Corzine signs Global Warming Response Act

Apparently crashing in a car clocked in excess of 90 mph without a seatbelt did more brain damage than detected.

If he didn't get his brains scrambled, he would be able to identify more important "Dwindling Resources" like businesses and taxpayers.

Serving the Sierra Club over the interests of the people violates his oath of office, but hey, the Blue State idiots do what Blue State idiots do.

Too bad we didn't have a Republican choice running against him in the last election.

"The ultimate decision about what is acceptable as right and wrong will be made not by individual wisdom but by the disappearance of the groups that have adhered to the 'wrong' beliefs." - F. A. Hayek

New jersey with all its many self inflicted problems that have a direct affect on the people we chose Global Warming?LoL,LoL,Lol Somebody please defeat our clueless pseudo state leaders. GRIP!

>>"Max is a good guy but when he writes articles like this one has to wonder if he has an agenda" I guess in this case, you just mean an agenda different than your own?

Is the sand that is currently surrounding your head comfy and climate controlled? Global warming is not a liberal scare tactic. It is in fact happening. The scientific debate is over. It is happening.

"That little old, disrespected Superfund-wasteland-mobland spillzone otherwise known as the State of New Jersey was due for some respect"

"The Tennessean was once not unlike the New Jersey of politicians"

"Like the state and like Tittel, the failed 2000 presidential candidate received little respect in return"

It appears that repeatedly denigrating the state in which I was not only born and raised, but in which I have chosen to live my life is Bizarro's idea of "gonzo" journalism. Really clever Max. One zinger would have represented the kind of good natured kidding we Jersey folk are used to enduring with a polite smile. Three is merely tiresome and ill-mannered.

any thin people out there who can help "manbearpig" GoreBore?

namecalling seems to be all you have when someone refuses to adhere to your religion of global warming. Maybe you can help "manbearpig" GoreBore with the twinkie offsets he needs. Take your namecalling back to DU or moveonmorons.

http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2005/09/sunwarm.html

How can all of you conservative philistines be so blind? You, like your compatriots in legislatures, are so far under the influence of the petrol/auto/etc. lobbyist propaganda that you cannot take objective scientific facts for what they are. Who are you to refute data gathered empirically, and published in peer reviewed journals? From where did you receive your PhDs? You come on here and spew your myopic rhetoric as though you have any idea what the scientific process entails and assert your own fantasies over reality. If you want to counter the multitudinous scientific evidence in favor of global warming, then the only way you can do so credibly is to come up with your own data, submit it for scientific review, and publish it in a legitimate journal. As I've said, if you were able to do so, you would have no trouble getting into Science, Nature, PNAS, etc. You sit on your barcaloungers, chug beers, and watch Fox News and think you know anything whatsoever about the real data on global warming...what an insult to the scientific progress made lo these many millennia. You live in such abject fear of that which you don't understand, or are afraid that you won't understand. What kind of life is it constantly to be in fear? Always to stand on guard against ideas that shake up the orthodoxy? It is truly embarrassing for the United States to stand up on the world stage and allow a small minority of its citizens blithely to reject cold, hard facts in favor of fanciful notions of deities playing Parchesi while cranking up the thermostat...but why they're doing so, let's just not ask. We'll be happier not knowing. (At least, that's what Exxon and Frank Luntz tell us will make us happy.)

Let me tell you something: this scientific process that yields scads of data with respect to global warming is the same process that allows bridges to be built and medications to be developed. One would think that people so far under the influence of Big Pharma would be able to appreciate this. Next time you want to go into New York, don't trust the George Washington Bridge not to crumble under your gas guzzlers or if you have a cold, do not take Tylenol because it must be poisonous. You so glibly cherry pick which scientific facts you wish to accept based on your own close-minded obsession with the here and now. If you can't see it, or if it seems like it can't be so in your narrow minds, then it must not be so. Since when did all of you become such prophets? Your lack of foresight and your convenient disregard for the truth when it does not conform with your reactionary conformity is truly pathetic. I would be more than willing to eschew my trust in the current pool of scientific data regarding climate change if new, compelling evidence were brought to light and published in a peer reviewed scientific journal. That is called the scientific process, and I place my full faith in it rather than in my own foolish notions of what should and should not be true. This ought not to be an issue of liberal vs. conservative. This is an issue about the veracity of the scientific process, and nothing more.

 But why am I even bothering to argue with a bunch of people who think that totality was created in six days? Thank heavens that conservativism continues to decrease in relevance in our [otherwise] great state.

By the way, you people need to learn how to read more carefully. Note that the article that BillConservative cites is from the Duke newspaper--hardly a peer reviewed journal, and this article makes no mention of this data yet having undergone the scrutiny of peer review and publication. Nevertheless, the very first paragraph should tell you something. Did you read this, by the way?

 >>"At least 10 to 30 percent of global warming measured during the past two decades may be due to increased solar output rather than factors such as increased heat-absorbing carbon dioxide gas released by various human activities, two Duke University physicists report."

The first sentence: "...at least 10 to 30 percent..." Alright, fine. If this is the case, then a good 60-90 percent of the global warming phenomenon may (and yes, we scientists use the words "may" and "at least" because we do not think ourselves so omniscient to be able to say concretely what is and what is not the truth verbatim...we are not prophets, only practitioners of a process) be due to the deleterious effects of greenhouse gases. This the researchers you cite ostensibly do not refute. These researchers are not aiming to overturn the notion of the harm that greenhouse gases can wreak, they are merely proposing an additional pathology for global warming/climate change...and a relatively minimal one at that. Remember, these very scientists would estimate that 3/5 (and this is at the lower end of their estimation) of the current scourge of climate change is due to greenhouse gases! At the upper end of their estimation, a full 9/10 is due to greenhouse gases. This is hardly evidence to the contrary of the current popular thread of scientific thought. These data you present actually help the argument of science much more than that of the petrol lobby, I'm sorry to say.

"and yes, we scientists use the words "may" and "at least" because we do not think ourselves so omniscient to be able to say concretely what is and what is not the truth verbatim...we are not prophets, only practitioners of a process". 

PQ, what advanced degree(s) do you currently hold in a scientific discipline?  Taking an undergrad pre-med curriculum doesn't qualify you as a "scientist" -- just a 20 year old kid with a grotesquely bloated ego and way too much free time on his hands.  Given your formidable intellect, I would think you'd be busy finding a cure for cancer rather than blogging on a political web site. 

Present scientific consensus does not end scientific debate.  When initially propsed, the theory of continental drift was universally shot down by every major scientific mind.  Moreover, Einstein's theory of relativity was not initially popular among his peers.  If "scientists" had rested on their laurels in ages past once a consensus was established we would still be treating peope with leaches and thinking that maggots miraculously emanated from meat. 

The type of absolutism you propose regarding global warming is far better suited for religious fundamentalism than the scientific community.  You sound more like Dr. Zaius than Dr. Pasteur. 

For the record, I think reducing greenhouse gas emissions should be a priority, along with pursuing green technology and applying it to create a bold new green indistrial revolution.  However, I choose to keep my mind open to further research findings.  One instance illustrating the benefits of continuing research into the mechanics of warming is Mount Kilimanjaro.  Initially, the deterioration of Kilimanjaro's glaciers were attributed to greenhouse gas-based global warming.  Based on extensive research by peer reviewed climatologist Mote and glaciologist Kaser (see their article in American Scientist), it has been shown that Kilimanjaro's decaying glaciers are attributable to solar radiation and the consequent process called sublimation. 

In response to the Kilimanjaro revelations, The Seattle Times (hardly a right-wing rag) recently ran an editorial that neatly expressed why closing debate on a scientific matter is never appropriate:  

"Politically, the evaporating ice cap on the African equator was a useful emblem for the theory of human-caused global warming. Al Gore used the mountain that way in his film, "An Inconvenient Truth." The article in the American Scientist by Mote and climber Georg Kaser may be used by opponents of human-caused warming — and of Gore — though Mote and Kaser don't interpret their findings that way.

Science is not politics. It does not vote Democrat or Republican. It examines, hypothesizes, tests and concludes — and always provisionally.

To explain global warming, most scientists have concluded that human activity is the main cause. This may be challenged at any time.

The research by Mote and Kaser reminds us we do not know everything, and what may look like "A" may in fact be "B." It reminds us to be careful, lest our scientific ideas ossify into political stone."

I couldn't agree more.

I would say that I await your response, but I already know what form it will take:  one part insulting my intelligence; one part claiming I didn't read your posts; one part asserting that I'm mentally incapabale of comprehending your posts; one part insulting my religious tradition; one part blathering on about how painfully smart you are; one part accusing me of being a nazi; one part claiming I was responsible for the Lindbergh kidnapping ... you get the gist.  How's this for a new PQ scientific motto -- "if you're afraid to question why, you're gonna ossify".

Did Albert Einstein reject G-d?

And, fine, I'm not a scientist if you don't want me to be (even though my biochemical research has been published in two top tier peer reviewed journals, inlcuding one first author publication...I was operating under the misapprehension that one who performs scientific research as his/her métier is a "scientist"). I amend: "they scientists." I am irrefutably, however, a student of science, and I thus do have some familiarity with the basics of the scientific method. (And, btw, it's diabetes that I'm working on curing, not cancer. Plus, even we diabetes researchers deserve Sunday off, don't we ;-) ?)

I couldn't agree more that "scientific consensus" does not equal fact. I did not assert that it did...if you thought so, then that's your misintrepretation. However, scientific consensus is certainly more valuable than sitting on our behinds and saying what we think /should/ be based on our own not necesasarily well conceived notions of right and wrong. Scientific consensus does not exist in a vacuum; it is based upon data measured empirically and reviewed by other scientists to ensure at least its validity if not its correctness in the absolute sense. As I said, I'd be perfectly willing to abandon my current views on global warming should compelling evidence to the contrary come to light. What I rail against, however, is people cementing themselves in a position without taking the time to realize that the ideas they are protesting have been arrived at very meticulously. Global warming via greenhouse gases is not a straw man argument. It has survived much experimental testing and as a result the scientific community has accepted it it for now. But, as Karl Popper wrote, that which is not subject to falsification by experimental testing lies outside of the realm of science. Therefore, bringing G-d or simply our prejudices into the equation in a counter-argument brings into the debate an extra-scientific argument that is a straw man. How can one possibly hope to refute, "Well, it's G-d's will"? One can present scientific data, cite articles, etc., but it will not change the mind of the person who feels that the laws of nature are set arbitrarily by a higher being (and, I should add, one fundamentally different in nature than that which Einstein envisioned, so as not to contradict my observation above). Why must G-d be an integral player in this? I'm sure that ExxonMobil, BP, and GM love having G-d on their side, replete with Karl Rove and Carlos Gutierrez to help us commoners make the connection. Indeed, as Popper wrote and is generally accepted as the governing scientific process philosophy, in order to keep the debate about global warming squarely within the realm of science, it is necessary, as you correctly assert by citing The Seattle Times (having trouble with italicizing, sorry) not to "invoke cloture" so to speak on the issue. I therefore wholeheartedly agree. Again, I reiterate, it was never my intention to profess that this is a closed case...merely that scientific consensus is worth a whole lot more than prejudiced idle speculation. I don't mean to impugn your intelligence, as you are obviously a well read individual; I direct my comments at those who do/did not take the time to consider the various aspects of the debate as carefully as you have.

Remember, we are on the same side of the issue fundamentally, although perhaps not in the details. As I wrote above, "This ought not to be an issue of liberal vs. conservative. This is an issue about the veracity of the scientific process, and nothing more." You said that you "couldn't agree more" with a synonymous dictum from The Seattle Times...sounds like accord to me. Your salient observation regarding ossification I clearly could not appreciate more. As I said above, I feel bad for those who live in fear of the unknown, afraid to buck the orthodoxy and ask why. Alternatively, I must question the motives of those who deny adamantly that climate change can be attributable specifically to carbon dioxide. Clearly, these people must have an agenda behind their passionate (and usually unsupported) refutation of the scientific consensus. There must be a reason why the thought of carbon dioxide wreaking such environmental damage touches a nerve. I think it's pretty obvious, given the well-known inclinations of the Republican Party, why this seems to be the case. Such a denial is analogous to asserting that smoking cigarettes does not lead to lung cancer, just as Philip Morris would like to have it.

Moreover, I'm glad you brought up the scientific article that you did combined with the analysis from The Seattle Times, for it much more eloquently explains my point than I, unfortunately, was able. As I said, these other researchers are proposing complementary, not competing, explanations for global warming. I would not be so hard nosed to suggest that it could only possibly stem from one source. (Though, I admit, in the ire of debate I did make note of the relatively meager impact on global warming that the cause specified in the Duke article maintained...I still fall in line with the scientific consensus on carbon dioxide as the major [not only] instigator of climate change until the consensus shifts.) Clearly, I must be correct in my assertion based upon the experimental data. At the same time, this Kilimanjaro article and the one from the Duke newspaper do not refute or contradict the deleterious effects of greenhouse gases, as the Times article so nicely explains. Climate change is a "syndrome." Like diabetes, it has many causes and many ramifications, and we're only beginning to uncover them (and lest you should think this use of the first person plural subject pronoun another attempt at self-aggrandizement, I use it here implying all of humanity as the antecedent). But in order to do so, we must retain an open mind and accept the validity of the scientific process, rather than simply dismissing the body of scientific evidence accumulated thus far off-hand as a liberal or atheist machination to usurp power from the G-d-fearing conservatives.

The point is: climate change is a growing problem for the entire human race. There are, as we have examined, many causes. Some of these, like the intensity of radiation emitted by the sun and the movement of the planets, are obviously not under our control. However, there is a major culprit--although some are loath to admit it--in our carbon dioxide emissions. This is a contributor to climate change with which we can and must contend. We may wring our hands and say "No, no, no carbon dioxide cannot possibly be the cause!", but meanwhile that is tantamount to cutting off our nose to spite our face. If we just stopped playing politics with scientific data--which, as Lord so nicely pointed ought to be apolitical--then maybe we could stave off the catastrophes that science predicts will befall us in the future if we continue down the same path.

While a bunch of "good time drugged up rich rock and rollers" are polluting my airspace in the name of saving the planet as they line up to land at Rt 46 airport. All I get out of it is a tax hike. How about a concert to save the American dream ?? or Hands off our American wallets no global tax concert. ?

Ah, the prophet speaks. To quote Reagan is to end debate, is it not? I think we can slip the Book of Reagan in neatly between Job and Psalms, can't we?

"I don't doubt that many scientists today promote the myth of Global Warming because many of them are far left athiests who promote a socialist agenda in order to get more funding for their research." I followed your blog with the "Ron Paul-onians" with a smile on my face as I thought you did a good job defending your conservative point of view. I apprecaite that you usually bring humor into your posts, even if it's absolutely against my point of view. However, you sounded more like LordWeirdo with your "us against the world" style post. Remember, it's our side of the isle that has the market on crazy consipiracy theorists, not yours.

I am very much intrigued by your conspiracy theory, Dino. I would like to learn more about the intricacies of it, and since you seem to understand it a lot better than I do, could you please elaborate? That is, who specifically is behind this plot? Who are the people funding them, and how much are they giving (this way maybe we could snare them for tax evasion)? What documents have you read, and by whom were they written? What specifically first inspired you to make this astounding connection? These sorts of things.

Adamantine as I generally am against conservatism, I must say that I derive much pleasure from reading your posts. As was above mentioned, your winning sense of humor at least makes your cellulosic ideas somewhat more digestible. Anyhow, please do explain to me the ins and outs of the liberal-socialist-atheist conspiracy against conservative-big business-evangelical ideals...I think it may either enlighten me or at least allow me some insight into the thought processes of those from the Other Side.

Frankly, if your position is so dearly held, I should think you would relish the opportunity zealously to defend it.

I want to understand your (i.e., that of a staunch conservative) thought process better. I am in search of some sort of verstehen. You just say that you think the whole debate is some kind of conspiracy, but you do not enumerate the specifics. As it is, your position is rather nebulous and to be honest seems like baseless paranoia. Perhaps if you were more precise in your description (like, with some actual supporting evidence), your position would not be so utterly easy to knock down. I am a relatively reasonable person, which entails being receptive to reason. If you make a compelling case supportive of your position (which is, admittedly, an uphill struggle given the tens of millions of dollars in NSF/NASA/EPA/NOAA, etc. funding that have gone into the corroboration of carbon dioxide as a culprit of global warming), I will have no choice but to agree with you.

If you put half the passion into your research on diabetes that you put into your posts, diabetes doesn't stand a chance ;^ )

I appreciated your comments.  The passions stirred by the topic of global warming have at the very least given people pause to reflect on the state of the environment.  Global warming notwithstanding, it is a sad commentary that people need a potential species ending catastrophe to stop defiling the earth.

As far as God and science go, I agree they are not even remotely mutually exclusive.  The example you provided (Einstein) is an excellent one.  As a practicing Christian, I take the reluctance of some of my brethren to embrace science as a sign that they lack the faith to objectively examine the created order.  They seem afraid of what they might find and assume it will challenge their pathetically myopic view of reality.  If anything, science reveals a glimpse into the majesty of God.   

One unrelated question.  What is your opinion of inhalers as insulin delivery devices.  I did a bit of work in this area and would welcome your thoughts.

PQ, you are more than worthy of such a title.  I had a good friend who suffered with severe diabetes from childhood.  He passed away at the age of 29 after years of deterioration.  It was heartbreaking to watch helplessly as the inevitable came to pass.  

I've been looking forward to reading the Einstein biography.  I saw Isaacson plugging his book on one of the many news shows that all seem to merge into an amorphous blob of chatter at some point.  What struck me was his genuine sense of wonderment regarding Einstein.  I always find the best biographies are written by those who are themselves fascinated with their subjects.  My favorite Einstein story is told by buxom beauty (at least in her younger days) Shelly Winters.  Shelly and Marilyn Monroe were close friends back in the 50's and one day Winters spotted an autographed picture of Einstien on Monroe's piano.  She asked Monroe if she had ever met Albert.   As Winters tells it, Monroe just smiled the smile she emitted when she had been intimate with a man and didn't want to kiss and tell.  Thus Einstein gets a whole nother dimension of street cred that most would never expect  :^0)    

PennQuaker, thank you for the clarification. Anti-semitism does not run in my family and your ommission of o in God does not offend. But does your faith also call for an omission of brevity when responding? Oy Vey!

OK.. Global warming is happening... has it happened before, Yes. Have there been mini ice ages before. Yes. So what does it all mean. You don't know and neither do the braintrusts who pass themselves off as climate experts.

And what is little old NJ  and Gov. Corzine going to do about global  warming besides pass some feel good legislation? Oh yeah. We are going to have a concert and put some more cars on the road and listen to some rock musicians.  

You liberals are all about symbolism and feeling good about doing something that is totally meaningless.