Alphecca

"Some of it is due to us. With our carbon dioxide output ever increasing from fossil fuel use as well as deforestation of wide swaths of the Earth, especially in South America, I think there's a problem."
Trees produce more carbon dioxide than the use.
So,
more fossil fuel(plus CO2)used, combined with less trees equals +CO2-CO2=zero.

"Other new research showed that global warming produced about half of the extra hurricane-fueled warmth in the North Atlantic in 2005,"
Hurricanes orginate near the equator. As far away from the North Atlantic you can get and still be north of the equator.
Hurricanes rarely, very rarely, get into the North Atlantic. The degrade into tropical storms IF they get that far.
"half of the extra hurricane-fueled warmth"???
Explain that.
And while I am not a climate expert, I advise please take your time, because if you can explain it, it will be published world wide.
Seriously.

"The academy had been asked to report to Congress on how researchers drew conclusions about the Earth's climate going back thousands of years, before data was available from modern scientific instruments. The academy convened a panel of 12 climate experts..."
Sputnik was the first man made object sent into space in 1956. "Reliable" satellites that tracked wheather were put into orbit in the late 1970s. Thats tracked wheather NOT specifically to measure the climate.
Thus "modern scientific instruments" are at most, 30 years old.(Why doesn't the article NAME the "modern scientific instruments"?)
"12 climate experts...", no physcitists, no chemists, no geoligists, no astronimers, no biologists, no archaeologists, no botanists, no oceananimors...
Right there I will stop(and not because of my bad spelling) but because that is all you need to know that the study is a utter crock of bullshit.
The study by only including "climate experts" proves it is a piece of propoganda. Scientifically, its pure bullshit.

Stick to guns and Vermont and furnature sales Jeff.
Sincerely,
Terry

PS: "Climate experts", not atmospheric science professors?

"This report shows the value of Congress handling scientific disputes by asking scientists to give us guidance," Boehlert said Thursday.

Congress handling and not scientists....

Jeff, seriously, this is a joke. Your being sarcasitic, right?
You have been up late, too much coffee, too much rain, or unexpectedly, all sun, total sun because absolute zero clouds for 3 straight days, right?

Someone else used your name and played a joke.
You have a real, real smart neice or nephew.
Lucky you.

I should have been clearer: Obviously it isn't the forest itself that is contributing CO2 but the way it is being removed -- by burning it. This is a widespread practice in Brazil and elsewhere.

As for what I should "stick to", it's my blog and I'll write about anything I want. If you don't approve, I'll gladly refund your subscription.

I'm more worried about the escalating cost of oil than I am of global warming. If we replaced all the coal and gas power plants with nuclear energy, I think everyone would be better off. Market forces are going to drive this, hopefully the stupid federal government will step out of the way and let more nuclear plants be built.

I'm not sure it's the government that would prevent more nuke plants. I suspect it's still all the mistrust by the common people as well as the usual eco-nuts that would prevent it.

I don't know if the evidence is solid on the causes and effects involved in the global climate...

But I gotta agree with you, that's a good lifestyle. Recycling material that can be recycled, living so that you can limit driving (or walk or bicycle), etc.

I want a nuclear powered S.U.V.

What ever happened to the good old "Can Do", Pioneer spirit of America? Back in the '60's, we decided it'd be cool if we went to the moon.

Even if you guys don't believe in the problems we're causing with our climate (and I think you're silly not to) let's look at it from another angle:

Energy Independance. Wouldn't it be nice to tell the Hugo Chavezes and Saudi Arabias to go eff themselves? Let them raise the price of oil for spite. How about we challenge car companies, and oil companies to develop new sources of energy that can be depended on domestically. OH, and how about we do it in such a way that we don't buttfuck the climate as badly as we do today?

Americans used to take challenges on with pride. What ever happened to that?

The funny thing about the global warming scare is that the answer to it is always more government control and more socialism.
While I think there is some evidence that we may be in a warming trend like the one when the Vikings settled Greenland, I don't think it has been proved at all that this warming is anthroprogenic.
The main argument of anthroprogenic global warming advocates is the so called hockey stick model. This model shows a massive increase in warming that just happens to coincide with the advent of the Industrial Revolution.
Even if we take the hockey stick model as a fact, which I certainly don't, all we have is a correlation, not causitive proof that man is the cause of recent warming.
I'm sorry, I think we need more than a model that was projected from a small data sample to defend the complete restructuring of our society. At best, as the article says, they have somewhat decent data(tree rings, etc.) back to 1600. Since climate may have cycles in the 10s of thousands of years, I'm skeptical that they have all of the data they need to come to any sort of conclusion about global climate. Since many of these scientists seem to have a political agenda, that makes me especially dubious.

Nuclear power rather obviates the wind and solar power, to be honest.

Nuclear plants are on 24/7, whereas solar and wind aren't... and we can't store electricity in any sort of plausible way for the quantities needed for the power grid.

Solar and wind power are great for cabins in the woods that aren't on the grid, or as backups. Not so good as primary power sources for the grid.

It feels virtuous, but do a few minutes research and see what happens to your recycling. In our town (in MA), I found out that it all goes to the same garbage landfill, because there is no market for the glass and plastic. There is a very cheap market for the paper, but it doesn't cover the costs of collection.