27 Replies to “A Dim Glimmer of Self-Awareness [Dan Collins]”

1. N. O'Brain says:

   February 5, 2007 at 1:20 pm

   OT, but Michelle Malkin does Amanda Marcotte at

   http://hotair.com/

   Good stuff.

2. mishu says:

   February 5, 2007 at 1:49 pm

   -9° here in Chicago today. I almost got frostbite from picking up my dog’s poop. Al Gore can stuff himself with his pointy head.

3. E Moe says:

   February 5, 2007 at 2:18 pm

   Beware claims that the science of global warming is settled.

   While everyone concedes that the Earth is about a degree Celsius warmer than it was a century ago, the debate continues over the cause and consequences. We don’t deny that carbon emissions may play a role, but we don’t believe that the case is sufficiently proven to justify a revolution in global energy use.

   It seems to be since the Opinion Journal author is uniformed and a bit confused everyone else must also be. Uninformed that is, relative to anyone who ever posted on Protein Wisdom. But especially me.

   WHAT DO THEY THINK OF CARL F’ING SAGAN?

   Please try to keep to the topic of the thread.

   PS another confused ignorant soul.

   I question their ideology.

4. Dan Collins says:

   February 5, 2007 at 2:26 pm

   I wasn’t aware that the topic of the thread was people’s attitudes toward Sagan.  It’s amazing what I learn in the comments to my posts.

5. The Lost Dog says:

   February 5, 2007 at 2:46 pm

   Well, I threw a dart at this little bee-hive of information, and hit — Global warming!

   Anyone with a computer and one ounce of curiosity knows that GW is a crock. Regardless of what Al Gore says. It should actually be called “How can the world pick America’s pocket?” We are, per capita, about the least polluting country in the world.

   And, as I’ve said before, anyone with a TV can see that Al Gore is a Blink by simply turning down the sound the next time you see him on the tube. At the risk of sounding old and very un-PC, Al Gore is clearly a Mongoloid, and we are blessed by the fact that the Clinton retreads couldn’t quite manage to install him as president.

   Once again – anyone who believes the GW crap needs to read Crichton’s “State Of Fear”.

   I just noticed. Right at the bottom right corner of this little box is an ad that says: “End the nightmare. Al Gore for president”. Yeah. Right. That’s gonna end the nightmare? Al Gore is the nightmare.

6. furriskey says:

   February 5, 2007 at 2:47 pm

   Talented girl, that Malkin.

7. Pablo says:

   February 5, 2007 at 2:50 pm

   Yeah, that’s extremely funny stuff.

8. B Moe says:

   February 5, 2007 at 3:15 pm

   I wasn’t aware that the topic of the thread was people’s attitudes toward Sagan.

   Lazar doesn’t seem to grasp the concept of a post having a topic.  He doesn’t seem to grasp much of anything, really, except a straw now and then.

9. eLarson says:

   February 5, 2007 at 3:26 pm

   I do believe Danicki’s account in both instances, even though the handbag in question was Prada, but that is likely only because she’s white and not a stripper

   Actually, I dated a stripper who happened to be white for a short time… she had quite a bit of Prada.  Got sick of hearing about it.  That and the feeling of being out with an extremely local celebrity.

10. furriskey says:

    February 5, 2007 at 4:08 pm

    I dated a stripper who happened to be white for a short time

    What did you do? Leave her out in the sun?

    As for the short time, I can’t bring myself to say it-

11. furriskey says:

    February 5, 2007 at 4:09 pm

    yes I can

    That’s more of a collision than a date

12. The Lost Dog says:

    February 5, 2007 at 4:25 pm

    I used to like strippers (for some reason they appeared to be “easy”), but it got to the point where I couldn’t afford the cocaine anymore.

13. Slartibartfast says:

    February 5, 2007 at 5:03 pm

    OT, but Michelle Malkin does Amanda Marcotte

    Either a) hot girl-on-girl action, or b) oral recital of excruciatingly bad prose.  I’d better go look, so the rest a yez don’t have to.

14. mojo says:

    February 5, 2007 at 5:45 pm

    Slartibartfast: “Well, come along or you’ll be late.”

    Arthur: “Late? Late for what?”

    Slartibartfast: “Oh, sorry. Late as in ‘the late Dent Arthur Dent’. It’s something of a threat, you see. I’ve never been very good at that sort of thing.”

    Christ, that guy was funny.

    SB: beyond32
    
    Tales from the

15. Lazar says:

    February 6, 2007 at 2:07 am

    U.N. scientists have relied heavily on computer models to predict future climate change, and these crystal balls are notoriously inaccurate. According to the models, for instance, global temperatures were supposed to have risen in recent years. Yet according to the U.S. National Climate Data Center, the world in 2006 was only 0.03 degrees Celsius warmer than it was in 2001–in the range of measurement error and thus not statistically significant.

    The models also predicted that sea levels would rise much faster than they actually have. The models didn’t predict the significant cooling the oceans have undergone since 2003–which is the opposite of what you’d expect with global warming. Cooler oceans have also put a damper on claims that global warming is the cause of more frequent or intense hurricanes. The models also failed to predict falling concentrations of methane in the atmosphere, another surprise.

    Model predictions: closely tracked subsequent temperatures, correctly predicted MSU data to be erroneous, and closely matched the temperature record following the Mount Pinatubo eruption.

    other perspectives on the oceans.

    How do the above mentioned inaccuracies correlate to long-term predictions?

    What (for you, provisionally) would mark sufficient GCM accuracy; that is, to accept long-term predictions?

    What is an acceptable level of risk?

    As Carl Sagan once said, “It is of interest to note that while some dolphins are reported to have learned English – up to fifty words used in correct context – no human being has been reported to have learned dolphinese.”

16. Rob Crawford says:

    February 6, 2007 at 2:11 am

    What is an acceptable level of risk?

    What is the risk? In historical periods of warming, humanity did quite well. A number of golden ages are correlated with warm periods.

    And what about warming on Mars and Jupiter? Where’s that coming from? Who’s been running H2’s all over Mars?

17. Rob Crawford says:

    February 6, 2007 at 2:12 am

    Oh, and what the hell do dolphins have to do with anything?

18. ChrisP says:

    February 6, 2007 at 2:55 am

    I think the phrase was : So long, and thanks for all the fish”.

    TW: power92 WTF, that’s like 15 years ago?

19. Lazar says:

    February 6, 2007 at 3:24 am

    What is the risk?

    Reduced crop yields due to increased climate variability, sea level rises, and reduced fresh water supplies. Stern has done a costing, subsequently heavily criticized. My impression is that climate change would not need to do ‘much’ in order to become a serious pain in the ass. Food production in deficit under current population levels and per capita consumption. Future demand on land for biofuel, associated demand for water supplies, plus associated demand with rising per capita consumption, two billion humans due to come online, combined with top-soil erosion in the more productive regions, demand for fossil fuels (machinery, pesticides, fertilizer)…

    In historical periods of warming, humanity did quite well.

    With greatly lower populations. As far as I am aware, magnitudes (and timelines) of previous changes are not comparable.

    Oh, and what the hell do dolphins have to do with anything?

    It’s all about Carl Sagan, baby.

    As for dolphins,
    
    ChrisP put it best.

20. McGehee says:

    February 6, 2007 at 5:41 pm

    sea level rises

    How high was sea level in 1200 AD?

21. B Moe says:

    February 6, 2007 at 6:44 pm

    Reduced crop yields due to increased climate variability, sea level rises, and reduced fresh water supplies.

    Increasing greenhouse gases is going to hurt plant production?

22. Lazar says:

    February 7, 2007 at 12:10 am

    Link.

    Droughts could increase in some areas, while others might experience substantially more precipitation than today. The US National Assessment investigated the potential consequences of climate variability and change to agricultural production. Its report suggests that future climate change, higher concentrations of atmospheric CO2, and appropriate farmer adaptation, could result in higher crop yields for the US as a whole [this table from the 2001 TAR predicts exclusively positive U.S. crop yield increases—Lazar]. Nonetheless, projections at the regional level are mixed, with winners and losers. In general, northern production areas are expected to gain from an increased length of the growing seasons and warmer temperatures, while southern areas might be at risk from increased temperature and/or water stress.

    Current state-of-the-art crop models like those used in the National Assessment do not fully capture yield reductions due to increased climate variability and related disturbances. Once these effects are fully incorporated into the models, it is expected that the projections of future US crop yields under climate change could be significantly lower than currently estimated.

    Crop growth models used in the National Assessment do not include the effects of global warming on pests, diseases and weeds.

    Link.

    Canada and parts of Russia might benefit from an increase in crop yields. But any increases in yields could be more than offset by decreases caused by drought and higher temperatures—particularly if the amount of warming were more than a few degrees Celsius. Yields in the tropics might fall disastrously because temperatures there are already almost as high as many crop plants can tolerate.

    Link.

    In 2002, India and the United States suffered sharp harvest reductions because of record temperatures and drought. In 2003 Europe suffered very low rainfall throughout spring and summer, and a record level of heat damaged most crops from the United Kingdom and France in the Western Europe through Ukraine in the East. Bread prices have been rising in several countries in the region. (see w:fr:canicule 2003).

    Most models are also not able yet to provide reliable projections of changes in climate variability on a local scale, or in frequency of exceptional events such as storms and drought. For example, there tends to be a lack of consensus among experts in prediction of regional soil moisture changes.

    Climate change induced by increasing greenhouse gases is likely to affect crops differently from region to region. For example, average crop yield is expected to drop down to 50% in Pakistan according to the UKMO scenario whereas corn production in Europe is expected to grow up to 25% in optimum hydrologic conditions.

    More favourable effects on yield tend to depend to a large extent on realization of the potentially beneficial effects of carbon dioxide on crop growth and increase of efficiency in water use. Decrease in potential yields is likely to be caused by shortening of the growing period, decrease in water availability and poor vernalization.

    Under optimum conditions of temperature and humidity, the yield increase could reach 36%, if the levels of carbon dioxide are doubled.

    Climate change is likely to increase the amount of arable land near the poles by reduction of the amount of frozen lands. Sea levels are expected to get up to one meter higher by 2100, though this projection is disputed. Rise in sea level would result in agricultural land loss, in particular in areas such as South East Asia. Erosion, submergence of shorelines, salinity of the water table due to the increased sea levels, could mainly affect agriculture through inundation of low-lying lands.=]

    Link.

    Because evaporation is likely to increase with warmer climate, it could result in lower river flow and lower lake levels, particularly in the summer. In addition, more intense precipitation could increase flooding.

    Increases in climate variability could make adaptation by farmers more difficult. Warmer climates and less soil moisture due to increased evaporation may increase the need for irrigation.

    Link.

    World rice production must increase by {approx}1% annually to meet the growing demand for food that will result from population growth and economic development

    We analyzed weather data at the International Rice Research Institute Farm from 1979 to 2003 to examine temperature trends and the relationship between rice yield and temperature by using data from irrigated field experiments conducted at the International Rice Research Institute Farm from 1992 to 2003. Here we report that annual mean maximum and minimum temperatures have increased by 0.35°C and 1.13°C, respectively, for the period 1979–2003 and a close linkage between rice grain yield and mean minimum temperature during the dry cropping season (January to April). Grain yield declined by 10% for each 1°C increase in growing-season minimum temperature in the dry season, whereas the effect of maximum temperature on crop yield was insignificant. This report provides a direct evidence of decreased rice yields from increased nighttime temperature associated with global warming.

    It is generally predicted that tropical and sub-tropical regions, Africa, South and Esat Asia, and Central America, will be hit the hardest.

    From B Moe’s link…

    even if some areas do experience greater aridity under warmer conditions, both nature and humans have been through it many times before. Modern transportation helps avoid food shortages

    Recently, Egypt genetically engineered a drought-tolerant wheat plant—containing a gene from the barley plant—that needs to be irrigated only once, rather than eight times per season. The new wheat is expected to dramatically increase food production in semi-arid climates.

    Apologies for the length.

23. B Moe says:

    February 7, 2007 at 12:24 am

    Because evaporation is likely to increase with warmer climate, it could result in lower river flow and lower lake levels, particularly in the summer. In addition, more intense precipitation could increase flooding.

    Didn’t Yogi Berra say that?

24. Yogi Berra says:

    February 7, 2007 at 1:09 am

    I never said most of the things I said.

    Global warming on Mars? I wish I had an answer to that, because I’m tired of answering that question.

    Greater flux, reduced absorption. When precipitation exceeds evaporation and absorption, it floods.

25. McGehee says:

    February 7, 2007 at 10:53 pm

    I’m still waiting to hear how high sea levels were in 1200 AD.

26. Lazar says:

    February 7, 2007 at 11:23 pm

    I’m still waiting to hear how high sea levels were in 1200 AD.

    I’m not going to attempt to guess what point you may have in mind.
    
    Nor am I going to run round digging up that figure.

27. Winslow says:

    March 31, 2010 at 2:14 pm

    Hi. Just passing by, tripped over your site really. Still, looks nice. Help me! Please help find sites for: Soulager vermox vomissement. I found only this – wildlife animal wall clock. Vermox, gnathostomiasis is an painful host of new doll and pain. Vermox, the insurance behind the testament is that you have to degenerate planet earth before you will survive a term origin. Thank you very much :eek:. Winslow from Liechtenstein.

Comments are closed.