Common sence and logic coming from where I'd least expect it, a college profesor!
James Wanliss, a space physicist who teaches at Embry-Riddle, showed students the two films in an honors course titled "The Politics and Science of Fear" because he said more and more the public is being sold one side of an issue with many dimensions.

"I fear that attempts are being made to purposefully subvert the public understanding of the nature of science in order to achieve political goals," he wrote in an e-mail. "Science is not about consensus, and to invoke this raises the hackles of scientists such as myself. The lure of politics and publicity is no doubt seductive, but it nevertheless amazes me that so many scientists have jumped on the bandwagon of consensus science, apparently forgetting or ignoring the sad history of consensus science."
One of his students attests to the effect of propaganda such as Al Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth.
After watching 'An Inconvenient Truth,' I was relatively convinced," Shipley said one day last month in class. "(Al Gore) did a good job in presenting his points very methodically one after the other. They all build up to essentially prove his point.

"After watching 'The Great Global Warming Swindle,' my thinking completely changed," he said. "I kind of did a complete flip-flop."
Both of these movies present facts, some distorted perhaps, but they each present one side of the debate. Yet it is only one side that is being forced down the throats of students all over the world. It's even popping up in art class! One University requires that its students watch Al Gore's movie to graduate!

This kind of consensus science propaganda is dangerous. These are the same methods used by the eugenics scientists and we all know how that worked out. Science is a process. Calling those who disagree with your conclusions "Global Warming deniers" and fascists is intimidation not science.
The truths of global warming are, if not inconvenient, incomprehensible, Wanliss argues.

"The atmosphere is incredibly complicated, and we know very little about it," he said. "We are studying a system which is so big . . . we don't know what all the variables are."

Pointing to quotes in magazine articles, Wanliss says Gore and the producers of the "Swindle" film are purposefully overstating their science as a means to a political end.

http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/News/Local/newEAST01ENV051207.htm

Gore's movie is not science, but rhetoric. He is attempting to persuade. But he sticks closely to honest reason and evidence, and what he presents supports his conclusions in the original.

The Great Global Warming Swindle is not honest, does not reason honestly or stick closely to evidence, and appears to be a politically motivated con job.

There are good reasons for squinting at Gore's movie, qualifying some of the assertions in it, etc. The Swindle movie does not present any of them honestly. Presenting them as two equivalently supported and opposing views would be intellectually dishonest.

I don't know whether Gore will be shown correct in his urgency or specific warnings, in fifty years. But uncertainty about one position does not mean any old scam assuming some "other" position deserves equal time.

There is something very important to remember here. The vast majority of scientists and others who support the concept of global warming actually have very little to gain by supporting their position.

On the other hand, there are HUGE numbers of people and corporations that have an awful LOT to gain by denying it.

So, the first question would be, what do you know about the sponsors and producers of the "Great Global Warming Swindle?" Could it be either directly or indirectly (to hide their identities) that much of the money used for it's production came from parties that have a lot to save if they can forestall action that would hurt their profits?

We have bigger problems right now than alGore's global hot air.

We have bigger problems right now than alGore's global hot air.

If u want to say , say it, why make us guess

Mooslims?

I'm not going there. I'm not going to get all p!ssed off again. You already know what America's two biggest problems are.

alGore's fiction is not one of them:rolleyes:

You already know what America's two biggest problems are.

Bush and Cheney?

I'm not going there. I'm not going to get all p!ssed off again. You already know what America's two biggest problems are.

alGore's fiction is not one of them:rolleyes:

Hello, Sandy,

I've not had occasion to speak to you before - just worked out that way - and I was hoping our first encounter might be on topic upon which we agreed. But, apparently, no such luck.

Since it seems you don't believe that Global Warming / climate change is real, I was just wondering - are you qualified to challenge all the professionals who think it is? The mounting evidence certainly seems to indicate that they just might know what they're talking about.

What basis do you have to disbelive it?

Fine, don't get all scared and vote for Democrats. Just adapt to climate change. Oh, wait, you're not, because you're in the pockets of big oil? I guess we're all screwed, then.

Fine, don't get all scared and vote for Democrats. Just adapt to climate change. Oh, wait, you're not, because you're in the pockets of big oil? I guess we're all screwed, then.
Right. I'm in the pocket of big oil.

Gore's movie is full of crap. He claims sea levels will rise twenty feet in the next hundred years, when the actual maximum prediction is twenty inches! That's a pretty big fuckin' difference! That's the whole basis for his claims of cities being flooded, mass population relocation. etc.

Twenty inches in a hundred years is nothing, and that's the max predicted if we do nothing. Did you know sea levels rose two or three feet in the last hundred years? Does that fact stand as one of the worst trajedies of the twentieth century? Were you even aware of it?

I believe the earth has warmed about one degree in the past hundred years. I also know that there's not shit we can do about it.

The treatments suggested (kyoto) would do far more harm then good. The sea rise of the last hundred years was no problem, why should an equivalent rise in the next hundred be one?

If you want to talk about using compact flourecent litebulbs, increasing spending on alternative fuels, building nuclear power plants, etc; I'm with you. But forcing us to limit energy use to 1990 levels while our population is growing is not going to happen. Not without a massive cost and a decreased standard of living. All for what?

The point is, the global warming crowd seeks to stifle all debate and paint those who dare question their othodoxy as heretics. If science is really on their side, why the bully tactics? Why must we shove this crap down the throats of captive audiences (school children and college students)? Why is this movie being shown in art class?

It's propaganda pure and simple.

Twenty inches in a hundred years is nothing, and that's the max predicted if we do nothing. That would be a disaster, just in its effects on river delta rice farming.

He claims sea levels will rise twenty feet in the next hundred years, Not in the version of the movie I saw.

If science is really on their side, why the bully tactics? Why must we shove this crap down the throats of captive audiences (school children and college students)? Because they care, and they're worried. You're not?

The science debate is there for anyone interested. Few people read the journals, and fewer still believe reports from them retailed by others. Having he science on their side hasn't done the anti-GM foods crowd much good, has it. It hasn't led to sound environmental policies with regad to forest fire or antibiotics or lakeshore development or logging practices. Gore is a politician - that's his field.

alGore needed a cause. His presidential campaign didn't go as expected.:D
The problem is he picked a cause that no one cares about and no one is taking real seriously. (Weren't the liberals the ones telling us in the 70's that if we didn't do something, we'd have a huge FREEZE?)

We have MUCH bigger problems in this world right now than worrying about global hot air.:rolleyes:

That would be a disaster, just in its effects on river delta rice farming.

Not in the version of the movie I saw.

Because they care, and they're worried. You're not?

The science debate is there for anyone interested. Few people read the journals, and fewer still believe reports from them retailed by others. Having he science on their side hasn't done the anti-GM foods crowd much good, has it. It hasn't led to sound environmental policies with regad to forest fire or antibiotics or lakeshore development or logging practices. Gore is a politician - that's his field.

Ya i agree.

We should not wait for billions to die.

alGore needed a cause. His presidential campaign didn't go as expected.:D
The problem is he picked a cause that no one cares about and no one is taking real seriously. (Weren't the liberals the ones telling us in the 70's that if we didn't do something, we'd have a huge FREEZE?)

We have MUCH bigger problems in this world right now than worrying about global hot air.:rolleyes:

People like u r destroying our planet and u r responsible for 1000s already dieing and million that will now follow.

Since u have no idea about global dimming, i recommend u to watch some videos from torrents and then come back.

while our population is growing

That's the basic problem, isn't it?

I do believe in Global Warming, what I and many people are skeptical about is the cuase. We have a combination of cuases out there ranging from the sun's overactive cycle to our record breaking closness to the sun. However all these have been denied by so called "climatologists". They weren't even simulated in their models, just discounted entirely. That is just plain crappy science.

I do believe in Global Warming, what I and many people are skeptical about is the cuase. We have a combination of cuases out there ranging from the sun's overactive cycle to our record breaking closness to the sun. However all these have been denied by so called "climatologists". They weren't even simulated in their models, just discounted entirely. That is just plain crappy science.

From all that I've read they do take solar cycles into account but I've not seen anything about us being in a period of solar "overactivity" nor about our "record-breaking closeness." Do you have references for each of these?

Only what I read at the NASA sites.

Oh and they do factor the sun in, but their model has it as a constant not a variable. It also does not include methane emission from fuana.

Beside Mars has had global warming as well, to the point we now know those caps are water, not CO2. Obviously no human CO2 emissions there.

alGore needed a cause. His presidential campaign didn't go as expected.:D

... Except Gore had been going on about climate change long before he ran for President.

The problem is he picked a cause that no one cares about and no one is taking real seriously.

You're woefully out of touch with the real world. I assume you live in one of the "fly over" states.

I do not pretend to have a view on Global warming. Yes, I believe that it is political propaganda to an extent. I believe the masses are convinced, not really understanding what they are convinced of, by what people have told them.

What I am sure of, though, is that switching to biofuels, corn oils, and other alternative energy sources of this nature in order to reduce CO2 emissions doesnt make sense to me. Is'nt it somewhat common knowledge that the burning of all these hydrocarbons result in CO2 emissions? I dont know the emissions coupled with the new corn oils and such, but I know that the standard 89 octane gasoline puts about 3 moles of CO2 into the atmosphere per gallon.

It seems more like a push against foreign oil than a push for a cleaner tomarrow.

I do agree with solar power, and wind energy to power our homes and cities, but it is not logical to power transportation.


Overall, I am skeptical about global warming. Largley because everyone believes it blindly. Nobody is really questioning it openly, much like nobody is questioning the anti-iraq war openly. maybe the reason the war isnt doing so well is because it has gotten nothing but negative support from the beginning? I don't know.

What I am sure of, though, is that switching to biofuels, corn oils, and other alternative energy sources of this nature in order to reduce CO2 emissions doesnt make sense to me. Is'nt it somewhat common knowledge that the burning of all these hydrocarbons result in CO2 emissions?
My understanding is that plants that are grown to produce the fuel, absorb C02 from the atmosphere in the first place.

Well then plant more plants. or better yet, grow a lot of cyanobacteria. Its what oxygenated the atmosphere before we got here, so why not do what works?

Human spin, totally unimportant... spin guys spin.. and wait while your world burns

The end of the world is neigh and y'all are still debating whether global climate change is happening or not !

LOL

Typical, obviously y'all have no idea on the REAL science that is directing the future of humanity.

Personally I think WW111 will happen before anyone begins to care about the climate change.

The book "The Death of Clouds" projects the coming world situation.
I am sure no one here has any real idea what is going on... just rehash of spoon-fed info y'all "MUST KNOW", LOL

The real situation is far far worse that y'all could even imagine, and it is being actively hidden.

I return you to you date with fate

We have a combination of cuases out there ranging from the sun's overactive cycle to our record breaking closness to the sun. However all these have been denied by so called "climatologists". They weren't even simulated in their models, just discounted entirely.
- - -
Oh and they do factor the sun in, but their model has it as a constant not a variable. It also does not include methane emission from fuana. That is not so.

Some of the models included varying distance from the sun, and solar cycles (sunspots, etc),rather than average values.

Solar flux variance was the very first proposed factor for explaining climate change. Solar activity and the various orbital variances in tilt and distance were the very first explanations, the standard and orthodox explanations for ice ages etc. It was only when these factors failed to account for observed data (they predicted global cooling, for one thing) that other factors had to be considered and included in the models. And computers got faster, so more factors could be thrown in.

The idea that professional climatologists ignore solar flux is bizarre.

The current models also include methane, some of them - not only from fauna (and the Republican fucksticks have sure had a good time making jokes about liberal foolishness studying cow farts, btw) but also from thawing permafrost, rotting floodplain, heated swamps and paddies, and (the doomsday scenario) thawing methane clathrates on the ocean floor.

I was helping on methane studies in 1994, in the peat bogs of northern Minnesota, for input into climate change models.

The models have large uncertainties and many problems (nobody knows what to do with clouds, really) but they are not set up by idiots, and they are not set up to support a particular political agenda.

... Except Gore had been going on about climate change long before he ran for President.When Al Gore was vice president, he said the United States should not sign the Kyoto treaty unless there is meaningful participation by the major developing nations. AL GORE HIMSELF was against the Kyoto treaty. Now all the sudden he needs an issue and he's Mr. Enviromentalist. Of course he's Mr. Hypocritical Enviromentalist who uses twenty times the energy the average American uses in just one of his mansions. Meanwhile the evil George Bush is "off the grid" and even recycling his rainwater!!!! If Al Gore actually believed any of this bullshit, he'd be doing more than talking. He'd take action, at least at his own damned house!!!!
You're woefully out of touch with the real world. I assume you live in one of the "fly over" states.Really? Lots of people say they're for "the enviroment, but don't do shit about it (number one on that list, Al Gore). How many people have replaced all their incandescent bulbs with compact flourescents? A simple thing that actually saves you money while helping the enviroment (hint, I have.). How many people bitch every time gas goes up 10 cents a gallon? If you really support the enviroment, you should be asking for $10/gallon gas. That would cut down on emisions. But no one wants that. How many people car pool? Or ride bikes? How many walk to work? How many have gardens to grow their own food? How about supporting nuclear power? NOT IN MY BACKYARD!!!!!!! How about hydroelectric? IT KILLS FISH!!!!!!! How about windmills? IT RUINS THE VIEW OFF MY NANTUCKET MANSION!!!!!!

It's cool to say you're "for the enviroment" or maybe wear a tie died shirt on earth day, but when push comes to shove, nobody really gives a shit.

If Al Gore actually believed any of this bullshit, he'd be doing more than talking. He'd take action, at least at his own damned house!!!! Gore's house is, apparently (by claim), carbon neutral. He has walked the walk, pretty much.

And talking is action, if you're a politician.

I know maybe fifty people who have done all that you mention, there. Every one of them is a lefty. The righties all use the failures of others to excuse their own - and besides, if they didn't have fourwheelers they'd have no way to get out into the woods !

Gore's house is, apparently (by claim), carbon neutral. He has walked the walk, pretty much.

And talking is action, if you're a politician.

His claim is based on the fact that he buys "carbon offsets" from his own company. So Gore takes money from his left pocket and puts it in his right, then claims he's "carbon neutral".

What's the motto of enviromentalists? Reduce, reuse, recycle. Correct. Where does financial shenanigins come into play?

And talking isn't action, even for politicians. I'll agree they think it is as it is just about all they do. But that doesn't make it so.

None of us are really carbon neutral, I think that's Al Gore's whole point. He's the rock star that's getting us all to pay attention. He can't turn the battleship around with a wooden oar, it takes power.

That is not so.

Some of the models included varying distance from the sun, and solar cycles (sunspots, etc),rather than average values.

I've reviewed more than a score myself and NONE of them have. So either you are working on a progressive one, or more likely you are trying to cover your ass.

Solar flux variance was the very first proposed factor for explaining climate change. Solar activity and the various orbital variances in tilt and distance were the very first explanations, the standard and orthodox explanations for ice ages etc. It was only when these factors failed to account for observed data (they predicted global cooling, for one thing) that other factors had to be considered and included in the models. And computers got faster, so more factors could be thrown in.

I know about the models that came up with global cooling. Hell everyone does, they were touted as truth by some of the same experts today that are yelling "It's human beings fualt." We have been measuring temperature for loess than two hundred years. Using growth rings to try to determine temperate is a crap shoot as too many variables affect that.

The truth is that we don't have the data we need to make any sort of informed hypothesis. Hell, the Mars situation alone should tell us this. Anyone who says they know for 100% certain what is the cause, is flat out lying.

The idea that professional climatologists ignore solar flux is bizarre.

Comes straight from their mouths.


The models have large uncertainties and many problems (nobody knows what to do with clouds, really) but they are not set up by idiots, and they are not set up to support a particular political agenda.

I agree they are not idiots, but I aslo will state that it is voodoo science. they wanted a particular answer and got it. It takes damn smart people to make the dumbest mistakes.

My understanding is that plants that are grown to produce the fuel, absorb C02 from the atmosphere in the first place.

Corn is not the best CO2 absorber to tell the truth.

Besides with so many people in the world starving is it ethical to waste valuable crop land on making fuel.

We have been measuring temperature for loess than two hundred years. [/quute] But we have weveral ways of determining temperature that go back much further, right?

Are you claiming that the whole temperature record is voodoo science?

[quote=twscott] So either you are working on a progressive one, or more likely you are trying to cover your ass. The models taht the methane data were to be plugged into were just good for the last couple hundred years, and had some kind of provision for the eleven year sunspot cycle. But I didn't work on them, myself - secondhand info, you caught me.

The random science stuff I run into had an article a few months ago about incorporating global dimming (the recent discovery) into a climate model - I assumed from that changing solar flux could be incorporated into such models. Wrong?

The truth is that we don't have the data we need to make any sort of informed hypothesis. Oh baloney. We've got data up the wazoo, especially biological, for a hypothesis. It's jsut a complex situation, is all. Illustration: I know about the models that came up with global cooling. Hell everyone does, they were touted as truth by some of the same experts today that are yelling "It's human beings fualt." And those models were pretty good, as far as they went, which was just solar flux considerations tuned to match the glaciations,and not checked by actual temp measurements. So we see why they started "yelling" when the temps came in ( Even Al Gore is a pretty quiet spoken, reasonable toned, non-hysterical kind of guy, and most scientific researchers even more so). The current measured warming is apparently fighting a solar flux cooling - it's bigger and faster than it appears, even, by all the evidence. And if this global dimming business checks out, bigger yet.

So we see that back when they wanted a different answer, they didn't get it - and adjusted accordingly. They seem willing to take whatever answers they get, and fit them - that's not voodoo, eh?

I know about the models that came up with global cooling. Hell everyone does, they were touted as truth by some of the same experts today that are yelling "It's human beings fualt."
I'm not sure I've heard that one before. There was a guy who was claiming we were all going to freeze in the 70's, now he is saying global warming is lies. So, got any cites?

None of us are really carbon neutral, I think that's Al Gore's whole point. He's the rock star that's getting us all to pay attention. He can't turn the battleship around with a wooden oar, it takes power.
President Bush's ranch is off the grid, Gore's house uses twenty times the norm. He has no moral authority to ask anyone else to sacrifice when he can't even live within an order of magnitude of the norm. That's not even including all his travel by private jet.

Sounds like Orwells, "some animals are more equal than others". Gore deserves to live in a giant mansion sucking up enough power in a month to run most people's houses for a year. He's an enviromentalist!!!!! We must all bow and scrape before him and live in abject poverty so that he can show us the way!!!! All hail the great gore, king of do as I say, not as I do.

Bush made us spend billions on war and destruction for oil, so whatever the state of his ranch, it's not enough to make up for that.

Gore is using all his resources to fight global warming, so in the end he is doing far more than Bush or probably any one of us about the problem. (If he sold his mansion, someone else would still be operating it, so it wouldn't make a bit of difference to the environment)


Forget for a minute what Gore is consuming. Consider instead the ratio of consumption to activity.

Seriously, he's probably running the activities of a good-sized office out of his house.

If you consider what that office would consume if it was stand-alone, his personal footprint might be far more reasonable than raw figures suggest.

President Bush's ranch is off the grid, Gore's house uses twenty times the norm. He has no moral authority to ask anyone else to sacrifice when he can't even live within an order of magnitude of the norm. That's not even including all his travel by private jet.

How silly. You're willing to sacrifice the planet's future because "I won't act until Al Gore acts!"

Convenient and easy for you. Maybe not so much for your children. I'm sure they'll thank you.

How silly. You're willing to sacrifice the planet's future because "I won't act until Al Gore acts!"

Convenient and easy for you. Maybe not so much for your children. I'm sure they'll thank you.
My children will be fine, so long as we don't destroy the economy with needless global warming remediation schemes.

The tide is turning. More and more scientists are changing their minds as more facts come in.
Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id=

>>> My children will be fine, >>>

Sorry to inform you, they most definitely will not be spared, and that goes for all of you, deniers and protagonists alike.

Y'all fail to look at the facts, it is just that simple.

Well go ahead and bury your heads, y'all still going to get frozen solid, if y'all can't pull together.

See "The Death of Clouds"
omegafour.com

This is a problem to which all of us are going to be mere spectators and nothing can be done to prevent the problem. There are many who are not even aware of this problem and think this to be some kind of fad. Well I am in my late sixties and am on prescription drugs such as fosamax and others, but what about the young generation they are going to suffer badly.

Doing something about global warming is a win-win. Even if burning fossil fuels didn't contribute to the warming, it creates massive amounts of pollution.

>> Even if burning fossil fuels didn't contribute to the warming, it creates massive amounts of pollution. >>

Yes, the world is s.l..o..w..l....y realising that if we do something, we must not leave any permanent footprint. Unfortunately the world's population is TOXIC, insane, in-toxicated and they know not what they do... totally unaware.

Clean up our act... but with war mongers loose, the situation is totally out of rational control.

There is only one way out of this..... join forces and prepare.

I can assure you, the end of this world is very rapidly approaching... and it has nothing to do with war or what humans do or not do.

The climate change will precipitate a HUGH hydrological shift away from viable life. If civilisation breaks down, then even if we had the will, or if we could do anything, I am afraid it is all lost.

Meanwhile the climate is swinging, and doing what its parameters are dictating with no more reference to humanity.

You will see the end in your lifetime.

"The Death of Clouds"
omegafour.com

OK, so I admit that I do not know a great deal about Global Warming...only what I've been told on TV, which amounts to "Our planet is warming due to all the byproducts of our energy consumption in our atmosphere".

That about sums it up, doesn't it? It at least sums up the mainstream message to America...

Anyway, my fear here is that no matter what is true or what isn't, this is going to become a strictly political issue. If Al Gore decides to run for office again, then everything he has said will become something that can be attacked by his political opposition...and that is a very bad thing. If there truly is a problem, Gore using it to work his way into the White House (or Congress, or whatever) will be the end of whatever hope of a singular effort we ever had. Once it becomes about Blue and Red, people will both accept it blindly, and discount it blindly. Both of which are bad.

It will mean that no average person will care about the science behind it; they will only care for the short answer--true or not--from their candidate. Putting this issue on the political stage will be the death of this issue, as nothing will ever be decided upon uniformly.

Just like the war in Iraq...people are too busy fighting over it, that no solutions can be reached. The same will be true for Global Warming, if it is in fact a real problem. (And I do not say "if it is in fact real" not because I believe it to be false, but because I am speaking from an uninformed viewpoint on the subject, and would rather not jump on either side of the issue without knowing all of the facts)

Doing something about global warming is a win-win. Even if burning fossil fuels didn't contribute to the warming, it creates massive amounts of pollution.
Doing something reasonable such as researching alternative fuels, building more nuke plants, or switching to compact flourescent light bulbs is a win win. Imposing draconian solutions that cost hundreds of billions of dollars and accomplish nothing (like kyoto) is not.

There is such a thing as opportunity cost. Hundreds of billions of dollars spent on CO2 remediation can not be spent on anything else. We do not have the hundreds of billions to waste,.

>> Even if burning fossil fuels didn't contribute to the warming, it creates massive amounts of pollution. >>

Yes, the world is s.l..o..w..l....y realising that if we do something, we must not leave any permanent footprint. Unfortunately the world's population is TOXIC, insane, in-toxicated and they know not what they do... totally unaware.

Clean up our act... but with war mongers loose, the situation is totally out of rational control.

There is only one way out of this..... join forces and prepare.

I can assure you, the end of this world is very rapidly approaching... and it has nothing to do with war or what humans do or not do.

The climate change will precipitate a HUGH hydrological shift away from viable life. If civilisation breaks down, then even if we had the will, or if we could do anything, I am afraid it is all lost.

Meanwhile the climate is swinging, and doing what its parameters are dictating with no more reference to humanity.

You will see the end in your lifetime.

"The Death of Clouds"
omegafour.com

I hope we Machines make it before u exit. U cancer of this planet.

Singularity

OK, so I admit that I do not know a great deal about Global Warming...only what I've been told on TV, ...

If u really care then stop watching the idiot box, its nothing more than propaganda machines.

Instead open your eyes, use torrents.

Now read this,
http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/051407EC.shtml

Your link just does not add up to a hydrological disruption, Singularity. Most evaporated water comes (used to come) from the ocean. Puny earth dwellers have very little sway about anything in the climate of the world... local maybe, but global, NO !

I am very sorry to hear about RED and BLUE !
Damn politicians, not one of them is worth anything, no scientific knowledge, no humanity, no sense.... LOL, yes they have cents, that's about all.

Anyway, my fear here is that no matter what is true or what isn't, this is going to become a strictly political issue. If Al Gore decides to run for office again, then everything he has said will become something that can be attacked by his political opposition...and that is a very bad thing.
It's too late. For years now, 90% of comments against Al gore and global warming have been something along the lines of "Al gore is a big fat lying politician, so global warming isn't happening".

Madanthonywayne, Kyoto would not have cost hundreds of billions of dollars. It would have cost much less than that. I note that you do have hundreds of billions of dollars to waste on occupying Iraq.

That money is borrowed.

Excellent.

People need to get their heads out of the sand and admit that greed is a major force that is in some ways incompatible with solving the problem of global warming, and in other ways, compatible. We are all in this together, as human beings.

Anthropogenic global warming that may change our lifestyle is a fact. That is not political.

What is political is how to solve it. The starter of this thread was apparently a little slow to realize that.

Madanthonywayne, Kyoto would not have cost hundreds of billions of dollars. It would have cost much less than that. I note that you do have hundreds of billions of dollars to waste on occupying Iraq.
Since coming into effect February 16, 2005, the Kyoto Protocol has cost the world about $338,114,500,000 while the potential temperature saving by the year 2050 so far achieved by Kyoto is 0.0035 degrees and yes, that really does represent about $100K per billionth of one degree allegedly "saved." Guess that means for the bargain price of just $100 trillion we could theoretically lower global mean temperature by about 1 °C. http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Kyoto_Count_Up.html
Sorry, I was a little low. It's already cost us hundreds of billions and that's without the US or Australia taking part! But hey, what's $100K per billionth of a degree? A bargan! How could we possible spend our money better!

In other global warming news.
Climate change will be considered a joke in five years time, meteorologist Augie Auer told the annual meeting of Mid Canterbury Federated Farmers in Ashburton this week.

Water vapour was responsible for 95 per cent of the greenhouse effect, an effect which was vital to keep the world warm, he explained.

"If we didn't have the greenhouse effect the planet would be at minus 18 deg C but because we do have the greenhouse effect it is plus 15 deg C, all the time."

The other greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and various others including CFCs, contributed only five per cent of the effect, carbon dioxide being by far the greatest contributor at 3.6 per cent.

However, carbon dioxide as a result of man's activities was only 3.2 per cent of that, hence only 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in total. Human-related methane, nitrogen dioxide and CFCs etc made similarly minuscule contributions to the effect: 0.066, 0.047 and 0.046 per cent respectively.

"That ought to be the end of the argument, there and then," he said.

"We couldn't do it (change the climate) even if we wanted to because water vapour dominates." http://www.stuff.co.nz/timaruherald/4064691a6571.html

>> Water vapour was responsible for 95 per cent of the greenhouse effect, an effect which was vital to keep the world warm, he explained. >>

Exactly. Water vapour is being removed and not replaced.

yes -18C at night, +50C during the day.

Now is that warming or cooling ?
LOL

madanthonywayne,
Are you factoring the environmental costs of continuing the status quo? Presently, corporations are allowed to get away with ignoring the long term consequences of their actions. This is leading to a myopic and catastrophic situation where short term profits are all that matter. Someday, we will all have to pay the hidden costs of industrialization. It would be much better for civilization if we at least begin to require planning for long term sustainability.

We have bigger problems right now than alGore's global hot air.

so the fact with global warming were screwing around with highly complex and powerful forces that we don't really understand all that well isn't that a big problem. when humans alter nature the pressures tend to build until nature pushes back hard. global warming could destroy the world as we know and need it to be for our survival. I consider that to be a huge problem

When Al Gore was vice president, he said the United States should not sign the Kyoto treaty unless there is meaningful participation by the major developing nations. AL GORE HIMSELF was against the Kyoto treaty. Now all the sudden he needs an issue and he's Mr. Enviromentalist. Of course he's Mr. Hypocritical Enviromentalist who uses twenty times the energy the average American uses in just one of his mansions. Meanwhile the evil George Bush is "off the grid" and even recycling his rainwater!!!! If Al Gore actually believed any of this bullshit, he'd be doing more than talking. He'd take action, at least at his own damned house!!!!
Really? Lots of people say they're for "the enviroment, but don't do shit about it (number one on that list, Al Gore). How many people have replaced all their incandescent bulbs with compact flourescents? A simple thing that actually saves you money while helping the enviroment (hint, I have.). How many people bitch every time gas goes up 10 cents a gallon? If you really support the enviroment, you should be asking for $10/gallon gas. That would cut down on emisions. But no one wants that. How many people car pool? Or ride bikes? How many walk to work? How many have gardens to grow their own food? How about supporting nuclear power? NOT IN MY BACKYARD!!!!!!! How about hydroelectric? IT KILLS FISH!!!!!!! How about windmills? IT RUINS THE VIEW OFF MY NANTUCKET MANSION!!!!!!

It's cool to say you're "for the enviroment" or maybe wear a tie died shirt on earth day, but when push comes to shove, nobody really gives a shit.

his house doesn't use 20 times as much energy his energy payments are 20 times what most people pay. currently eco-friendly stuff costs more he really isn't using as much energy as you say he is

http://xs215.xs.to/xs215/07212/low_reference_13.jpg (http://xs.to)

his house doesn't use 20 times as much energy his energy payments are 20 times what most people pay. currently eco-friendly stuff costs more he really isn't using as much energy as you say he is:confused: So you're saying the cost of energy is, perhaps, twenty times the norm where he lives?:confused:

:confused: So you're saying the cost of energy is, perhaps, twenty times the norm where he lives?:confused:

no i'm saying that because of the investments to eco-freindly stuff energy costs more for him. its probably cheaper per a unit of energy for other people around him.

no i'm saying that because of the investments to eco-freindly stuff energy costs more for him. its probably cheaper per a unit of energy for other people around him.Is this based on anything, or just conjecture? Even if it's true, do you really think the difference will make a dent in the 20X figure?

Where on earth do these people get their "facts" from?

The other greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and various others including CFCs, contributed only five per cent of the effect, carbon dioxide being by far the greatest contributor at 3.6 per cent.

However, carbon dioxide as a result of man's activities was only 3.2 per cent of that, hence only 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in total. Human-related methane, nitrogen dioxide and CFCs etc made similarly minuscule contributions to the effect: 0.066, 0.047 and 0.046 per cent respectively.
CO2 contributes roughly 3 degrees of warming to the greenhouse effect, but we've increased the amount in the atmosphere by a third over the prvious natural level. This means we're due roughly a degree of warming from it. Or in other words the purported figures dont add up.

Dont believe me? Argue with a climatologist:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/01/calculating-the-greenhouse-effect


"The other trace gases contribute 5% ... amongst which carbon dioxide corresponds to 3.65%". That is just 100 minus 95% of course, but really it should be 15 to 34% - of which CO2 on its own is between 9 and 26% (op cit). If you were to naively estimate the total temperature contribution of the CO2 it would be between 3 and 9 ºC - but see below.

"The human-caused contribution corresponds to about 3% of the total carbon dioxide in the present atmosphere,". This one is blatantly false and is erroneously credited to the US Dept. of Energy in the original source (their Table 1)! The '3%' number actually comes from comparing the human emissions with the gross emissions from natural sources while neglecting to consider the large natural sink. Because of the rapid cycling between the biosphere, the atmosphere and the upper ocean, that is an irrelevant comparison - kind of like comparing the interest on your bank account and your salary and expecting to be able to say something about your savings without thinking about your spending. The correct statement is that CO2 is around 30% higher than it was in the pre-industrial period, and all of that rise is due to human emissions (fossil fuel use and deforestation principally).

"Therefore, the probable effect of human-injected carbon dioxide is a miniscule 0.12% of the greenhouse warming". That's just 0.03*0.0365 of course - but even that is calculated wrong (it should be 0.11% by my calculator). But from our numbers, it would be between 3 and 8%.
"a temperature rise of 0.036 ºC". More like 1-2.6 ºC actually, but although this gives numbers that are in the ballpark of the IPCC estimates (0.6 to 1.7 ºC warming for an increase of 30% in CO2 at equilibirum) this is not a sensible way to calculate climate sensitivty.


Ahhh, it seems your numbers are due to some uneducated person called Bob Carter.

The Colorado mountains are under a Memorial Day snow advisory. Residents expect up to 8 inches of snow. Damned global warming.:rolleyes:

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5551185,00.html

And South Africa sets 54 cold weather records as snow and ice continue...
More damned global warming. (Hot air.):rolleyes:

http://www.capetimes.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=3844594

The Colorado mountains are under a Memorial Day snow advisory. Residents expect up to 8 inches of snow. Damned global warming.:rolleyes:

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5551185,00.html

And South Africa sets 54 cold weather records as snow and ice continue...
More damned global warming. (Hot air.):rolleyes:

http://www.capetimes.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=3844594

Correct, but apparently you don't know the difference between local and global. Have you never heard of such a thing as "average" as opposed to extremes?????:bugeye:

Global Warming is not political to those who follow it. It is a religion, and all non-believers are criticized and cast as heretics and non-believers. The arrogance of the GW crowd matches that of religion...

Global Warming is not political to those who follow it. It is a religion, and all non-believers are criticized and cast as heretics and non-believers. The arrogance of the GW crowd matches that of religion...

Rather absurd statements! :bugeye: Religion is a matter of faith with no supporting evidence. Climate change, on the other hand has quite bit of data to support it. The only real point of contention that I'm aware of is the question about humans contributing to it.

Nonsense and poppycock.

Rather absurd statements! Religion is a matter of faith with no supporting evidence. Climate change, on the other hand has quite bit of data to support it. The only real point of contention that I'm aware of is the question about humans contributing to it.

My post was inrefernce to the attitudes that the GW enthusiasts take towards people who question it. There is absolutely room for debate about GW, and mankinds influence on it. I just don't appreciate the condescending attitude that that particular crowd takes towards those who do not believe.

My post was inrefernce to the attitudes that the GW enthusiasts take towards people who question it. There is absolutely room for debate about GW, and mankinds influence on it. I just don't appreciate the condescending attitude that that particular crowd takes towards those who do not believe.

Seems to me that's a pretty gross generalization. I've talked to many people who feel it may be real and FAR from everyone is condescending about it.

There is room for rational debate. Unfortunately the debate in the common sphere is usually politically, rather than scientifically motivated.

Global warming (global hot air) is a crock. We have MUCH bigger problems than global warming.:rolleyes:

Correct, but apparently you don't know the difference between local and global. Have you never heard of such a thing as "average" as opposed to extremes?????:bugeye:
Sure, but everytime we have a heat wave, it's trotted out as evidence of global warming. Even hurricane Katrina was seen as evidence of global warming (as though there were no hurricanes in the past!). If an ice sheet melts, it's global warming. Never mind that as some melt, others grow.

We're sick of this crap, so we muddy the waters a bit ourselves.

PS Did you hear about this?
Expedition Highlighting Global Warming Called Off Due to Extreme Cold
A North Pole expedition meant to bring attention to global warming was called off after one of the explorers got frostbite. The explorers, Ann Bancroft and Liv Arnesen, on Saturday called off what was intended to be a 530-mile trek across the Arctic Ocean after Arnesen suffered frostbite in three of her toes, and extreme cold temperatures drained the batteries in some of their electronic equipment.

"Ann said losing toes and going forward at all costs was never part of the journey," said Ann Atwood, who helped organize the expedition.
http://www.woai.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=a847c522-d2f9-4927-a71d-6629dae19071

It's always cold in Antarctica, but a slight degree of average warming will make a big difference. You haven't disproven global warming by pointing to local cold spells, in fact, global warming could result in some colder than normal temperatures, as weather patterns shift. If enough fresh water interrupts the deep circulation patterns in the Atlantic driven by salinity, then Europe could be as cold as Siberia.

It's always cold in Antarctica, but a slight degree of average warming will make a big difference. You haven't disproven global warming by pointing to local cold spells, in fact, global warming could result in some colder than normal temperatures, as weather patterns shift. If enough fresh water interrupts the deep circulation patterns in the Atlantic driven by salinity, then Europe could be as cold as Siberia.Of course, of course. Whether it gets warmer or colder; global warming is the culpret. CO2 has the majic ability to produce "bad" weather. Be it too hot, or too cold. Either way, CO2 is responsible.

And not just CO2, but CO2 produced by American factories. Well, CO2 produced by Republicans anyway. If you're a lib like Al Gore, your CO2 doesn't count.

Here we have several examples of GW skeptics refusing to take a scientific look at the data, and attempting to mislead (whether deliberately or out of ignorance).

The Colorado mountains are under a Memorial Day snow advisory. Residents expect up to 8 inches of snow. Damned global warming.:rolleyes:

...

And South Africa sets 54 cold weather records as snow and ice continue...
More damned global warming. (Hot air.):rolleyes:

I think with you it is probably just ignorance of the science.

Global warming doesn't mean everywhere gets hotter. It means the average temperature of the planet increases. However, that average increase will have different effects in different places. Some places will get colder and/or wetter than they were before. Others will become hotter and dryer.

More to the point, forecasters predict an increase in so-called "extreme weather" events with global warming. And what are we seeing? Time to look at the actual data.

Global Warming is not political to those who follow it. It is a religion, and all non-believers are criticized and cast as heretics and non-believers. The arrogance of the GW crowd matches that of religion...

There has been a determined industry of spin doctors over recent years who have worked hard to create a false impression that global warming is simply not occurring. At a time when most climatologists accept that human-caused global warming is occurring, the general public could be forgiven for thinking that it's more like a 50-50 bet, and that scientists still don't know. But that's a function of PR, not science.

You complain about the arrogance of the "GW crowd". What about the arrogance of the "GW deniers crowd"?

Global warming (global hot air) is a crock. We have MUCH bigger problems than global warming.:rolleyes:

Well, you're the expert. You'll tell us how it is.

Sure, but everytime we have a heat wave, it's trotted out as evidence of global warming. Even hurricane Katrina was seen as evidence of global warming (as though there were no hurricanes in the past!). If an ice sheet melts, it's global warming. Never mind that as some melt, others grow.

This is obfuscation. I don't know whether you're just parroting something you read somewhere else. If so, please take some time to look at the facts.

Hurricane Katrina was an extreme weather event. When was the last time a major US city was decimated by a category 5 hurricane? But never mind that - perhaps it was a fluke that it hit a city. Try instead looking at the frequency of category 5 and greater hurricanes in general in recent years. Tell me what you discover, and then suggest a reason.

Ice sheets, you say? Do a little research on the Greenland ice sheet, and tell me what you find.

We're sick of this crap, so we muddy the waters a bit ourselves.

So, your obfuscation is deliberate? You know that GW is happening, but you wish to deny it? What's in it for you? HAve you actually thought through the consequences of denial?

The earth's average temperature is only about 9 degrees F above our last ice age.

Global warming does not have to mean 900 degree temperatures in every town. it doesn't mean that places that are normally cold won't be cold.

Part of the reason the Earth is warming is because we're coming out of the last ice age. Part of it is the greenhouse gas entering the atmosphere. The globe is warming, and there is no debate to that.

The only debate is how much we affect it.

Of course, of course. Whether it gets warmer or colder; global warming is the culpret.

No serious climate scientist says that, you are refuting the words of amateurs and TV newscasters. Global warming can lead to an average increase in violent weather events, but it's hard to say wether any particular storm is due to that warming. The only honest answer is maybe.

So, your obfuscation is deliberate? You know that GW is happening, but you wish to deny it? What's in it for you? HAve you actually thought through the consequences of denial?
Yes. I am aware that average global temp has increased by one degree over the last century.

But I'm convinced that anything we do to "fix" it along the lines of kyoto would do far more harm than good. It would be a gross waste of resources and accomplish squat.

So yes, do research into alternative energy. Conserve energy when possible. But don't slit your own throat with unreasonable restrictions on energy use.

If the seas rise, build dikes or move inland. No big deal. The seas rose a couple feet in the last century and it didn't make anyone's top list of problems affecting the 20th century.

No serious climate scientist says that, you are refuting the words of amateurs and TV newscasters. Global warming can lead to an average increase in violent weather events, but it's hard to say wether any particular storm is due to that warming. The only honest answer is maybe.
Exactly. But every fuckin' time bad weather hits or it's hot for a few days, we see all these reports about how this is further "proof" of global warming. So good for the goose.....

The Colorado mountains are under a Memorial Day snow advisory. Residents expect up to 8 inches of snow. Damned global warming.:rolleyes:

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5551185,00.html

And South Africa sets 54 cold weather records as snow and ice continue...
More damned global warming. (Hot air.)

http://www.capetimes.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=3844594
http://www.idrewthis.org/comics/idt20040209globalwarming.gif

Global warming (global hot air) is a crock. We have MUCH bigger problems than global warming.:rolleyes:Like gay marriage! It must be stopped!

Colorado's Pikes Peak had the snowiest spring in more than a decade.

Damned global warming. :rolleyes:

http://www.gazette.com/articles/snow_22774___article.html/summit_cadets.html

Warming evaporates more seawater leading to greater rainfall, or snowfall when rainclouds are forced to higher elevations.

sandy:

Instead of just blathering, read my previous post.

Don't fee the troll, James. Starve it of attention.

Colorado's Pikes Peak had the snowiest spring in more than a decade.

Damned global warming. :rolleyes:


I always thought that global warming was really identifying the change in sea temperatures and how they are effecting places on the planet that had previously NEVER thawed.

Just a few degrees is enough to melt icecaps and cause dramatic changes. Thats why the Polar Bear is even more of an endangered species since it's habitat is in danger, in fact you could find information on Alaska's Arctic Tundra thawing so much that they began having problems with shipping things on roads, since Trucks were sinking into what was once permafrost.

As for snow occuring on a peak, you should take into consideration how weather systems work. For snow to exist it requires for water to be evaporated into the air, with global warming this is obviously increased and creates high pressure fronts. When fronts merge you get various weather like Rain torrents, hurricanes, tornadoes, blizzards and of course droughts.

What I mention here isn't of course rhetoric after all the weather systems around the world are under constant observation by Meteorological institutes world wide. They have vast archives of data stemming back many years and with this data is the reason weather prediction has come as far as it has. That information shows climate trends and even shows climate reactions in regards to specific environmental accidents, atrocities and changes.

(For instance the Kuwaiti oil fires, St Helena Erruption, Florida's forest fires to name a few)

I had to laugh at how most of the alGore supporters showed up to see/hear him rant in gas-guzzling SUVs, vans, and trucks. What a bunch of hypocrites:rolleyes:

http://www.zombietime.com/gore_in_marin/

There are three types of people who attempt to predict the future: religious prophets, fortune tellers, and science fiction writers. Prophets typically claim that a diety has given them advance information and often use general terms rather than giving specific dates, etc.. Some people claim Nostradamas predicted some of the events of the 20th century.

Science fiction writers admit they are only speculating and aren't claiming to provide an exact forecast or specific outsomes. H.G. Wells writing in the late 19th Century predicted airplanes, super highways, television, computers, etc.

Fortune tellers claim to be able predict specific events or happenings to specific individuals.

Scientists don't claim to be able to predict specific futures for complex situations because they recognize that too many variables can affect outcomes.

In 1896 Svante Arrhenius attempted to predict temperature changes based on changes in the CO2 content of the atmosphere. He underestimated the increase in atmospheric CO2 and overestimated the temperature change. Last year climatologists overestimated the number of hurricanes and told residents of Southern California they would have a wet winter instead of a dry one.

The people who claim they can tell what will happen with climate during the next decade are really just glorified fortune tellers masquerading as scientists. They may really believe their predictions, but climate is too chaotic to predicted in advance.

I think global warming is just a shield for the use of nuclear power, some thing that is far more deadly and is (known to be dangerous to life) not just
now but for thousands of years, we can do some thing about N power now,
we can not do any thing about GW now if it is even in our power.

Oh and may be one should read Ask a scientist about global warming.

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/newton/askasci/1993/environ/ENV032.HTM

Author: Eric Dallman
Text: Pam, such a seemingly simple questions require unfortunately
elaborate answers. Since you have asked two questions, I will split my answer
into two sections: *** What is causing global warming and what can we do to
stop it? Well, first of all, it is not exactly clear if there is indeed global
warming at all. The phenomenon of global warming was discovered when data from
various weather stations was compared from year to year. There seemed to be a
trend of increasing temperatures at most of the data collection points. This
indicated that the planet was warming at an alarming rate. If you think about
it, a rise in temperature of a few degrees or so at 50 or 100 points on the
earth does not mean that the earth is getting hotter. It means that the data
points are getting hotter. Most of the original data was collected in the
forties and fifties at locations in or adjacent to urban areas. As time went
on the areas of data collection became more urbanized. Logically, more people
and buildings produce more heat. Data collection at remote sites that did not
become urbanized did not indicate any warming at all. However, when all the
data was averaged, a very frightening picture emerged. The planet seemed
doomed. Because of the uncertainty of the original data (due to changes in
population at the data collection points), many new weather stations were set
up and an international committee was established to study global warming.

I think global warming is just a shield for the use of nuclear power, some thing that is far more deadly and is (known to be dangerous to life) not just
now but for thousands of years, we can do some thing about N power now,
we can not do any thing about GW now if it is even in our power.

WHAT??? That has to be the most unique argument I have read in a loooooong time.

Why is it then, that most scientists who believe in global warming suggest using wind farms and, eventually, solar arrays for the majority of our power?

Oh, and I grew up near three nuclear power plants and I totally only glow in the dark on major holidays.

I think global warming is just a shield for the use of nuclear power, some thing that is far more deadly and is (known to be dangerous to life)
There has been exactly one nuclear accident that resulted in a loss of human life, Chernobyl. That was caused by a bad reactor design. Proportionally, coal fired power stations have caused more deaths.

Global warming (global hot air) is a crock. We have MUCH bigger problems than global warming.:rolleyes:

GW is a proven fact, hence the amount of CO2 in the Oceans ..which was the last plank in the sceptics argument.

there ARE indeed bigger problems...large populations from africa, s.america and anywhere nr the Equator will migrate North to your city..make sure you have enough housing, Sandy ;-)

WHAT??? That has to be the most unique argument I have read in a loooooong time.

Why is it then, that most scientists who believe in global warming suggest using wind farms and, eventually, solar arrays for the majority of our power?

Oh, and I grew up near three nuclear power plants and I totally only glow in the dark on major holidays.

Well Britan is investing in nuclear, big countries like the US may go wind farms
and solar but i doubt it.

Who knows how many have died from radiation poisoning? and the long term problems of waste disposal.

Well Britan is investing in nuclear, big countries like the US may go wind farms
and solar but i doubt it.

Who knows how many have died from radiation poisoning? and the long term problems of waste disposal.
Radiation poisoning is simple to solve; simply keep people away from the fuel and waste, and keep them shielded.

The long term waste can actually be recycled into more nuclear fuel in a special type of reactor called a Breeder Reactor. The US does not have any of these reactors because of some trifling political issue likely related to one of the SALT treaties. If more were built, the 40000 year waste from ordinary reactors gets used up (generating electricity with no CO2) and turned into waste that lasts for only 200 years. That waste can be safely sent to the areas designed for storage of the 40000 year stuff.

There is enough nuclear fuel for 1000 years of electricity generation using breeder reactors.

Well, the greenies should be lauding nuclear and fusion research. They are among the cleanest reliable power sources available. In fact is goes Solar, Hydroelectric, Nuclear, and Wind in terms of cleanliness and reliablilty.

We should also increase research into Hydrogen burning and alternate methods of CO2 absorption.

Not just becuase they MIGHT contribute to global warming, but becuase we will need the methods to colonize the moon and mars in the not too distant future.

However Ethanol is a terrible idea. How can we justify ewasting acres of land growing fuel when we still have hungry starving people in this world. Ethanol should be put on hold until the stvation rate on this planet drops below .1%.

GW ...there ARE indeed bigger problems...large populations from africa, s.america and anywhere nr the Equator will migrate North to your city..make sure you have enough housing, Sandy ;-)

They already are.:(

And England is having snow? It's almost June:confused:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007230784,00.html

Damned global hot air.:rolleyes:

Does anyone here know the science of global warming, or are you all just talking out of your respective asses? All politics aside, I'd like to know what the science is---it seems that more and more scientists are beginning to doubt the anthropogenic global warming argument.

Anybody? Or are you all just content to talk past each other?

We could of course err on the side of caution. I find it odd how much behavior we try to teach our children to question cannot be questioned if it is carried out by corporations.

A little caution does not lead directly to a Gulag.

Are you truly as dense as you portray yourself, Sandy?

Global warming does not mean that every spot on the Earth will be warmer than some reference point for that spot on every second of every day of the year. That dumba$$ argument is a red herring set forth by the Rush Limbaugh and his ilk. That argument, like Limbaugh himself, is utterly lacking in integrity and legitimacy.

Global warming simply means that the temperature of the Earth averaged over the entire surface of the Earth and over the course of the year has increased. Even the legitimate global warming sceptics do not debate this. In this sense, global warming is a fact. The legitimate sceptics respond with
So what. The natural variation in the climate is orders of magnitude larger than the measured global warming.
Who cares. The fear-mongers focus on penguins and polar bears. Sceptics don't give a hoot about penguins and polar bears. What are the consequences of global warming to humanity?
Big deal. Even if the measured global warming is completely attributable to mankind, it was worth it. The standard of living has increased immensely over the last fifty years at the cost of a paltry fraction of a degree increase in the mean global temperature.

These are the same liberal moonbats who were decrying global cooling in the 70s. We weren't fooled then and we're not fooled now.:rolleyes:

Sandy,

You are proving my point. You are a mindless conservative wingbat.

Just because some liberal moonbats said stupid things 30 years ago doesn't make climatologists wrong today.

===========

Ben,

While I am not a climate modeler, I do model other non-linear systems. Just because a system is non-linear does not mean analysis is hopeless or that divergence is a necessary result. Non-linear systems often have pseudo-stable orbits (google "stable attractor").

One way to analyze non-linear systems is via simulation. Simulation is very important for studying the weather and the climate. The system (weather or the climate) is non-linear. Moreover, the initial state and the dynamics are not perfectly known. Stating results based on a single simulation run would be simply wrong. Climatologists don't do this. They instead use Monte-Carlo analysis: They run their simulations many, many times over and analyze the results statistically.

Does anyone here know the science of global warming, or are you all just talking out of your respective asses? If it turned out that everyone here was completely ignorant and spouting foolishness (and you ignored the many links in the many threads, some of which connect to high class technical papers etc), how would it affect your judgment?

What's your default? That a 50% boost in atmospheric CO2 levels would have serious effects, or that it wouldn't?

Climatologists don't do this. They instead use Monte-Carlo analysis: They run their simulations many, many times over and analyze the results statistically.

DH thank you for your response. I will read some about these things and maybe have some intelligent questions:)

If it turned out that everyone here was completely ignorant and spouting foolishness (and you ignored the many links in the many threads, some of which connect to high class technical papers etc), how would it affect your judgment?

What's your default? That a 50% boost in atmospheric CO2 levels would have serious effects, or that it wouldn't?

I haven't made any judgements. One can always find a link to a website that supports your cause, so these things are pretty meaningless.

And I don't have a defaut---because I don't know the science. And I seriously doubt that many people here (on both sides) have a firm understanding of the science either. This, of course, means that a bunch of people cut and past things they read on the internet, and ridicule the other side for being so short-sighted.

The point that I want to make is that if you don't really know the science (i.e. you haven't figured it out yourself), then one has no basis to make claims of these sorts.

So the question stands---does anyone here actually know what they're talking about, or is this information coming from third hand sources?

I had to laugh at how most of the alGore supporters showed up to see/hear him rant in gas-guzzling SUVs, vans, and trucks. What a bunch of hypocrites:rolleyes:

http://www.zombietime.com/gore_in_marin/

Ad-hom. I hope you aren't driving one yourself. I bike everyday to school.

No. I walk everywhere. Or use my roller skates or skateboard.:rolleyes:

I'm not the one pushing the global hot air agenda. I don't care if people drive/fly their Hummers, trucks, SUVs, limousines, sports cars, boats, jets, and everything else they want as long as they want.

The little bit that riding a bike contributes is nothing to offset cows and big industry. But it's a nice, liberal idea. I know the liberals want us all to ride bikes. But not them. They get to have all the big toys. Practice what they preach, not what they do!:rolleyes:

These are the same liberal moonbats who were decrying global cooling in the 70s. We weren't fooled then and we're not fooled now.:rolleyes:

The science is just a little bit better now.

>> These are the same liberal moonbats who were decrying global cooling in the 70s. We weren't fooled then and we're not fooled now >>

All are fooled, proponents and opponents.... the prevailing climate will flip very soon

LOL, I expect they are/were correct; the present overpressure of carbon dioxide has upset the equilibrium... just a symptom of a much greater and very grave climatic disruption

But wait a few more years and global drought, followed by a snowball Earth will certainly be a joy to behold.

Thank God !

More ice and snow storms in Europe. Damned global warming.:rolleyes:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=458562&in_page_id=1811


Argentina cold wave prompts record demand for electricity...

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20670001&refer=latin_america&sid=av0tvGQPKLKU


At least 16 dead and 1500 stranded as freak snow storm hits Nepal...

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=126&art_id=nw20070529095234381C871116

Oh, and 4 inches of hail piles on Denver...

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_6013256

Damned global warming...

Sandy:

Right now, record heat waves are ocurring in Moscow Russia, Rochester NY, Orissa India, and elsewhere. These heat waves, like your posts on wierd weather neither prove nor disprove global warming. Using the weather in one spot on the Earth at one point time to disprove (or prove) global warming is incorrect use of anecdotal evidence, a logical falacy.

Sandy, you have made this and other logical falacies on this topic that I can only think this is intentional. Using logical falacies can be a rather clever way lieing. I suppose that lieing in the name of God is OK in your eyes.

More ice and snow storms in Europe. Damned global warming.:rolleyes:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=458562&in_page_id=1811


Argentina cold wave prompts record demand for electricity...

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20670001&refer=latin_america&sid=av0tvGQPKLKU


At least 16 dead and 1500 stranded as freak snow storm hits Nepal...

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=126&art_id=nw20070529095234381C871116

Oh, and 4 inches of hail piles on Denver...

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_6013256

Damned global warming...

I can't emphasize enough, incidents of snowstorms will not dissapear by global warming, in fact science shows they could increase in some areas. The warming leads to greater amounts of moisture in the air, which can fall as snow. It only has to be colder than 32 degrees to snow. If the average temp in an area at a certian time of year happens to be 20 degrees, and it goes up to 25, it will still snow, and it will still be warming.

Sorry. I still don't buy it. Neither do most scientists or Americans. Sure you will have your moonbats that will jump on any bandwagon just to have a cause. But most of us don't think it ranks up there as one of our top 10 problems.

Sandy, once again you are bearing false witness. I ask again, is lieing in the name of your religion an acceptable act in your religion? Does the ninth commandment not apply?

The vast majority of climate and weather scientists concur that global warming is real. Most of these scientists also agree that global warming is caused by humans. These are the only scientists who count as scientists in this regard. While chemists, physicists, pyschologists are scientists, their opinions on global warming must be treated as those of any other lay person.

The vast majority of Americans agree that global warming exists. The lay community is split on whether global warming is man-made or natural.

Here is where global warming gets interesting:
The vast majority of economists agree that proposed solutions to global warming, particularly the Kyoto accords, would be very, very bad for the economy. Climatologists are not economists; their opinions on the economical effects of their proposed solutions are not worth very much.
The vast majority of climatologists agree that implementing the Kyoto protocols would not do much to stop global warming.


Instead of discussing this topic honestly, you use red herrings, anecdotal evidence, and a host of other falacies. Please start being the good christian you claim to be and stop f***ing lieing.

http://people-press.org/reports/images/280-3.gif

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=280

Approximately 28 percent of American adults currently qualify as scientifically literate, an increase from around 10 percent in the late 1980s and early 1990s, according to Miller's research (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070218134322.htm).

That means 72 percent are scientifically illiterate!

The point that I want to make is that if you don't really know the science (i.e. you haven't figured it out yourself), then one has no basis to make claims of these sorts. Hmmmm. You are allowing, I hope, for some people other than the actual researchers to have good and well-founded opinions ?

At what level of "knowing the science" does one's ability to follow an argument, and compare it with another argument, appear?

Let's say, for example, that someone (me) simply takes the researchers' word (in the published papers from the Mauna Loa observatory, the abstract and conclusions paragraphs) for their establishment of the fossil fuel combustion origin of a third of the CO2 in the air - which closely matches the increase in the concentration of atmospheric CO2, about 50%, over the past hundred years, leading to the conclusion that the increase is from accumulation of fossil fuel combustion product.

It's a very complex and statistically based argument, and although a brief inspection of it shows no obvious flaws, I haven't the knowledge or resources to vet it thoroughly. It's published and peer reviewed, it's stood for years now, and I just accept it.

Is that OK?

Next step: we have several sources of estimation for the comparative heat trapping effects of the various atmospheric gasses. Say they put water vapor at around 70 - 75% of the total heat trap, and CO2 around 20% IIRC (if I dont recall correctly, just ride along for a while to the point). Taking this, and ignoring for the moment the fact that the boost is not linear, we have an anthro contribution of about 7% of the total heat trapped.

That is, I think, very obviously significant. Anything over 1% would be significant. It does not require deeper undersanding of the science involved to be recognized as worth paying attention to. It is enough to lend back-of-the-envelope credibility to claims of climate effects, and to cast reasonable doubt on any attempt at simply dismissing the problem without paying attention to it.

Is that OK?

Next step: we (I) may know, somehow, that the nonlinearity of the CO2 concentration's effects in fact favors ascription of significance - that the concentration has been (by chance or complex establishment) hovering around the steep part of the curve, and small boosts would have amplified effects rather than damped ones. Further, we (I) may know somehow that the water vapor is largely a side effect of the CO2 concentration - without the CO2, the air would be much colder and drier, while increases in CO2 heat trapping increase the water vapor retention capability of the air - amplifying the direct CO2 effect.

Now I am disposed, on this sketchy scientific background, to give more credence on less argument to claims of significance, and demand better argument from those claiming insignificance. And in fact just the opposite has been my experience - the anti-GW crowd has been featuring very bad arguments, full of logical flaws and spurious claims.

So is my position reasonable, although I am not a scientist or expert in the field?

>>> So is my position reasonable >>

As a sophist, yes, but as a scientist NO !

Forget CO2, its rise is a symptom of a much greater climatic problem. The CO2 sink is corrupted, the hydrology cycle is corrupted, the thermal cycle is corrupted... not much left to corrupt is there.... and its all because of OIL.

Remember the atmosphere is surrounded by an absolute cold heat sink.

Its our ocean warming that is the problem

Now why is this, because warm water is supposed to evaporate more water vapour and thus cool... we should not be getting ocean warming !

I understand that my words mean nothing to laypeople, but the novel "The Death of Clouds" lays it out in kids speak.

Y'all better start getting real.

omegafour.com

all i know is that is something wrong with the balence in the earth temperture cause 70 in febuary is not normal in chicago

Hmmmm. You are allowing, I hope, for some people other than the actual researchers to have good and well-founded opinions ?

At what level of "knowing the science" does one's ability to follow an argument, and compare it with another argument, appear?

I don't know ice. At some point, even the most well-educated layman is taking somone's word for it, right?

Let's say, for example, that someone (me) simply takes the researchers' word ... It's published and peer reviewed, it's stood for years now, and I just accept it.

Well, ok. Two things. First you haven't checked the calculations yourself, so how can you be sure? I know how peer review works---you send your paper to a journal, and they send it to a third (neutral) party. That person may or may not take their job seriously. And at the end of the day, it may be the person's graduate student who is actually reviewing the paper.

But ok. Say they take their job seriously. If that person has a vested interest in some particular science, or some particular result, they will push it. For example, I just got a paper back from peer review, and some of the comments were "You should cite authors X,Y, and Z...". (I'll forward you the email if you doubt me:) )

All of this aside, the process basically works. And some peer reviewed research is published on both sides of the debate, which SHOWS it works. But the main place that science happens isn't in conferences or journals, its over coffee and in hallways of the geology department, etc. What you see in the literature is a highly technical account of all of these conversations, which is then trickled down through various pathways, into a form that most people can digest. But again, if you don't read the original literature, and do the calculations yourself, you really can't be sure of anyone's result.

And if you're not PART of that dialogue, then all you have is an outside account of what the debate really is. So you can say "So and so said this..." and I can say "Well, my so and so said that your so and so is wrong, so take that..."

The other thing is "I just accept it". Maybe this is a difference between physics and climate science. Physics is much more solid in the sense that anyone can do the calculations. If I don't believe, say, that the gravitational field inside a spherical shell is zero, then I can go and calculate it. I understand that some climate science models, and some sets of observations, may be so large and complicated so as to effectively prohibit anyone from repeating the experiment. If this is the case, then I really have no response.

So, for example, statements like

Taking this, and ignoring for the moment the fact that the boost is not linear, we have an anthro contribution of about 7% of the total heat trapped.

That is, I think, very obviously significant. Anything over 1% would be significant.

are almost completely meaningless. What does "7% of heat trapped" mean? How does this effect temperature, because heat and temperature are not the same thing? Does 7% more heat mean 7% more temperature? Why is 7% bad, but 1% ok? There's no substance to these statements, other than you can phrase it in a way that sounds like you know what you're talking about. (No offense intended, please!)

Now I am disposed, on this sketchy scientific background, to give more credence on less argument to claims of significance, and demand better argument from those claiming insignificance. And in fact just the opposite has been my experience - the anti-GW crowd has been featuring very bad arguments, full of logical flaws and spurious claims.

So is my position reasonable, although I am not a scientist or expert in the field?

Your position is certainly reasonable. But so is an equally informed layman on the other side of the debate, for the same reasons. The fact that sandy is aparently the only one arguing the other side, and that she is pretty ignorant of the differences between weather and climate, doesn't mean that there are not others like you out there. And when the two of you talk, you quote statistics at each other---the winner of the dialogue, if there is one, is the person who can counter each of your statistics with his own, +1. You can't disprove his statistics with anything other than statistics of your own.

I think my main objection to people talking about things like this is that they approach a scientific question in an unscientific manner. People attempt to justify a certain social agenda, based on science that may be still up in the air, and which they don't know. If the science was that solid, I wouldn't read in the paper about the number of famous climate scientists who are beginning to change their minds.

If you want to justify your social agenda on a "better safe than sorry" attitude, then fine. Honestly I feel that the anthropogenic global warming explanation holds more water than some of the other ``natural'' explanations I've heard, even though it doesn't sound like it:) The fact is that we DONT know the dynamics of the atmosphere well enough, and we only really have one Earth. But make no mistake that the numbers you are quoting are still debated by scientists, over coffee and in hallways. Make no mistake that I can find equally convincing numbers, if I spent a few days with the literature, to completely disprove your case, I'm sure of it.

all i know is that is something wrong with the balence in the earth temperture cause 70 in febuary is not normal in chicago

And 30 in Texas in April isn't normal either. Nor are any of the weather phenomena Sandy linked to.

Climate and weather are two different things.

Neither do most scientists or Americans.

Can you support this claim that "most scientists don't buy it", or are you pulling things from your clevage?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597

And cleavage is spelled c-l-e-a-v-a-g-e.:D

Neither do most scientists or Americans.Can you support this claim that "most scientists don't buy it", or are you pulling things from your clevage?
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597

All cleavage. The purported proof is just an opinion piece. It starts with the statement
Don't Believe the Hype
There's no "consensus" on global warming.

The author never shows any sort of evidence to back up that headline statement. In fact, he disproves it:
Most of the climate community has agreed since 1988 that global mean temperatures have increased on the order of one degree Fahrenheit over the past century, having risen significantly from about 1919 to 1940, decreased between 1940 and the early '70s, increased again until the '90s, and remaining essentially flat since 1998.
There is also little disagreement that levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have risen from about 280 parts per million by volume in the 19th century to about 387 ppmv today. Finally, there has been no question whatever that carbon dioxide is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas--albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming.

Believe what you want. Just don't expect sane Americans to agree with you.

And cleavage is spelled c-l-e-a-v-a-g-e

Sorry sweetheart---I just know where to find it and what to do with it, not how to spell it:)

DH---Lindzen is perhaps the most famous dissenter in the AGW debate. I wouldn't have given Sandy shit if she had said "many scientists" or something along those lines, but a poll of scientists involved in the field would find a majority of them supporting the AGW explanation.

The head of NASA doubts it.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=3229696&page=1

So what? An aerospace engineer that knows next to nothing about climatology isn't qualified to make statements on the subject.

The head of NASA doubts it.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=3229696&page=1

The headline is wrong. The headline says "NASA's Top Official Questions Global Warming". What Griffin actually said (read the article, Sandy) was
"I have no doubt that a trend of global warming exists," Griffin told Inskeep. "I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with."
"To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change," Griffin said. "I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take."
Griffin acknowleges that the global warming has and is occurring. He just doubts whether doing something about it is the right thing to do. This is very close to my own opinion on global warming.

Is it a coincidence that those who really don't give a shit about nature prefer to believe that policies and actions that do not take into account our effects on it?

It's kind of like the Holocaust deniers?

What the F are you ranting about, Granty?

Is it a coincidence that those who really don't give a shit about nature prefer to believe that policies and actions that do not take into account our effects on it?

It's kind of like the Holocaust deniers?

This is a meaningless statement. What you have said is "The people who don't think it is an issue don't think it is an issue."

Griffin acknowleges that the global warming has and is occurring. He just doubts whether doing something about it is the right thing to do. And he bases his doubts, he says, on the assertion that people who think we should do something are claiming to know what an "optimal" climate is.

That is not only BS, it is the current administration's political talking point.

He's sucking up to the money fountain in Washington, by the sound of his weasel rhetoric and talking point repetition. He's not supposed to be doing that. He's supposed to represent not domestic political concerns, but international (with an American bias) scientific and engineering matters, in Washington.

btw: That interview, which played on the radio this morning, was not about global warming. It was a reply to an interview aired yesterday with a severe critic of NASA in general, a guy (Easterbrook? something like that) who claims that the moon base and other recent NASA priorities make no sense, and are costing a fortune in lost opportunity - among those losses significant cutbacks in NASA's earth science operations. The GW stuff came up as a tangent. So what that government bureaucrat was doing was defending cutbacks in NASA's earth-monitoring and research efforts (such as cancellation of a satellite that would map and monitor soil moisture planet-wide) by accusing the people who want them of being elitists who want to mandate their idea of an optimal climates for everyone.

He's scum.

Common sence and logic coming from where I'd least expect it, a college profesor!

One of his students attests to the effect of propaganda such as Al Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth.
Both of these movies present facts, some distorted perhaps, but they each present one side of the debate. Yet it is only one side that is being forced down the throats of students all over the world. It's even popping up in art class! One University requires that its students watch Al Gore's movie to graduate!

This kind of consensus science propaganda is dangerous. These are the same methods used by the eugenics scientists and we all know how that worked out. Science is a process. Calling those who disagree with your conclusions "Global Warming deniers" and fascists is intimidation not science.

http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/News/Local/newEAST01ENV051207.htm


Climate Change is a fact. The only debate is, on what we are going to do about it.

Of course your car pollutes the air! Of course we are polluting the evironment! Your food is likely polluted with high fructose corn syrup and other chemicals.

I don't think we can afford to pretend Climate Change is not happening, it's a matter of, what are we going to do to solve it? Some people have some good ideas on how to solve it, these ideas come from various political factions and perspectives depending on your taste.

This is a moral issue, not a political issue.

Is it a coincidence that those who really don't give a shit about nature prefer to believe that policies and actions that do not take into account our effects on it?

It's kind of like the Holocaust deniers?

I've been reading Murray Bookchin lately and I'm starting to believe the Climate Crisis is a social problem. The problem is in how we designed our business laws, we don't allow for social corporations, or eco-corporations to run tax free, and we don't tax the criminals more than the non-criminals, but we definately should.

We should not raise taxes on the wealthy, or the poor, but if you as an individual, are harming the environment, or if a corporation is harming the environment, taxes should be raised on it based on the amount of harm it's doing, and there should be a methodology involved in calculating that which the governments follow.

All corporations which are ecologically friendly, should be tax free. Problem solved. Tax the polluters.

By the way, a social corporation is a new type of corporation we should invent, with the primary goal being social, and growth and profit being the secondary goal. By law these corporations will combine the best features of non profits and for profits.

That is the only way in my opinion to solve this, we need new breeds of corporations.

I've been reading Murray Bookchin lately and I'm starting to believe the Climate Crisis is a social problem. The problem is in how we designed our business laws, we don't allow for social corporations, or eco-corporations to run tax free, and we don't tax the criminals more than the non-criminals, but we definately should.

We should not raise taxes on the wealthy, or the poor, but if you as an individual, are harming the environment, or if a corporation is harming the environment, taxes should be raised on it based on the amount of harm it's doing, and there should be a methodology involved in calculating that which the governments follow.

All corporations which are ecologically friendly, should be tax free. Problem solved. Tax the polluters.

By the way, a social corporation is a new type of corporation we should invent, with the primary goal being social, and growth and profit being the secondary goal. By law these corporations will combine the best features of non profits and for profits.

That is the only way in my opinion to solve this, we need new breeds of corporations.

And exactly what would that accomplish in the end? The corporations - good or bad - simply pass the taxes along to the consumers.

>> Griffin acknowleges that the global warming has and is occurring. He just doubts whether doing something about it is the right thing to do. >>

A reasonable statement but only if the cause of global climate change was an overpressure of CO2.

Certainly gas emission propaganda is fatally flawed, and that is obvious given the level of scientific decent.

And underneath it all is OIL.

Now to claim oil is the cause really demands a cessation of modern civilisation.

Ban OIL ?, the world would rather die

and so be it !!!

And exactly what would that accomplish in the end? The corporations - good or bad - simply pass the taxes along to the consumers.

Thats exactly the point, we have to change consumer behavior too. Consumers are addicted to certain products, the price of addiction, infinite costs. If you smoke, and a pack of cigs is taxed, and your pack costs more, good. You act like smoking benefits the consumer or anyone else for that matter.

The people who don't care about health are killing themselves, shouldn't it be expensive? Or would you rather cigs be free?

>> Griffin acknowleges that the global warming has and is occurring. He just doubts whether doing something about it is the right thing to do. >>

A reasonable statement but only if the cause of global climate change was an overpressure of CO2.

Certainly gas emission propaganda is fatally flawed, and that is obvious given the level of scientific decent.

And underneath it all is OIL.

Now to claim oil is the cause really demands a cessation of modern civilisation.

Ban OIL ?, the world would rather die

and so be it !!!

Who's dumb idea was it to ban oil? No one said ban oil.

A cold snap in Argentina led to electricity and natural gas shortages this week, idling factories and taxis and causing sporadic blackouts in the capital.
Beset by the coldest May since 1962, millions of residents fired up space heaters, straining Buenos Aires' electrical grid for three nights and forcing authorities to slash power supply nationwide and briefly cut domestic natural gas provisions and exports to Chile.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070601/ap_on_bi_ge/argentina_energy_woes_1

Damned global warming. :rolleyes:

Again, people that point out cold spell as a counter argument to global warming are only revealing the extent of their ignorance. These days, almost no one denies that the Earth's average temperature is warming. It's just the fact of this being caused by man seems to be more controversial.

A cold snap in Argentina led to electricity and natural gas shortages this week, idling factories and taxis and causing sporadic blackouts in the capital.

Reported for trolling. You have been told repeatedly that this crap is just that. Single incidents of cold snaps do not disprove global warming because single incidents have nothing to do with global warming.

>> Reported for trolling. >> LOL

good one "" The Politics and Science of Fear"", LOL, idiot!

I like to hear all sides of a debate, certainly weather is different to climate, but only as a tree is different to a forest !

Sandy is not reporting everyday events, those reported are RECORDS... it is weather records that actually make up the changing climatic picture.

Ad hominen remarks and threats of retribution are a sign your argument, DH is totally null and void... exhausted !

Reported for trolling. You have been told repeatedly that this crap is just that. Single incidents of cold snaps do not disprove global warming because single incidents have nothing to do with global warming.

You're joking right? Trolling? I am providing evidence that your global hot air theory is cr@p.

Your evidence does not debunk global warming. I'm not surprised that the same people that disbelieve in global warming are also dominionist Christian types that think the Earth was all put here for humans anyway, therefore the side effects of our prosperity cannot be doing harm.

We have dominion over the earth and all that is in it. Yes we should be good stewards. But global warming will not be an issue in our lifetimes. Nor in that of our grandchildren. The same people shouting about global warming were screaming about global cooling in the 70s.

>> But global warming will not be an issue in our lifetimes >.

Don't know how old you are Sandy, but I give this planet 10 years,
the y'all be in HELL.