EAARTH (which I have read twice)

@canning --- go back and reread what I said. I did not say climate change was based on daily weather. I explicitly said that it was ridiculous to say that it was.

Tra La La La La @12

If Commontater is correct, then global warming is indeed being caused by humans, and I, too, am correct.

A few years back I had the idea that there should be a new category of law, "crimes against the planet", and it would involve wilfully fabricating lies to mislead the public in the areas of climate change, population control, nuclear power.

I'm clear that this President and Congress are unable to govern about what matters (the window for meaningful response --- is it closed or merely closing?) and the political parties are engaged primarily in self preservation, not serving the citizens. As to any others creating crimes against the planet as a category of law, I'm really not holding my breath, but when the aliens write a history of the planet they find, it won't be about lead in the water pipes (which supposedly did in the Romans), it will be about making lying and fabricating spin an "honorable profession".

At a certain point several natural disasters from now when enough people have been smacked upside the head by a projectile from a tornado, hurricane, or flood flotsam, perhaps the public will become profoundly disenchanted with the lack of meaningful results coming out of Washington and the coopted MSM that is unable to focus on what will matter for far longer than today's news cycle, and at least some of the people will be profoundly distressed by the fiddling and "what can you do?" that has been going on while the planet burns. That'll be a real test of spinology when that happens, a true "fool me twice" moment.

I watched a program last night about Wangari Maathai, the Nobel Peace Prize winner who helped women go out and plant trees to face deforestation and drought in Kenya, and grew an entire movement over decades.

Her bio: http://nobelprize.org/no...es/2004/maathai-bio.html

What she did against tremendous odds is the type of leadership the world and our country need now. I have watched that show 3 times because she is intelligent, committed, compassionate, and she led people to make profound change. And yet, look at our Congress. Thumbsitters, the majority.

We ain't gonna get there from here.

#18

Absolutely honorable job or project to plant trees.

Not so much agreement on the idea for the new category of law. Any new law like that will be abused by those with the most gold. Remember the golden rule, those with all the gold, rule.

#17 Yes, My eyes are getting bad.

#17 I choose to focus on aerial spraying, haarp like technologies, and scaler weapon technologies. These things have an immediate effect on life as we know it.

Even if CO2 is the problem, and I'm not convinced it is, CO2 has time before it actually kills people. An earthquake, funnel cloud, or building turned to dust, are each faster than C02 emissions. Fast enough to create C02 emissions if you want to look at it that way.

Tra La La La La @20 wrote:

CO2 has time before it actually kills people

So, you're saying that CO2 emissions/global warming has nothing to do with the severity of these killer tornadoes?

And your evidence is?

@canning wants to know what evidence Tra La has that CO2 emissions/global emissions has nothing to do with the severity of killer tornadoes. The requirement is to prove that it does. Just like it would be necessary to prove that ghosts and goblins exist, rather than just say that they do.

McKibben, author of the supposed link article, provides no basis for his statement. His website bio provides no real background on his education or specialization other than as a writer of popular books on ecology. No description of a scientific education or employment.

Such statements without a real basis provide ammunition for global warming deniers.

M wrote @ 22

@canning wants to know what evidence Tra La has that CO2 emissions/global emissions has nothing to do with the severity of killer tornadoes. The requirement is to prove that it does. Just like it would be necessary to prove that ghosts and goblins exist, rather than just say that they do.

That case has been made, over and again, in the many studies cited by the IPCC's several reports. If you are not familiar with those many reports and studies over the past decade or three, you may wish to give them a look. But the point is that I don't believe Ernie was offering a scientific paper here, but basing his comments on the many peer-reviewed studies already published --- many long ago --- suggesting exactly what he did in his comment.

McKibben, author of the supposed link article, provides no basis for his statement. His website bio provides no real background on his education or specialization other than as a writer of popular books on ecology. No description of a scientific education or employment.

McKibben was not writing a peer-reviewed scientific report either. He was writing a severely length-limited newspaper op-ed and obviously using snark and sarcasm to (successfully) make his point and get the readers' attention in hopes that they might have an interest in learning more and/or otherwise furthering the discussion in response to the hundreds of millions of dollars invested by the Fossil Fuel Misinformation Industry meant to confuse the very detailed, very well supported, very well investigated and widely peer-reviewed scientific studies and reports and consensus which make the case that the propagandists and profiteers are working so hard to discredit.

Such statements without a real basis provide ammunition for global warming deniers.

I respectfully disagree.

#21 I said what I said, I said nothing that you said, you said it. The topic becomes more complex the more you dig, so when you notice my description leaves holes open, instead of helping correct, you re-script it to have CO2 be the main course. How is anyone going to communicate to you if all you do is keep redefining what they say until it fits into your little box.

Why does it feel like the new information being presented to this blog is treated as a joke? Remember at one point in time you were treated as shit when you said there was election fraud. Now it's pretty much given, but no solution in sight.

Does this person look like a joke to you?
http://www.congress.org/...;content_dir=congressorg

I would have written it differently because I knew there were more than one haarp technology. I wouldn't have used the word belief, I would of used the word documented. I would have used the words domestic terrorism. The current letter who wrote his official leaves plenty of wiggle room for an official to shine the whole thing off. Except for the fact that Dutchsinse stated he would testify in a court or in front of congress.

Back to this blog, I feel like I am being laughed at by a bunch of snickering junior high school children, who want to snap my ears when it's cold and yank on my underwear to try to hurt my penis and balls, or snap towels at my ass when I am in the locker room, or turn me upside down for my lunch money. It seems unless you believe CO2 is the cause of these disasters, your not a member of the gang here. I said I wasn't convinced. Continuing to put that spinach on my plate isn't going to make me eat it, not today, not tomorrow, not next year.

Well I have one piece of advice, one day you are going to graduate from this junior high, and your snickering buddies won't be there anymore, you will then be forced to face real people. You should pray it's not the people you treated like shit.

This blog turns my stomach.

You sit around here talking about truth seeking and journalism, but for all practical purposes appear to be more concerned with driving home the message that CO2 caused everything, and now we need to give up our rights, sovereignty, privacy, money, and everything else to pay for this invisible threat. Collectively we all know voting machines are an invisible threat, yet not one of your gang can even look to see what people are saying about haarp technology is now also an invisible threat.

I see in the latest green report
"Swine flu likely came from China"

What the hell kind of journalism is that?
Likely?

I get it, "It's likely CO2 is causing deaths in the US, not corexit and oil, nor haarp and nuclear fallout"

Te blog gang likes to throw out show us the evidence, then quickly re-direct back to the CO2 dialog again, when the original post had links you don't bother to follow, or purposely ignore.

Which is which, what is what, I don't care anymore, the blog gang has it mixed to a complete control situation. This blog had creds in the early days, not so much since the birth of the Green Report. Now it's reduced to people doing drive-by's with truth mixed among the l/r paradigm trolls.

There's your flaw. May God help you, because I won't anymore.

Wow! I simply ask our Tra la la if (a) he/she contends "CO2 emissions/global warming has nothing to do with the severity of these killer tornadoes?" and (b) "And your evidence is?"

I get back two lengthy diatribes, mumblings about "I said what I said, I said nothing that you said," a link to a Democratic Congressman and not one single item of "evidence."

As to the evidence supporting the link between global climate change and the severity of these storms, I'd suggest that you take the time to read Storms of My Grandchildren by Dr. James Hansen which contains scads of references to the peer reviewed scientific papers mentioned by Brad Friedman @23.

Wikipedia reports:

Hansen "heads the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City, a part of the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. He has held this position since 1981. He is also an adjunct professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University.

"After graduate school, Hansen continued his work with radiative transfer models, attempting to understand the Venusian atmosphere. Later he applied and refined these models to understand the Earth's atmosphere, in particular, the effects that aerosols and trace gases have on Earth's climate. Hansen's development and use of global climate models has contributed to the further understanding of the Earth's climate.

"Hansen is best known for his research in the field of climatology, his testimony on climate change to congressional committees in 1988 that helped raise broad awareness of global warming, and his advocacy of action to limit the impacts of climate change..."

Wikipedia is not entirely accurate in that Hansen finds paleo-climate studies of far greater value than "models."

In his book, Hansen reveals how the Cheney-led, climate task force (better described as oil and coal industry task force) cherry picked his work on aeresols to the exclusion of CO2. Hansen forcefully demonstrates in the book why CO2 is the most significant climate forcing --- far more significant than aeresols, though the latter is of concern.

Despite your lengthy posts, Tra la la, I've yet to see one piece of evidence from you that would refute the extensive scientific evidence marshaled by Hansen which supports the link between CO2 emissions, global climate change and increased storm severity?

But I have an open mind. If you can provide such evidence, please provide it, along with the scientific credentials of your source.

Oh, and please don't end your fact-free arguments with "May God help you." As an atheist, I find such a statement nothing short of absurd.

BTW, in his book, Hansen heaps praise on Bill McKibben and his efforts to educate those who have been taken in by "greenwash" and CO2-industry propaganda.

The industrial revolution, with its various addictions, including the deadly oil addiction, has been going on since the 1800's.

Climate change is parallel to that "revolution".

The warming and the changes did not begin to happen in our lifetime.

They started happening in our great grandparents' life time.

It is just that only the very "hard headed" still can't see it after all these years.

We are past the peak of sanity now. Sorry.

The problem I have with your graph, Dredd, is that it places the "peak of sanity" in the first half of the 20th Century. In the U.S., that may have been marked by the New Deal, but it was also the period that gave rise to Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin and Franco.

I shared some information here about a week ago. Go find it, and when you find the thread, someone kindly read Brad a bed time story about agenda 21.

Thanks for the links you have posted in support of your arguments, Tra La La La La. You are incorrect in your assumption that no one has looked at the HAARP evidence you have posted. I have.

Over the last several years I have examined the evidence gathered on HAARP by many, many people, and have continued to follow developments along the wide spectrum of discussion on the topic. Very simply, I have not arrived at the same conclusion as you have.

It is surprising you are so offended that not everyone finds the body of evidence on HAARP to be as compelling or convincing you do, or sufficient to overturn the body of scientific data accumulated over the last 150 years of climate science, across multiple Earth systems disciplines.

There are no thought police here. No one has called you a troll, no one has been a 'gatekeeper' or prevented you in any way from posting whatever links and arguments you like. They've simply responded with their thoughts, and drawn their own conclusions.

If readers find your proof unconvincing or insufficient, oh well. Attacking people for not agreeing with you is not likely to convince them.

BTW, the use of the word "likely" in the Reuters China/swine flu link in yesterday's Green News Report is standard when discussing conclusions from scientific data. Apparently it bears repeating that unless you were physically there personally to witness and document it, can prove your conclusions and others can replicate your findings independently later, "likely" is in fact the most appropriate word for a reputable scientist to use.

If the evidence presented by scientists who have actually put in the time & effort to obtain the education and training in their field of study, gather the field data and submit their conclusions for peer-review doesn't comport with your conclusions... again, oh well. Feel free to post the evidence you find compelling, and other commenters will do the same.

I too read Tra la la's link to HAARP, Des.

There is not one word in that linked article that so much as purports to refute McKibben's and Hansen's core scientific point that CO2 global climate change results in increased storm intensity.

To the contrary, the HAARP article merely points to the potential impact on weather by the military's use of "focused and steerable electromagnetic beam[s]" in the upper atmosphere. The operative word is "could" as in [emphasis added]:

It requires a quantum leap to go from that concern to the statement made by Tra la la @20 "CO2 has time before it actually kills people."

This is why I posed the questions @21:

In posing those questions, I was merely applying the Socratic method: "a form of inquiry and debate between individuals with opposing viewpoints based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to illuminate ideas."

Unfortunately, the Socratic method, utilized by our law schools, doesn't square with the undereducated who perceive the mere questioning of their faith-based reasoning (or lack thereof) as a personal attack.

Thus, we find Tra la la @24, being so offended by my questions that he/she labeled me as part of a "blog gang" that was trying to throw him/her out.

But, as you astutely observed, Des, The BRAD BLOG does not have a "gatekeeper" who quashes the range of polite discourse. It does invite those, who in search of scientific truth, ask for evidence to support one's conclusions.

Ernie #27,

Lots of movements, ideas, and revolutions were going on during that century.

Perhaps they helped take the eye off the ball, diminish the focus, so that the hydrocarbon addiction could proliferate.

That peak, like Hubbert's Peak of Oil, actually has several peaks, so adjustment thereto would not be uncalled for.

Hey, check out this blow to the anti-anthropogenic cause of global warming: End of Snowball Ice Age Theory Debunked

Have a happy Memorial Day Weekend all ...

Ernie #27,

PS. The peak of sanity is not the same as the peak of intelligence ... more about that next year

Tra La La La asked @ 24:

Does this person look like a joke to you?
http://www.congress.org/...;content_dir=congressorg

Actually, I don't know what that person looks like. You linked to an anonymous letter to three Congress members.

Ernest @ 25 said:

a link to a Democratic Congressman

Nope. That was a link to a letter TO that Democratic Congressman. TraLaLa's link is to an anonymous letter to him and two others.

As to the rest of TraLa's professional victimhood and amateur argument/science, I'll do my best to reply later if possible.

I didn't ask. I don't care for your feedback
Have a nice day Brad and DES your dialog is tl;dr

Oh, that's too bad, Tra La La La La.

I had hoped you would have a substantive response.

TraLaLa said @ 34:

I didn't ask.

Actually, you did. So you got an answer. To repeat it, the person you asked about and whether he "look[ed] like a joke", was an anonymous letter writer, so nobody could possibly answer as to what he looked like.

Unless, of course, you misread the page YOU linked to, and thought the person writing the letter was the one pictured, Congressman Heath Schuler, to whom the letter was written. In which case, no he doesn't look like a joke. But he had nothing to do with the content on the page.

Surely you read it closely enough to know that. If you didn't, why should anybody have any respect for anything you read or cited??

I don't care for your feedback

Too bad.

Have a nice day Brad and DES your dialog is tl;dr

Wow. The discussion here is "too long;didn't read", but you think folks should respect your opinion on thousands of pages of scientific documentation? Kinda lame, amigo. But I hope you have a great day (and weekend) as well!

Brad, F Y.

It was the original information I shared a week ago here. http://www.bradblog.com/?p=8525#comment-438987

Play your round and round games looser. The only reason you have any any any fodder with me is cause I fucked up and replied to DES. If I remained silent at that point on #2, you have nothing.

Everything else was you pumping me.
I have news for you, your toast.

Go play with yourself, and you can take that anyway you want. I found the truth, your a journal-nothing.

You still haven't said shit about agenda 21 you fucking journal-nothing

What a cry baby. Holy shit. Grow up. All you had to do was link to it again.

What? Are you afraid of spraining your fingers?

When 1 or 2 people misunderstand you, that's on them.

When EVERYONE misunderstands you, then the problem is yours to correct.

Dear Tra La,

What are you doing? You complain A LOT about people treating you like shit here. WHERE??? It is not at all apparent to me, in the back and forths I've been reading between you, Ernie, Brad, and Desi.

Before, during, and after your complaints about how badly you are being treated you treat people atrociously. You insult and dismiss and get your undies all tied in a knot. It doesn't seem that you are aware of this.

I clicked on your link and found Heath Shuler. What does he look like? He looks like a football player who is now a very conservative congressman whose politics(as far as I know them)are not mine.

That's okay you never know where truth might be so I read the letter at that link and clicked on the dutchsinse video.

I don't know anything about Haarp. At first I assumed it was a bunch of old people attacking the planet with waves of radiation.

Then when I realized it wasn't a bunch of old people attacking the planet with waves of radiation and tried to look more closely, I had no idea what dutchsinse was talking about. Whatever he was trying to illustrate with that weather map with the different moving colored bands, I couldn't see it. I never understand those maps with the different moving color bands. And in his case I couldn't even see what he was insisting was so clearly there.

The main thing I want to tell you is that you come across as constantly making war. It doesn't seem like you get that. It seems like you think everyone is attacking you. It seems like in your mind you've got the most righteous hard on about being the sole purveyor of truth. And that somehow you're gonna get us poor ignorant, deluded, mean-spirited, gate keeping slobs to come around if you can just mistreat us enough.

I don't know what your goals are. But if you're really interested in exchanges of thoughts and ideas, I ask you to re-examine your MO.

It seems like you know stuff and that you care about things but you keep coming off as just a HUGE unhappy asshole.

HAARP involves the stimulation of the ionosphere in attempts to trigger weather anomalies.

More on HAARP's origins can be found here as well as the efforts of other nations at affecting the atmosphere through Extremely Low Frequency BI Amplitude Radio Frequency stimulation:

http://www.cheniere.org/index2.html

The long term effects on the planet would be unknown, prolly can't be good.

Still, it does not explain the extreme increase of CO2 that's been found in ice core samples as well as the direct correlation between the heat sink properties of CO2 and it's heightened presence in both the atmosphere and the oceans.

HAARP, as well as I understand it....is above and beyond Anthropogenic Global Warming. HAARP's effects, as I understand RF energy, would be transitive, present as long as the stimulator is stimulating and not permanent, as with the heightened presence of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Dan in PA,

"When 1 or 2 people misunderstand you, that's on them.

When EVERYONE misunderstands you, then the problem is yours to correct."

Where and how did you learn that?

Just sayin'

I learned that at the school of hard knocks, University of Life.

Brad, as you know, I support your decision to encourage wide open discussion from all points of view, but I think the level of expletives and personal attacks from Tra la la la step over the boundaries of this blog's very limited rules.

Perhaps some consideration should be given to placing this person's future comments in moderation; that or, and I say this objectively with not so much as a hint of malice, he/she should give serious consideration to seeking some professional help.

Your call.

Dan in PA @44,

Whatever it was that got you your life PHD it left you an honest broker.

I guess we can add to your original proverb in #40:

When 1 or 2 people understand you, that's on them.

When EVERYONE understands you, then the problem is yours to correct.

;) The point being either case is dangerous sometimes.

Mobs are usually in complete accord, august legislative bodies rarely are.

A case by case basis is the better way to proceed ... I am sure you would agree.

We all have that degree from University of Life, so we do have some things in common.

For Tra La La La La and anyone else who ever reads this thread in the future, here is probably the most concise and readable contrast on climate change skepticism vs. climate change/science denial yet:

Are You A Genuine Skeptic or a Climate Denier?