“This site is dedicated to preying on peoples vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.”

Thursday, June 04, 2015

Greenland’s Vanishing Lakes

7 Years Ago:


Mystery of Greenland's 'Disappearing Lakes' Solved


  1. Geoscientists have solved a decade-long mystery of how some of the large lakes that sit atop the Greenland ice sheet can completely drain billions of gallons of water in a matter of hours.

    In 2006, Greenland's North Lake, a 2.2 square-mile (5.6 square kilometers) supraglacial meltwater lake, drained almost 12 billion gallons of water in less than two hours. In a study published two years later, researchers determined that this astonishing phenomenon is possible because giant hydro-fractures(water-driven cracks) can form directly beneath the lake basin and stretch down to the bed of the ice sheet, emptying the lake of water. But just how these fractures developed has been unknown — until now.

    In the new study, published today (June 3) in the journal Nature, scientists using GPS technology discovered that the hydro-fractures form from tension-related stress caused by movements of the ice sheet. These movements are, in turn, triggered by the trickling meltwater. [See Gorgeous Images of Greenland's Supraglacial Lakes]

    The new research may help scientists better understand how much the ice sheet is contributing to sea level rise, researchers say.
    Most of Greenland's supraglacial lakes drain slowly when superficial streams route water into nearby, permanent crevasses or moulins (vertical conduits or shafts in a glacier). Fairly recently, however, satellite images showed that about 13 percent of the lakes drain quickly, emptying completely within 24 hours.

    "The images would show the lake there one day, and gone the next day," said first author of the new study, Laura Stevens, a glaciology doctoral candidate with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology/Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (MIT-WHOI) Joint Program. “So we've known for the last 10 to 15 years that the water could disappear quickly."

    A moulin, or crack, formed along the hydro-fracture through Greenland's North Lake basin continues to drain meltwater to the bed after the
    The 2008 research, led by Stevens' co-author Sarah Das, a WHOI geological scientist, showed that temporary hydro-fractures could cause rapid lake drainage on an unprecedented scale. But that research was unable to determine what triggered the cracks in the first place. Two other, similar studies of different rapidly draining supraglacial lakes were also unable to identify what caused the hydro-fractures.
    "The coverage of GPS stations was not dense enough," Stevens told Live Science. “This study goes beyond previous studies on the lakes, because we have 16 GPS stations, as opposed to one or four."

    When meltwater in the summer drains to the bed from the ice surface through crevasses or moulins, it can cause the area within and around the lake basin to be "jacked up," Stevens said. Additionally, it can decrease the surface area of the ice-sheet bed that’s in contact with the underlying bedrock, lubricating the bed and making it easier for the bed to move horizontally.

    Placed around North Lake, the team's 16 GPS stations recorded these two types of movements — called uplift and slip — between 2011 and 2013. This provided an in-depth perspective on the meltwater injected into the bed before, during and after the yearly drainages.
    "We found that before we get the main expression of the lake drainage, there is a period of time (about six to 12 hours) where uplift and slip increase," Stevens said. “That motion is enough to take the surface of the ice sheet and put portions of it in high tension that allows cracks to start forming."



    1. {...}

      The study provides a clearer picture of the amount and location of the meltwater that travels down to the ice-sheet bed, which could help scientists better understand how fast the ice sheet flows during the summer, Stevens said.

      This is important because the inland ice that moves toward the coast gets funneled to so-called outlet glaciers, which are tonguelike protrusions that can break off to form icebergs that may drift off into the ocean and eventually melt.
      “It's half of the equation of how the Greenland ice sheet contributes to sea level rise, with the other half being the years when the ice sheet melts quicker than the snow is deposited," Stevens said.

      Follow Joseph Castroon Twitter. Follow us @livescience, Facebook& Google+. Original article on Live Science.

      Scientists say the sea levels are rising and will continue to do so indefinitely. Coastal communities around the world are already feeling the impact of the rising waters. Many cities and towns are adapting to this new reality. Their response has been photographed and is being presented at an exhibit called Sink or Swim: Designing for a Sea Change.

      Devastating storms and floods are part of a new reality around the globe, said oceanographer and president of the Aquarium of the Pacific, Jerry Schubel.

      “Global climate change is resulting in rising seas, coastal flooding and increasingly powerful storm surges,” he said.

      A video of the rising water produced by the aquarium shows how low-lying places around the world that flood historically are the areas that are immediately vulnerable to the sea level change. Meteorologist Dan Cayan with Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California San Diego said recent trends will continue.

      “In the last couple of decades it’s risen at a greater rate. We think very confidently it will accelerate in the next several decades,” said Cayan.

      Scientists estimate by the end of the century, the seas will rise by an average of almost a meter around the world and continue to climb.

      “Sea level rise will not end in 2100. It’s an ongoing problem, as the planet adjusts to a new, essentially a new energy balance because of greenhouse gases,” said Cayan.

      Cayan said greenhouse gases are warming the planet, “and as the climate warms, the potential for unleashing stored water on Earth, largely in Greenland, Antarctica, holds a lot of potential sea level rise in the future."

      How people around the world are affected by flooding and how they are adapting to the rising sea is shown in the photo exhibit Sink or Swim, said guest curator Frances Anderton.

  2. Specifically, Republican presidential hopefuls are scrambling to show who is most aggressive on national security and who is most passive on climate change. The ideal candidate would, presumably, be able to claim both superlatives.

    But this set of stances is incoherent as a policy platform. Actually it’s worse than incoherent. It’s an oxymoron.

    That’s because climate change is a national security issue. You can’t credibly claim to be tough on national security and terrorism while simultaneously boasting how unconcerned you are about global warming.

    A scientific consensus has found that climate change is real. It’s also man-made, and while it can’t be unmade, per se, it can be at least minimized. You wouldn’t know this from the GOP presidential hopefuls, for whom climate denialism — or something close enough to it to amount to the same thing — is sadly considered a prerequisite for the nomination. Ted Cruz said that people who are concerned about global warming are “the equivalent of the flat-Earthers”; Ben Carson argued climate change is fake and also “irrelevant.” Jeb Bush, Rick Santorum, Marco Rubio and Rand Paul have, at best, equivocated, saying climate change is probably real but maybe not anthropogenic. So, you know, nothing to be done. (In millennial-speak: ¯\_(ツ  )_/¯.) Scott Walker has largely avoided the issue, but his record on other environmental policies (including proposed cuts to recycling) isn’t encouraging.

    Meanwhile these same candidates — including the once-isolationalist Paul — have been offering tough, if vague, platitudes about everything they would do to neutralize any security threat to the United States.

    But extreme weather — high temperatures, droughts, storms, floods — is politically destabilizing. It can lead to food and water shortages, mass migrations, destruction of infrastructure, disputes over refugees, pandemics. Sure, it doesn’t directly create armed conflict or militia groups, but it can generate the conditions under which these threats are more likely to emerge and thrive. Such prospects are scarier when you consider that many of the parts of the world most vulnerable to climate change are also areas with weak governance and civil unrest. Global warming is, if nothing else, a threat multiplier.

    1. Don’t take my word for it; that term “threat multiplier” comes directly from a recent Defense Department report about climate change. America’s military and intelligence branches and their scientific partners have been analyzing environmental data for decades, under both Democratic and Republican administrations. In 2004, for example, the Pentagon developed a blueprint to “imagine the unthinkable”: how a sudden change in the world’s climate might affect national security. Many military reports, task forces, advisory boards and conferences since then have looked at the consequences of more gradual warming — and warned in no uncertain terms of the severe threats it poses to the country’s strategic interests around the globe.

      And yet, lately, hawkish Republicans have been undermining efforts to assess and confront these risks. Hundreds of state and federal elected officials — including Rubio, Paul, Cruz and Walker — have signed a “No Climate Tax Pledge,” modeled after Grover Norquist’s stultifying anti-tax pledge. Many of their compatriots on Capitol Hill have been hacking away at funding for NASA’s earth-science program, the National Science Foundation’s geosciences program and Energy Department initiatives that support research into new energy sources. Last year, in a party-line vote, the House even passed an amendment prohibiting the Defense Department from using any funds “to conduct its anti-fossil fuel climate change agenda,” as the summary of the amendment, introduced by Rep. David B. McKinley (R-W.Va.), reads.

      “This amendment is about prioritizing our national security over ideology,” McKinley said, apparently without irony. The amendment died in conference committee.

    2. President Obama underscored why such attitudes are dangerous in his recent commencement address at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy. He also came startlingly close to characterizing climate denialism as treasonous, noting that in other contexts being aware of a security threat and doing nothing would be “negligence” and “a dereliction of duty.” The same is true, he said, of climate change. “Denying it or refusing to deal with it endangers our national security. It undermines the readiness of our forces,” Obama said.

      The speech, disappointingly but not surprisingly, was met with mockery by conservatives, particularly those who usually present themselves as tough on national security. Little do these hawks realize that sometimes it helps to have a little green in your feathers.

    3. General R was the first here, and nearly around the country, to mock climate change. He said it was 'the weather'.

      With all the connivance among the 'scientists' around the world on the issue it is impossible know for sure what is going on.

      All the data going back decades has been monkeyed with so we need decades of new data to even begin to think about it again.

      And climate change - if it is happening - might be a damn good thing.

      We might save ourselves from our overdue Ice Age, and who wouldn't want the Sahara to become a game park again ?

    4. Senator Jim Inhofe and General R were both early critics of 'global warming'.

      Nothing has changed since those days.

  3. My Niece has been published in the journal Nature !

    1. Also the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology !

  4. Surely you are not buying into climate change along with all the rest of the left shit sandwich, Deuce.

    You said you believed in Science.

    The data is simply not available.

    We need to start over.

    The climate obviously changes over time. A good thing too, or Spokane would be under an ice sheet.

    As well as all of Canada.

    But we don't know the mechanisms, we don't have the data, we don't know the timing, and at this point, whatever the truth may be that we do not know, it is simply one big giant political football with pots of gold in one form or another hanging from trees that people are drooling to pick.

    There's lots of money and power in 'climate change'.

  5. I believe in Equilibrium. Over the past, Planet Earth has undergone extreme insults and eventually has adjusted to a state of equilibrium for a period of time, all the while forces cause a series of change and adjustment.

    Anyone with a brain, a modicum of curiosity and not crucified to ignorance by religious rubbish, can observe the continuous change in the Universe and counter adjustments to states of equilibrium for periods of time.

    Mankind, in its absurdly short period of time has changed Earth. It has changed the composition of the atmosphere, redirected rivers, caused deserts and has desolated vast areas of the land. It is minor compared to volcanic and asteroid events. But mankind as other micro events has made change . To what extend, is conjecture based on observation and science.

    To deny it is not happening, based on religious dogma, is stultifying ignorance.

    We do have data. We do know the mechanisms. Each year, methods of measuring the timing improves. The twenty five year experience of Hubble has resulted in multitudes of improvements and understanding of our universe,at least to anyone with the interest to seek the truth.

    1. .

      To deny it is not happening, based on religious dogma, is stultifying ignorance.


      It's still early (for me) and I haven't had a cup of coffee yet; but, I am struggling to remember what significant group of people is denying climate change based on 'religious dogma'.


    2. .

      Shit, I forgot.

      Better get that coffee.


    3. Deuce is becoming expert at disappearing comments.

      He has right here taken two or three of my quite polite comments down - disappeared them - mocking his non sense about:

      "I believe in Equilibrium"

      Existential despair, woe and the perennial philosophy were also mentioned.

      Deuce is the thinnest skinned guy I've ever run into.

      But it is serious business.

      Disappearing a polite but pointed comment is a kulag type activity.

    4. When all the forces that act upon an object are balanced, then the object is said to be in a state of equilibrium. The earth is never in a constant state of equilibrium but over time rebounds to a state of equilibrium that is conductive to life and that is the only part that we care about. Other planets are in a state of equilibrium, that does not support life. Ice ages, asteroids, prolonged droughts have all had an impact on earth but for the best part of 3.5 billion years, the earth has sustained life. Equilibrium has allowed it to do so.

    5. Sorry that it discomBOBulates you.

    6. Whole paragraph is meaningless. We all know that.

      So what ?

      What's the point of 'believing' in that ?

      I have no idea what deep point you are trying to make.

      You could just as easily say things are always out of whack, and the out of whackness has resulted in - us.

      Are things in whack, or out of whack ?

      That is the question !

      If you get whacked then you are out of whack for this world.

      It is important to know that.

      If you whack somebody for no good reason then you are going to be out of whack in the next world.

      It is very important to know that.

  6. Interesting Development of the Day: Showtime is going to start streaming live over the internet.

  7. The 8th. largest economy on earth obtained 30% of its electricity, yesterday, from Renewables*.

    *Does not include Large Hydro


  8. Jobless claims continue to run very low, down 8,000 in the May 30 week to 276,000 which is right at the Econoday consensus. The 4-week average is up slightly to 274,750 and is running about 5,000 lower than the month-ago comparison.

    Continuing claims, where data lag by a week, are telling the same story, down 30,000 to 2.196 million with the 4-week average down 9,000 to 2.214 million. The unemployment rate for insured workers is down 1 tenth to a very low 1.6 percent.

    All these readings are at or near 15-year lows and indicate that the unemployment side of the labor market is very favorable. There are no special factors in today's report.

    Bloomberg Economic Calendar

  9. The missus asked me, "When you're on a boys only trip, do you think about me?"
    Apparently "Only to stop myself from coming too quickly" wasn't the right answer.

  10. June 4, 2015
    The climate warming pause goes AWOL (or not)
    By S. Fred Singer

    Science mag is publishing a blockbuster paper today, on June 4. Oh boy! Get ready to watch yet another big fight about climate change – this time mainly among different groups of climate alarmists. Is there a “pause”? Did global climate really stop warming during the last dozen years, 18 years, or even 40 years – in spite of rising levels of the greenhouse (GH) gas carbon dioxide?

    The renowned National Climate Data Center (NCDC), a division of NOAA located in Asheville, NC, claims that the widely reported (and accepted) temperature hiatus (i.e., near-zero trend) is an illusion – just an artifact of data analysis – and that the global climate never really stopped warming.If true, what a blessing that would be for the UN-IPCC – and for climate alarmists generally, who have been under siege to explain the cause of the pause.

    This paper is turning out to be a “big deal.”The publisher of Science has even issued a special press release, promoting the NCDC claim of continued slow but steady warming.

    Of course, NCDC-NOAA and Science may end up with egg on their collective faces.It does look a little suspicious that NCDC arrived at this earth-shaking “discovery” after all these years, after “massaging” its own weather-station data, just before the big policy conference in December in Paris that is supposed to slow the rise of CO2 from the burning of energy fuels, coal, oil, and gas.

    Now watch the sparks fly -- as there are two major constituencies that have a vested interest in the pause:

    There are at least two rival data centers that may dispute the NCDC analysis:
    the Hadley Centre in England and the NASA-Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS).In fact, Hadley’s partner, the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, was the first to announce, on the BBC, the existence of a pause in global warming.

    Then there are also dozens of scientists who have published research papers, purporting to provide an explanation for the reported pause.Yours truly turns out to be amongst these.They will all be mightily disappointed if their intellectual efforts turn out to be for naught.

    But hold on.NCDC may turn out to be quite wrong.Not surprisingly, they used the surface temperature record, with its well-known problems. Not only that, but a look at the detailed NCDC evidence shows that much depends on polar temperatures -- which are mostly guessed at, for lack of good observations.If one uses the (truly global) satellite data, analyzed either by UAH or by RSS, the pause is still there, starting around 2003 [see Figure; it shows a sudden step increase around 2001, not caused by GH gases].

    1. Not only that, but the same satellite data show no warming trend from 1979 to 2000 – ignoring, of course, the exceptional super-El-Nino year of 1998.This finding is confirmed by other, independent instrumental data -- and also by (non-instrumental) proxy records (from tree rings, ice cores, lake sediments). This leads to important far-reaching consequences that are more fully discussed and referenced in the reports of NIPCC (Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change) [search NIPCCreport.org, esp. the CCR-II report of 2013].

      UN-IPCC claims for AGW undermined

      IPCC-4 [2007] and IPCC-5 [2013] both present claims for anthropogenic global warming (AGW) that are based mainly on reported surface warming from 1979 to 2000. In the absence of such a warming trend, the IPCC claims become invalid; there would be no human-caused greenhouse warming in the 20th century – and certainly not earlier.

      It is worthwhile, therefore, to re-examine carefully the absence of warming in the last two decades of the 20th century.

      The satellite results of near-zero warming trend are fully backed by radiosonde data from balloon flights -- notwithstanding spurious claims by Santer et al [in Int’l J of Climatology 2008; see full discussion by Singer in Energy&Envir 2013].The absence of a tropical “Hotspot” (a once-controversial upper-troposphere warming trend) “makes the cheese more binding.”

      Sea-surface temperatures (SST) show only a slight warming – as do night-time marine air temperatures (NMAT), assembled by the Hadley group.Data on ocean heat content before 2000 are spotty and not very useful.In any case, the interpretation of vertical temperature profiles would require factoring in ocean circulation at different levels.

      Proxy data of various types, assembled by Fredrik Ljungqvist in Sweden, and independently by NOAA scientist David Anderson, generally show no warming; Michael Mann never released his post-1979 proxy data, and has even denied their existence (in a personal 1990 email); one suspects that the reason is they show no warming.

      A quick word about the observed (and genuine) warming interval 1910-40. It can be seen not only in surface thermometers at weather stations, temperature records from ships, but in all published proxy records. Alas, I could not find any atmospheric temperature data for that period. It is generally agreed, however – including by IPCC --that this warming is of natural origin and not from GH gases.

    2. Thus there is noevidence whatsoever of anywarming from human-released CO2 during the whole of the 20th century or earlier.

      The bottom line

      One can certainly argue about whether the NCDC results are correct –and I expect many months of back-and-forth.So, has global warming really stopped?We will know for sure in just a few years.

      There will certainly be debate also about my proposition of no evidence at all for AGW.We will need a persuasive answer to the puzzle -- why do land thermometers show a warming before 2000, but not after 2000?I may have an answer, but must first try to convince my colleagues.

      One thing is quite certain, however: Current IPCC climate models cannot explain what the observations clearly show.This makes the models unsuitable for climate prediction – and for policy purposes generally.

      S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus at the University of Virginia and a founding director of the Science & Environmental Policy Project; in 2014, after 25 years, he stepped down as president of SEPP. His specialty is atmospheric and space physics. An expert in remote sensing and satellites, he served as the founding director of the US Weather Satellite Service and, more recently, as vice chair of the US National Advisory Committee on Oceans & Atmosphere. He is a Senior Fellow of the Heartland Institute and the Independent Institute. He co-authored the NY Times best-seller Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 years. In 2007, he founded and has chaired the NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change), which has released several scientific reports [See NIPCCreport.org]. For recent writings see http://www.americanthinker.com/s_fred_singer/ and also Google Scholar.

      Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/06/the_climate_warming_pause_goes_awol.html#ixzz3c6rUIPxN
      Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

    3. .

      There will certainly be debate also about my proposition of no evidence at all for AGW.

      I disagree with him wholeheartedly. There is all kinds of evidence on AGW, on both sides; however, the debate has been so bitter, with data withheld or disputed, ad hominems flying, with major findings ridiculed, with proof of collusion and falsifying evidence and plans to ostracize the other side and prevent them from publishing, it would take an expert in cryptanalysis to sort through it all.

      I kind of lean towards the warming theory although much of the info put out by that side appears to me to be more propaganda than proof with other pieces clearly manufactured. On the other hand, I am less sure that it is primarily a man-made result. However, I am not setting my hair on fire over any warming we might see.

      I am for many of the things we are doing supposedly for the planet and to curb AGW but I am for them because they net/net seem to make sense. For instance, the push for alternate/renewable energy sources may positively affect AGW (though this is ofttimes disputed) but in a world of declining resources it makes sense to pursue them for economic and strategic reasons. However, I don't really see there is an opportunity to slow AGW in any meaningful way in the short or medium term. And that is the point. We have already been told by the same people that claim AGW is a disaster that we are already at or even beyond the tipping point, that point where we can actually do something to halt or reverse the warming.

      I personally think that global weather patterns are just too complex to model. The models that are constructed, the variables selected, the data 'chosen' or ignored, the biases of those constructing the models all create results that at best are just educated guesses easily disputed by someone else's model and best guesses.

      Given the uncertaintainy and what I consider our inability to effect the end game, I would go with what I consider a pragmatic approach, continue with programs we can control and which make economic sense and ignore those that don't, and adapt to any changes that we see, accept the positive effects of climate change and address the negative results as best we can, do not waste time and energy on 'solutions and agreements' that can't work.

      The recent US-China Agreement on Climate Change is one that concerns me. The good thing about the agreement is that the two biggest polluters in the world (36% percent of world's total) have agreed to work in concert. The bad things, IMO, are many. First, the agreement states intent rather than any type of enforceable commitment. It is also somewhat one-sided in that China doesn't have to respond until 2030 and much of what was agreed to was already built into China's plans anyway. The US commits to reduce emissions by 28% (from 2005 levels) by 2025, 5 years before China is obligated to do anything. There is also the fact that this is a bilateral agreement and doesn't effect the other 2/3 of pollution around the world.

      My main fear with these types of agreements centers on the facts that, there is neither a worldwide consensus or commitment on AGW, that it is likely too late to meet the target on global warming, and the means that is chosen to address the problems and meet commitments.

      On the last part, there is way too much politics and too many special interests involved to come up with an efficient and workable solution that everyone will agree with. My fear, is that the US will adopt policies that hamper GDP growth creating much bigger problems than if we accepted GW and spent money to adapt to it in those areas most affected.

      It would be particularly sad for us hinder GDP growth and accept the resultant problems only to find out that GW isn't occurring or wasn't anything we could do anything about anyway.


  11. The question has been asked, “What is the Christian position on these things? How should a Bible-believing Christian respond to global warming?”

    Any time we need a Christian view on something, we ought to go to the Bible first. The Bible is not a science book, but what it does say about science is true. In fact, any time we weigh some matter of science, our first question should be, "Does the Bible confirm or deny the truth of this?" Along with your church bulletin this morning, you should have received a little graph that will help you understand how to rightly judge any matter of science. Take a look at that, if you would, and we’ll fill in the blanks.

    These matters can be divided into four categories, based on two questions. Question #1 is, "Is this true or false?" A good place to begin, yes? So, at the top, we have "True," and in the bottom, we have "Falsehood." Any science that we put in the top half of this diagram will be true, and anything we put in the bottom will be false. Have I lost anyone so far?

    The other question is, as I just said, "Does Scripture address this issue?" If the Bible says something is true, that's all we need to know; and if the Bible says a thing is untrue, then that's all we need to know about that. If the Bible does not address the issue, then we have to go to other sources to prove or disprove a thing. So, on the left, we have "Scriptural facts." On the right, we have "Other facts." Any science we write on the left side of this diagram will be something that's settled by the Bible, and anything on the right side is something the Bible does not mention.

    You may notice that we, as Christians, are taking it upon ourselves to determine the truth or falsehood of science. Most worldly people would be appalled at our audacity — who are we to make such a judgment? Leave it to the experts! If anything, they'd reverse it and say that science has the right to judge the truth or falsehood of a religion. But God commands us, in I Thessalonians 5:21, to test all things. We have the God-given right and responsibility to pass judgment on these matters, because we will answer to God for what we believe, and especially for what we teach to others. For us to judge issues like global warming isn't audacity, it's obedience.

    Now, to make this all make sense, I'll give you four examples, one kind of science for each of the four categories. For our first category, the upper left box, which would be True and based on Scriptural facts, a fine example is the (two words) water cycle. Ecclesiastes 1:7 says, "All streams flow into the sea, and yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again." This simple fact was known to Bible scholars centuries before worldly scientists figured out the details. Water flows from uphill to downhill, it reaches the sea, it evaporates, it goes into the clouds, it falls on the land as rain, and it goes around again. It's true, and it's supported by Scripture.

    For an example of science in the upper-right box, true and supported by other facts, we have gravity. I don't know of any Bible verse that says, "What goes up must come down." Nor is there anything against it in the Bible. So, without Scriptural input, we go to other sources, and we find that gravity is a pretty well accepted fact. Science believes it, the Bible doesn't say no, so we accept that it's true.


    1. .

      First, I would ask who is Michael Fischer. I couldn't find anything on him in Wikipedia?

      Second, who should give give a shit about Christian 'opinions' except other Christians?

      Third, having read the entire article, what is it you object to wrt what the guy specifically has to say about global warming?

      This from the last lines of the article,

      Global warming. Maybe it will happen, maybe it won't. Maybe it's man-made, and maybe it isn't. But setting aside all these maybe's, we should definitely be putting all our efforts and all our energy into things that are eternal, not things that are temporal. "Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth." (Colossians 3:2) "For the world in its present form is passing away" (I Corinthians 7:31). Let's pour ourselves into things that will not pass away. Let's dedicate ourselves to the things that will endure forever.


  12. Climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe, an evangelical Christian, has had quite the run lately. A few weeks back, she was featured in the first episode of the Showtime series The Years of Living Dangerously, meeting with actor Don Cheadle in her home state of Texas to explain to him why faith and a warming planet aren't in conflict. (You can watch that episode for free on YouTube; Hayhoe is a science adviser for the show.) Then, Time magazine named her one of the 100 most influential people of 2014; Cheadle wrote the entry. "There's something fascinating about a smart person who defies stereotype," Cheadle observed.

    Why is Hayhoe in the spotlight? Simply put, millions of Americans are evangelical Christians, and their belief in the science of global warming is well below the national average. And if anyone has a chance of reaching this vast and important audience, Hayhoe does. "I feel like the conservative community, the evangelical community, and many other Christian communities, I feel like we have been lied to," explains Hayhoe on the latest episode of the Inquiring Minds podcast. "We have been given information about climate change that is not true. We have been told that it is incompatible with our values, whereas in fact it’s entirely compatible with conservative and with Christian values.”

    Recent data from the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication suggests that while 64 percent of Americans think global warming is real and caused by human beings, only 44 percent of evangelicals do.


    1. .

      So what?

      Views change. Only around half of the GOP believe in man-made global warming. I could find anything on conservatives. But only as far back as 2012

      According to the poll, conducted between October 4 and October 7, 67 percent of all Americans and 48 percent of Republicans say that the Earth is warming, a 4 percentage-point jump from last year and a 10 percentage-point jump from 2009; 42 percent of Americans and about a third of Republicans say that they believe the warming is caused by human activity.

      Is it their 'religious dogma' or the fact that they are conservative, or that they are unconvinced with the 'evidence' offered given the various scandals and rebuttals involving the studies and tactics of the pro AGW crowd?


  13. Just what is it with evangelical Christians and global warming? I doubt we’re ever going to get a satisfying answer to this long-running question, but it is being raised yet again by the publication yesterday of a survey by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.

    The poll canvassed views on climate change among the "major religious traditions" in the US. Surprise, surprise, it shows that "white evangelical Protestants" were the group with the lowest level – 34% of those surveyed – of acceptance that there is solid evidence that global warming is real and that it is attributable to humans. This compares with 47% of the total US population (still startlingly low), and 58% of those surveyed who "had faith" but who were unaffiliated to any particular religious tradition.

    It would have been interesting to have seen the stats for Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and any of the other "major religious traditions", but the Pew Forum said that out of the 1,502 American adults it surveyed the sample sizes were too small for the data to be worth reporting. But with 76% of Americans claiming to be Christians, perhaps this isn't much of a surprise.

    All religious groups have their charismatic leaders, but US evangelicals – who some claim to number up to 100 million people – probably know better than any other group how to get their message across loud and clear to their followers with their syndicated radio stations, TV channels, megachurches and sophisticated online activism.

    Some of these leaders display a particular sort of venom towards the "global warming agenda". Others, however, have appeared in recent years to start speaking up the need to adopt environmentalism – or “creation care", as it is more popularly known – and wrapped up within all this is an acceptance that global warming is a reality and needs tackling.


    1. .

      Again so what?

      The article merely indicates that evangelical Christians have a lower acceptance with the view that there is solid evidence that global warming is real and that it is attributable to humans. but that their views tend to be evolving. It is interesting to note that they cite 47% of the entire US population, nearly half, do not accept the proposition.

      The authors point of view is obvious from the statements he offers up.


  14. A majority of pastors continue to doubt man-made global warming, according to a report by LifeWay Research.
    The survey found about 4 in 10 Protestant pastors "believe global warming is real and man made" – an increase from similar data collected in 2010, but down slightly from 2008. Pastors' views generally line up with popular opinion on the topic, LifeWay states. The percentage of Americans who said they believed global warming was the result of human activity reached all-time low in 2010, when just 34 percent agreed with the statement.
    Younger pastors are the biggest skeptics. "Pastors age 65 or older put more stock in the validity of global warming over their younger counterparts," Lifeway said. "This group is more likely (32%) than pastors age 45-54 (20%) and 18-44 (19%) to strongly agree with the statement: 'I believe global warming is real and man made.'"
    Not surprisingly, pastors’ perspectives on global warming and sustainability efforts corresponded with their politics: Democrat pastors were more likely than Republican pastors to say that their churches had taken steps toward sustainability.


    1. .

      The following statement has two parts,

      I believe global warming is real and man made.

      Note that the question isn't, "I believe in global warming and human activity 'contributes' to that warming". The poll original statement is clear and unambiguous.

      What is your answer to that original question, Deuce?


    2. .

      There is nothing in the polling that indicates the conservative Christians views on climate change have anything to do with 'religious doctrine'.


  15. To deny it is not happening, based on religious dogma, is stultifying ignorance.


    It’s still early (for me) and I haven't had a cup of coffee yet; but, I am struggling to remember what significant group of people is denying climate change based on 'religious dogma'.


    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    2. Stultifying is a good word.

      (misspelled the little bugger right above)

    3. .

      Yes, but given the video Deuce put up you have to ask who to apply the word to?


  16. Try and think of it this way, Deuce -

    The hottest take: What if “Game of Thrones” is really an allegory for climate change?
    posted at 2:41 pm on June 4, 2015 by Allahpundit

    Must watch VIDEO

    I’m impressed. Not by the theory, which is standard dorm-room navel-gazing, but by the strategy behind it. This is a brilliant bit of global-warming propaganda by a progressive site aimed at low-information casual news consumers, the sort of people who may know little about climate change but know a lot about “Game of Thrones.” It’s the same idea at base as Obama sitting down for a “Funny or Die” interview with Zach Galifianakis in the thick of enrollment season for ObamaCare: If you want to win over an audience of apolitical twentysomethings, you need to hit ‘em where they live. That means pop culture and it means video. Come for the GoT, stay for the curiosity-piquing warnings about the dire threat from rising sea levels. In a way, it’s Vox at its Vox-iest, leveraging something ostensibly politically neutral — like, say, the label “exploratory journalism” — to steer neutral readers towards a left-wing agenda. You may not like them, but they ain’t stupid.

    As for the theory, I’ll leave it to those who watch the show to dissect it in the comments. Seems straightforward enough, though — the zombies are climate change, mercilessly advancing on a collection of nations consumed by their own petty squabbles, with some leaders refusing to admit that the zombies even exist. Only by collective action can they turn the tide. (Any Vox analysis of any television show will end with that same lesson.) The thing is, that’s also basically the plot of “The Walking Dead.” There are no outright zombie-deniers in TWD, but that’s because it takes place at a different stage of the zombie onslaught than GoT, after civilization’s been overrun rather than before. Even so, in every episode there’s some moment where the characters let their guard down by assuming the zombies are much further away than they really are — an evergreen progressive complaint about short-sightedness towards global warming — and they end up paying for it. Whaddaya know, that’s two highly popular shows about the left’s pet issue, or so lefties might tell you.

    Then again, both shows could also be allegories for income inequality, with the zombies representing the dehumanized working class and Rick’s gang, or the lords of Westeros, representing the one-percenters whose civilization will be overrun. Or maybe both shows are allegories for the state of the Democratic Party, too confident in its hold on power and dangerously riven by conflicting interests while the horde of cannibal Republican voters descends. That’s the thing about the zombie genre — zombies can represent almost anything, a fact exploited by George Romero in his own versatile uses of symbolism (zombies as a satire on consumerism in “Dawn of the Dead” and as a commentary on exploitation of the lower class in “Land of the Dead”). They’re the Moby Dick of modern American culture. Which makes me wonder how many more “Game of Thrones is like ________” clickbait videos Vox might have in the chute, waiting to go. I’d be up for a “Game of Thrones is like amnesty” hot take. Starring Jeff Sessions as Tyrion Lannister, maybe?


    I've always thought of Quirk as a White Walker and General R as a Johnny Walker Red !

  17. NOAA Fiddles With Climate Data To Erase The 15-Year Global Warming 'Hiatus'...........Drudge


    NUKE DUPE: Iran continuing work on missiles...........Drudge


    STUDY: Female genital mutilation practiced throughout Iran.............Drudge

  18. Change o' Subject -

    Mosby says she'll seek order to block release of Freddie Gray autopsy report

    Baltimore State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby said she will seek to withhold the autopsy report on Freddie Gray's death. (Baltimore Sun)
    By Kevin Rector The Baltimore Sun contact the reporter
    Mosby doesn't want Freddie Gray's autopsy made public

    Baltimore State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby plans to seek a protective order that would block the release of Freddie Gray's autopsy report and other "sensitive" documents as she prosecutes the six police officers involved in his arrest.

    Mosby told The Baltimore Sun that prosecutors "have a duty to ensure a fair and impartial process for all parties involved" and "will not be baited into litigating this case through the media."

    But an attorney for one of the officers said the effort shows that "there is something in that autopsy report that they are trying to hide."

    "Mrs. Mosby is the one who did an announcement discussing what she said the evidence was in a nationally televised speech," said Ivan Bates, who represents Sgt. Alicia White. "Now that it is time to turn over the evidence, to ask for a protective order is beyond disingenuous.

    "It's as if she wants to do everything to make sure our clients do not get a fair trial."............


    This is very very bad. I think her case is falling apart.

    More importantly, Judge Napolitano seems to think so too.

    Judge N. says if he were Judge he would release the autopsy report almost automatically.

    It is, after all, a public document.

    Why would Mosby wish to keep it secret ?

    1. Care to speculate as to why Ms. Mosby would wish to keep the autopsy results secret, Deuce ?

    2. What about you, General R, care to speculate ?

  19. See Marie Harf spin - all DECKED OUT !! - in red and golden pearls (beads ?) - must Must, MUST watch VIDEO -

    Depressing: Marie Harf spends five minutes defending Iran’s enrichment of uranium

    posted at 5:21 pm on June 4, 2015 by Allahpundit

    Painful truth:

    The really awful thing about speaking for this State Dept is all the spin one must do on behalf of the govt of Iran https://t.co/N5gjzgDC1l

    — David Frum (@davidfrum) June 3, 2015

    Frum wrote that yesterday. More than 24 hours later, Harf’s still shilling for our partners in peace in Tehran. To understand what this is about, re-read yesterday’s post about the growing alarm among western diplomats that Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium has been increasing despite their promises to freeze it at a certain level. There may be an innocent-ish explanation for that related to the process of converting uranium into fuel rods; there may also be a not so innocent explanation, namely, that Iran’s building up a stockpile of potential bomb material right under our nose. Either way, Obama’s investment in negotiating with Iran means that the State Department, ostensibly America’s mouthpiece against terrorist states, is now forced to shill for every shady nuclear move the mullahs make in the interest of keeping them at the bargaining table. Harf’s spin today is that while it may be true that Iran’s been cranking out more enriched uranium instead of reducing its supply as required under its preliminary deal with the U.S., it’s also true that they have until June 30th to meet their target.

    So lay off of our new Shiite friends, media, why don’t you?

    Iran is required under the interim nuclear deal to freeze and dilute its stockpiles of low-level enriched uranium, the key component in a nuclear bomb. Its stockpile has reportedly grown from around 7,650 kilograms at the start of the deal 18-months ago to around 12,000 kilograms currently, according to nuclear analysts and the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) most recent reports.

    1. While Iran is required to dilute that excess amount, it has only done so to about 5 percent of the current stockpiles, leading to questions about whether the Islamic Republic will be in violation of previous agreements by the end of June.

      Analysts predict that it will be impossible for Iran to hit the mark in the next 28 days, when it is obligated to be back at 7,650 kilograms of low enriched uranium…

      “Marie, I’m sorry, I just can’t—I don’t understand why this isn’t more of a concern,” said Associated Press reporter Matt Lee. “If we’re only 28 days or so away from a deal, wouldn’t you be expecting the Iranians to be reducing their—their stockpiles to get in line.”

      Their stockpile can go up and down until June 30th, says Harf, so long as it’s down to 7,650 kg by the end of the month. Have a look at the graph in the NYT’s story, though, and you’ll see that Iran’s stockpile has never since dropped as low as it was when nuke negotiations began in earnest in late 2013. The stockpile has decreased at times, but only after even greater increases. It’s remained above 8,000 tons for a year and a half and has been rising steadily since January despite the fact that the mullahs knew they’d have to cut their supply sharply by mid-summer to comply with the terms of a final deal. Listen closely to what Harf says in the clip, though, and you can see why they’re not taking that deadline seriously: She notes that the 7,650 kilogram target isn’t that important in the big picture, only the ultimate goal of eventually reducing the stockpile to 300 kilograms under the terms of a final deal. She’s already moving the goalposts so that the White House can argue at the end of the month, if/when Iran has failed to hit the target they promised, that they’re going to let Iran slide on the deadline in the interest of preserving the agreement. The deal hasn’t even been signed yet and already America’s government is grasping for excuses for violations. As I’ve said before, given the amount of political capital Obama’s invested in this process plus the fact that there’s no earthly way he’ll order a military strike on Iran’s facilities, the west is more desperate to reach a deal than Iran is. And it shows.

      And this is how it’ll be for the next 20 months at least. Once Obama bets it all on the mullahs, on the Daily Beast surreally phrased it, by making a deal with them, his diplomats will be coopted by political pressure into protecting that deal even if it means lying and shilling on behalf of the government of Iran. Watch Harf here and ask yourself how confident you are that if the White House received hard intelligence a year from now that Iran’s working on a bomb — or, oh, just hypothetically, nuclear-capable ICBMs — they’d reveal that information to the public and tear up the deal rather than suppress it and try to persuade Iran to suspend its bomb program quietly. If Frum thinks it’s bad now, just wait.


    2. .

      In reply to the post at Thu Jun 04, 02:26:00 PM EDT

      regarding an article written by Michael Fischer that started out

      The question has been asked, “What is the Christian position on these things? How should a Bible-believing Christian respond to global warming?”

      I asked the question

      First, I would ask who is Michael Fischer. I couldn't find anything on him in Wikipedia?

      Well, after a painstaking investigation, I found Michael at his website cke1st.com. At that site, under the heading 'Family' we find this about Mike.

      Hi, I'm Mike, and this is my wife, Eileen. We're two ordinary Christians who want to use our God-given talents for Him and His Kingdom. There's nothing special about us. Any child of God can do the same.

      I became a Christian in 1982; before then, I called myself an atheist. I'm in my 14th year at the Foxboro Company in Foxboro, MA, handling databases to help with power-plant control system design. Among my many interests are guitars, choir singing, classical music, Bolivian folk music, model railroading, sci-fi wargaming, game design, naval history, puns and bloopers, MIDI music sequencing, romping with small children, and reading.

      Eileen accepted Christ in 1987, coming out of a Roman Catholic background. She enjoys ice skating, antiques, tropical fish, quilting, collecting dolls, reading, and cycling.

      We met in 1995, as teaching partners for junior church. Our friendship grew without any worldly dating or "sloppy agape." We married on October 24, 1998.

      The third member of our household is Benji, a 2-year-old Pembroke Welsh corgi, who is a good companion, a fair-to-middling watchdog, and a shameless beggar when he smells food.

      See the "My Mission" page for details on how we'd like to be a blessing to you.

      Judging by the self-description, Michael and Eileen seem like pretty nice people; although I did have to do a little thinking to figure out what "sloppy agape" meant.


    3. Glad you have it figured out.

      Care to give us a worldly dating type graphic explanation ?

    4. Sound like nice folks to me, too.

      Not at all whacko.

    5. .

      Care to give us a worldly dating type graphic explanation ?

      You pervert.


  20. Heh

    Mosby really has gotten her ass in a sling.

    She is not turning over even the knife for inspection by the defense.

    She is refusing to turn over the autopsy report to the Police who are trying to conduct their own investigation.

    Of course she will have to turn everything over sooner or later.

    She should be removed from the ASAP for gross prosecutorial misconduct.

    I detect a lack of equilibrium in the Prosecutor's Office here.

    1. Ms Mosby promised the mob a legal lynching in exchange for votes, and, as of today, things seem to be getting out of this whack.

  21. Latest Republican primary polling -

    Bush 12%
    Walker 12%
    Carson 11%

    Everyone else single digits.

    I find this very heartening.

    1. Bush (professional politician)
      Walker (professional politician)
      Carson (professional physician)

      Go Ben !

  22. Was Larmarck on to something after all ?


    DNA carries traces of past events meaning poor lifestyle can affect future generations

    Scientists now know that our DNA is being altered all the time by environment, lifestyle and traumatic events

    Woman standing near DNA helix and family tree chart.

    DNA faults caused by trauma, poor lifestyle can be passed down to future generations say scientists Photo: Alamy

    By Sarah Knapton, Science Editor

    5:58PM BST 04 Jun 2015

    Genetic faults caused by trauma, poor lifestyle or environmental stress can be passed down to future generations, scientists at the University of Cambridge have discovered.

    Previously large studies have shown that devastating events such as famine can scar future generations, making them more prone to obesity and diabetes.

    However it is the first time that the biological mechanism for the effect has been seen.

    • It's all in your genes: how DNA explains your sense of humour, sleep patterns, and phobias

    Although the same genes are passed down through generations, scientists now know that our DNA is being altered all the time by environment, lifestyle and traumatic events. It is thought that these changes drive disease, premature ageing and early death.

    However it was believed that these faults could not be passed on to future generations, with the slate essentially being wiped clean.

    But now scientists at University of Cambridge have found that in some areas of DNA, including those linked to mental illness and obesity, some of the faults remain.

    In fact, around five per cent of our genetic code carries traces of past events, meaning that trauma, poor diet or poor lifestyle choices may by leaving a devastating legacy for children and grandchildren.

    DNA carries traces of past events meaning poor lifestyle can affect future generations it has been reported

    Professor Azim Surani, from the Wellcome Trust/Cancer Research UK Gurdon Institute at the University of Cambridge, said: “The information needs to be reset in every generation before further information is added to regulate development of a newly fertilised egg. It’s like erasing a computer disk before you add new data."

    Between week two and week nine of an embryo’s development the genetic code is being rewritten to erase genetic alterations from the parents. However the researchers found that the processes does not clear all of the changes. Around 5 per cent of DNA appears resistant to reprogramming.

    • Overweight patients to be offered diets based on their DNA

    These ‘escapee’ regions of the genome contain some genes that are particularly active in neuronal cells, which may serve important functions during development, the researchers believe.

    Those genes are associated with conditions such as schizophrenia, metabolic disorders and obesity.

    Walfred Tang, a PhD student who is the first author on the study, adds: “Our study has given us a good resource of potential candidates of regions of the genome where information is passed down not just to the next generation but potentially to future generations, too.”

    The research was published in the journal Cell.


    Presumably good lifestyle choices and righteous living patterns would be passed down too ?

    If so we would be beginning to sniff the pleasant aroma of Hinduism.

    1. The pleasant and severe aroma of Hinduism.

    2. .

      Only if Hindus believe the sins of the father are visited upon the children.


    3. Nay, the jiva reincarnates to its proper form.

      You are 'thinking' in a western manner.


      See: Plato, Frost, Roethke, Whitman

    4. Your petition for admittance to the religious order is hereby denied, Squami Quirk.

  23. .

    Assad Reaching the Tipping Point?

    WASHINGTON -- The regime of President Bashar al-Assad in Syria is facing what U.S. experts say is the most intense pressure since the early days of the four-year civil war. This new squeeze poses some stark choices for America, Russia, Iran and Syria's neighbors.

    "Based on current trend lines, it is time to start thinking about a post-Assad Syria," argues a U.S. intelligence official. Until recently, American analysts had characterized the situation there as more of a stalemate. But over the last month, rebel gains in northern and southern Syria have begun to tip the balance.

    U.S. officials see mounting pressure on Assad from four directions. A potent new rebel coalition known as Jaish al-Fatah, or the Army of Conquest, backed by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, seized the capital of Idlib province late last month. Fighting ferociously alongside this coalition is Jabhat al-Nusra, or the Nusra Front, which is affiliated with al-Qaeda. Moderate rebels known as the "Southern Front," backed by the U.S. and Jordan, are finally gaining some ground in southern Syria. And the Islamic State, the most fearsome group of all, is rampaging across northern, central and eastern Syria...