There goes all the warming

One good eruption and the warming goes away. Can we all have our money back now Al?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36556083/ns/us_news-environment/?ns=us_news-environment
FMR

We would have expected the dampening of the radiation reaching the ground to have affected the weather in the ways described, early on, with a smaller eruption that was regional in scope. Why expect that Al Gore couldn't perform the same predictions as all the others standing next to him?
I've never predicted a warming global balance from local volcano limiting pollution. Certainly he wouldn't either.

As expected the global warming crowd is poo pooing the thought that this could in any way effect "man caused climate change"
Yet. There is nothing scientific about their stand because if there was they would be celebrating nature’s checks and balances with even the remote possibility that this volcano could help in this imaginary warming disaster. There seems to be a desire to have GW happen and continue unabated so they may have the weapons they need to control us all.
FMR

I don't understand your comment, FMR.
There are many things(effects and actions) underway in the scene of that active area of tectonics motion and volcanism.

We are going to see the acid rains, soot/ash pollution, even killing of some persons or many fish and microbes and macroscopic life types,, with all the wacky and unpredictable associated reactions and secondary effects beyond even our best assessments, many of those changes not understood as yet.

This is a great time for finding such information and cataloging the effects, and the causes.

The prior comment I have just made should clearly point to a healthy way of dealing with both this event which is a repeat offender in the human experience, and the more dangerous science of climate change generally, including the various human produced pollution/alteration 'volcano's' which inundate our environmental conditions currently.

Conservative desperation groups who hate the full sum in balance in preference for a personalized view of reality in partial form which makes for a increased personal 'bank balance' instead, seem to be loosing as usual the grip of the human social hand on the tools of science, preferring to make waves of economic effect personally.

Simply hoping the climate change science will evaporate will not work.

Climate change is viewable as is in the current matter of the Icelandic area changes, and in the human effects which may be both altering, increasing or contradicting the volcanic temporary effects.

In the matter of ash and oceanic materials in the waters, we may see phytoplankton, algae, and other increases and decreases, outstripping the simple chemistry of temporary cooling and atmospheric high altitude climate changes. The facts that are present are the reasoning for the science of 'climate change', not the reasoning for a denial of science in the squashing of the investigations science is conducting.

We have to know whether we are altering a planet, not simply fretting over self indulgent bank account scheming for a few percent of the population.

I'm not sure if you have ever given any thought to this separate concept, but we are watching desperate impulsive, self blinding types, deny the basics of science, in preference for a 'use-it-up, then then-throw-it-away' conspired denial syndrome that tries to subdue information and refuse funding to record the science of human effects in activity in current history.

While much of the science of climate change is long term, with historical dredging and interpretation, the remaining vital science is current and ongoing with the human activity.
The cycle of knowing the science of climate change is a singular event sequence. We are trying to perform that to provide a better balance to the longer term effects of human interaction with the environment.

Several additional comments.

The social existence of six billion people plus in numbers should impress all persons, not just those seeking a scientific basis for conduct. Refusing the basics of science is a state of mental delimitation causing violence and criminal stature of actions taken. That should not be spoken of as 'freedom', nor be should it bring a feeling of safety to those desperate to deny reality in the frenzy of economic expression.

The equivalence that the ash fall from this volcano may cool and warm, the atmosphere, land, and oceans, with a longer term effect on the crops, industry such as air flight, and the oceanic populations effecting fishing, and the iron heating of the oceans causing disease and even unexpected swings of ocean chemistry from 'blooms' and biochemical leveraged alterations, is clearly a lesson why to use climate change science record-keeping to better assess the human processes and a variety of similar techniques we use in industry and consumption.

As you are broaching the sums and balances of 'checks and balances', please give some detailing to your science of thought in the matters I discussed, and please do not be cagey about the causes and effects in the details.

Are both basic interpretations,
1. [record-keeping and interpretation],
or,
2. [absolute denial]

'science' in action, or is there a single set of science processes and concepts to discuss(world-wide, including all affected persons)?

Industry will cost us everything we use, as science tells us in basic terms. How simple can that adjustment to thinking be?
It will be as expensive as it is wealth-building. That also is 'denial' topic for discussion if you dare to challenge science of climate change.
That is our real topic- costs versus payments, and the methods thereof.
All along the way is the expense of science to give a best and most efficient judgment in the content.

As science tells us that the world is not as we 'want it', should we be drawing guns to give that effect to our neighbors and distant social affected groups?

Dana
My protest here is all about dishonesty. This is not good science. Contrary to what you may be reading, there are thousands of climate scientists who do not agree with man caused climate change.
We all need to conserve energy and help clean up our environment but political moves such as Cap and trade are simply ways of removing our freedom all the while paying for a one world government.
Dana, I dare you to read here. http://globalwarminghoax.wordpress.com/
get back to me when you are done
FMR

I tried to quickly read your linked series of statements by 'Bud Simmons', who I do not know about, and read a partial content, only to find the name Jim Inholfe listed as one of the science authorities referenced in the claims against Al Gore.
We both get the message in the table on this website as politics, slant,slant,slant, and I can make a response eventually, but not yet this week. Even trying to find who Bud Simmons is, and finding the background secret agenda will take some time. I am very busy trying to work on the Mars missions, and can't even spend time reading the news and results for the other space missions underway. I spend more than a full week at other activities, and then work on the HiRISE and MER images with my non-sleeping time. After that I use a portion of my sleeping time to read the news, watch the politics over the air, regain my composure, and find a direction for future motivation.
In the important science of climate change, a long term matter for all persons to watch, we need accuracy and true knowledge of the basics and the short term economics which are often in conflict.
It is this topic which is centered on the problem of lost productive investment if bad moves and decisions are made.
Persons inside the industry, and politicians in the pulpit or lectern under judgment, are two close knit groups, with widely disparate obligations, but a 'high culture' looping of memberships and associations as partners in management of the industry and economics structure.
We do need to keep all these persons honest.

Frankly, if it were the decision of the conservatives in the 'business bound' sector, we would have canceled state and federal unemployment, workers compensation, welfare, college subsidies, employment retraining,and a thousand additional government programs each few years for the past seventy years and more.
I watch the news, and I know who these national names are. I watch the records of voting read or statistically accrued and printed, but to keep tabs with the ten thousand or more wealthy patrons of self interest and self intrigue is more than I can accomplish.

It is going to be necessary and required for consumers to pay for the real cost of doing business. That will amount to very high taxes or a full payment by the offending industry owners and management. The retailers will have to pay the burden on the converter line to distribution, and that requires again, that the industry pay at the source.
It cannot be that thievery runs all things, despite the wailing of spineless crybaby wealthy persons.
If you have watched carefully, the wealthy are most often 'hungry, hungrier, and the hungriest' lot of all the desperate and needful of groups. They can't make do on fifty thousand, two hundred thousand, or even millions or billions of dollars per year, and the crying just never seems to stop.
If the wealthy were paying directly the full cost of doing business, it would be understood as a real burden to the wealthy. We see the actual process as one of 'pass the hat, and make sure it's full this time'.

We the consumer pay the cost of doing business, and unfortunately the facts show that we cannot be using more per person than is present to distribute each year. In that mix is the argument and the politics and the garnering of special favors that we see as the 'tears of the hungry wealthy'.

I am confused. Did you intend to discuss Al Gore, or climate change, or Global Warming?

Was it economics of the cost of doing business we were to discuss?

I noticed on some Russian news and blog sites that it is claimed there to be the coldest averaged winter in 25 years approximately. It was caused by the missing ice and cold finding it's path toward the more temperate regions, falling as ice, snow, and cold freezing rains.
That ice found a way to distribute at slightly higher energy costs, and I know it will survive with careful planning. We need to follow the weather, climate change, and the costs of industry to find the economic cost of purchasing and using things.
As a consumer, I buy used items, and cut back to survive as I am instructed by the wealthy.
I would like to make my own decisions, but would that make me a 'climate scientist', to espouse indulgent self interest without regard to the science being studied?

How many of the several persons on the site linked do you suspect and challenge?

I am confused. Did you intend to discuss Al Gore, or climate change, or Global Warming?
Global warming is all about politics and control and has nothing to do with saving the planet. You see my link as a political view and I say that science has been hyjacked by polititians and is being degraded because of it to the point that real science is suffering. Soon no scientific study will be believed because of it to the harm of all of us. Al Gore is just the figure head of this untested unproven junk science and yet new controlling legislation is being written daily and passed onto a trusting public controlling their very lives.If we don't do something soon, all of our freedom here in the US will be lost to it.
here is a partial list of scientists who dissagree with the GW crowd wth reasons for their differences

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
FMR

Since global warming would have to be a very tedious long windy effort in thousands of source of information distillation, how can a lay person, or even one scientist make any substantial claims either way?

We have the historical record as best it is assessed as showing both conditions of global warming and cooling to be accurate and true within the limited swings of climate over time. The periods appear to be both somewhat varied in pattern, severity is unpredictable as yet, and the particular direction of future short term direction is not predicted by the basic records as the swings are wild and seem to be tied to more than atmospherics and gases.
We know that if the planet can do greater damage than humans in the long term swinging, we must be ready for that either warm or cold.
I would expect to spend another fifty years studying Global Climate, just to find levers that move and reshape the atmosphere and water cycles. For us to move into global cooling would be estimated to cause desertification of large areas, with the water tables dropping. We have done similar effects with development, and we know each aspect of our environment can be affected by our production efforts.
Many earthguakes are caused by human water and land alteration activity, and we watch, study/interpret, and rework those effects sometimes.
Why would we deny the preservation of oil and gas resources, or prevent the payment for alternative energy sources with some of the oil revenues which are going to power industry? Cleaning the processes which dirty our world, by trying to switch to cleaner methods should solve some of the impending shortages.

The concept of 'Global Warming' is just a drop in the bucket of the environmental problems we are facing.
Have you any memory of the Southern California freeway smog of the 1060's to 1970's?
It was so bad we had to legislate to clean it up. In those horrifying dense yellow grey smog tubes and domes we had watering eyes, plants like trees were dying even with care, and the temperatures within the photo-chemical smog clouds was very hot and it literally stank, causing persons to wheeze and cough constantly, especially on the very bad days when visibility could narrow to a hundred feet or less of human vision. Marble statues literally melting from erosion, It was a SciFi movie set of near deadly dangerous chemistry. And it was humans and only humans causing that.
We stopped it because humans were suffering disease and even dying from it.

I can't imagine persons doing more than complaining about the mis-statements of someone who spends his days trying to help a society cope with a solution to a well known and generally experienced set of pollution problems.
If that person is wrong on the same subject figures repeatedly, then publish the facts with a set of solutions which will correct the pollution activities in an efficient program.

Pollution is a object of legislation, It is necessary to make that approach as there is no sufficient motivation for industry groups(claimed corruptly by our constitution and government to be 'persons' as they cannot be that) to use self restraint and self correction to prevent the social injuries caused by industry. Humans add social use damages to the mix. It is not a self correcting problem in most cases, and is a run-away problem throughout the world.

We must take the wheel to correct and pay for the damaging conditions.
Perhaps you could email Al Gore and request a self correction adjustment?
If any of these groups are wrong, I would want to help correct the confusion.
I notice these sites do not have much historical record as yet. Time may add to the correctness of the opposition arguments.

Sounds like you doubt the science but wish to keep our collective heads in the noose just in case. I look at most of it as a sham. Science is loosing its credibility and soon the masses will not believe a thing they say. Asking all of us to believe and just hand over our wallets sounds familiar as religion has been doing that for centuries.
Smog was another thing altogether because we could all see and smell it and now we can see the result of effective legislation in the form of cleaner air even though the real culprits were not curbed.
You seem to be saying the ends justify the means and I wish I could believe that blindly. There will come a time if it continues that science has destroyed their credibility so badly that the will not be heeded when we really have an emergency and that is the harm and the tragedy
FMR

A few words in favor of your suspicions as well, therefore, as I seldom have time for detailed reading these days.
From the first page on the site, where the topic of the 'stolen emails' leading to your topic here has been given some acknowledgment as a nervous response.
This makes the rational of accommodation smell life 'fish', so you have a point.
Reading the full content gives a ;two story' flavor to the green take on the popularized expose'.

"But for reasons scientists are still trying to figure out, tree rings became less responsive to temperature around 1960. In fact, if you compare actual temperatures to tree rings over that time period, the tree ring record appears to decline, even though we know from thermometers that temperatures continued to increase. So it’s wrong to use the tree rings as part of a temperature reconstruction if you know they’re inaccurate."
from, 'Climate 411' at the Environmental Defense Fund

My mention of trees becoming less healthy during the period is possibly an aspect of the final tree ring measure decline, but it is not proven anywhere, I believe.
The full site index page for study in the details.
"What the stolen emails really said" -middle of the page,

Many restraint advocate groups rely upon the outdated term 'Global Warming',which is a real interpretation of massive assembled data, but as you point out, the change is slight and not historical except in the time charts showing the past few thousand years estimates.
It is early in the records assembly.
Binding the country to an economic hardship condition was the work of credit/banking/reserves groups, and is currently as expensive as the climate change policy adjustments of governments world-wide.
We have two massive sink holes of money.

Bad economics
Bad environmental compensation

I tend to blame society for both.
I also blame lack of scientific study and application to both for the ongoing 'crisis' of binding economics to a hasty bad solution for both, possibly.

An example of a fairly neutral site advocating personal interest in conservative alternate living.

Oil is being depleted, and climate is changing. Are the two augmenting the other? Is a cold swing a reason for releasing more reserves in the short term? Would it be smart to build and use two times the number of wells? At what point does economy of oil become a regulated condition?
Does oil/gas use alter the climate?Isn't the current scheme a product of industry demands for freedom from a planned use of energy in carbon fuels? Back sliding and set-asides are the content of the messy lack of direct payment to a directed solution, as I have read that aspect of the subject.

Perhaps the process is too noisy and not simple enough for most of us?

What I have noticed Dana is that you and I are the only ones discussing this at least on this blog. I guess everyone else is just tired of their freedom and simply do not care or they believe that all actions are justified and see no danger here. Whatever the reason is, we all will wake up soon and see that America is gone and the time where we could have done something about it has passed. The freedom to speak your mind publicly here on the web is under threat by so called net neutrality and the fairness doctrine and no one seems to care. How will you speak your mind when it’s all gone? I am saddened to see this loss of interest. The shuttle is gone and along with it the moon mission has been canceled and hardly a sound from this forum was heard
All Sheep ready for slaughter
FMR

When I was back in Davis back in ancient . My geology class told us how the history of the earth is in its rocks.
We are currently enjoying the only other time in Earth's history the atmosphere is CO2 IMPOVERISHED. For most of Earth history CO2 has been much higher.
Now a short outline of some facts
1 the end of the Carboniferous period was the first time the CO2 level fell below 400ppm but not below 200ppm
2 the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has NEVER been below 200ppm.
3 The beginning of the Triassic period the CO2 level was over 1700ppm and mean temp above modern temp is only +3C.
4 The Methane lie if you have been following Mars you would know this is a lie (check the methane mystery of Mars)The Sun breaks down methane.
5 The entire Solar System has seen increases in global temp (again if you are paying attention to Mars you would have seen the shrinking of the polar caps of Mars)
In my opinion Global Warming or Climate change is some form of Earth Guilt, sorta like that old commercial about pollution in America where the chief has a tear running down his cheek. (70s reference sorry).

Nuf Said
Charles

Thanks Charles
It's nice to see someone else connecting the dots. Earth Guilt is a good term to describe how they motivate their sympathizers but not to describe the goals.
Make no mistake, they are in it to rule the world just the same as any evil ruler ever has and they are winning. They are lying so often that most of us believe the lies now as fact. Even real scientists are compromising their own beliefs so as not to fall outside of the group for fear of reprisal.
FMR

If there weren't actions by the government to stop the cold blooded slaughter of persons worldwide, both individually and as collective groups, private interests would have eliminated hundreds of species and tens of millions of humans as a method both of industry compliance demand in production/expansion/pollution, and as an effacement of group mental deficiency delusional high dominance battering that accompanies social instabilities which are historically well known to be routine in U.S. history. Many cultures have similar problems, and even law enforcement and the internal military is suseptible to similar distortions.
Conservatives make claim to 'protections', but only when walls of insanity are constructed to give a narrowing view of reality. 'Protections' entail all parties and persons, not aspects of society, nor groups in particular.
The recent news headliner which is a season to a year long containment of a single oil rig well setup is another lesson of thousands across this country alone, with tens of thousands of similar stories like it in other countries, showing the routinely poor capacity of business and persons to cope well with matters of pollution and climate change science.

Climate change is real, and it can go hot or cold. We all can read the variability as greater in a decade, and even a century, in yearly swings, than the slower cycling of climate change in the longer term swings and wild average/mean large scaled change.

A site of the oil spill/well blowout story as its adds to out climate balance, and our more human relevant suffering in sum.
This is a potential human iceberg of corrupting influence bearing on the matter of climate change as a science fact, not a topic of confusion.
The climate again, does change over long time periods, and at times rapidly, and you are correct, FMR, that we are not capable of changing that much in the pattern that is natural. We may only slightly reduce our suffering when wild swings happen.
We need our resources for real ease of suffering, not for pretty gas guzzlers with shiny parts. We also do not need to throw away our future by denying a new science in the topic.
Link. Oil spill.

"Smog was another thing altogether because we could all see and smell it and now we can see the result of effective legislation in the form of cleaner air even though the real culprits were not curbed."
in reference to FMR's contribution on reply #8.

We seem to recognize a pattern, and a social problem, which requires currently, and required post haste to serious injuries, severe legislation to curtail the visual 'prettiness' aspect of our lives in the U.S. and Europe. As the tightening of the noose about the unregulated madness of consumption, it was indeed a 'visual' matter which caused the stink to be 'seen' by our wise and amibitious society. It was fifty years late, perhaps even a hundred years late, but the impenetrable fog of reality became a stench too injurious to deny and ignore. To see the light(the Sun, literally, for those old enough to remember our days and weeks of smoggy sunless blazing heated fog-like blankets across entire cities and parts of various U.S. States)we had to stop ourselves and take heed of our failing health and natural environment which was rapidly becoming totally controlled and regulated by visually obvious human industrial pollution. In taking a measure of action, we can now see the Sun most days in most U.S. cities. Without the legislation we were adrift in a foggy smoggy high heat nightmare. We still add at least 1* to the city locales in added heat generally, and it is recorded as a fact world-wide.
Where is the social need for a program of denial?
Where is the claimed fact of a reversal of the added heat in the causation of global cooling claimed by the denial group in climate study? Does not a claim of global cooling give a well for additional human caused warming to be absorbed temporarily in the figures? Where is the logic and science in the madness of blinded denial manufactured by consumption and industry advocates? Are we the readers aware that most all climate change 'denialists' are also advocates of nuclear power expansion unchecked and unregulated, along with the lack of regulation of almost all other social consumer provision(wealth) through industry rapid increases by a small percentage of the wealthy and rich? These are not moderate income consumers making denialist claims.
How can the addition of CO2 add to the claim of global cooling by those being touted?

I can see a matter of shielded radiation as a local influence, in small areas if we cause a reflection through increased cloud cover, but where is any other global cooling balance being caused by human industry? Do you claim that CO2 causes a cooling inherently in our atmosphere?
I did mention the appearance of transferred cooling capabilities in the northern circumpolar realm, through a process of polar loss of polar reflectivity, and cloud cover increases towards the south temperate regions in storming, as a possibility to explain local cooling yearly balances for Sino-Asian countries, or perhaps other locations, year by year, as we melt ice in volume. That was expected, as ice goes somewhere as either liquid, or vapor and cloud ice, and falls. Transferred water should be carrying the 'heat sink' of phase stability in it's transport, but adds a heat carrying capacity in sunlit areas after cloud dispersal. Ice is temporal and not stable except in permafrost regions, and unless replenished, it will cause the expected desertification or lack of climate/environment stability as the disappearing glaciers have shown world-wide.


In a continuation of the timeless sagas of social myth building and self interest noise making, there is a dominion of the news with the economic routines which have a scientific and social history throughout our industrial human efforts.
We are seeing the classic reaction/'checks' to the unfolding standard 'balances' record as it builds a further historical pattern of timeless recognizable content. In other terms, we see that the stories just never seem 'new' to our personal experience and in the historical record. The ageless 'wisdom of age and experience' tells us all the single story.
There are always the wealth building efforts which cause hoarding actions and commonly induce injuries, versus the 'society of alarm' which is addressed as stalwarting unchecked progress(government or private industry, both by individuals, and group "persons").
We are watching in 2010 a standard injury in the BP gulf oil well disaster, and the attempts by nearly all responsible parties(groups and 'persons") to limit, side-step, or excuse, the failure mode of economic functioning which is the cheapest and least obstructing methods of hoarding and wealth building. The result is a comedy of errors for the 'alarmists' who are claimed to be without injury by the action parties, and the social actions by the representatives, who have been pinned between the service of the "persons" and masses of the social persons as a formerly quite unconcerned balance of consumers and the 'seekers of the hoarded supply'(wealth).
I could talk all day, as many know here, but this link, and the follow-through of the current disaster resolution, will define again the historical place of the government, society, and the action 'party' or "person"(so designated by the U.S. Constitution, including amendments).
We will be watching the unchecked balance sheet accumulate yet again, in a historical pattern that ties all other patterns in classic repetition. The sleepless action parties, and the sleepy-eyed populations just never learn the actual detailed lessons. Yet some small change does occur in a pattern reminiscent to that of the scientific proven process of 'Climate Change'.
At times, the pattern is one of 'Global Warming Balance', and at other times, the pattern is one 'Global Cooling Balance'. The pattern appears chaotic and noisy, as we can see in any published time-line of climate. Much of global warming involves swings to global cooling, with accompaniment of global additional balanced warming in averages or extremes. The other pattern of global cooling may involve the same, as we study the processes for the first time in recorded human history. We simply have studies and estimates to look at, and the record is one of apparent warm versus cold balance, in swinging variations that indicate a pattern overall. Any reference to a particular incidence or year in reliance, is poor quality science, although some records show rapid swings of large change in short timing as a minor sum of the varying recorded points. To claim that Climate Change is not actually caused by actions known to be effective in the effects observed is desperate and poor thinking. To claim that the pattern of corrupting and polluting industry is not a matter of social responsibility as government planning is poor in science thinking, and social premeditation of future actions by the active parties, or "persons". To restrain the governments in planning the oversight and regulation of the 'unchecked' 'balance' of future action party activities is poor science and poor social historical planning.
The first 'person' of the U.S. is the action party, whether we agree with the Constitution or not. The second person or 'class', is the multitudes of ambitious consumers and historian/voters who try to find a daily history of wealth, sleepy to the longer term of patterned behavior of all involved. We need to re-assess the process, and the methods of government and electoral dominion of the regulatory practices which are longer term than a pay period.
We often fail repetitiously as a society, only to be driven by the din of historical accumulation, to a resistant observance of the better planning techniques which are long term.
Legislation of a 'term per law' isn't working in this country. We roll back efforts like a road rebuilding process, patching, or removing constraints, and freeing the hoarder persons to give us temporal wealth, knowing we are wrong in historical balance sheet records eventually.
Even the process of taxation as a correction, is swept into the 'term by term' dust-bin to give a little daily respite to our daily concentration on pay periods.
These are a few of the long term solutions which have beeen recently given a trial, and which have altered the steady descent into pit of pollution and consumption. We did not survive our economic human history by unchecked and unbalanced industrial behavior. We legislated based upon the large injuries and the din of noise of the 'alarmists' who study the patterns of social change and climate change. We did this less when the persons were more than a eyesight distance from one another. We also became sleepy and ambitious when the wealth building became more rapid and socially excited us as groups.

A timeline of ecological actions and 'Climate Control' in response to the proven and very injurious history of 'Mankind Controlled Climate Pollution Change'.
It was proven then and now, it is real, and it was a vast problem in very visual content. It still is an unsolved problem in most countries.
In the 20th Century our health was at stake all across the U.S., and the changes were a minimum of required effort to effect preservation of our health as a society. How strange, the claims of the action parties who give us another history to read and view. Tens of millions have died of the pollution accruing injuries we receive each day.
There is truth in FMR's statements that the natural processes we do not control will dominate our health and our daily polluted environment overall and throughout long term human history. If we work in tandem with nature in waging attacks against our better health and stable economics how will we excuse our planning or lack thereof? Can there be any common sense to refusing to study climate change, and the human effects waged by the active persons involved? How can tandem actions negate the injuries by adding fuel to a fire known to be burning?
A careful concern for the several alternatives to bad behavior should be the first planned path. The second is to control the injuries to local and distant populations. Where in the process is the sensibility to a lack of study, and a lack of planning or restraints?

The time-line of former environmental change and planning in the short term, linked.

Should we preserve our oil, or let it out to our viewpoints at all the historic coastal zones we claim to seek and enjoy? This is one of many spills and just a tip of the iceberg below our feet.

We actually saw the claim that the best program was one of 'burn to CO2 and soot and much more', in an attempt to stop our own product of human causes and climate change yet again. This spill is a matter of long term damage, not a short term problem. Coal is a similar problem. Burning causes a non-visual problem, and it is real, additional to smoggy past practices.
Most all coastal areas are polluted by ship slippage, or leaking of oils and chemistry as well. It literally looks like non-human sedimentary layers on some industrial shorelines. Warming versus cooling is just a single topic in the facts.

Can anyone show me a single climate scientist who claims that smog causes cooling in climate?

Oh look, It's the anti science rabid fas_ist American retard crowd trying to look smart again, while proclaiming their ignorance for anyone with a minimal education to view in all its strutting glory.

http://www.wkrg.com/politics/article/al-tipper-gore-calling-it-quits/892312/Jun-01-2010_11-51-am/

http://globalwarming.house.gov/spillcam

http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/homepage/STAGING/local_assets/bp_homepage/html/rov_stream.html

http://www.wkrg.com/gulf_oil_spill/oil_forecast/day3/

http://www.wkrg.com/gulf_oil_spill/

http://media.wkrg.com/media/news7/situation_status_map.jpg

I suppose we could claim this 45 million gallon oil spill as of May 2, 2010, is not yet the biggest disaster of environment from one human gesture industrially, but it is a rising star in the history books now, and not solved nor an end point in sight.

Has this damage and the public stress caused the separation of the Al Gore family, or is it all the terrible foul name calling involved?
Perhaps it is personal, and should be left to them.

How much does the environment affect the weather here, and how much does the weather/climate affect the landscape and environment?
Is this disaster a 'human Grand Canyon', for future generations to study as a point of reference?
Is it a value added formula to consider this 45 million gallons was not refined and burnt for atmospheric 'clean dumping' as is suggested by the topic?
Then again, the topic claims only that the climate is cooling, not warming. So maybe this is a mutual understood disaster, and maybe the affects of this in the atmosphere would be a real factor in pollution conditioning of our air, even if the warming effect is not considered.

Is this a disaster, or just a waste?
What is the effect on local climate of 45 million gallons(current count) of refined and burnt oil?

http://www.wkrg.com/politics/article/al-tipper-gore-calling-it-quits/892312/Jun-01-2010_11-51-am/
link

http://globalwarming.house.gov/spillcam
link

http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/homepage/STAGING/local_assets/bp_homepage/html/rov_stream.html
link
link">link
link link">link">link

http://www.wkrg.com/gulf_oil_spill/oil_forecast/day3/
link

http://www.wkrg.com/gulf_oil_spill/
link

http://media.wkrg.com/media/news7/situation_status_map.jpg
link

I suppose we could claim this 45 million gallon oil spill as of May 2, 2010, is not yet the biggest disaster of environment from one human gesture industrially, but it is a rising star in the history books now, and not solved nor an end point in sight.

Has this damage and the public stress caused the separation of the Al Gore family, or is it all the terrible foul name calling involved?
Perhaps it is personal, and should be left to them.

How much does the environment affect the weather here, and how much does the weather/climate affect the landscape and environment?
Is this disaster a 'human Grand Canyon', for future generations to study as a point of reference?
Is it a value added formula to consider this 45 million gallons was not refined and burnt for atmospheric 'clean dumping' as is suggested by the topic?
Then again, the topic claims only that the climate is cooling, not warming. So maybe this is a mutual understood disaster, and maybe the affects of this in the atmosphere would be a real factor in pollution conditioning of our air, even if the warming effect is not considered.

Is this a disaster, or just a waste?
What is the effect on local climate of 45 million gallons(current count) of refined and burnt oil?

http://www.wkrg.com/politics/article/al-tipper-gore-calling-it-quits/892312/Jun-01-2010_11-51-am/
link

http://globalwarming.house.gov/spillcam
link

http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/homepage/STAGING/local_assets/bp_homepage/html/rov_stream.html
link
link">link
link link">link">link

http://www.wkrg.com/gulf_oil_spill/oil_forecast/day3/
link

http://www.wkrg.com/gulf_oil_spill/
link

http://media.wkrg.com/media/news7/situation_status_map.jpg
link

I suppose we could claim this 45(47, May 3, 2010) million gallon oil spill as of May 2, 2010, is not yet the biggest disaster of environment from one human gesture industrially, but it is a rising star in the history books now, and not solved nor an end point in sight.

Has this damage and the public stress caused the separation of the Al Gore family, or is it all the terrible foul name calling involved?
Perhaps it is personal, and should be left to them.

How much does the environment affect the weather here, and how much does the weather/climate affect the landscape and environment?
Is this disaster a 'human Grand Canyon', for future generations to study as a point of reference?
Is it a value added formula to consider this 45 million gallons was not refined and burnt for atmospheric 'clean dumping' as is suggested by the topic?
Then again, the topic claims only that the climate is cooling, not warming. So maybe this is a mutual understood disaster, and maybe the affects of this in the atmosphere would be a real factor in pollution conditioning of our air, even if the warming effect is not considered.

Is this a disaster, or just a waste?
What is the effect on local climate of 45(updated to 47 on May 3, 2010) million gallons of refined and burnt oil?

I have attempted to post this, and several variations of this post, here over a four day period. Currently I am blocked or censored from the presentation.
How long will the censored condition last?

As a missing and censored item, this screen capture shows the index page report of a missing post at entry #16. Dozens of attempts to post over four days results in this missing info, and I can only post on other topics.
This has nothing to do with my computer, my cookies, and the other excuses used over the years to prevent the appearance of posts on topics.
This is a proof of blocked entries to the blog.

The number count is indexed with my post on the server, prevented from being read by the public after upload to marsroverblog.com