Wednesday September 30, 2009, 7:26 am
Cut 20% by 2020...it's a joke, right???

Wednesday September 30, 2009, 7:36 am
Agree totally with Ben, the time delay is absurd. Cal, this is crazy to call our silly Senate newsworthy.

Wednesday September 30, 2009, 8:36 am
20% by 2020? This is joke right? If the desire and profit incentive were there it would be more like 80% by 2012, but we are so tied to the oil companies and their policies that our congress will do nothing that is not in the best interest of Big Oil. It's long past time to make the changes that have been possible for many years. We desperately need a bloodless revolution of those who can think beyond Fixed News and "teabaggers" but those who can read facts and step forward to say "no more" we don't believe you and will not accept these baby step measures meant only to pacify rather then to make a real change.

Wednesday September 30, 2009, 9:32 am
Right, Kit!
You said what I was about to...

Wednesday September 30, 2009, 9:35 am
...and I have to add:
If all of us caused as much CO2 emissions as Al Gore does;
-Jesus Christ, help us!

Wednesday September 30, 2009, 9:47 am
How about all you cultists that BELIEVE CO2 is capable of changing climate...in spite of the uncovering the fraud...do the rest of us a favor.

Make the sacrifice yourselves, but leave us alone.

"A scientific scandal is casting a shadow over a number of recent peer-reviewed climate papers.

At least eight papers purporting to reconstruct the historical temperature record times may need to be revisited, with significant implications for contemporary climate studies, the basis of the IPCC's assessments. A number of these involve senior climatologists at the British climate research centre CRU at the University East Anglia. In every case, peer review failed to pick up the errors.

At issue is the use of tree rings as a temperature proxy, or dendrochronology. Using statistical techniques, researchers take the ring data to create a "reconstruction" of historical temperature anomalies. But trees are a highly controversial indicator of temperature, since the rings principally record Co2, and also record humidity, rainfall, nutrient intake and other local factors.

Picking a temperature signal out of all this noise is problematic, and a dendrochronology can differ significantly from instrumented data. In dendro jargon, this disparity is called "divergence". The process of creating a raw data set also involves a selective use of samples - a choice open to a scientist's biases.

Yet none of this has stopped paleoclimataologists from making bold claims using tree ring data.

In particular, since 2000, a large number of peer-reviewed climate papers have incorporated data from trees at the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia. This dataset gained favour, curiously superseding a newer and larger data set from nearby. The older Yamal trees indicated pronounced and dramatic uptick in temperatures.

How could this be? Scientists have ensured much of the measurement data used in the reconstructions remains a secret - failing to fulfill procedures to archive the raw data. Without the raw data, other scientists could not reproduce the results. The most prestigious peer reviewed journals, including Nature and Science, were reluctant to demand the data from contributors. Until now, that is.

At the insistence of editors of the Royal Society's Philosophical Transactions B the data has leaked into the open - and Yamal's mystery is no more.

From this we know that the Yamal data set uses just 12 trees from a larger set to produce its dramatic recent trend. Yet many more were cored, and a larger data set (of 34) from the vicinity shows no dramatic recent warming, and warmer temperatures in the middle ages."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/yamal_scandal/print.html

Thursday October 1, 2009, 11:09 am
Time these houses got to draw a line in the sand together.. and took some collective action together, not putting of what can be done today, tomorrow.. that is the key

Thursday October 1, 2009, 11:14 am
What "line in the sand"?

You want them to write more laws that perpetuate frauds.....?

Do you really want that?

Thursday October 1, 2009, 1:39 pm
If you believe all the non sense you read on care2 the world is going to end on 12/21/2012 anyway! SO WHO CARES?????????

Thursday October 1, 2009, 10:21 pm
Has anyone read the article in The New York Times, "MomentumOn Climate Pact Is Elusive"? It's written by Andrew C. Revkin on Sept. 23, 2009, and I'd be curious to know peoples thoughts on the article.

I don't know how to make a link or I would do so.

Lync