I'm amazed that Roger Pielke Jr. is quoted as an "environmental scientist" in the story when he is actually a political scientist.

Also, the AP reported that the Republicans have been calling for Roger to testify at congressional hearings, which can only mean that he must be writing what they want to hear.

http://tinyurl.com/3b25ut

From the AP:

Roger Pielke Jr., a political scientist at the University of Colorado who was invited by GOP lawmakers, said, "The reality is that science and politics are intermixed."

Dude, I'm here with you in the Bay Area, temporarily, I hope.

But you've got exculpatory evidence streaming out of places like SF and LA, if BP's investment in hype was not enough convince you (they are making that market, in addition to, as you did observe, laying claim to all of the "intellectual" property.)

Exculpatory evidence as found in

"Cosmoclimatology: A New Theory Emerges," Astronomy & Geophysics (February 2007).

J.M. Hayes et al. as cited in Veizer "Celestial Climate Driver," Geoscience Canada, Vol. 32, No. 1 (March 2005).

among other citations.

NYT's Wall Street connections with BP should been attributed to.

We have been seriously tracking CO2 for centuries - ice core samples are the evidence the Blood and Gore (their actual hedge fund company name is CEI, the source of Gore's Carbon Credits, but the owners are Jeremy Blood and Albert Gore, in the service of Her Majesty, the Queen of England) guys have erroneously / fraudulently used. Chemical analysis is the reliable approach. CO2 has been MUCH higher in the past with no accompanying global warming.

Tim Crawford, from Tennessee Valley Authority environs, died while piloting his plane. Equipped with the "Bat", an advanced avionics sensor, to get accurate position of the plane, this guy was involved in the business of accurately tracking the movement of CO2. Fixed towers had been used for many years.

I don't know what their results (published) show or how the info might lend itself to exploitation, but I would tend to trust a guy who goes to such an extent to gather the data. His plane (a Long EZ) also was one of the first to incorporate a parachute.

It is being proposed (and maybe the poor 'ol cosmologists sited above are simply exploiting the Bio Fool cash cow when they should be working on the Superconducting Supercollider, or something with a real future) that Gamma rays, which our universe has recently begun to enter in our course through the cosomos, are adding a new impulse to the historical 100,000 year Ice Age cycle.

If they are correct, you can do all you want with Bio Fuel's - and observe the consequences to humanity resulting from the misuse of the technology - but those consequences will not include a change in Global Warming.

I've posted before, and got bruised a bit as if I were an apologist for the current industrial/technological evolutionary dead end that H. sapiens is currently exploring, that the idea that humans are responsible for the current climate change reminds me of the image of the boy mouse climbing the lady elephant's leg with rape on his mind.

(Actually, last time I compared it to biblical fundamentalism, which is pretty much the same proposition.)

In the current cycle, the icecaps have been in pretty much continuous and precipitous retreat for the last 18,000 years or so (think Lascaux), and they aren't yet done regardless of what humans might do or have done. That said, we are doing a dandy job of greasing the rail down which those of you with children are sliding your issue to hell in a hand basket.

In the last couple of hundred years, less than a sneeze in the history of the earth, less than a flash snapshot of sneeze droplets hanging against a black background, we humans have learned to dig carbon out of the crust of the earth and use the released energy to let us reproduce like fruit flies. We're well on the way to making the skyscrapers of New York and San Francisco (if the latter are still standing), all made since the sneeze droplets were pending, the subject of the next generations's Ozymandias. (Strictly Strunk & White, myself. Not to mention Harvard Blue Book.)

Because of my hobbies, I lurk on some car and bike sites. They seem to be overrepresented with 19th Century (i.e., stupid) types, and the climate deniers have already picked up on Broad's piece, in the liberal NYT MSM, don't you know, as proof that Al Gore is a wuss and that there will be nothing amiss in Casandra's box if we will just open it.

To the climate deniers, as with the evolution deniers, the proof that anyone agrees with them is proof that there is a "controversy," that the issue is not yet settled, and that they may yet be proved to be right. They are incapable of perceiving that no one who makes a legitimate living in climate science denies change, and no one who makes a legitimate living in earth history denies evolution. They can't see that the contrarians who comfort the deniers are nibbling on their ear lobes and waiting to stick something in them.

Perhaps Broad can next bring his neutrally balanced form of American journalism to the intellectual giants at www.fixedearth.com. He will generate more comfort for the stupid.

Some geologists are scientists, others tell stories about the past. Then there's Don Easterbrook! He's certainly not the former. And the stories he tells are not about the past and certainly don't portend the future. The guy is rank and should be round-filed!

Cheers.

If climate change didn't exist, it would be necessary (for the enviromentalists) to invent it.

Seek out these two interesting videos:

Global Warming: Doomsday Called Off.

The Great Global Warming Swindle.

Each expresses in its own way the opinions of many research scientists on the supposed link between man-made CO2 emissions and global warming. Interesting ideas:

1. There IS a relationship between CO2 (generally, not just man-made) and it is positive (i.e., not inverse). However there are two problems. First, the fit is not good, and locally on the graph, that is in the decades ranges, it appears inverse. Second, over long time spans such as centuries rising and falling CO2 TRAIL global temperature rising and falling by several hundred years, indicating that global warming is causing increased CO2 and not the other way around.

2. In spite of the doomsday assertions that rising global temperature will cause catastrophic rise in ocean levels, there appears to be no corroborating historical data -- this is only a product of incomplete and inaccurate models. Historical data such as sea levels in the Maldives over the past few thousands of years indicate no significant change in sea levels in spite of having passed through the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Peak temperatures. The explanation is that global warming causes increased water vapor content in the atmosphere, and that water vapor is transported to the poles where it is solidified. Furthermore, there is no evidence that global warming has ever melted Greenland or Antarctica ice completely or even significantly.

3. Temperatures today, while rising, are not high. In fact they are at a low point. They would have to rise some 6c before reading the Medieval high point, and even then there was no heat-related catastrophe.

There are many other interesting arguments and presentations in these two documentaries, having to do with the Malaria scare, the IPCC politicization, the economics of the Global Warming movement, the impact of the movement on the economies of third-world poverty (worsening it), the role of the Sun in global warming, the role of clouds and cosmic rays, and so forth.

Before arguing too much on one side or another of this new Problem-Reaction-Solution business, view these documentaries and think a little further.