Ever hear the phrase "unintended consequences"? Certainly, there is plenty of evidence to show that the second Bush administration was preoccupied with oil.

How did this get rated "informative"? Sandy was atypical in a number of important respects: - extremely powerful surge, - immense size, - timing (it occurred towards the end of the hurricane season when sea temperatures are falling), - it survived periods of strong wind shear. Yes, you can argue that any one weather even is a fluke. However, there have been a large number of unusual weather events, some of which include: - a dramatic loss of arctic ice - high temperature records out numbering low temperature records by a large margin - large areas affected by severe drought or flooding

It was certainly an accident, as in "Accidentally on purpose".

There is a considerable amount of heat required to account for the melting of ice that has occurred. Moreover, the water has a large thermal capacity and will not heat as quickly as land. So, it isn't surprising that there hasn't been a large temperature change in the Arctic. However, we have witnessed a striking temperature event in Greenland. You are really fooling yourself if you thing that the events that are happening are nothing out of the ordinary.

This is known as cherry picking. Sure, you can find the odd result for a specific set of circumstances (note that the link refers to a single day of the year) that seems to support your viewpoint. In reality, what is happening in the Antarctic is not far out of the ordinary. It's a different story for what is happening in the Arctic. The previous record, set in 2007, smashed the previous one and now, the 2012 record has done the same to the 2007 one.

Thanks!

If we go back to the late 1950s, the Soviet success in being first to orbit a satellite served as a powerful wakeup call. The risk of being placed in a position where we would be virtually powerless against a deluge of Soviet ICBMs was too much to contemplate. In hindsight, Goldwater did have a pragmatism that would now be viewed as treasonous by many current Republicans. Among other things, he made the following astute observation: "Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them." ( http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Dean ) . It is really strange that, although I thought he was a lunatic at the time he was running for president, I now find myself in agreement with many of his views.

II am not talking about irrelevant personal beliefs. To be more specific I am referring to the "Prosperity Gospel" churches ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology ) . I did have the experience to attend a service at a local church where I heard repeated over and over again the message that the faithful will be looked after and that the world was coming to an end in 2047 and that they alone would be saved. There was a huge number of people there who were swept up with enthusiasm through all this - this all seemed more like a cult than anything else. It is possible to be religious and be rational. There are prominent Christian denominations that do accept that man has responsibilities for stewardship over the earth and I am a member of one of these. I have no difficulties with the personal beliefs of individuals as along as (a) they do not attempt to impose them on others and (b) they do not act on them in a way that will likely lead to widespread harm.

This is far from reality. In a bureaucracy, the way to get ahead is to tell the senior leadership what they want to hear. I can assure you that government bureaucrats in North America are well aware that there is no mileage in pushing AGW as a serious issue. In the US, we just had the spectacle of virtually all of the major candidates for the Republican presidential nomination falling over themselves in rejecting the notion that their could possibly be something to AGW. In Canada, the federal government has, for some time, been backsliding on environmental issues, particularly those concerning climate change e.g., http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=fc976a67-2f9a-424c-a98d-704785dde80c&k=91227 . And the notion that there are significant economic interests that are pushing AGW is laughable.

Good points all round. In reality, the kind of conspiracy that would be required is impossible. Even making the extraordinary assumption that the scientists involved have all clandestinely agreed to conspire on AGW, a tremendous amount of co-ordination would be needed to ensure that everything published by a large research community dispersed across the world sends out a sufficiently consistent message for the whole thing to hold together. If its all being made up, how do you know that the paper you are publishing won't contradict one that is being published by someone else? Obviously the truth would leak out quickly and all involved would be disgraced.

There is a huge difference. Mainstream science involves publication in scientific journals with stringent peer review processes. There are quality control mechanisms in place, starting with the journal editor(s) and reviews by other experts in the field. Furthermore, if you publish a paper that is later shown to have contained deliberately falsified data, your reputation and career will be permanently destroyed. Furthermore, it is difficult to get a paper published if it doesn't contribute something new. Also, if you submit a paper which basically amounts to taking the same data that Dr. X analyzed to get more or less the same result, the likelihood that it will be accepted for publication in a reputable journal, or even a conference, is nil. There is really no advantage, and serious drawbacks, in attempting to achieve a conclusion that isn't supported by scientific evidence and analysis. The flip side is that most of whatever scientists that can be counted in the the anti-AGW community have minimal background in climate science or closely related areas. The remainder tend to be eccentric figures or those who directly receive money directly from from the fossil fuel industry or indirectly through an affiliated organization such as the Heartland Institute. Note that in such cases, you can be certain that the funding organizations are looking for certain results and anyone receiving money from them knows that. I find it really curious that many of those who see climate science as the harbinger of really big government seem to be perfectly accepting of new measures for reduced legal rights, internet surveillance , etc.

It might also be noted that some influential fundamentalist Christian churches believe that the world is coming to an end within a few decades and that there is also a belief that God will provide everything that man needs. It follows that long term thinking/planning is pointless and that any concern whatever about the environment betrays a mistrust in God. Just the perfect recipe for completely irresponsible behavior.

Many of us would like to see NASA receive more funding - I count myself as one. However, you are making a really rich argument. There have only been two Democratic presidents since 1980 - Clinton and Obama. Of these, Clinton managed to make progress on reining in budget deficits, but this involved cutting various programs. Obama inherited an economic disaster and has had difficult choices to make. It seems to be a sign of the times that the people who vociferously criticize Obama for deficits are usually the same ones who want to slash taxes (note that the Bush tax cuts had never been funded) and increase spending on the military and other programs. But then I suppose it's easy to find money when "deficits don't matter'.

Also, in the days before deregulation became a fad, there were extraordinarily successful industrial R&D organizations that did carry out speculative research, such as Bell Labs.

The idea that the dependence on "Middle East oil" could have been lessened is seriously misleading. Gas turbine technology is best suited to very large installations. In an internal combustion engine, one needs a high compression ratio to get good thermal efficiency. In a gas turbine engine, this is most easily achieved by making a (very) large engine that runs at a relatively constant speed. There are major practical problems in making small high compression gas turbines (among other things, conventional axial or centrifugal flow compressors do not scale well to small sizes). The result is very poor fuel economy. Chrysler wasn't the only manufacturer to build a gas turbine powered car. Rover built one in the 1950's. At best these efforts demonstrated passable, but not exceptional performance coupled with VERY high fuel consumption. This may not have seemed like a big issue when oil was a few dollars a barrel. It would be completely unacceptable now, even if one allows for the flexibility of being able to use various types of fuels. There just isn't enough of any reasonable alternative fuel to operate existing private and commercial vehicle fleets, especially if there is a massive fuel consumption penalty.