Oh, I'm citing the same document as Pizza.

Global warming is pretty much done for another 40 years. It's time to trot out the hysteria about the coming ice age. I'm sure y'all can link it to manmade causes and get 90% of the dimbubs to follow along.

Better yet, declare victory. Claim that the reversal in global temps we're already beginning to see is the result of Kyoto and all your valiant efforts. I'll shut up about Mars, Titan, Jupiter and every other planet and planetoid with ice caps or an atmosphere and let you have your day.

Care to wager on that assertion Bruce?

BTW - it's interesting that research on climate change has been going on for over 50 years, and there has been no basic research that has come out that formally proves it isn't happening and that mankind hasn't contributed. But now that it is an incredibly popular topic all of the sudden "scientists" are coming out of the woodwork to say they don't believe it. Something along the lines of 15 minutes of fame.

5 years ago it wasn't happening

3 years ago it was happening but it couldn't possibly be our fault

1 year ago it wasn't happening and even if it was it certainly wasn't our fault.

Today, well it sort of happened, but now it's over.

Yawn!

Oh yeah, last point, there was an interesting study that suggests that global warming may not lead to the weather catastrophes that many think it will, i.e. more hurricanes. Real science, by real scientists, you know with measurements and all.

That doesn't mean that global warming won't be a catastrophe, simply that some scientists have suggested a different model for hurricane activity than what was considered before.

Oh yeah, last point, there was an interesting study that suggests that global warming may not lead to the weather catastrophes that many think it will, i.e. more hurricanes. Real science, by real scientists, you know with measurements and all.

That doesn't mean that global warming won't be a catastrophe, simply that some scientists have suggested a different model for hurricane activity than what was considered before.



Thank you Lyle, that is along the lines I have been trying to point out. All of this is theories. They will either be proven wrong or right, but not for years to come.

In the mean time, lets cut our demand for fossil fuels by demanding clean energy and electric cars. NOT GOVERNMENT MANDATES, but we the people put up or shut up.

In the mean time, lets cut our demand for fossil fuels by demanding clean energy and electric cars. NOT GOVERNMENT MANDATES, but we the people put up or shut up.


Is an electric car a "clean vehicle" if the electricity is produced by a coal burning facility in another state? Just wondering.

Of course not.

Oh yeah, last point, there was an interesting study that suggests that global warming may not lead to the weather catastrophes that many think it will, i.e. more hurricanes. Real science, by real scientists, you know with measurements and all.

That doesn't mean that global warming won't be a catastrophe, simply that some scientists have suggested a different model for hurricane activity than what was considered before.



Thank you Lyle, that is along the lines I have been trying to point out. All of this is theories. They will either be proven wrong or right, but not for years to come.

In the mean time, lets cut our demand for fossil fuels by demanding clean energy and electric cars. NOT GOVERNMENT MANDATES, but we the people put up or shut up.



No Za,

it's not all theories, and you're misusing the term. What you want to say is that IYO it's all conjecture.

The reality is that global warming is occurring. I think you accept this.

The reality is that man is contributing and may even be the major cause of the current global warming. I don't think you accept this.

The reality is that this bout of global warming, because of man's influence, may well be like no other global warming cycle that has ever occurred.

Even if we follow a "standard" warming cycle, it isn't a fun thing. And that's the point so few get.

Even writing off the concept of increased hurricane activity, and that isn't a given yet, there are many potential consequences that come with the phenomena.

We know that the polar ice cap and the ice caps an greenland and iceland are disappearing. Even in past global warming cycles, that is in our recorded history, this has never happened. What is the consequences of such? Bruce talks about cycles, no cycle like this has ever happened in human experience, and the consequence could be an ice age in Europe.

We know that the warming cycle has raised the temperatures in higher elevations. Many cities in the far East were built above the "mosquito line" a temperature line above which they don't do so well. If that line rises so that mosquitoes grow well in those cities the level of disease in the world is going to skyrocket. If you think we will be free from that because we are rich you're foolin' yourself.

There are so many possibilities that we can't even begin to imagine.

Now, I think it's here. The enviro-people aren't going to stop it. But I'm not willing to fool myself about the cause or the outcome.

In the mean time, lets cut our demand for fossil fuels by demanding clean energy and electric cars. NOT GOVERNMENT MANDATES, but we the people put up or shut up.


Is an electric car a "clean vehicle" if the electricity is produced by a coal burning facility in another state? Just wondering.



Not too mention all the added materials in said cars that are toxic.

Hey, here's something novel, buy an econo-box, walk to work or ride a bike, turn your lights off and lower your thermostat. Naw, why would we want to do that!

Interesting how this thread has morphed from An Inconvenient Truth, the title of Gore�s award winning movie, into an Assault on Reason, the title of Gore�s new bestselling book.

BTW - I've looked through some of the links provided in the Senate study. None that I've looked at actually presented research conducted by Climatologists. None of them had research at all. Hmmmmm. Many had criticisms of currently published, peer reviewed articles. That is, "I don't agree with this conclusion" type comments. I think that's good discourse, and many of these guys are scientists, but, they aren't even Climatologists. At least some of them had the decency to say I can't really judge because I'm not a Climatologist, but I disagree nonetheless. The one I liked the best was the one that said, "the guys who support the notion that man kind is causing this phenomenon are the same ones who say that God does not exist." There you have it, obviously their wrong!

BTW - the notion that this is being driven by the media is belied by the 500-1 ratio of articles saying it's a hoax to articles supporting it in the past 10 years.

Closing point. The dork from Harvard that sent the nasty e-mail was out of line. However, read the e-mail. He didn't say, I'm going to destroy your career because you disagree with me, he said, you lied, I'm going to prove it, and that is going to destroy your career. Not nice, but not exactly a conspiracy. Now, compare that one case with the proven observation that Bush's admin forced every Climatologist who worked with any government agency to have their writings reviewed by his staff. That government staff edited out any reference to global warming. That same staff also threatened the careers of all those scientists if they stepped out of the government dogma. "Who's Zoomin' Who?"

Except Lyle, of course.

Interesting how this thread has morphed from An Inconvenient Truth, the title of Gore�s award winning movie, into an Assault on Reason, the title of Gore�s new bestselling book.



Cool, something else to bash Al Gore on :D

Blame him, he created the internet! lol

"There are no passengers on spaceship Earth...we are all crew."
~ Marshall McLuhan

Firefly, can you see me?
Shine on, glowing, brief and brightly
Could you imagine? One summer day,
That same night be on your way

Do you remember? Hearts were too cold
Seasons have frozen us into our souls
People were sayin' the whole world is burning
Ashes have scattered too hard to turn

Upside out or inside down
False alarm, the only game in town
No man's land, the only game in town
Terrible, the only game in town

Passenger, don't you hear me?
Destination seen unclearly.
What is a man deep down inside,
What a raging beast with nothing to hide.

Upside out or inside down
False alarm, the only game in town
No man's land, the only game in town
Terrible, the only game in town

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175



So let me get this straight. The argument you were making was that Global Warming was a solar system wide phenomena that was caused by the... sun. Now you present this piece that says the Sun is going through a low activity cycle that could lead to global cooling. Soooooo, what does that have to do with your argument? By my recollection it seems to counter it.

BTW - On the other hand, it does seem clear that the sun is entering a low activity period (researched and published in a peer reviewed journal). Now, go Google the issue and when you get to the articles that say the low activity is real, and is considered to be minor in terms of it's effect - relative to man caused global warming - give us a ring dear.

And for those of you that think this is going to... save us from our own stupidity, wake up! Oh, that and move to higher ground. :D

I think we should keep our marshmallows in our refrigerators. At least that way we will be prepared either way.

The sun goes in cycles. Like everything else.

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=332289

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=332289

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=332289



OMG! We're saved, We're saved. Global Warming is over! Yes!

Except, one of the central tenants of Global Warming is that not only will temperatures rise on average, but there will be larger variations with bigger swings between abnormally warm and abnormally cold. Sort of like seeing the most brutal winters in a life time in China and Canada set back to back with late winter onset, one of the warmest winters on record in Texas and one of the hottest summers in our life time... why, just last summer I think was.

Boy, there's just no foolin' those "liberal" writers from the National Post...

If you are going to trash a theory, you should at least know what the theory is.

BTW I heard a most interesting stat on Bill Moyer's Journal last week. Something like 20% of America still believes that the sun revolves around the earth. WoW! Good thing we've improved our educational system by so much.

Kind of like this thread. Now its time for Lyle to come on and patiently explain why you are so wrong again.

Lyle beat me to it!

Wow, when temperatures go up anecdotally, global warming fanatics (GWFs) trumpet it as "proof" of their doomsday belief; when they go down, amazingly this is also touted as evidence of its correctness.

In this respect, these GWFs remind me a lot of '70s-era paranormal believers. When their flavor-of-the-month psychic fraud scored anecdotally higher than chance on a small (often exceedingly poorly controlled) test, they would trumpet his true powers of ESP. If, on the other hand, he bombed the test, they would consider that a "negative confirmation", claiming that his failure was so statistically unlikely as to "prove" his powers.

Seems like it is convenient to have a failsafe plan when one has married himself to a scientifically bankrupt dogmatic belief set (oh, of course, I mean theory . . .)

Wow, when temperatures go up anecdotally, global warming fanatics (GWFs) trumpet it as "proof" of their doomsday belief; when they go down, amazingly this is also touted as evidence of its correctness.

In this respect, these GWFs remind me a lot of '70s-era paranormal believers. When their flavor-of-the-month psychic fraud scored anecdotally higher than chance on a small (often exceedingly poorly controlled) test, they would trumpet his true powers of ESP. If, on the other hand, he bombed the test, they would consider that a "negative confirmation", claiming that his failure was so statistically unlikely as to "prove" his powers.

Seems like it is convenient to have a failsafe plan when one has married himself to a scientifically bankrupt dogmatic belief set (oh, of course, I mean theory . . .)



You do know what anecdotal means, don't you? Measurements of mean temps, currently and going back many years are accurately measured using thermometers. Those measurements aren't anecdotal, and they show clearly that the average temperatures are rising. Whether you believe it or not is irrelevant. That's what the data shows.

Global temperature shifts in the past have occurred over thousands of years. the kind of changes we are seeing right now mimic past shifts in the structure, but not in the time frame. Changes that usually happen over a thousand years are happening over a decade or so.

It turns out that by using tree ring growth patters, ice deposition and melting processes in glaciers, and other tools, you can determine temperatures in the past. In all cases of extreme temperature changes, i.e global warming or ice ages, you see not just a general upward movement or downward movement, but increased variability, like what we are seeing.

What makes this all so wonderful, is that the increased variability was predicted 50 or more years ago. I read the first article on it 30 years ago. Now, those predictions are coming true. Hmmmmm.

BTW - I understand that the conservative movement has worked hard to mis-portray the definition of a theory, but you should go and look it up. The statement "it's just a theory," is out of place, and selling that notion doesn't prove your point. It simply points out that you don't know how something comes to be a theory.

Though I am certainly not as brilliant as you obviously are, I certainly do have a firm understanding of what constitutes anecdotal evidence. One simple definition of it can be "casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis". I posit that the sample size of these "measurements of mean temps, currently and going back many years are accurately measured using thermometers" that you are so fond of is so ridiculously small as to be scientifically non-rigorous and, therefore, anecdotal.

I also have a grasp of what constitutes a theory, o great one. Another simple definition: "a systematic and formalized expression of previous observations, which is predictive, consistent, contingent, testable, and falsifiable".

For the vast majority of GWFs (possibly including Lyle O. Ross?), it is not one. What it IS a non-systematic, informal, dogmatic belief set not based on any previous observations, but rather what it has been spoon-fed on the beloved boob tube and has adopted to fit its end-of-the-world fantasies &amp; general hatred of the status quo. Furthermore, if no matter what happens, the GWFs claim confirmation of their <u>belief set</u> (as y'all seem wont to do), it fails the falsifiability test, making it NOT a <u>theory</u>.

Though I am certainly not as brilliant as you obviously are, I certainly do have a firm understanding of what constitutes anecdotal evidence. One simple definition of it can be "casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis". I posit that the sample size of these "measurements of mean temps, currently and going back many years are accurately measured using thermometers" that you are so fond of is so ridiculously small as to be scientifically non-rigorous and, therefore, anecdotal.

I also have a grasp of what constitutes a theory, o great one. Another simple definition: "a systematic and formalized expression of previous observations, which is predictive, consistent, contingent, testable, and falsifiable".

For the vast majority of GWFs (possibly including Lyle O. Ross?), it is not one. What it IS a non-systematic, informal, dogmatic belief set not based on any previous observations, but rather what it has been spoon-fed on the beloved boob tube and has adopted to fit its end-of-the-world fantasies &amp; general hatred of the status quo. Furthermore, if no matter what happens, the GWFs claim confirmation of their <u>belief set</u> (as y'all seem wont to do), it fails the falsifiability test, making it NOT a <u>theory</u>.



LOL So Vegan, have you read the data? How many measurements have been made? What makes them anecdotal in your opinion, because you don't believe them? Holy cow guy, just the government alone makes 100,000 of measurements all of the country every year. The notion that average temps are rising is so far beyond anecdotal so as to be ridiculous. Your agressive stance, while effective is hardly convincing. "Oh, they only made a few measurements, therefore it's not valid..."

Reread the theory definition, it says that if one person presents data that shows the theory to be false in a peer reviewed fashion, that it can't be a theory. For all the hyperbole, no one has done that. No credible scientists who understands and obeys the scientific method has done that.

I understand that for you, unless you believe it, it must be false. You are accusing me of hubris, but the reality is that I'm going with research done by 1000s of scientists tested and retested over 50 years. You're going with your gut instinct and data given to us by groups funded by and including Exxon Mobil, and the same lobbying group that used to say cigarettes didn't cause cancer (when they lost that battle they switched to this one).

The cigarette manufacturers presented tons of evidence that cigs weren't addictive and that they didn't cause cancer, but it was never vetted in a peer reviewed fashion. The process is rigorous, it isn't a one time "oh hey we're good to go" thing. It has happened, over and over week to week, month to month, year to year for 50 years, in different fashions and by different scientists. No one has found any credible info that it isn't happening.

As for your notion that I somehow believe myself to be brilliant. No, I was trained as a scientist. I've observed the process from the inside. Because I understand it, I know that it works. If there is any testament to the bad job we're doing with education in this country, this issue is it.

Though I have not examined the researchers' raw data (have you?) I have, as a matter of fact, red several handfuls of papers on the subject. I was struck by several that showed no GWF effects that rose above the level of statistical fluctuation and several that did. I was unmoved by the methodology of the several that did, including paltry sample sizes and extreme experimenter bias, including the absolutely outrageous technique of meta-analysis, where the "experimenter" analyzes, weighs, &amp; draws conclusions from the work of others. The rub is that the experimenter gets to decide how much to weigh each of the experiments he is meta-analyzing, introducing unavoidable bias &amp; invalidating the "experiment". The reports sure are scary, though.

The fact is that it is not I that deny what I do not believe, as I do not believe in <u>anything</u>. I merely am convinced of many things based on the existing evidence at hand, and am unconvinced of others, also by evaluating the evidence at hand. I have not been presented evidence that convinces me of any global warming (beyond possibly that of a statistical fluctuation), particularly any that is the result of human activities. So it is not I that deny what I do not believe, but you (and other GWFs) that assert the truth of what you believe.

BTW - you can blame Woodberry Forest School (where I did my 3rd, 4th, 5th, &amp; 6th form studies), Mary Washington College (where I received my BS in Physics), and the University of Pennsylvania (where I received my MS in Mathematics) for my obviously poor critical thinking skills &amp; lack of understanding of the scientific method. I guess my pooping out of my PhD program makes me a scientific boob, and I will just have to live with that under the shadow of the scientific giants like yourself.

Now I'm impressed! Now who is exhibiting hubris?

Shall we start with the first post you made, an article in the National Post. You gave that article credence and supported it. You want anecdotal evidence. The author cites two pieces of information, Temps in two areas of the world show above average levels this winter.

1) The author doesn't even put those two measurements in the perspective of average for the winter, day to day or any meaningful number. It just happened. I wonder if she called her good bud and said, "hey, was it cold there this winter?"

2) The author doesn't put those measurements against what is happening globally. Were winter temps around the globe abnormally low? Houston has had an abnormally warm winter with a late onset and an early end. Using your notion of scientific analysis, this is a clear indication that global warming is real. It's of the "look Martha, we had a darn cold winter this year. Those scientists don't know squat" mode of scientific analysis.

3) The author didn't put the "measurements" against what happened in either those areas or globally for the world during the last year. Were global temps for the world higher for the year or lower?

4) How did those high temps measure up against what has occurred over the past 10, 20, 30 40 or 50 years?

Your C.V. is well rounded, therefore we'll go with the concept of statistical analysis. Scientists make measurements of the temperature. The data is collected, and a statistical analysis of the data is carried out. With certain levels of confidence predictions are made.

That global warming is occurring is clear, event that idiot Bush now admits this (although I'd bet all the change in my pocket that is based on public pressure as opposed to any real understanding). Even beyond that we see the physical evidence that it is occurring, go to Google and look at satellite pics of the South Pole where ice that hasn't melted in 1000s of years is disappearing.

Your not even arguing method of Global Warming, that it's not man caused. Your arguing that the obvious isn't occurring.

Climate Change by Jupiter (http://www.nationalpost.com/Story.html?id=88247)

Climate Change by Jupiter (http://www.nationalpost.com/Story.html?id=88247)



Interesting read. I've not looked too much into Dr. Rhodes work but amongst all the hair brained researchers who oppose GW he seems to be a real scientist.

Two things to note from what I've seen so far. The first, missed by the NP is that Dr. Rhodes died last year. The second is that this link:

http://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/ics2007/pdf/ICS176.pdf

It's an article that essentially says that the relationship between solar cycles and weather is non-linear, i.e. solar cycles aren't controlling the earth's climate. That is, Dr. Rhodes' model or hypothesis that solar cycles are the basic factor in controlling weather on earth doesn't hold up. That said, it also points out the solar events can effect earth's climate and that is well documented. That is, you can get events on earth that are due to solar events.

GWT, as I understand it doesn't deny this, it simply says and documents that GW is occurring and then shows a causal relationship between our activities and GW. I think you can argue the point that mankind is the primary cause of current GW, I disagree, but I think there is room for discussion. However, you can't argue that it isn't occurring, the evidence is way to clear.

Something to think about (http://www.storyofstuff.com/)

worth watching...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppa...l-warming-fraud (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/03/04/weather-channel-founder-sue-al-gore-expose-global-warming-fraud)

Oh hey look, the Wilkins Ice Shelf is now falling apart. Oh wait, that can't be real, there's no global warming, just look above where the past-owner of the Weather Channel (a weather-caster with no scientific experience) says it isn't so...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/03/080325-antarctica-photo.html

BTW - the old adage, a picture is worth a thousands words, well this kind of fits that now doesn't it...

<font color="purple">"The case for a "greenhouse problem" is made by environmentalists, news anchormen , and special interests who make inaccurate and misleading statements about global warming and climate change. Even though people may be skeptical of such rhetoric initially, after awhile people start believing it must be true because we hear it so often." </font>

<font color="green"> "Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are."

former Vice President Al Gore
(now, chairman and co-founder of Generation Investment Management--
a London-ba$ed bu$ine$$ that $ells carbon credit$) </font>

Lyle quote:

"BTW - the old adage, a picture is worth a thousands words, well this kind of fits that now doesn't it..."

Here's a thousand pictures, with words! Enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io-Tb7vTamY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKAC4kfHruQ

http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php

<font color="red">Where were you in 1970 when a 30 year trend convinced "scientists" of "global cooling?" I know, you were only ten... It's cyclical man. It is human arrogance that can look at the facts and think it's caused by man. Even when you are PROVEN wrong about something, you don't admit it. Frankly, I'm not too concerned if you "get it" or not Lyle, I would simply like to present the other side of the story. I am totally for doing a better job to conserve, recycle, proactively contribute ecologically, be aware of and even vote to legislate environmental concerns. As a comitted Christian I respect the comand to take care of the gift we were given. But I'm not going to let people like Gore, or even you brainwash me into thinking "we" have more of an affect on climate change than we actually do. Don't you see how small you (we) are in the bigger picture?

"Total human greenhouse gas contributions add up to about 0.28% of the greenhouse effect." The rest is naturally occuring! :eek:
</font> <font color="red">

"What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes." James 4:14
</font>

Oh Great! The ultimate in scientific credibility, YouTube! LOL. Although that last site had to be credible, after all, they had a picture of a bald eagle. I'd even be willing to give You Tube credibility if they actually showed video of a credible published scientist.


I'd buy what you were saying, except you forget that these ice shelves haven't melted in 100s of years (that I know to be true but if my recollection serves me some of these ice shelves have been in place for 1000s of years by ice age). Oh, and by the way, show me the data on the global cooling trend and who predicted it 30 years ago. What was the data? And please don't wheel out the newscaster who played a role in the start up of the Weather Channel as a credible source of scientific information. Especially since the pieces try and give the guy credibility because he started the WC and neglect to tell us that he got booted because he was an idiot.

BTW - when making an argument it is bad form to say, (A) doesn't exist, but if it does it isn't man's fault, it's part of a natural cycle. It makes your arguments seem weak. Take a stand! Do you believe it's occurring or not? If so then we can discuss the cause.

BTW - you did notice who the sponsor of at least the last site was. A group funded by electricity companies. Now that is credible!

BTW - you did notice who the sponsor of at least the last site was. A group funded by electricity companies. Now that is credible!



Lyle, before I call you on this, where do you get this information.

The web site is run by John Herron and Joseph Herron, I was unable to find out who these guys are. The web site is just a clearing site for anti-global warming articles and facts.

There are Google Adds on the sides, along with a banner add and a Amazon.com add selling books.

But all those adds are key word pop up's.

When I looked at the web site there was a McCain add [who says there is global warming and supports a Carbon Tax]

Plus these Google adds


Go Zero Carbon
Easy &amp; affordable. $5.50 / ton CO2 Reduce your climate footprint today
www.Carbonfund.org (http://www.Carbonfund.org)

BP - Carbon Footprint
Are You Affecting Climate Change? Calculate Your Carbon Footprint Now
BP.com

Keep lookin' Za, if I can find it so can you. While there are many sponsors and advertisers, the backer of the site is who I said it was. I got that right from the site and didn't spend a lot of time searching.

"There are three kinds of lies; lies, damned lies and statistics." Benjamin Disraeli (Quoted by, and often attributed to, Mark Twain)

Here you go.
Time Magazine 1974
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

the link doesn't work you'll have to copy and paste the address.
/I own a hybrid car.

I own a hybrid car.


I'll nominate you for the "Smug Awards".

South Park reference? I just put that on there to offset a perceived bias by posting the article.

Article comming out this weekend (http://www.thenewamerican.com/node/7523)

Here are a few quotes


....for many of the world�s leading scientists in the fields of meteorology, climatology, physics, astrophysics, and related sciences, the science is far from settled, .....Over the past few years, more than 19,000 American scientists have signed a dissenting petition coauthored by Dr. Frederick Seitz, renowned physicist and former president of the National Academy of Sciences, and Dr. Arthur Robinson, president of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine The petition urges political leaders to reject the Gore-supported Kyoto Protocol or other similar proposals that would mandate draconian tax and regulatory measures aimed at virtually all human economic activity.

Kyoto and similar proposals are not based on convincing scientific evidence, the petition claims, and �the proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.�

The advocates of Kyoto and other schemes to super-regulate the planet frequently try to portray the scientists who dispute their claims of global warming peril as irrelevant fringies, fogies, and �nut cases� who shouldn�t be taken seriously. However, as brutal scientific facts have poked holes in their hypothetical global-warming models, the Gore camp has become more strident and abusive. Rather than answer the scientific critiques, they have tended simply to accuse opposition scientists of being in the pay of the energy companies. Even worse, they have adopted the tactic of labeling scientists who dispute their claims as being �climate-change deniers,� on a par with �Holocaust deniers.� The more radical elements of the climate-change alarmist movement have targeted dissenting scientists for vilification and harassment, even trying to deprive them of their jobs, research grants, and tenure. The most virulent �Greens� call for them to be tried as �traitors.�

http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc184/gotcherj/algoreglobalwarming-1.gif (http://s214.photobucket.com/albums/cc184/gotcherj/?action=view&current=algoreglobalwarming-1.gif)

BBC changes article (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/04/07/climate-activist-got-bbc-change-global-temperatures-decrease-article)

Don't you love it when both sides have an agenda. This age of media is getting to be ridiculous. You really can't trust anyone to report the truth anymore.

Happy Mother's Day

Mother of us all (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/Images/modis_wonderglobe.jpg)

BBC changes article (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/04/07/climate-activist-got-bbc-change-global-temperatures-decrease-article)



Wow! shall we equate an article in a journal with a global warming agenda, i.e. it doesn't exist, to the direct interference of the Bush Admin. in 100s of articles written by scientists on the subject? Do we actually know what happened with the BBC piece or do we just have this piece of propaganda? Now Colin might find this important in terms of the global warming debate, but I don't, and neither would've my thesis committee. BTW Colin, how'd it go?

Article comming out this weekend (http://www.thenewamerican.com/node/7523)

Here are a few quotes


....for many of the world�s leading scientists in the fields of meteorology, climatology, physics, astrophysics, and related sciences, the science is far from settled, .....Over the past few years, more than 19,000 American scientists have signed a dissenting petition coauthored by Dr. Frederick Seitz, renowned physicist and former president of the National Academy of Sciences, and Dr. Arthur Robinson, president of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine The petition urges political leaders to reject the Gore-supported Kyoto Protocol or other similar proposals that would mandate draconian tax and regulatory measures aimed at virtually all human economic activity.

Kyoto and similar proposals are not based on convincing scientific evidence, the petition claims, and �the proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.�

The advocates of Kyoto and other schemes to super-regulate the planet frequently try to portray the scientists who dispute their claims of global warming peril as irrelevant fringies, fogies, and �nut cases� who shouldn�t be taken seriously. However, as brutal scientific facts have poked holes in their hypothetical global-warming models, the Gore camp has become more strident and abusive. Rather than answer the scientific critiques, they have tended simply to accuse opposition scientists of being in the pay of the energy companies. Even worse, they have adopted the tactic of labeling scientists who dispute their claims as being �climate-change deniers,� on a par with �Holocaust deniers.� The more radical elements of the climate-change alarmist movement have targeted dissenting scientists for vilification and harassment, even trying to deprive them of their jobs, research grants, and tenure. The most virulent �Greens� call for them to be tried as �traitors.�







Let's see the petition... Somehow, me thinks if it shows up at all, the signatures on it will be, suspect.

I always love how it is the Greens who are labeling and calling names, as spoken by these groups, but I never see that in the science publications by the Climatologists who support global warming. Yet, I continually see it in the literature from the so called scientists who argue it doesn't exist... Please refer to my signature line... Who's Zoomin' Who?

BTW - to make sure we understand, Seitz is dead, not long but still. It's good to know his work goes on without him. Arthur Robinson's research organization is his basement in his house in Cave Junction Oregon. His main accomplishment is a home schooling kit. Oh, and he gets some funding from Exxon Mobil. Hardly a paragon of research...

Now Colin might find this important in terms of the global warming debate, but I don't, and neither would've my thesis committee.


I don't find it important, but from what I know within the scientific community and the media is: EVERYONE HAS AN AGENDA! Not to say some people are genuinely concerned and honest, but its getting difficult to know what the truth is. Even with highly revered scientific journals, retractions, mis-calculations, misinterpretations, etc. occur often. I am not even getting into the Global Warming Theory debate anymore. Over the past few months I have read the actual scientific journal articles and have come to the conclusion that the earth is warming (even though temperature is relative and not always a good measure of heat, i.e. energy), but the reason is unknown. I find it hard to believe that we are the cause and that the damage being done could not be repaired. To be honest, everyone who complains is a hypocrite. Government actions has been a joke and sheep show so far.
To be honest, I just don't care anymore. I ride my motorcycle everyday that it doesn't rain and it gets 45mpg. So even though I don't care, I am still unintentionally helping more than most people. As part of my classwork, we did some case studies on "sustainability" and even many progressive, liberal, earth-friendly cities, when surveyed, would rather do harm to the earth than give up their way of life with respect to personal driving freedoms, added natural/organic food costs, and home energy use. So, the debate is a moot point because our selfish society would rather complain than act. Ignorance is bliss.

BTW Colin, how'd it go?


To what are you referring?

I thought you defended? Must have been wrong. My Bad...

I disagree with you. There has always been an agenda. This is why you look at the body of work in total before drawing a conclusion. The body of work on Global Warming is huge and strongly indicates that man plays a role in the process.

I thought you defended? Must have been wrong. My Bad...


I defended my MS last August. I had the PhD candidacy exam about 3 weeks ago. I passed. Almost disappointed. I was kinda ready to quit this grind and go get a job.


I disagree with you. There has always been an agenda. This is why you look at the body of work in total before drawing a conclusion. The body of work on Global Warming is huge and strongly indicates that man plays a role in the process.


If you say so. I am not going to argue with you. But from what I've read, and what I know about experimentation and statistics, I find it very hard for anyone to draw that conclusion.

Not to be rude, but if you are right Lyle, then so what? So what if man is solely responsible for global warming? What is anyone going to do about it? Driving hybrids and planting more trees is not going to solve anything. The entire culture and infrastructure of the world would have to change to solve anything....which is not going to happen.

Here is a list of things blamed on global warming.





http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm


Acne, agricultural land increase, Afghan poppies destroyed, Africa devastated, African aid threatened, Africa in conflict, aggressive weeds, air pressure changes, Alaska reshaped, allergies increase, Alps melting, Amazon a desert, American dream end, amphibians breeding earlier (or not), anaphylactic reactions to bee stings, ancient forests dramatically changed, animals head for the hills, Antarctic grass flourishes, Antarctic ice grows, Antarctic ice shrinks, Antarctic sea life at risk, anxiety treatment, algal blooms, archaeological sites threatened, Arctic bogs melt, Arctic in bloom, Arctic ice free, Arctic lakes disappear, Arctic tundra to burn, Atlantic less salty, Atlantic more salty, atmospheric circulation modified, attack of the killer jellyfish, avalanches reduced, avalanches increased, Baghdad snow, Bahrain under water, bananas grow, beer shortage, beetle infestation, bet for $10,000, better beer, big melt faster, billion dollar research projects, billions face risk, billions of deaths, bird distributions change, bird visitors drop, birds confused, birds return early, birds driven north, bittern boom ends, blackbirds stop singing, blizzards, blue mussels return, bluetongue, brains shrink, bridge collapse (Minneapolis), Britain Siberian, British gardens change, brothels struggle, brown Ireland, bubonic plague, budget increases, Buddhist temple threatened, building collapse, building season extension, bushfires, business opportunities, business risks, butterflies move north, camel deaths, cancer deaths in England, cannibalism, cataracts, caterpillar biomass shift, cave paintings threatened, childhood insomnia, Cholera, circumcision in decline, cirrus disappearance, civil unrest, cloud increase, cloud stripping, cockroach migration, coffee threatened, cold climate creatures survive, cold spells (Australia), cold wave (India), computer models, conferences, conflict, conflict with Russia, consumers foot the bill, coral bleaching, coral reefs dying, coral reefs grow, coral reefs shrink , cost of trillions, cougar attacks, cradle of civilisation threatened, crime increase, crocodile sex, crops devastated, crumbling roads, buildings and sewage systems, curriculum change, cyclones (Australia), danger to kid's health, Darfur, Dartford Warbler plague, death rate increase (US), Dengue hemorrhagic fever, depression, desert advance, desert retreat, destruction of the environment, disappearance of coastal cities, diseases move north, Dolomites collapse, drought, ducks and geese decline, dust bowl in the corn belt, early marriages, early spring, earlier pollen season, Earth biodiversity crisis, Earth dying, Earth even hotter, Earth light dimming, Earth lopsided, Earth melting, Earth morbid fever, Earth on fast track, Earth past point of no return, Earth slowing down, Earth spins faster, Earth to explode, earth upside down, Earth wobbling, earthquakes, El Ni�o intensification, end of the world as we know it, erosion, emerging infections, encephalitis, English villages lost, equality threatened, Europe simultaneously baking and freezing, eutrophication, evolution accelerating, expansion of university climate groups, extinctions (human, civilisation, logic, Inuit, smallest butterfly, cod, ladybirds, pikas, polar bears, gorillas, walrus, whales, frogs, toads, plants, salmon, trout, wild flowers, woodlice, penguins, a million species, half of all animal and plant species, mountain species, not polar bears, barrier reef, leaches), experts muzzled, extreme changes to California, fading fall foliage, fainting, famine, farmers go under, fashion disaster, fever,figurehead sacked, fir cone bonanza, fish catches drop, fish downsize, fish catches rise, fish deaf, fish get lost, fish stocks at risk, fish stocks decline, five million illnesses, flesh eating disease, flood patterns change, floods, floods of beaches and cities, flood of migrants, flood preparation for crisis, Florida economic decline, flowers in peril, food poisoning, food prices rise, food prices soar, food security threat (SA), footpath erosion, forest decline, forest expansion, frog with extra heads, frostbite, frost damage increased, frosts, fungi fruitful, fungi invasion, games change, Garden of Eden wilts, genetic diversity decline, gene pools slashed, giant oysters invade, giant pythons invade, giant squid migrate, gingerbread houses collapse, glacial earthquakes, glacial retreat, glacial growth, glacier wrapped, global cooling, global dimming, glowing clouds, god melts, golf Masters wrecked, Gore omnipresence, grandstanding, grasslands wetter, Great Barrier Reef 95% dead, Great Lakes drop, greening of the North, Grey whales lose weight, Gulf Stream failure, habitat loss, Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome, harmful algae, harvest increase, harvest shrinkage, hay fever epidemic, health affected, health of children harmed, heart disease, heart attacks and strokes (Australia), heat waves, hibernation affected, hibernation ends too soon, hibernation ends too late, homeless 50 million, hornets, high court debates, human development faces unprecedented reversal, human fertility reduced, human health improvement, human health risk, human race oblivion, hurricanes, hurricane reduction, hydropower problems, hyperthermia deaths, ice sheet growth, ice sheet shrinkage, ice shelf collapse, illness and death, inclement weather, India drowning, infrastructure failure (Canada), industry threatened, infectious diseases, inflation in China, insect explosion, insurance premium rises, Inuit displacement, Inuit poisoned, Inuit suing, invasion of cats, invasion of herons, invasion of jellyfish, invasion of midges, island disappears, islands sinking, itchier poison ivy, jellyfish explosion, jets fall from sky, Kew Gardens taxed, killing us, kitten boom, krill decline, lake and stream productivity decline, lake empties, lake shrinking and growing, landslides, landslides of ice at 140 mph, lawsuits increase, lawsuit successful, lawyers' income increased (surprise surprise!), lives saved, Loch Ness monster dead, lush growth in rain forests, Malaria, mammoth dung melt, Maple production advanced, Maple syrup shortage, marine diseases, marine food chain decimated, Meaching (end of the world), Mediterranean rises, megacryometeors, Melanoma, methane emissions from plants, methane burps, methane runaway, melting permafrost, Middle Kingdom convulses, migration, migration difficult (birds), migratory birds huge losses, microbes to decompose soil carbon more rapidly, minorities hit, monkeys on the move, Mont Blanc grows, monuments imperiled, moose dying, more bad air days, more research needed, mortality increased, mountain (Everest) shrinking, mountains break up, mountains melting, mountains taller, mortality lower, National security implications, natural disasters quadruple, new islands, next ice age, NFL threatened, Nile delta damaged, noctilucent clouds, no effect in India, Northwest Passage opened, nuclear plants bloom, oaks dying, oaks move north, ocean acidification, ocean deserts expand, ocean waves speed up, opera house to be destroyed, outdoor hockey threatened, ozone repair slowed, ozone rise, Pacific dead zone, personal carbon rationing, pest outbreaks, pests increase, phenology shifts, plankton blooms, plankton destabilised, plankton loss, plant viruses, plants march north, polar bears aggressive, polar bears cannibalistic, polar bears drowning, polar bears starve, polar tours scrapped, popcorn rise, porpoise astray, profits collapse, psychiatric illness, puffin decline, railroad tracks deformed, rainfall increase, rape wave, refugees, release of ancient frozen viruses, resorts disappear, rice threatened, rice yields crash, rift on Capitol Hill, rioting and nuclear war, river flow impacted, rivers raised, roads wear out, robins rampant, rocky peaks crack apart, roof of the world a desert, rooftop bars, Ross river disease, ruins ruined, salinity reduction, salinity increase, Salmonella, satellites accelerate, school closures, sea level rise, sea level rise faster, seals mating more, sewer bills rise, severe thunderstorms, sex change, sharks booming, sharks moving north, sheep shrink, shop closures, short-nosed dogs endangered, shrinking ponds, shrinking shrine, ski resorts threatened, skin cancer, slow death, smaller brains, smog, snowfall increase, snowfall heavy, snowfall reduction, soaring food prices, societal collapse, songbirds change eating habits, sour grapes, space problem, spectacular orchids, spiders invade Scotland, squid population explosion, squirrels reproduce earlier, storms wetter, stormwater drains stressed, street crime to increase, subsidence, suicide, swordfish in the Baltic, Tabasco tragedy, taxes, tectonic plate movement, teenage drinking, terrorism, threat to peace, ticks move northward (Sweden), tides rise, tornado outbreak, tourism increase, trade barriers, trade winds weakened, transportation threatened, tree foliage increase (UK), tree growth slowed,, trees could return to Antarctic, trees in trouble, trees less colourful, trees more colourful, trees lush, tropics expansion, tropopause raised, truffle shortage, turtles crash, turtles lay earlier, UK coastal impact, UK Katrina, Vampire moths, Venice flooded, volcanic eruptions, walrus pups orphaned, war, wars over water, wars sparked, wars threaten billions, water bills double, water supply unreliability, water scarcity (20% of increase), water stress, weather out of its mind, weather patterns awry, weeds, Western aid cancelled out, West Nile fever, whales move north, wheat yields crushed in Australia, wildfires, wind shift, wind reduced, wine - harm to Australian industry, wine industry damage (California), wine industry disaster (US), wine - more English, wine -German boon, wine - no more French , wine pass� (Napa), winters in Britain colder, winter in Britain dead, witchcraft executions, wolves eat more moose, wolves eat less, workers laid off, World at war, World bankruptcy, World in crisis, World in flames, Yellow fever.

Here is a list of things blamed on global warming.





http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm


Acne, agricultural land increase, Afghan poppies destroyed, Africa devastated, African aid threatened, Africa in conflict, aggressive weeds, air pressure changes, Alaska reshaped, allergies increase, Alps melting, Amazon a desert, American dream end, amphibians breeding earlier (or not), anaphylactic reactions to bee stings, ancient forests dramatically changed, animals head for the hills, Antarctic grass flourishes, Antarctic ice grows, Antarctic ice shrinks, Antarctic sea life at risk, anxiety treatment, algal blooms, archaeological sites threatened, Arctic bogs melt, Arctic in bloom, Arctic ice free, Arctic lakes disappear, Arctic tundra to burn, Atlantic less salty, Atlantic more salty, atmospheric circulation modified, attack of the killer jellyfish, avalanches reduced, avalanches increased, Baghdad snow, Bahrain under water, bananas grow, beer shortage, beetle infestation, bet for $10,000, better beer, big melt faster, billion dollar research projects, billions face risk, billions of deaths, bird distributions change, bird visitors drop, birds confused, birds return early, birds driven north, bittern boom ends, blackbirds stop singing, blizzards, blue mussels return, bluetongue, brains shrink, bridge collapse (Minneapolis), Britain Siberian, British gardens change, brothels struggle, brown Ireland, bubonic plague, budget increases, Buddhist temple threatened, building collapse, building season extension, bushfires, business opportunities, business risks, butterflies move north, camel deaths, cancer deaths in England, cannibalism, cataracts, caterpillar biomass shift, cave paintings threatened, childhood insomnia, Cholera, circumcision in decline, cirrus disappearance, civil unrest, cloud increase, cloud stripping, cockroach migration, coffee threatened, cold climate creatures survive, cold spells (Australia), cold wave (India), computer models, conferences, conflict, conflict with Russia, consumers foot the bill, coral bleaching, coral reefs dying, coral reefs grow, coral reefs shrink , cost of trillions, cougar attacks, cradle of civilisation threatened, crime increase, crocodile sex, crops devastated, crumbling roads, buildings and sewage systems, curriculum change, cyclones (Australia), danger to kid's health, Darfur, Dartford Warbler plague, death rate increase (US), Dengue hemorrhagic fever, depression, desert advance, desert retreat, destruction of the environment, disappearance of coastal cities, diseases move north, Dolomites collapse, drought, ducks and geese decline, dust bowl in the corn belt, early marriages, early spring, earlier pollen season, Earth biodiversity crisis, Earth dying, Earth even hotter, Earth light dimming, Earth lopsided, Earth melting, Earth morbid fever, Earth on fast track, Earth past point of no return, Earth slowing down, Earth spins faster, Earth to explode, earth upside down, Earth wobbling, earthquakes, El Ni�o intensification, end of the world as we know it, erosion, emerging infections, encephalitis, English villages lost, equality threatened, Europe simultaneously baking and freezing, eutrophication, evolution accelerating, expansion of university climate groups, extinctions (human, civilisation, logic, Inuit, smallest butterfly, cod, ladybirds, pikas, polar bears, gorillas, walrus, whales, frogs, toads, plants, salmon, trout, wild flowers, woodlice, penguins, a million species, half of all animal and plant species, mountain species, not polar bears, barrier reef, leaches), experts muzzled, extreme changes to California, fading fall foliage, fainting, famine, farmers go under, fashion disaster, fever,figurehead sacked, fir cone bonanza, fish catches drop, fish downsize, fish catches rise, fish deaf, fish get lost, fish stocks at risk, fish stocks decline, five million illnesses, flesh eating disease, flood patterns change, floods, floods of beaches and cities, flood of migrants, flood preparation for crisis, Florida economic decline, flowers in peril, food poisoning, food prices rise, food prices soar, food security threat (SA), footpath erosion, forest decline, forest expansion, frog with extra heads, frostbite, frost damage increased, frosts, fungi fruitful, fungi invasion, games change, Garden of Eden wilts, genetic diversity decline, gene pools slashed, giant oysters invade, giant pythons invade, giant squid migrate, gingerbread houses collapse, glacial earthquakes, glacial retreat, glacial growth, glacier wrapped, global cooling, global dimming, glowing clouds, god melts, golf Masters wrecked, Gore omnipresence, grandstanding, grasslands wetter, Great Barrier Reef 95% dead, Great Lakes drop, greening of the North, Grey whales lose weight, Gulf Stream failure, habitat loss, Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome, harmful algae, harvest increase, harvest shrinkage, hay fever epidemic, health affected, health of children harmed, heart disease, heart attacks and strokes (Australia), heat waves, hibernation affected, hibernation ends too soon, hibernation ends too late, homeless 50 million, hornets, high court debates, human development faces unprecedented reversal, human fertility reduced, human health improvement, human health risk, human race oblivion, hurricanes, hurricane reduction, hydropower problems, hyperthermia deaths, ice sheet growth, ice sheet shrinkage, ice shelf collapse, illness and death, inclement weather, India drowning, infrastructure failure (Canada), industry threatened, infectious diseases, inflation in China, insect explosion, insurance premium rises, Inuit displacement, Inuit poisoned, Inuit suing, invasion of cats, invasion of herons, invasion of jellyfish, invasion of midges, island disappears, islands sinking, itchier poison ivy, jellyfish explosion, jets fall from sky, Kew Gardens taxed, killing us, kitten boom, krill decline, lake and stream productivity decline, lake empties, lake shrinking and growing, landslides, landslides of ice at 140 mph, lawsuits increase, lawsuit successful, lawyers' income increased (surprise surprise!), lives saved, Loch Ness monster dead, lush growth in rain forests, Malaria, mammoth dung melt, Maple production advanced, Maple syrup shortage, marine diseases, marine food chain decimated, Meaching (end of the world), Mediterranean rises, megacryometeors, Melanoma, methane emissions from plants, methane burps, methane runaway, melting permafrost, Middle Kingdom convulses, migration, migration difficult (birds), migratory birds huge losses, microbes to decompose soil carbon more rapidly, minorities hit, monkeys on the move, Mont Blanc grows, monuments imperiled, moose dying, more bad air days, more research needed, mortality increased, mountain (Everest) shrinking, mountains break up, mountains melting, mountains taller, mortality lower, National security implications, natural disasters quadruple, new islands, next ice age, NFL threatened, Nile delta damaged, noctilucent clouds, no effect in India, Northwest Passage opened, nuclear plants bloom, oaks dying, oaks move north, ocean acidification, ocean deserts expand, ocean waves speed up, opera house to be destroyed, outdoor hockey threatened, ozone repair slowed, ozone rise, Pacific dead zone, personal carbon rationing, pest outbreaks, pests increase, phenology shifts, plankton blooms, plankton destabilised, plankton loss, plant viruses, plants march north, polar bears aggressive, polar bears cannibalistic, polar bears drowning, polar bears starve, polar tours scrapped, popcorn rise, porpoise astray, profits collapse, psychiatric illness, puffin decline, railroad tracks deformed, rainfall increase, rape wave, refugees, release of ancient frozen viruses, resorts disappear, rice threatened, rice yields crash, rift on Capitol Hill, rioting and nuclear war, river flow impacted, rivers raised, roads wear out, robins rampant, rocky peaks crack apart, roof of the world a desert, rooftop bars, Ross river disease, ruins ruined, salinity reduction, salinity increase, Salmonella, satellites accelerate, school closures, sea level rise, sea level rise faster, seals mating more, sewer bills rise, severe thunderstorms, sex change, sharks booming, sharks moving north, sheep shrink, shop closures, short-nosed dogs endangered, shrinking ponds, shrinking shrine, ski resorts threatened, skin cancer, slow death, smaller brains, smog, snowfall increase, snowfall heavy, snowfall reduction, soaring food prices, societal collapse, songbirds change eating habits, sour grapes, space problem, spectacular orchids, spiders invade Scotland, squid population explosion, squirrels reproduce earlier, storms wetter, stormwater drains stressed, street crime to increase, subsidence, suicide, swordfish in the Baltic, Tabasco tragedy, taxes, tectonic plate movement, teenage drinking, terrorism, threat to peace, ticks move northward (Sweden), tides rise, tornado outbreak, tourism increase, trade barriers, trade winds weakened, transportation threatened, tree foliage increase (UK), tree growth slowed,, trees could return to Antarctic, trees in trouble, trees less colourful, trees more colourful, trees lush, tropics expansion, tropopause raised, truffle shortage, turtles crash, turtles lay earlier, UK coastal impact, UK Katrina, Vampire moths, Venice flooded, volcanic eruptions, walrus pups orphaned, war, wars over water, wars sparked, wars threaten billions, water bills double, water supply unreliability, water scarcity (20% of increase), water stress, weather out of its mind, weather patterns awry, weeds, Western aid cancelled out, West Nile fever, whales move north, wheat yields crushed in Australia, wildfires, wind shift, wind reduced, wine - harm to Australian industry, wine industry damage (California), wine industry disaster (US), wine - more English, wine -German boon, wine - no more French , wine pass� (Napa), winters in Britain colder, winter in Britain dead, witchcraft executions, wolves eat more moose, wolves eat less, workers laid off, World at war, World bankruptcy, World in crisis, World in flames, Yellow fever. .....

DISC GOLF FEVER.

Two things to note about that, first, it doesn't eliminate disc golf and that's good. Second, it does eliminate lawyers and that is even better! O.K., I can see one good reason to support it. Now if it could just eliminate politicians who waste our money we'd be set!

Did anyone see the news today. Now, no one knows exactly how much of big oil the Rockefellers actually control, but the numbers indicate that their 5% ownership should give them some controlling interest in the four biggest American oil companies.

Today, the family made a press release that they are unhappy with the way Exxon Mobil is being run. Essentially, they are unhappy that EM is spending so much on anti-global warming think tanks. The statement goes on to comment that there is doubt as to whether the phenomenon is real, but all that doubt is a red herring that only exists because it is being seeded by EM funding.

Apparently the plan is to shake out the Board, replacing members with people who have a clue. Too funny.

They are going to be on the SMU campus tomorrow, I was thinking about going but I got up at 7am this morning for a meeting with Ron Branson (hopefully the new mayor of Carrollton) and I have a gun shooting outing with my son at Greystone Castle that I have to be in Aubry at 6am on Saturday. I need to sleep sometime.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vz6pg3ldBT0&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vz6pg3ldBT0&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Can you say hypocrite (Greenpeace that is)

Al Bore at it again (http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080506160205.aspx)

Gore Financially Invested in Climate Cause
By Fred Lucas
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
May 14, 2008

(CNSNews.com) - Weeks before announcing a $300-million, three-year advertising campaign to raise awareness about global warming, Al Gore was conducting a slide show for a group of investors in Monterey, Calif., touting companies such as Bloom Energy, Amryis , Mascoma and other firms that are not household names -- yet.

These bio-fuel and green technology firms could be poised to take off, Gore told his audience.

"Here are just a few of the investments I personally think make sense," he said during the March 1 presentation. "I have a stake in these so I'll have a disclaimer there." (See Video)


Article (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200805/NAT20080514a.html)

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/jY721UVdPY8&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/jY721UVdPY8&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Now what is funny about this is that the ice they are talking about was bigger 10 years ago, however that was the biggest ice shelf there was in recent times. So yes, the ice shelf has shrunk.

Next, in the early 70's the Polar Bears were numbering in the 5 to 10K range. Right now they are estimating the population to be near 25K, nearly 5 times more than 35 years ago.

You have to love it, first they say there will be more hurricanes with "global warming" now some are saying there will be fewer????

You can't have it both ways guys
Article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7404846.stm)

It just goes to show you they don't know what they are talking about.

In geologic terms, polar bears are a relatively recent adaptation to a relatively recent cold spell this planet has only recently been getting over. Without the influence of human generated CO2 this planet was an awful lot colder during the last ice age and a heck of a lot hotter for a much longer period before that when dinosaurs were stomping around. There is no reason to believe that the current temperature of the Earth is an ideal temperature or a sustainable temperature. It seems like a sustainable temperature only because we tend to focus on the most recent few millenia. The geologic evidence suggests that the planet's natural temperature is very much hotter with very much colder periods interspersed, and that we are currently in a transition back to a warmer climate. If human activity accelerates that process by 1000 or 2000 years, what of it? Every species well adapted for living north of Miami is not very well adapted for a normal climate on this planet. Lizards ruled and they will rule again.

---WARNING----

This video will make those that know the facts throw up

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/pIy2XniVIuw&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/pIy2XniVIuw&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

He takes his cue from Al Bore I guess. Show video's of Poler Bears during the summer and make it out like they are starving. I suggest you read up on Polar Bears and learn how there population is actually increasing [not true in all areas] to the point there are nearly 5 times more now than 30 years ago.

Over 31,000 signatures including over 9000 PhD's (http://petitionproject.org/)

Next they will want us to take shorter breaths to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

Carbon Belch Day June 12th (http://www.carbonbelchday.com/calculator.asp)


I pledged 188 pounds of CO2.

36921 lbs for me. Breathe trees!!!!

I thought you defended? Must have been wrong. My Bad...


I defended my MS last August. I had the PhD candidacy exam about 3 weeks ago. I passed. Almost disappointed. I was kinda ready to quit this grind and go get a job.


I disagree with you. There has always been an agenda. This is why you look at the body of work in total before drawing a conclusion. The body of work on Global Warming is huge and strongly indicates that man plays a role in the process.


If you say so. I am not going to argue with you. But from what I've read, and what I know about experimentation and statistics, I find it very hard for anyone to draw that conclusion.

Not to be rude, but if you are right Lyle, then so what? So what if man is solely responsible for global warming? What is anyone going to do about it? Driving hybrids and planting more trees is not going to solve anything. The entire culture and infrastructure of the world would have to change to solve anything....which is not going to happen.



LMAO!

I don't know what a PhD in your area is like but mine was a blast. It probably depends on the mentor. We don't have to take a PhD entrance, you don't do a masters, you go straight on and struggle for 4 to 8 years.


BTW - how many grad students does it take to change a light bulb? Only one but it takes 8 years...


In answer to your question, I don't think man is the sole cause of global warming, rather I think the evidence is clear that we are contributing. I'm pretty sure that I've told you this before, I'm more about getting the facts straight. We now live in a culture that doesn't want to take responsibility for our actions. I especially see this with kids, it's not my fault my kid beat up that bum and stole that car, he saw it on T.V.; it's not my fault my kid is a brat, he learned it from that other kid in school; it's not my fault that my kid failed in school, it's a bad school.

We especially see it in politics, it's not my fault our government stinks, it's because all politicians are corrupt. This can be juxtaposed to the answer, if you'd read the guy's record, you'd have known he was a crook and supported crooks.

Same goes for global warming, it's here and going to happen, pissing about it won't change that. However, accepting that it is coming allows us to do things to counter it's worst effects, living in denial doesn't. Most of all, like the other issues I mentioned, we should have the guts to step up to the plate and admit that our greed, lack of responsibility, short-sightedness, and must have the latest toy that I can't afford life styles led to this. It's the Christian thing to do...

BTW - I know information and statistics too, I might guess better than you do (three years of course work over all, and a PhD in genetics where all of my data was analyzed via statistics). What I know is that a consistent body of work over 40 years from thousands of Climatologists makes a convincing argument, especially given that there is no credible voice against it. I'm pretty confident that you can't fully comment on the field any more than I can given my experience in science, you have to live something to be able to really know it.

Now you might argue that all of those thousands of Climatologists are pulling a fast one. Given that our government can't even keep a meeting where five people, all at the top of the admin, talked about proper torture techniques secret, do you really think that all of those scientists could pull this off? I'd think somewhere in there there'd be a whistle blower. On the other hand, maybe they did.

BTW - did you hear that the CIA planned 911? I don't believe they could keep that secret either... The point here is that there is an overwhelming consensus in the community of people who study this. For that consensus to be wrong you'd need a scam on a huge scale, I'm not buying that. Nor am I buying the, "they're wrong" bit that often comes with scientists have been wrong before comment. Not on this scale, over this period of time, never during the modern scientific era. Yes scientists get things wrong, and it doesn't take long to find that out, certainly not 40 years.

wow, i'm disappointed lyle, that was a whole lot of nothing. i'm going to bill you for my time you just wasted by me reading that. think about this lyle:

2500 years ago, the consensus of scientist believed the earth was the center of the universe

600 years ago, the consensus of scientists believed the world was flat

400 years ago, the consensus of scientists believed the sun was the center of the universe

80 years ago, the consensus of scientists believed the laser was impossible

60 years ago, the consensus of scientists believed there were no practical applications for the laser

its not that inconceivable lyle. sometimes highly educated scientists, and even leaders in their fields, turn out to be wrong in the long run. don't forget to keep things in perspective lyle. no one is totally objective. 40 years of data means nothing when there is a nearly infinite set of variables which may or may not have been accounted for.
i'm not saying your wrong, lyle, but don't be blind.

I thought 30 years ago we were heading for global cooling ?

http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf

read up

Aren't we overdue for an Ice Age?
THAT oughta take care of global warming...

I wasn't deliberately misreading science, I was remembering being alive in the 70's and what was being reported in the media.

wow, i'm disappointed lyle, that was a whole lot of nothing. i'm going to bill you for my time you just wasted by me reading that. think about this lyle:

2500 years ago, the consensus of scientist believed the earth was the center of the universe

600 years ago, the consensus of scientists believed the world was flat

400 years ago, the consensus of scientists believed the sun was the center of the universe

80 years ago, the consensus of scientists believed the laser was impossible

60 years ago, the consensus of scientists believed there were no practical applications for the laser

its not that inconceivable lyle. sometimes highly educated scientists, and even leaders in their fields, turn out to be wrong in the long run. don't forget to keep things in perspective lyle. no one is totally objective. 40 years of data means nothing when there is a nearly infinite set of variables which may or may not have been accounted for.
i'm not saying your wrong, lyle, but don't be blind.



You're talking about apples and oranges Colin. 2500 years ago was not the modern era, what's more, it wasn't the scientists selling that the earth was the middle of the universe, it was the religious establishment. The scientists who first studied the issue were following the Copernican theory and got punished by the Church for doing so. This is exactly the same situation we have today, where the scientists are telling us the facts and the lay public is driving the debate. Hardly a good rebuttal.

Same goes for the flat model, scientists were not supporting the theory, the lay public was, scientists new better and had to get the message across.

BTW - don't equate public opinion about an issue as the scientific consensus when science has not addressed the issue, that's hardly fair.

As for the laser, are you sure, or was it that science was saying that we didn't have the technology to enact a viable laser? I'd be pretty surprised if scientists said it was impossible rather than not technologically feasible at that time. On the other hand, lets grant the point and say they said it was impossible and move on to the next paragraph.

Let me be clear, the notion of the laser is very different from the notion of global warming. In one, you are asking someone to create a tool out of nothing, in the other, you are making observations of the environment and man's activities to determine if there is a correlation. Observational science is very different from industrial science. You make observations, you analyze those observations, and you draw conclusions. Again, apples and oranges, if this is the kind of scientific comparisons they are asking you to make at your university, I agree, quit now and get a job.

Also, you're taking a step back Colin, you're trying to say that Global Warming isn't happening, yet again - or at least that's how you're positioning yourself. There's no question it is, so we should set that aside and address the real issue, is man contributing. You could also ask the correlative question, is it temporary, of course that would presume that it is part of a natural cycle and hence not man's fault.

The fact that our business community wasn't smart enough to envision a use for the laser notwithstanding, I assure you that the science community disagreed. If for no other reason that several scientist/writers presented some wonderful thoughts on what could be done with lasers.

Your final point, I concede, sometimes very smart scientists fool themselves, the model you're presenting is that several thousands of scientists, to a consensus in the field, are all fooling themselves, and doing so for 40 years, and that the only credible voices are those being sponsored by Exxon Mobil, who say it isn't. Surprisingly enough, I find this unlikely.

I wasn't deliberately misreading science, I was remembering being alive in the 70's and what was being reported in the media.



We talking the corporate media here? You don't really believe those guys?

You read Popular Mechanics? They have an article on Solar Cooling and it's effects on the earth. Go take a look.

I'm getting ready to start a new thread this afternoon, the Bis phenol thread, give it a read.

Alright, let's quit the charades and get to the point.
1. I never said climatologists were wrong.
2. I never said Exxon, the US Gov't, or anti-global warming theorists were right.
My point is that many people, even scientists, have jumped on the global warming band-wagon. Even though I could argue the point, I will concede that (statistical error and infinite # of variables notwithstanding) there is a current micro-trend of global warming. Other than that, the cause is conjecture. I will give you that global deforestation and the Industrial Revolution play a non-trivial role. However, even if you believe that, the papers I have read only show trends over the last 20 years. I doubt that the problem is exponentially growing.
My point is everyone is quick to jump on the bandwagon, one way or the other. I know one climatologist, how many do you know Lyle? I know hundreds of "self-proclaimed" climate experts.
There have even been murmurs about departments threatening to fire faculty that openly go against the popular global warming theories and rumors that journals reject papers on said subject.
All I'm saying, Lyle, is that although I am probably not as wise, smart, or experienced as you, but I have learned to not jump to conclusions until all the evidence has been revealed. And so far, I have only seen one side. Does this not remind you of the time right before the Iraq War? A plethora of "intelligence" supporting only one side? I will wait until this "fad" dies down and we can get the "real" information. **by fad, I mean the uneducated masses making decisions based on what MTV or CNN tells them.

Over 31,000 signatures including over 9000 PhD's (http://petitionproject.org/)



I guess I need to repost this petition that 31,072 American scientists have signed, including 9,021 with PhDs

Alright, let's quit the charades and get to the point.
1. I never said climatologists were wrong.
2. I never said Exxon, the US Gov't, or anti-global warming theorists were right.
My point is that many people, even scientists, have jumped on the global warming band-wagon. Even though I could argue the point, I will concede that (statistical error and infinite # of variables notwithstanding) there is a current micro-trend of global warming. Other than that, the cause is conjecture. I will give you that global deforestation and the Industrial Revolution play a non-trivial role. However, even if you believe that, the papers I have read only show trends over the last 20 years. I doubt that the problem is exponentially growing.
My point is everyone is quick to jump on the bandwagon, one way or the other. I know one climatologist, how many do you know Lyle? I know hundreds of "self-proclaimed" climate experts.

<font color="red">I'll start here - I don't know any Climatologists, but I do know the scientific method and how it works. I know that the notion that thousands of scientists have jumped on the bandwagon and are all going along because it's a fad is hugely simplistic. It shows a very low opinion of scientific education and the process. It shows a very low opinion of the peer review publication process and how it works.

The strategy you're a using to judge this situation is a good one, but only effective when there is limited data and limited numbers of scientists. The number involved here and the time frame is so big that it simply overwhelms the argument you're making. You might as well make the same argument about the sun revolving around the earth (some do). You reach a point where the amount of data is so large that you can't make a credible argument against the idea.

What the nay sayers do, and quite well, is work around the fringe of the data, they find the small inconsistent pieces, sort of like what you're presenting here, and then try and argue that the whole thing is suspect because of these tidbits. It's called data picking! You chose only that data that supports your point of view. The cigarette guys did it, the plastics companies are doing it about Bis phenol, and Exxon Mobil is doing it about Global Warming. </font>


There have even been murmurs about departments threatening to fire faculty that openly go against the popular global warming theories and rumors that journals reject papers on said subject.

<font color="red"> This kind of comment is beneath you Colin. Think about what you're saying, the scientific journals are rejecting papers and faculty are being threatened. Talk about a powerful message to take to the press or to a government that has manipulated the scientific data and scientists to create the impression that global warming isn't occurring? The guy who came forward with that would be famous and yet we've seen no credible story on this issue, just murmurs. On the other hand, we've seen the markups where conservative bureaucrats went through scientific papers and modified them to lesson the conclusion that Global Warming is occurring and is being contributed to by man. What you're saying just doesn't fly, there'd be a whole lot more than murmurs on a topic this hot. </font>
All I'm saying, Lyle, is that although I am probably not as wise, smart, or experienced as you<font color="red">sarcasm won't do it either, you might be smarter than me, don't know, but I guarantee you're not as experienced as I am. Of course you only bring this up because initially you tried to present yourself as being expert in statistics and I pointed out I might just have more experience than you do. </font> , but I have learned to not jump to conclusions<font color="red">but you have, you've jumped to the conclusion that reading a couple of papers and a healthy dose of skepticism makes you more expert than the thousands of scientists who are experts in this field. Guys who've spent their entire professional careers working in this area. </font> until all the evidence has been revealed. And so far, I have only seen one side. Does this not remind you of the time right before the Iraq War? A plethora of "intelligence" supporting only one side?

<font color="red"> This is not a good argument to make Colin, the data that the info was made up was there and clearly presented in a number of venues, especially by Knight Ridder news. They got banished from the White House press corps for their coverage. The notion that anything can be covered up is wrong, the notion that the news and public are too lazy to do basic research is alive and well. Take a look at the Senators (Bird specifically) who spoke out against going to war. They went through the data and showed how it was wrong. A willing public and Congress allowed the war to happen.</font>


I will wait until this "fad" dies down and we can get the "real" information. **by fad, I mean the uneducated masses making decisions based on what MTV or CNN tells them.

<font color="red"> In this you are especially wrong. This issue has been alive an well since before Gore was V.P. No one talked about it because it wasn't interesting or popular. It only became news worthy when repercussions occurred. You talk about this as a micro trend or some temporary event, go Google the Ross ice shelf, the thing is very old and yet it's gone, ice flows that have been around for thousands of years are disappearing. This isn't a micro trend when glaciers that have gone through multiple micro trends are going. </font>

1. There was no sarcasm, I meant what I said.
2. I have submitted publications to low-level (optics express) and high-level (nature) journals. Journals do select papers based on what will sell. Not to say that is the only criteria, but it is one. Research journals do have agendas, but they are the best source for un-biased peer review articles.
3. When did I "[try] to present [my]self as being expert in statistics"?
4. I have jumped to no conclusions. Statistically, global warming is happening. Reasons are unknown. Therefore, the proper action to take, if any, is also unknown.
5. Show me 40 years of data that all support that same global warming position, and I promise to never argue with you again.

Over 31,000 signatures including over 9000 PhD's (http://petitionproject.org/)



I guess I need to repost this petition that 31,072 American scientists have signed, including 9,021 with PhDs



Every blue moon, I check this thread. The diehards are still holding out. I really don't know jack about the subject, but my suspicion is that holdouts are likely misleading us. Here is an example: there is no way that there are even close to 31,000 people in the US who can intelligently debate this issue, yet Pizza god's website indicates a petition of 31,072 American scientists" who say global warming is bunk. Upon closer inspection, anyone with a BS in a "science" can apparently weigh in. Vets, surgeons, engineers, botanists, etc have now become experts in global warming. Come to think of it, I qualify as an expert on this list. What a misleading crock.

Another mental note to ignore the anti global warming crowd.

Google the Ross ice shelf, the thing is very old and yet it's gone


Ok, I did, I found that when B-15 broke off few years go, the Ross ice shelf was BACK DOWN to the size it was when it was first mapped in 1911. It is still the size of France and could break up as it has in history.

http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/media/IcebergC-19.html

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/12/05/ice_shelf/

Thanks James, I was waiting for someone to point that out.

The IPCC's reports are one reason all this Global Warming Hype has been going around. There are very few scientists in the IPCC. In fact the IPCC members are representative of governments. If they don't say things are going to get worse, they will loose there jobs. They pick and choose the research on the subject. Even though there are peer reviewed articles on the myth of global warming, they ignore article.

If you think our energy prices are high now, guess what will happen if the Warner-Lieberman global warming bill passes.

This is the type of CRAP the environmentalist are trying to ram down our throats.

carbon ration cards (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1021983/Every-adult-Britain-forced-carry-carbon-ration-cards-say-MPs.html)

It would give the homeless population a new income stream.

There was another story the other day about the global warming happening on Mars and Jupiter right now... You can find it by googling the news on Mars and Jupiter.

Oh my gosh, we better quit driving our cars and trucks and burrning fossil fuel for electricity, Mars, Jupiter and Pluto are now a part of our global warming.

web page (http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?916f33b0-69bb-4021-a5e3-4ccf48ecfd9d)

There was another story the other day about the global warming happening on Mars and Jupiter right now... You can find it by googling the news on Mars and Jupiter.



You've posted this before and at that time I asked you for some real data from a credible scientist, still waiting...

Google the Ross ice shelf, the thing is very old and yet it's gone


Ok, I did, I found that when B-15 broke off few years go, the Ross ice shelf was BACK DOWN to the size it was when it was first mapped in 1911. It is still the size of France and could break up as it has in history.

http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/media/IcebergC-19.html

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/12/05/ice_shelf/



Za, this happened just a month ago, get your mind out of the past. The thing literally broke up. Also, look at Lucy's record, hardly a stellar commenter on the issue.

This is the type of CRAP the environmentalist are trying to ram down our throats.

carbon ration cards (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1021983/Every-adult-Britain-forced-carry-carbon-ration-cards-say-MPs.html)



Actually, my understanding is that the people putting out this kind of stuff are for the most part scam artists taking advantage of our fears, not the scientists who study the issue.

This is the type of CRAP the environmentalist are trying to ram down our throats.

carbon ration cards (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1021983/Every-adult-Britain-forced-carry-carbon-ration-cards-say-MPs.html)



Actually, my understanding is that the people putting out this kind of stuff are for the most part scam artists taking advantage of our fears, not the scientists who study the issue.




What a concept....

Hey bro , I will trade you 900 carbon points for the 1st fun CE firebird.... We got a deal or what ????

This is the type of CRAP the environmentalist are trying to ram down our throats.

carbon ration cards (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1021983/Every-adult-Britain-forced-carry-carbon-ration-cards-say-MPs.html)



Actually, my understanding is that the people putting out this kind of stuff are for the most part scam artists taking advantage of our fears, not the scientists who study the issue.




What a concept....

Hey bro , I will trade you 900 carbon points for the 1st fun CE firebird.... We got a deal or what ????



Just so everyone knows, this already exists for companies that burn hydrocarbons. As an example if a refinery uses a burner to add temperature to oil to help 'distill' gasoline from the crude, that burner requires an emissions allowance. These allowances, if not used can be sold or traded to other companies.

My understanding is that California thinks this is such a great deal, they are considering having carbon cards for the general population and if they do, you had better keep that CE for trading credits.

Actually, my understanding is that the people putting out this kind of stuff are for the most part scam artists taking advantage of our fears, not the scientists who study the issue.




Wrong, it is the government of Briton that has been looking at it. This is actually old news but a recent article. The government is now on record saying it is a good idea, it is just cost prohibited right now.

The new images, the first since Jupiter emerged from its passage behind the Sun, may show that Jupiter indeed is undergoing a major climate change, as predicted four years ago.


Turbulent Storms may be a sign of Global Climate Change (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080522121036.htm)


This leads us to consider the possibility of solar-driven changes, i.e., changes incurred by innate solar variability perhaps coupled with changing seasonal insolation.


Suggestive correlations between the brightness of Neptune, solar variability, and Earth's temperature (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028764.shtml)


The Earth is not alone in suffering global warming. According to observations made by NASA's Hubble Space Telescope and several ground-based instruments, temperatures on Neptune's largest moon have increased dramatically since the Voyager space probe swung by in 1989. So much so, in fact, that Triton's surface of frozen nitrogen is turning into gas, making its thin atmosphere denser by the day.


Global Warming Detected on Triton (http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19980526052143data_trunc_sys.shtml)

MIT researcher find evidence of Global Warming on Triton (http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1998/triton.html)


In what is largely a reversal of an August announcement, astronomers today said Pluto is undergoing global warming in its thin atmosphere even as it moves farther from the Sun on its long, odd-shaped orbit.

Global Warming on Pluto Puzzles Scientists (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html)


The agency's scientists [NASA] also say that deposits of frozen carbon dioxide near the planet's south pole have shrunk for three summers in a row.

They say this is evidence to suggest climate change is in progress.


Mars (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4266474.stm)

If you really did some research, you would notice the planets [and moon] I just mentioned all have increased in temperature MORE than Earth.

Act Now to Prevent Huge Increases in Energy Costs and Job Losses

Undeterred by record cold temperatures worldwide for the winter of 2007-2008 and recent admissions by the UN's World Meteorological Organization that global temperatures have been in decline for the past decade and will continue to drop through most of 2008, politicians at the local, state, and federal levels are continuing to push for more carbon dioxide emission controls.

If passed, these new restrictive laws would have zero to negligible impact on global climate but would have enormous economic impact on families, industries, communities, and countries.

The most imminent legislative threat is America's Climate Security Act of 2007 (S. 2191), which is expected to come up for a vote in the U.S. Senate in June. "First, this bill will force energy prices even higher," warns Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the Senate's leading opponent of climate alarmism:

Supporters of this bill are going to be asking the American people to pay even more for energy at the pump and in their homes at a time when energy prices are already on the rise. If this bill passes, electricity prices are estimated to skyrocket 35 percent to 65 percent within just seven years, forcing a huge economic hit on American households.

Sen. Inhofe cites studies showing the legislation killing 1.5 million to 3.4 million American jobs by 2020. On May 5, the American Petroleum Institute (API) released an evaluation of S. 2191 showing that passage of the bill would dramatically reduce domestic natural gas production and drive American refinery capital, production, and jobs overseas.

The API report warns that refinery investment would move overseas, because U.S. plants would be required to obtain greenhouse gas allowances for emissions when most foreign refineries would not. Domestic refinery investment could drop by more than $3 billion/year by 2012 and $11.5 billion/year by 2020, it says.

Click HERE (http://capwiz.com/jbs/issues/alert/?alertid=11436836&amp;type=CO) to contact your senators and urge them to oppose S. 2191.

Thank you,

The ''Cap and Trade'' bill was killed in the Senate this week.

This was the Lieberman/McCain crap they tried pass on us.

So, it is dead for now.

Bryan,

I pretty much agree with you, however I am not wrong on this one. You are correct about the UK, but in 2004 a "tailpipe emmissions limit" was set in California that has been struck down by the EPA Can you spare a carbon credit? (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/02/24/brother_can_you_spare_a_carbon_credit/?page=2) It seems that the UK's example is being studied by some individuals in California and are considering trying to implement this. The EPA has clearly stated this cannot be done, but California has precedance for stepping around the EPA due to their being more directly effected by "Global Warming" (http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0306/p17s01-stgn.html) than other states. I cannot find the article on California looking at carbon cards, but will continue to look for it.


Wrong, it is the government of Briton that has been looking at it. This is actually old news but a recent article. The government is now on record saying it is a good idea, it is just cost prohibited right now.

http://www.globalwarminglies.com/

Did you even read these articles Za?

I've looked at three so far, one states that the measurements aren't statistically significant, another states that the temp change is equivalent to what we see during seasonal changes on earth, i.e. Pluto was closer to the sun so it got hotter (what incredible insight!). The third one I looked at didn't say there was global warming, it said "is there global warming?" And then went on to discuss a redistribution of temps on Jupiter. Cripes Za, this isn't evidence of a solar system wide global warming, it's just snippets about temperature changes on different planets, some up and some down. Of course that doesn't surprise me given that the actual evidence is that the sun is entering a quiescent period... :o

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4248062.html

On the other hand, maybe the last three articles are better...

Did you even read these articles Lyle?
:p

According to the article you reference we can quit worrying about "global warming" and should start worrying about the next ice age....... jeez, if the scientists could just agree about one thing. ;)




http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4248062.html

On the other hand, maybe the last three articles are better...

Did you even read these articles Lyle?
:p

According to the article you reference we can quit worrying about "global warming" and should start worrying about the next ice age....... jeez, if the scientists could just agree about one thing. ;)




http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4248062.html

On the other hand, maybe the last three articles are better...





Yes I did, did you? The author pointed out that the scientists agree that the cooling of the sun is marginal in relation to man-made global warming and if we're counting on that to save us we're in trouble... ;)

"Just how much influence the sun has on global temperatures has been the subject of sometimes acrimonious debate. While an upswing in solar activity may cause a warming trend, it was discounted in the mid-1990s as the sole driver of current climate change. And for anyone hoping that a solar downswing might bail us out of our current dilemma: Solar influence on climate is slight compared to the impact of man-made greenhouse gases, a National Academy of Sciences report concluded in 1995."

BTW - the author is not a scientist, rather a staff writer for PM. His notion that we should stop worrying about warming and consider freezing, I think was tongue in cheek. On the other hand, his references of scientific materials supports: (a) The sun is not the sole determiner of climate change (b) that man made global warming far outstrips the sun's role in determining earth's temperature. Last point, PM is a very conservative magazine. On the other hand, they generally are good about science and understand the basic principal of the scientific method. The have a great book on debunking 9/11 myths that shows just how ludicrous the notion is that our government planned it (as if this government would have the brains to pull of something like 9/11).

Look...A monkey!

Inconvenient truth about Al Gore's home

This is for all you Al Gore fans out there.
Energy Guzzled by Al Gore�s Home in Past Year Could Power 232 U.S. Homes for a Month (http://tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=764)


In the year since Al Gore took steps to make his home more energy-efficient, the former Vice President�s home energy use surged more than 10%

�Al Gore is a hypocrite and a fraud when it comes to his commitment to the environment, judging by his home energy consumption.�


To be fair, 232 / 12 is 19.33 average homes per year.

Extreme weather conditions, like the unusually heavy and prolonged rain that we are currently experiencing here in the Mid-Atlantic region, are one of the many projected outcomes of global warming.



i suppose the prolonged unseasonably cool spring we're having here in the mid-atlantic region is one of the many projected outcomes as well. gotta have all bases covered. :p

On the other hand, his references of scientific materials supports: (a) The sun is not the sole determiner of climate change (b) that man made global warming far outstrips the sun's role in determining earth's temperature.



What's his reasoning for the climate change observed throughout our solar system?

Crimes Against Humanity &amp; Nature (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/23/fossilfuels.climatechange)

I guess he doesn't think gas prices are high enough as it is.

James Hansen = Chicken Little

Melting arctic ice caps are one of Al Gore's big bugaboos. I'd melt too if I was sitting about 2000 degree magma exploding violently from the ocean floor.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gRI87Fyr-TpE6OBYfAcYxFKSXRJg

The Snarling Puppeteer (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hX3jIWodMsIwJRO21Y6IXAimn9AgD91Q0NK80) fears we cannot handle the real truth about the effects of climate change.

Meanwhile, the Puppet (http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/07/so_what_did_the_g8_achieve_on.html) sticks his head even further into the sand.

The Snarling Puppeteer (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hX3jIWodMsIwJRO21Y6IXAimn9AgD91Q0NK80) fears we cannot handle the real truth about the effects of climate change.

Meanwhile, the Puppet (http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/07/so_what_did_the_g8_achieve_on.html) sticks his head even further into the sand.


and?

According to you and Lyle, that's not even newsworthy as you have been purporting that for years.

I would like someone to defend Al Gore and tell me why he is not a hypocrite.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ESxvY1tQHTo&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ESxvY1tQHTo&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Boy this really pisses me off

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/uqlXid_ankQ&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/uqlXid_ankQ&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Al Gore is a Hypocrite and is just leading you on, he says one thing and does not even listen to what he is saying. He wants to tax carbon, yet lower gas prices :confused: The cap and trade bill KILLED in congress would have added 50 cents per gallon to the price of gas.

He then talks about how the oil companies are making so much money. Well guess what you stupid idiot, when oil is selling for 140 per barrel, it does not mean the cost of getting it out of the ground got more expensive. No, it still cost under 20 bucks a barrel for most wells. That is 120 bucks profit you idiot, it has nothing to do with fleasing the American people.

It is 50 percent the lost of value of the American Dollar and 50 percent of the oil speculators.

I am so [censored] off after listing to his BS I must quit now.

This should be under the gas thread, but it is a rebuttle of Al Gore in a round about way.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MtNCvtZT8m4&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MtNCvtZT8m4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

I have not seen the documentary, however I found it interesting in that the documentary was attacked because it was "propaganda"

Well, I guess BBC Channel 4 could not show "An Inconvenient Truth" either. It is a "propaganda" film too.

Climate documentary 'broke rules' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7517101.stm)

Got to love that Global Warming

One dead, thousands without power and the first October snow in London in 74 YEARS as Arctic blast sweeps across UK (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1081135/One-dead-thousands-power-October-snow-London-74-YEARS-Arctic-blast-sweeps-UK.html)

I am so glad that fad wore off.

Let's rename it Oceans Rising, shall we? :p

We're overdue for an Ice Age, right? THAT ought to take care of Global Warming.

This is actually funny 2008 will be coolest year of the decade (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/dec/05/climate-change-weather)

Now why is this funny, look at the graph, now the way it is graphed makes it look like it has been cold for the last 100 years till the 1980's, however, look at how they came up with the "0" baseline. The 0 is the average from 1961 to 1990??? Now why were those years picked???

Well, you you look harder at the graph, if they picked the whole time, it would put much more in the Red, if they picked from 1990 to now it would put all the graph in the blue.

they picked the years that would make the red stand out more.

Personally, I think this graphs has more to do with Urban Heating than anything else. In the last 100 years, our cities have gotten warmer and warmer due to heat being retained by all the cement.

Inhofe Debunks So-Called 'Consensus' On Global Warming (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&amp;ContentRecord_ id=595F6F41-802A-23AD-4BC4-B364B623ADA3)

Here are a few of my favorite quotes from the speech


Key components of the manufactured "consensus" fade under scrutiny. We often hear how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) issued statements endorsing the so-called "consensus" view that man is driving global warming. But what you don't hear is that both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate statements.

Rank-and-file scientists are now openly rebelling. James Spann, a certified meteorologist with the AMS, openly defied the organization when he said in January that he does "not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype." In February a panel of meteorologists expressed unanimous climate skepticism, and one panelist estimated that 95% of his profession rejects global warming fears.

In August 2007, a comprehensive survey of peer-reviewed scientific literature from 2004-2007 revealed "Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory."

"Of 539 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers 'implicit' endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no 'consensus,'" according to an August 29, 2007 article in Daily Tech.

In addition, a September 26, 2007 report from the international group Institute of Physics' finds no "consensus" on global warming. Here is an excerpt: "As world leaders gathered in New York for a high-level UN meeting on climate change, a new report by some of the world's most renowned scientists urges policymakers to keep their eyes on the "science grapevine", arguing that their understanding of global warming is still far from complete." The Institute of Physics is also urging world leaders "to remain alert to the latest scientific thought on climate change."

According to the Associated Press, during the IPCC Summary for Policymakers meeting in April 2007, only 52 scientists participated. The April 9, 2007 AP article by Seth Borenstein reported:

"Diplomats from 115 countries and 52 scientists hashed out the most comprehensive and gloomiest warning yet about the possible effects of global warming, from increased flooding, hunger, drought and diseases to the extinction of species."

Many of the so-called "hundreds" of scientists who have been affiliated with the UN as "expert reviewers" are in fact climate skeptics. Skeptics like Virginia State Climatologist Dr. Patrick Michaels, Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy, New Zealand climate researcher Dr. Vincent Gray, former head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo, Tom V. Segalstad, and MIT's Dr. Richard Lindzen have served as IPCC "expert reviewers" but were not involved in writing the alarmist Summary for Policymakers.

Let me repeat the key point here: Only four UN scientists in the IPCC peer-review process explicitly endorsed the key chapter blaming mankind for warming the past 50 years, according to this recent analysis.

Hundreds of skeptical scientists to be heard in upcoming Senate report

Later this fall, my staff on the EPW committee will also be releasing a report detailing the hundreds of scientists, many of them affiliated with the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) process, who have spoken out recently to oppose climate alarmism. The report will feature the scientists -- many of them who have finally had it with claims that "all scientists agree" -- in their own words. The report will be complete with the scientists' biographies and web links for further reading.

<object width="445" height="364"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/hwOjtQOCLxk&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hwOjtQOCLxk&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="445" height="364"></embed></object>

for the full video

libertytubetv.blip.tv (http://libertytubetv.blip.tv/#1590705)

<embed id="VideoPlayback" src="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=4860344067427439443&hl=en&fs=true" style="width:400px;height:326px" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"> </embed>

Climate scientists: it's time for 'Plan B' (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/climate-scientists-its-time-for-plan-b-1221092.html)

This article is so humorous that I though I would rename it

"Quacks attack the Global Warming Myth"

commercial interests have stolen the tobacco industry playbook when it comes to universal healthcare and the science about manmade emisions and climate change.

it is sad when joe sixpack argues cigarettes don't cause cancer, and soiling our own nest isn't costly and dysfunctional. but big business has duped a lot of people and paid for tobacco industry science to counter the real science.

and now back to your regular 'programming'...

commercial interests have stolen the tobacco industry playbook when it comes to universal health care and the science about man made emissions and climate change.



I can not argue with that on either side.

When the most prominence Nobel peace prize spokesman for the Global Warming Myth has a vested interest in Carbon Credits, it makes it look even fishier.

You are right on the Health Care too, if Obama does push though Universal Heath Care, it will not be at the expense of the health industry, they will figure out a way to push though much higher rates for the taxpayers to pay. (They meaning the Lobbyists)

Global warming: Reasons why it might not actually exist (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/4029837/Global-warming-Reasons-why-it-might-not-actually-exist.html)

Last year ranked in top 10 for heat

source: <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090116/ap_on_re_us/sci_warm_year_2 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090116/ap_on_re_us/sci_warm_year_2)" target="_blank">http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090116/ap_on_re_us/sci_warm_year_2[/url]</a>

Fri Jan 16, 3:30 pm ET

WASHINGTON � Last year was the eighth warmest year on record, according to the National Climatic Data Center. The world's temperature in 2008 tied that of 2001 according to the center, a division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Preliminary calculations show the world's average temperature for 2008 was 0.88 degree Fahrenheit above the 20th Century average of 57.0 degrees F.

The ranking means that all of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 1997.

Climate scientists around the world have raised concerns about global warming caused by the so-called greenhouse effect in which chemicals, largely generated by human activity, trap solar radiation.

Researchers fear far-reaching effects ranging from changing storm patterns, damage to crops and wildlife, droughts to spread of disease.

The climate center noted that since 1880, the annual combined global land and ocean surface temperature has increased at a rate of 0.09 degree F (0.05 degree C) per decade and the rate has increased over the past 30 years.

NASA, which uses a slightly different method of calculating temperatures, has rated 2008 as the ninth warmest on record.

___

On the Net:

NOAA: http://www.noaa.gov

chemicals



Oh, so Co2 is being called a chemical??? That is what Gore says is causing his Global Warming Myth.

I don't have time right now to look for it, but there is a web site dedicated to researching how the "global" temperature is calculated. In that research, they found several of the "Weather Boxes" were located in areas that would greatly increase there temperature. From being in parking lots to being located on top of black top roofs.

I wonder how much of there "Global Warming" is just the Suburban effect. (that was the point of the web site)

Having not read more than the first page of this thread I'll just throw this out there because I have an opinion like everybody else...

Global Warming is one of three different crises that the global elite plan to use to usher in a global government, a "New World Order" if you will.

The others being terrorism and economic crises. They all may tie together in time but currently it appears the elite are failing.

People are beginning to realize that man-made global warming is a scheme but it may already be too late. If you refer to the Banker (takeover) Bailout Bill section 117, you'll see that we've already passed laws that are the Pandora's box for the loss of national sovereignty in the name of curbing CO2 emissions.

More and more people are beginning to realize that global warming is a just an excuse to set up a global government.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ye3PV01uyRs

Having not read more than the first page of this thread I'll just throw this out there because I have an opinion like everybody else...

Global Warming is one of three different crises that the global elite plan to use to usher in a global government, a "New World Order" if you will.

The others being terrorism and economic crises. They all may tie together in time but currently it appears the elite are failing.

People are beginning to realize that man-made global warming is a scheme but it may already be too late. If you refer to the Banker (takeover) Bailout Bill section 117, you'll see that we've already passed laws that are the Pandora's box for the loss of national sovereignty in the name of curbing CO2 emissions.

More and more people are beginning to realize that global warming is a just an excuse to set up a global government.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ye3PV01uyRs




We're all gonna die! Oh wait, wrong thread.

Just as a point of curiosity, is it that you don't think it's happening, or that it is, but that it's random occurrence ties into Chaos' plan to set up a global government?

^^^^^^ Baiting the hook^^^^^^^

Warming is happening to some degree. However, I know enough about the Earth to know it has weather cycles that existed before us and most likely they continue to exist with us.

Regardless of how extreme the warming is, one thing I do know for a fact is that humans conspire with a directive and mother nature knows no prejudice.

those privately profiting from the status quo will continue to trumpet tobacco industry type 'science' saying we aren't sure the planet is warming, that the warming is being caused by humans, or that the change will cost us far more if we wait and let a future generation react rather than get proactive and change now -- but at least now the White House is no longer hiding its head in the sand on this matter
- - - -

(emphasis added)

Report: Some climate damage already irreversible

By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID, AP Science Writer Randolph E. Schmid, Ap Science Writer � Mon Jan 26, 6:30 pm ET

WASHINGTON � Many damaging effects of climate change are already basically irreversible, researchers declared Monday, warning that even if carbon emissions can somehow be halted temperatures around the globe will remain high until at least the year 3000.

"People have imagined that if we stopped emitting carbon dioxide the climate would go back to normal in 100 years, 200 years; that's not true," climate researcher Susan Solomon said in a teleconference.

Solomon, of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo., is lead author of an international team's paper reporting irreversible damage from climate change, being published in Tuesday's edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

She defines "irreversible" as change that would remain for 1,000 years even if humans stopped adding carbon to the atmosphere immediately.

The findings were announced as President Barack Obama ordered reviews that could lead to greater fuel efficiency and cleaner air, saying the Earth's future depends on cutting air pollution.

Said Solomon, "Climate change is slow, but it is unstoppable" � all the more reason to act quickly, so the long-term situation doesn't get even worse.

Alan Robock, of the Center for Environmental Prediction at Rutgers University, agreed with the report's assessment.

"It's not like air pollution where if we turn off a smokestack, in a few days the air is clear," said Robock, who was not part of Solomon's research team. "It means we have to try even harder to reduce emissions," he said in a telephone interview.

Solomon's report "is quite important, not alarmist, and very important for the current debates on climate policy," added Jonathan Overpeck, a climate researcher at the University of Arizona.

In her paper Solomon, a leader of the International Panel on Climate Change and one of the world's best known researchers on the subject, noted that temperatures around the globe have risen and changes in rainfall patterns have been observed in areas around the Mediterranean, southern Africa and southwestern North America.

Warmer climate also is causing expansion of the ocean, and that is expected to increase with the melting of ice on Greenland and Antarctica, the researchers said.

"I don't think that the very long time scale of the persistence of these effects has been understood," Solomon said.

Global warming has been slowed by the ocean, Solomon said, because water absorbs a lot of energy to warm up. But that good effect will not only wane over time, the ocean will help keep the planet warmer by giving off its accumulated heat to the air.

Climate change has been driven by gases in the atmosphere that trap heat from solar radiation and raise the planet's temperature � the "greenhouse effect." Carbon dioxide has been the most important of those gases because it remains in the air for hundreds of years. While other gases are responsible for nearly half of the warming, they degrade more rapidly, Solomon said.

Before the industrial revolution the air contained about 280 parts per million of carbon dioxide. That has risen to 385 ppm today, and politicians and scientists have debated at what level it could be stabilized.

Solomon's paper concludes that if CO2 is allowed to peak at 450-600 parts per million, the results would include persistent decreases in dry-season rainfall that are comparable to the 1930s North American Dust Bowl in zones including southern Europe, northern Africa, southwestern North America, southern Africa and western Australia.

Gerald Meehl, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said, "The real concern is that the longer we wait to do something, the higher the level of irreversible climate change to which we'll have to adapt." Meehl was not part of Solomon's research team.

While scientists have been aware of the long-term aspects of climate change, the new report highlights and provides more specifics on them, said Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the center.

"This aspect is one that is poorly appreciated by policymakers and the general public and it is real," said Trenberth, who was not part of the research group.

"The temperature changes and the sea level changes are, if anything underestimated and quite conservative, especially for sea level," he said.

While he agreed that the rainfall changes mentioned in the paper are under way, Trenberth disagreed with some details of that part of the report.

"Even so, there would be changes in snow (to rain), snow pack and water resources, and irreversible consequences even if not quite the way the authors describe," he said. "The policy relevance is clear: We need to act sooner ... because by the time the public and policymakers really realize the changes are here it is far too late to do anything about it. In fact, as the authors point out, it is already too late for some effects."

Co-authors of the paper were Gian-Kaspar Plattner and Reto Knutti of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich and Pierre Friedlingstein of the National Institute for Scientific Research, Gif sur Yvette, France.

The research was supported by the Office of Science at the Department of Energy.

source:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090126/ap_on_sc/sci_greenhouse_irreversible_damage_1

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?F...f0-274616db87e6 (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&amp;ContentRecord_ id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6)

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?F...5d-6e2d71db52d9 (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&amp;FileStore_id=83947 f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9)

"The UN global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. Set for release this week, a newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN."

A hint of what the upcoming report contains:

�I am a skeptic�Global warming has become a new religion.� - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

�Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly�.As a scientist I remain skeptical.� - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called �among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.�

Warming fears are the �worst scientific scandal in the history�When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.� - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

�The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn�t listen to others. It doesn�t have open minds� I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,� - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

�The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.� - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

�It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don�t buy into anthropogenic global warming.� - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

�Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.� � . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

their were many scientists who disagreed with the science that said cigarettes and secondhand smoke are hazardous to ones health too. their will always be pecuniary interests against doing anything about global warming. generally it is people without an appreciation of the way the whole family of life has evolved in balance until humans started pushing the envelope from a mindset that doesn't 'get' that it is the earth that conserves us and not vice versa.

did anyone watch the PETA ad that got banned from the SuperBowl for being too steamy?
- - - -
Sexy PETA ad banned by Super Bowl

The Daily Telegraph

February 02, 2009 09:59am

PETA Super Bowl ad
Too sexy ... this raunchy TV commercial for PETA has been banned by the Super Bowl.

click here to view clip (http://www.petatv.com/swf/video.swf?v=veggie_love_011609_high)

(PizzaGod -- how do you paste a video into a post?)

DO vegetarians have better sex? The 100 million viewers tuning into the Super Bowl today won't find out after NBC banned an ad by the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), deeming it too raunchy.

The ad features lingerie-clad women caressing vegetables including broccoli, pumpkin and asparagus.

NBC said the ad "depicts a level of sexuality exceeding our standards".

Watch the PETA ad on YouTube above.

But PETA's senior vice-president Lisa Lange hit back, claiming their ads "are locked out while ads for fried chicken and burgers are allowed even though these foods make Americans fat, sick, and boring in bed".

Meanwhile, Ben Graham isn't the only Aussie making an appearance at the Super Bowl, with a commercial for Careerbuilder.com featuring a fake koala being punched.

I'm a proud member of PETA.

(People Eating Tasty Animals)

:)

their were many scientists who disagreed with the science that said cigarettes and secondhand smoke are hazardous to ones health too. their will always be pecuniary interests against doing anything about global warming. generally it is people without an appreciation of the way the whole family of life has evolved in balance until humans started pushing the envelope from a mindset that doesn't 'get' that it is the earth that conserves us and not vice versa.



So wait, you think we should "do something" about global warming yet you don't believe humans conserve the Earth? Did I interpret that wrong?

Kind of reminds me of this. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbFD4NC60EA)

By the way, I've heard that example about cigarettes given time and time again, but it's like comparing apples to oranges. One thing takes thousands of years to study, one takes less than a life time. Can you even find any of the studies that said cigarettes weren't harmful? I've tried but I haven't had any success.

I used to believe in anthropogenic global warming until I started doing my own research. I started studying solar cycles in 2007 and I was waiting to see what would happen when we entered a new cycle, on December 23rd 2007. A new cycle is accompanied by nearly zero solar flare activity. I find it very interesting that the entire Earth cooled by a vast amount in 2008. Basically backwards from everything the IPCC predicted.

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/maps_and_graphs/2008/12/05/06.13.08.globalairtemp.gif

You can see we've been experiencing a cooling trend since about 2003. My opinion is really of little effect though...the damage has already been done and the carbon tax has already been passed. The best part is that it was passed in the banker bailout bill and nobody in the mainstream media mentioned a word about it.

SEC. 117. CARBON AUDIT OF THE TAX CODE.
(a) STUDY.�The Secretary of the Treasury shall
enter into an agreement with the National Academy of
Sciences to undertake a comprehensive review of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to identify the types of and specific tax provisions that have the largest effects on carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions and to estimate
the magnitude of those effects.
(b) REPORT.�Not later than 2 years after the date
of enactment of this Act, the National Academy of
Sciences shall submit to Congress a report containing the
results of study authorized under this section.
(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.�There is
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section
$1,500,000 for the period of fiscal years 2009 and 2010.

:D nothing precludes a PETA member from eating meat, though i suppose if one is aware of the conditions on factory farms one would know from where their meat comes.

in the same sense that

"Feminism is the radical notion that women are people."

PETA is based on the radical notion that animals should be treated ethically.

So wait, you think we should "do something" about global warming yet you don't believe humans conserve the Earth? Did I interpret that wrong?



when you see humans are soiling their nest and you call for the cessation of that practice -- are you calling for something to be done or refrained from?



By the way, I've heard that example about cigarettes given time and time again, but it's like comparing apples to oranges. One thing takes thousands of years to study, one takes less than a life time. Can you even find any of the studies that said cigarettes weren't harmful? I've tried but I haven't had any success.



those with a vested interest in tobacco sales were a lot slicker than that. they did not set out on the impossible quest of proving cigarettes were not harmful -- they simply attacked the studies showing cigarettes were harmful. think of how easy it is to attack a study or cite small sample size findings to counter the prevailing evidence. there are countless examples in those who attack the prevailing evidence of global warming.

look how much the tobacco industry lost once they had to concede the facts and the truth that they tried to hide and bamboozle the evidence against their cash cow. they were basicly arguing the earth is flat and so are those saying global warming is a myth. let's check back on this ten years hence

;)

when you see humans are soiling their nest and you call for the cessation of that practice -- are you calling for something to be done or refrained from?



That depends on a number of variables. CO2 is not soiling our nest. CO2 is actually reflective of the temperature of the Earth, and not a cause of rising temperatures. CO2 growth lags behind temperature growth. In the case of CO2 I'd say nothing has to be done. Humans are responsible for approximately 3% of the CO2 in the atmosphere and short of killing off 90% of the world's population, there is virtually nothing that can be done to curb our "emissions."

Al Gore and his cronies want to set up a world government that controls all CO2 emissions through a cap and trade system. Think of it like a world-wide Federal Reserve for commerce. They issue the credits and dictate just how much each country can "emit." All while he sits back and makes billions on "carbon offsets."

On the other hand, if the cap and trade system were present only in the United States, it would demolish the economy in far less than 10 years. Imagine if we were the only country that decided each company only gets X carbon credits. Well there goes any company that depends on trucks for the movement of their goods.

But if you are talking about literally soiling our nest through things like dumping toxic waste into lakes and rivers, then of course something has to be done. There is no doubt that those things destroy ecosystems and the balance of nature that we depend on for our future survival.


think of how easy it is to attack a study or cite small sample size findings to counter the prevailing evidence. there are countless examples in those who attack the prevailing evidence of global warming.



600 years ago the prevailing evidence was that the Earth was flat and that the Earth was the center of the universe. People were persecuted by the Catholic Church if they said otherwise.

Much like people who are truly interested in what is actually going with the climate for the pursuit of knowledge are persecuted by the Church of Al Gore today.

The IPCC uses the "everybody knows that" argument which I've never been satisfied with. I'm into data; statistics; facts. Common perceptions are generally unreliable and intentionally misleading. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pow5_UYKaJ8) They've been caught intentionally falsifying data multiple times to support their political agenda. Their desire is not to find scientific facts but to dictate governmental policies.

Just because the majority of people think that global warming is caused by humans, doesn't mean that it is. The more I research it, the more that the data points the other way. We couldn't control the climate if we TRIED.

I support many different forms of renewable energy because running out of resources is a REAL crisis that we will eventually face. Especially energy sources that cut down on pollution. I'm all for less carcinogens and chemicals in the air and water. What I don't support is a world government with the control over the commerce of all nations because the IPCC and the Club of Rome tell us it's that, or CO2 will end the human race.

I'm hoping we'll be free enough in 10 years to learn about how wrong I was and at that point I invite you to rub it in my face ;) I don't want you to feel like I'm insulting you in any way. I just want everyone to be free to live and pursue happiness ;) I don't believe what I believe because I want to, I believe what I believe because the facts I've found have led me there.

If you didn't see where I linked to it in an earlier post, check out this video.

The Truth About Global Warming (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ye3PV01uyRs)

you are missing the larger issue involved here -- Al Gore is absolutely irrelevant. since the industrial revolution we have been degrading the Earth's sustainability, polluting our waters, deforesting the earth (trees are natural air filters) draining wetlands (natural water filters) dumping toxins into the ocean (the anchor of Earth's food chain) and desertifying the land (topsoil loss). we have acted in a reckless ignorant way -- the very fact that we create garbage &amp; accumulate it in dumps shows how short-sighted we are and how we actively soil our nest. our economic thrust is to disregard the way in which everything is interconnected. ecology wasn't invented by Al Gore -- it is the science of the way in which the living Earth has evolved -- man's appearance here is a blip on the screen but we are already degrading the water, land and air. if you really think pollution is a hoax -- i suggest you live near a depleted plutonium dump and drink unfiltered water out of Lake Superior.

carbon emissions create a greenhouse effect -- just like the clouds on Venus. click here to see video on greenhouse effect &amp; global warming (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zLuqSYF68E)

but irrespective of that do you really argue that pollution isn't a problem? should we all just drink out of the rivers (okay -- you're in northern Michigan so first move to Detroit). 300 years ago the rivers and lakes weren't polluted because the people here understood ecology. if we understood it we could have technology and a clean planet. but those who profit from the way things are will denounce caring about a clean planet and suggest environmentalists are kooky sheep following Al Gore... :confused:


tobacco industry science says global warming is a myth (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jn8RFLZyr-o)

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/uI2eiFM-mFE&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/uI2eiFM-mFE&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

but irrespective of that do you really argue that pollution isn't a problem?



I know it was a long post but it seems you didn't read some of it.


"But if you are talking about literally soiling our nest through things like dumping toxic waste into lakes and rivers, then of course something has to be done. There is no doubt that those things destroy ecosystems and the balance of nature that we depend on for our future survival."

"I support many different forms of renewable energy because running out of resources is a REAL crisis that we will eventually face. Especially energy sources that cut down on pollution. I'm all for less carcinogens and chemicals in the air and water."



I'm a libertarian to the core but having the government protect the rights of people from being exposed to pollution is one of the "left" ideas I embrace. If anything gets in the way of an individual's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, it is the duty of the government to restore rights of the individual.

However, CO2 is not a pollutant. It is quite the opposite. It is a necessary gas for life, as much as oxygen is.

Edit:

The video you posted about the greenhouse effect is slightly inaccurate.

Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity? (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html)

It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.

This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn't factored into an analysis of Earth's greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one.

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).

Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.

Looking back...what do we wish we would have done 5, 10, 20, 50 years ago to NOT be where we are now?

Looking back...what do we wish we would have done 5, 10, 20, 50 years ago to NOT be where we are now?


Not let Al Gore be the VP, so he would still be a nobody!

Study: Birds shifting north; global warming cited

By DINA CAPPIELLO, Associated Press Writer Dina Cappiello, Associated Press Writer � Tue Feb 10, 6:22 am ET

WASHINGTON � When it comes to global warming, the canary in the coal mine isn't a canary at all. It's a purple finch. As the temperature across the U.S. has gotten warmer, the purple finch has been spending its winters more than 400 miles farther north than it used to.

And it's not alone.

An Audubon Society study to be released Tuesday found that more than half of 305 birds species in North America, a hodgepodge that includes robins, gulls, chickadees and owls, are spending the winter about 35 miles farther north than they did 40 years ago.

The purple finch was the biggest northward mover. Its wintering grounds are now more along the latitude of Milwaukee, Wis., instead of Springfield, Mo.

Bird ranges can expand and shift for many reasons, among them urban sprawl, deforestation and the supplemental diet provided by backyard feeders. But researchers say the only explanation for why so many birds over such a broad area are wintering in more northern locales is global warming.

Over the 40 years covered by the study, the average January temperature in the United States climbed by about 5 degrees Fahrenheit. That warming was most pronounced in northern states, which have already recorded an influx of more southern species and could see some northern species retreat into Canada as ranges shift.

"This is as close as science at this scale gets to proof," said Greg Butcher, the lead scientist on the study and the director of bird conservation at the Audubon Society. "It is not what each of these individual birds did. It is the wide diversity of birds that suggests it has something to do with temperature, rather than ecology."

The study provides compelling evidence for what many birders across the country have long recognized � that many birds are responding to climate change by shifting farther north.

Previous studies of breeding birds in Great Britain and the eastern U.S. have detected similar trends. But the Audubon study covers a broader area and includes many more species.

The study of migration habits from 1966 through 2005 found about one-fourth of the species have moved farther south. But the number moving northward � 177 species � is twice that.

The study "shows a very, very large fraction of the wintering birds are shifting" northward, said Terry Root, a biologist at Stanford University. "We don't know for a fact that it is warming. But when one keeps finding the same thing over and over ... we know it is not just a figment of our imagination."

The research is based on data collected during the Audubon Society's Christmas Bird Count in early winter. At that time of year, temperature is the primary driver for where birds go and whether they live or die. To survive the cold, birds need to eat enough during the day to have the energy needed to shiver throughout the night.

Milder winters mean the birds don't need to expend as much energy shivering, and can get by eating less food in the day.

General biology aside, the research can't explain why particular species are moving. That's because changes in temperature affect different birds in different ways.

Some birds will expand their range farther north. For example, the Carolina wren � the state bird of South Carolina � has turned into a Yankee, based on Audubon's calculations. It is now commonly seen in the winter well into New England, as well as its namesake state of South Carolina.

"Twenty years ago, I remember people driving hours to see the one Carolina wren in the state," said Jeff Wells, an ornithologist based in southern Maine. "Now, every year I get two or three just in my area," he said. "Obviously, things have changed."

Other species, such as the purple finch and boreal chickadee, spend their summers in the forests of Canada and fly south into the U.S. for the winter. Climate change could be playing a role in why they are not flying as far south as they used to, and are no longer as common as they were in states like Maine, Vermont and Wisconsin.

For other species, global warming may not be a major factor in the movements measured by Audubon at all. The wild turkey was second only to the purple finch in miles moved north � about 400. But it's likely due to efforts by hunters and state wildlife managers to boost its population.

In other cases, the range shifts are prompting calls to cull some bird populations.

The sandhill crane, a large gray bird that migrates to the southern U.S. for the winter, has a range that expanded about 40 miles north in the last 40 years. This small movement has likely contributed to the bird's population explosion in Tennessee. The sandhill population has grown to a point that state wildlife officials are considering allowing the bird to be hunted.

"You are seeing it all across the state," said Richard Connors, president of the Tennessee Ornithological Society. "As it increases, there is going to be pressure to hunt it. The bird watchers of Tennessee don't want that."

source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090210/ap_on_sc/birds_global_warming_3
___

On the Net:

Audubon Society: http://www.audubon.org

The Birdwatcher's Guide to Global Warming: http://www.abcbirds.org/newsandreports/birdguide.html

I loved this quote
But researchers say the only explanation for why so many birds over such a broad area are wintering in more northern locales is global warming.



They have been listening to Al Gore too much. (BTW, he now calls it Climate Change because the average temperature has actually been dropping the last few years)

Maine sports a tie as it pulls even with Vermont for coldest spot in New England (http://www.startribune.com/nation/39371562.html)

mmmm, must be that global warming.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9D-FsGny4hQ&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9D-FsGny4hQ&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Former astronaut speaks out on global warming (http://news.bostonherald.com/news/national/general/view/2009_02_15_Former_astronaut_speaks_out_on_global_w arming/srvc=home&amp;position=recent)

How to Talk about Global Warming with Climate Change Deniers

By Brian Merchant
Brooklyn, NY, USA | Mon Feb 09 07:00:00 EST 2009

Green Manners: This could get ugly...

AP

If you're reading this, then there's a pretty good chance that you agree that climate change is a prominent threat to human beings and the entire natural world. If that's not the case, then I look forward to reading your nasty comment, which perhaps shall include a link to the Wall Street Journal's latest climate change-denying op-ed or a Rush Limbaugh radio broadcast.

Apologies if that seemed haughty, but it's tough to have patience with those who willfully deny a process that the near-entirety of the scientific community has cited as one of the gravest threats to our earth. Which brings me to today's Green Manners: approaching the topic of global warming in the company of climate change deniers.

Rule #1: Do not sarcastically refer to the WSJ's op-ed pieces or Rush Limbaugh to demean your audience.

No, I suppose I got off on the wrong foot here. There are better ways to approach climate change in polite company. See, global warming is its own breed of elephant in the room�it's not like religion, philosophy, or even politics, about which a person's views can be respected even if they're in contrast to yours. No, climate change is happening, plain and simple. But discussing global warming with climate change deniers sometimes seems like trying to convert them to Paganism. They look at you like you're crazy, maybe laugh at you, or get defensive. So how do we broach the topic?

Depends. Here are a few of the most common non-scientific qualms people have with climate change, and the suggested course of action for each:

They say there's no proof, seems plenty cold out here to me.
This is what we'll call your level one denier�they haven't given the idea much thought, and aren't overly concerned about it either way. No need to be overly forceful here. You can just quietly highlight some of the main points and perhaps refer them to a study or two�NOT An Inconvenient Truth, unless you're certain your acquaintance harbors no animosity to the ol' Gore. (More on this later) Plant a seed and don't push it�there's hope here.

They don't want to feel bad about driving their SUV, and get defensive.
Hey, my climate change accepting parents still drive an SUV. But they've recognized it's not ideal, and limit driving it to when they only need to haul a bunch of equipment or people. Even a bona fide TreeHugger drives an SUV. It's not ideal, but it's not the end of the world.

They say it's an elaborate hoax perpetrated by a group of global warming 'alarmists' who are engaged in a scheme to fabricate the apocalypse. They might also mention that we never really landed on the moon.
Walk away from this one�you're not going to make any headway here. For whatever reason, this guy's got a grudge against environmentalism in any form, and will not be swayed by logic. Just nod politely, say you disagree, and leave it be. Then make fun of him behind his back with your friends.

They say that Al Gore is a windbag.
They might also call him a hypocrite and say he's just trying to gain political power. Remind your acquaintance that climate change is not Al Gore, and that they exist independently of one another.

---------------

The 4 Stages of Global Warming Denial
by Michael Graham Richard, Gatineau, Canada on 06. 6.06
Science &amp; Technology (science)

1. Global Warming doesn't exist. It's not happening.

We've all heard people claim as fact, without citing sources (or at least not credible ones), that "actually, the Earth is cooling" and such things.

Facts: Every year since 1917 has been warmer than 1917. Here's a report by NASA with this choice cut about record-breaking 2005: "Record warmth in 2005 is notable, because global temperature has not received any boost from a tropical El Ni�o this year."

2. Okay, it's happening, but humans are not causing it.

Here we have all the "sun getting brighter" and "natural warming cycle" theories. They are all real possibilities, but have been discarded by scientists who looked at the evidence and concluded that they were not the causes of the current warming of the thin atmosphere of our planet.

Facts: It's not the sun ("According to PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978 when satellite observations began. This means that for the last thirty years, while the temperature has been rising fastest, the sun has shown no trend.") and it's not a natural cycle (if it was, it would be incredibly slower than what we're seeing now and it would still need a cause).

Here is some evidence of a scientific consensus:

"The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). [...] In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: 'Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations' IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. [...]

That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. [...]

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

3. Okay, humans are causing it, but there's nothing we can do about it, we can't go back to the stone age, it would ruin our economy, it's worse to act than not to act, etc.

Or in the words of the new anti-Kyoto Canadian "Environment" Minister Rona Ambrose: "that would mean that today we would have to take every train, plane and automobile off the streets of Canada. That is not realistic."

What do these people think Global Warming will do to the planetary economy? We can't look into the future and know exactly what the consequences would be, but what we can deduct doesn't sound good: Potentially millions of eco-refugees, disruptions in food supplies, heat waves and weird climate phenomenons, stronger hurricanes, flooded coastal areas, the possible cascading of species extinction (remember, animals can't turn on the air conditioning - when their environment changes rapidly, they can't artificially "adapt" like humans, and if the bottom of the food chain is affected, it will have effects on everything above), major changes in oceans, etc. Acting now is clearly the cheaper and better choice and countries that took important steps in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, like Germany, are hardly "ruined". Some big businesses like insurance companies understand that, but a much broader consensus on action is needed among the powerful corporate players of the world.

The Apollo Alliance has been pushing a plan to create cleaner infrastructures and systems and eventually eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels. The Chicago Climate Exchange has been doing really good things too. Many others, like the folks at WorldChanging, have been putting together a vision of a "bright green future", working on solutions that would actually stimulate the creation of a better tomorow and improve things on most if not all levels of society. There are lots of good ideas and solutions available right now. We've waited long enough. Lets act.

4. Okay, it is possible with technology, efficiency/conservation and smart planning to do something about it, but it's going to hurt the bottom line of "dirty" corporations.

Well, a pusher is never happy when an addict is trying to get rid of him, and the end of slavery hurt the bottom line of slave owners. But very few people will say that these aren't the right things to do.

Frankly, we can live with a few big companies making less money, especially considering the alternative. The stone age didn't end because there was no stones left, and we didn't keep blacksmiths in business forever after they weren't needed anymore. But even the Exxons and Shells of this world have a choice: they have huge resources and could - if they wanted to - become pioneers in clean technology and profitably survive the transition our society now has to go through. We're not talking about investing 1% of their benefits in clean technologies and doing massive PR campaigns; we're talking about a real commitment, something proportional to their scale. But lets not wait for them to move... If they don't, others will fill that role.

Conclusion: Global Warming is real and we have to deal with it. We can use this crisis as an opportunity to improve our society. The faster, the better.

Resources: ::RealClimate, ::Just what is this Consensus anyway?, ::Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), ::BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, ::How To Talk to a Climate Skeptic, ::NASA: Global Temperature Trends: 2005 Summation, ::DeSmogBlog, ::David Suzuki: Climate Science, ::Global Warming 101: Human Fingerprints (Union of Concerned Scientists)

1st article is funny, I enjoyed reading it.

2nd does not prove anything to me because I have posted articles that contradict there statements. (also that was written 3 years ago)

Yes, I read ever article on both sides of the subject that I come across. But when I read about the Global Warming (now called Climate Change) theories, I see right though them.

Who is going to get a grant to prove them wrong, yet scientist can get grants all day long to study Global Warming.

here is another one: :D


What to Do if Your Date Says, "Climate Change is Fake."

Some people still don�t believe in climate change. You might be on a date with one, right now.

By Josh Peterson
Los Angeles, CA, USA | Wed Feb 11 07:00:00 EST 2009

You're on a date with someone really cute. You are dining by candlelight. A violinist plays a slow, romantic melody. The wine trickles like a mountain brook. It seems as if the stars are aligning. Suddenly, you begin to talk of how you arrived at the restaurant. �I walked,� you say. �I wanted to reduce my carbon emissions.�

�Emissions,� says your date. �For what? Global warming?�

�Yeah,� you say, confused.

�That's all fake. A bunch of tree huggerspaid some scientists money to say climate change is real. It's all fake. Do you think the world is going to turn out like that movie, Waterworld? That movie was bad. It's all fake.�

Before you go as frigid as the South Pole used to be, there might be a chance you can talk your date down from his or her crazy soapbox. Here are some suggestions.
Use Facts

Grab the bull by the horns and charge right in with facts.

1. The average temperature of the earth has increased by 1.4 degrees.
2. Arctic ice is melting. It was at a 30 year low in 2007.
3. The Northwest Passage once believed to be nigh-impassable, has recently become a viable shipping lane.
4. Montana�s Glacier National Park had 150 glaciers in 1910. Now there are 27.


Of course, many people are disinclined to believe facts, especially when they have to admit they are wrong.
Appeal to Authority

If your date poo poos all your facts, it might be time to appeal to a different sensibility. Many serious people and organizations know that climate change is real. Here are some of those people and organizations.

1. The United States Government
2. President Barack Obama and his one-time presidential rival John McCain.
3. The United Nations
4. The National Research Council
5. The American Association for the Advancement for Science
6. The European Science Foundation
7. And so on and so forth.


Appeal to Logic

If facts and social pressure won�t work, you can try to appeal to logic. In philosophy, the school subject, there is an idea called Pascal's Wager. Basically, this Pascal guy�he�s the same guy who the Pascal computer languages are named after�says that people should believe in god because doing so is the best possible thing for everyone even if it turns out that there is no god. (This isn�t a religious discussion. I am making no claims about religion. I'm just setting up the argument for you.) We can use this argument to talk about global warming.

Here is the argument:

If there is global warming and you believe in global warming, then you can do things to reduce it and help the planet recover.

* Pros: The planet recovers. You save money and cut down on waste. You also save non-renewable resources for later generations.

* Cons: You have to do a little more work: Walking instead of driving. Taking extra time to turn off lights, unplug cords etc.


If there is global warming and you don't believe in global warming, then you don�t do things to help the planet and the planet gets worse.

* Pros: You can drive a hummer and a snowmobile and waste gas spinning cookies in the parking lot. You can crack the thermostat to full blast. You have more fun and are probably more comfortable.

* Cons: The planet is damaged. The human race goes extinct.


If there is no global warming and you do believe in global warming, then you do things to help the planet and nothing happens.

* Pros: You save some resources and some money.

* Cons: You do a little extra work and waste your time doing it.


If there is no global warming and you don't believe in global warming, then you don't do things to help the planet.

* Pros: You can burn all the gasoline and electricity you want and you don't have to worry. You are likely to be more comfortable and can let things like phantom power slide.

* Cons: You still waste non-renewable resources.

As you can see, the worst that can happen if you do believe in global warming is that you waste time hours walking and taking the train and unplugging cords. The best that can happen is that you save the planet.

If you don�t believe in global warming the best that can happen is that you will end up more comfortable with full-blast air conditioning and comfy airplane seats. You also won't be wasting time walking or unplugging.

The worst case scenario is that the human race dies.

So in order to get the best best-case scenario and avoid the worst worst-case scenario, it only makes logical sense to act as if there were global warming even if you don't believe in it. If your date doesn�t go for this, I�d get the check.

- - - -


Like shooting things? How about some energy-sucking lightbulbs!


Copyright � 2008 Discovery Communications, LLC. The number-one nonfiction media company.

I prefer scientific facts to editorials about dating.

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/IDAO/summer2007_2008_arctic_seaice.gif

you're comparing 2007 to 2008? :confused:

compare the average global temperature for each of the last ten decades and the facts speak for themselves. ;)

you're comparing 2007 to 2008? :confused:

compare the average global temperature for each of the last ten decades and the facts speak for themselves. ;)



If CO2 is truly driving global warming, then 2008 totally contradicts the theory of anthropogenic global warming.

Compare global temperatures over the last ten centuries and the facts speak for themselves.

http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/200902_Figure3_thumb.png


If CO2 is truly driving global warming, then 2008 totally contradicts the theory of anthropogenic global warming.



http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/lansner6.png

Short term cycles in CO2 are caused from seasonal increases/decreases in biomass In the Northern Hemisphere, biomass decreases in winter with a resultant increase in CO2. However, one should not confuse this cycle with long-term trends.

It is well established that there is a long term lag between temperature and CO2 levels with CO2 trailing temperature by anywhere from 200 to 1000 years. There is also a lag, but much shorter, between temperature and CH4 as well as temperature and N2O. Real scientists do not claim that CO2 drives global warming. Real scientists recognize that there are many causes, and all the causes of one warming cycle are not necessarily present in the next.

However, real scientists recognize the effect of increased greenhouse gasses in the amplification of the warming trend, and there is no question as to the anthropogenic nature of modern greenhouse gas levels.

What I like about what you just showed is how a Global Warming Theorist person would say "That is just one year" but then a day later will show data the same way.

Yes, the climate changes. It is never the same from year to year. There are trends all the time.

However, the world was 6 degrees warmer and much colder than was it is now. Earth survived back then (and flourished during the hot period) and I am sure it will survive in the future.

I worry more about pollution and all the trash we make. That is why I recycle everything I can. I also quit driving our SUV and now drive the Honda. Again, not because it puts out less carbon, but because it saves $$ on gas.

Even though I disagree with the Author on the "Global Warming" theory, I did find this article rather interesting.

Is the Press Misreporting the Environment Story? (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1882045,00.html?xid=rss-topstories)

I expecially like the part where he says
until reporters embrace their roles as honest referees and their bosses give them the space and resources to do their job



Oh, like the reporters (including the Author) report on "Global Warming" as honest referees.

But I do find it funny that he is complaining
the press will continue to underreport the story of the century:

So to me he is admitting that the press pushed the "Theory" because it meant jobs for the journalists.

Mmmmm, that is the same argument for the scientists who work on the theory too. That is also the argument that some make for those scientists who are rightly skeptical of the theory. If you are a scientists and denounce the "Theory", you are labeled a "Denier" or are accused of working for "big oil"

New outlook in U.S. raises hopes on climate treaty (http://iht.com/articles/2009/03/01/america/treaty.php)

This is scary


That treaty, officials and climate experts involved in the negotiations say, will significantly differ from the agreement of a decade ago, reaching beyond reducing greenhouse gas emissions and <font color="red"> including financial mechanisms and making good on longstanding promises to provide money and technical assistance to help developing countries cope with climate change. </font>



And guess who would be paying for it...............

If you guessed someone else, you would be wrong, YOU will be paying for it. Not just from higher taxes, but from the products you buy will now be more expensive.

Obama should not sign this or any agreement like it. It will COST American jobs.

Something similar to this (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/02/shiver-global-warming-protest-frozen-massive-snowfall/) happens nearly early year.
By now you would think someone from that team would realize summer is a better time of the year to get their point across....

Nobody listens to the real climate change experts (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/4990704/Nobody-listens-to-the-real-climate-change-experts.html)

Shocker: 'Global warming' simply no longer happening (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;pageId=92557)

Scientists: Less ice on Great Lakes during winter

Mon Mar 23, 4:58 pm ET

CLEVELAND � Ice cover on the Great Lakes has declined more than 30 percent since the 1970s, leaving the world's largest system of freshwater lakes open to evaporation and lower water levels, according to scientists associated with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

They're concerned about how the milder winter freeze may affect the environment. But they're also trying to come to terms with a contradiction � the same climate factors that might keep lake ice from freezing might make freezing more likely if lake levels drop due to evaporation.

Scientists at the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory in Ann Arbor, Mich., say global climate change can be at odds with regional climate patterns. Accurately measuring ice cover across a lake system that spans 94,000 square miles in two countries is no small task, they say.

Their studies show that although the amount of ice cover can vary substantially from year to year, the overall coverage on the world's largest system of freshwater lakes is diminishing, especially in the deepest, middle portions of Erie, Huron, Michigan, Ontario and Superior.

"The deeper the water, the greater the heat storage from summer, and it freezes later than the shallow areas," research Ray Assel told The Plain Dealer. "Now, increase the air temperature and the lake takes in more heat and stores it longer, to the point that many of the midlake areas are freezing over less."

Assel's records indicate that ice formation at nearshore areas has decreased less than on the deepest parts.

Evaporation from open water can cause heavy lake-effect snow inland.

Researcher Jia Wang said ice loss can cause other problems, including the destruction of the eggs of fall-spawning fish by winter waves from an open lake, erosion of coastal areas unprotected by shore ice and less winter recreation on the lakes such as snowmobiling or ice fishing.

The Coast Guard has estimated it cost more than $245,000 to rescue 134 fishermen from a huge ice floe off Ohio last month. The fishermen became stranded Feb. 7 when a miles-wide chunk of ice broke away in Lake Erie.

There might be one short-term advantage to decreased ice: Shipping may someday be more possible in the winter months. The locks at Sault Ste. Marie now close each year in mid-January and reopen in late March. But shipping companies might haul less cargo to pass through low-water areas.

___

On the Net

GLERL: http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/

-----------------------------------

we humans clearcut rain forest the size of a football field every ten seconds, that means we're killing our natural self-sustaining CO2 to Oxygen conversion factories ... short term profit focus tends to blind we human primates, does it not?

<embed id="VideoPlayback" src="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=288952680655100870&hl=en&fs=true" style="width:400px;height:326px" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"> </embed>

Source (http://www.infowars.com/obama-intimately-tied-to-carbon-trading-scam/)

Obama Intimately Tied To Carbon Trading Scam

A combination of interesting mainstream and alternative media reports reveal compelling links between president Obama and a privately owned carbon trading group, which also has direct ties with elitist groups such as the Club of Rome and the Trilateral Commission.

Judi McLeod�s excellent article for Canada Free Press, which she expanded from a Fox News piece, highlights how years before he became president, Obama helped directly fund a carbon trading exchange that will likely play a critical role in the proposed cap-and-trade carbon reduction program.

The charity was the Joyce Foundation on whose board of directors Obama served and which gave nearly $1.1 million in two separate grants that were �instrumental in developing and launching the privately-owned Chicago Climate Exchange, which now calls itself �North America�s only cap and trade system for all six greenhouse gases, with global affiliates and projects worldwide.�

Essentially Obama helped fund the profiteers of the carbon taxation program that he is now seeking to steer through Congress.

McLeod also notes that The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) has direct ties to both Al Gore and Maurice Strong, two figures intimately involved with a long standing movement to use the theory of man made global warming as a mechanism for profit and social engineering.

Gore�s investment company, Generation Investment Management, which sells carbon offset opportunities, is the largest shareholder of CCX.

While Maurice Strong, who is regularly credited as founding father of the modern environmental movement, serves on the board of directors of CCX. Strong was a leading initiate of the Earth Summit in the early 90s, where the theory of global warming caused by CO2 generated by human activity was most notably advanced.

While McLeod�s article highlights the cronyism and corporate dealings behind this set up, we should also add the fact that both Gore and Strong come from a stable of elite groups that have long sought to use the environmental movement to advance their agendas.

Strong, who was groomed by David Rockefeller to eventually serve as Director of the Rockefeller Foundation, is also a member of the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Club of Rome.

Gore too comes from the Club of Rome clique.

Lets take a look at the connections these groups have to the environmental movement.
featured stories Obama Intimately Tied To Carbon Trading Scam
Obama featured stories Obama Intimately Tied To Carbon Trading Scam

In 1990, writes veteran reporter Jim Tucker, the Bilderbergers adopted climate change as the preferred model to impose global government and reintroduce serfdom. �Like the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group discovered the issue of environmental deterioration. Bilderbergers embraced a report from the Trilateral Commission that year on the environment, because the potential profit in cleaning up the mess would be immense.�

The following year, the Club of Rome think tank published The First Global Revolution, a book suggesting a draconian neo-Malthusianism approach will solve the world�s �problems�, in fact a problem the global elite has with humanity.

�In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill,� the book states. �All these dangers are caused by human intervention,� and thus the �real enemy, then, is humanity itself.�

Richard Haass, the current president of the Council on Foreign Relations, expanded on this topic in his article, State sovereignty must be altered in globalized era. According to Haass, a system of world government must be created and sovereignty eliminated in order to fight global warming and terrorism, both invented as the Club of Rome suggested.

�Some governments are prepared to give up elements of sovereignty to address the threat of global climate change,� writes Haass. �The goal should be to redefine sovereignty for the era of globalization, to find a balance between a world of fully sovereign states and an international system of either world government or anarchy.�

In the past, the Club of Rome has resorted to deceptive tactics in order to support their plans. In 1972, the Club of Rome, along with an MIT team released a report called Limits to growth. The report stated that we were to reach an environmental holocaust by the year 2000 due to overpopulation and other environmental problems. Support for their conclusions was gathered by results from a computer model. Aurelio Peccei, one of the founders of the Club of Rome, later confessed that the computer program had been written to give the desired results.

As we reported two years ago, During the secretive Trilateral Commission group meeting in March 2007, elitists gathered to formulate policy on how best they could exploit global warming fearmongering to ratchet up taxes and control over how westerners live their lives.

Why is this so concerning? Because groups such as the Club of Rome are contracted out by our own governments and the UN to prepare �Policy Guidance Documents� which they use in formulating their policies and programs. How come the Club of Rome gets the gig? Simply because many high ranking UN and government officials are also CoR members, or have direct corporate ties to members. The same goes for the CFR and the Trilateral Commission.

A recently unearthed documentary that sought to expose this agenda at its inception is George Hunt�s excellent research piece on the environmental movement.

Considering the information unearthed concerning Obama�s links to all of this, it is not surprising that he is now pushing the �cap-and-trade� carbon tax program, which in reality represents a war on the middle and working classes.

Prior to the election, Obama called for drastically reducing carbon emissions by 80 per cent, a move that would inflict a new Great Depression, cost millions of jobs, and sink America to near third world status.

The 80 per cent figure is a huge leap towards the ultimate goal, expressed by the Carnegie Institute last year and afforded sober credibility by the corporate media - a complete reduction down to zero carbon emissions.

As we have previously noted, such a move would lead to the near complete reversal of hundreds of years of technological progress and man�s return to the stone age.

Interesting.

An article sent to me by a YouTube subscriber.

Follow the lead of sciences: Don�t play loose with facts (http://www.ajc.com/services/content/printedition/2009/03/29/mooneyed0329.html)

What I got out of this article is that BOTH side of the "Global Warming" camp tend to cite non facts.

Yes, there is evidence showing the globe has warmed a little over the last 100 years. The question is, does it have anything to do with C02 or is it natural (as in the sun's activity)

I tend to think Urban Sprawl has a lot to do with it. And I am sure cutting down the rain forest does not help any.

One of the question I have, does it really matter????

The question should be, Can we do anything to influence it?

Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told' (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html)


The reason why Dr M�rner is so certain that these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that they are all based on computer model predictions, whereas his findings are based on "going into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world".

One of his most shocking discoveries was why the IPCC has been able to show sea levels rising by 2.3mm a year. Until 2003, even its own satellite-based evidence showed no upward trend. But suddenly the graph tilted upwards because the IPCC's favoured experts had drawn on the finding of a single tide-gauge in Hong Kong harbour showing a 2.3mm rise. The entire global sea-level projection was then adjusted upwards by a "corrective factor" of 2.3mm, because, as the IPCC scientists admitted, they "needed to show a trend".

When I spoke to Dr M�rner last week, he expressed his continuing dismay at how the IPCC has fed the scare on this crucial issue. When asked to act as an "expert reviewer" on the IPCC's last two reports, he was "astonished to find that not one of their 22 contributing authors on sea levels was a sea level specialist: not one". Yet the results of all this "deliberate ignorance" and reliance on rigged computer models have become the most powerful single driver of the entire warmist hysteria.

Coleman says the global warming movement was sparked by scientist Roger Revelle, who was seeking increased funding for the Scripps Institute of Oceanography.

"Other researchers with environmental motivations and a hunger for funding saw this developing and climbed aboard as well. The research grants flowed and alarming hypotheses began to show up everywhere,''


Ex-WLS weatherman calls warming 'greatest scam in history' (http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/1533001,CST-NWS-swarming19.article)

U.S. in Historic Shift on CO2 (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123997738881429275.html)
The Obama administration declared Friday that carbon dioxide and five other industrial emissions threaten the planet. The landmark decision lays the groundwork for federal efforts to cap carbon emissions -- at a potential cost of billions of dollars to businesses and government.



While I don't think the increase in energy costs would be the 25-50% that the Electric Company states, I do agree it will make energy costs more expensive.

On top of that, Co2 may be regulated??? What are they going to do, regulate how many breaths we take an hour?? Are runners going to have to buy carbon credits to exercise??

Congress considers major global warming measure (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CLIMATE_LEGISLATION?SITE=TXBEA&amp;SECTION=HOME&amp;TEMPLA TE=DEFAULT)
By DINA CAPPIELLO
Associated Press Writer

So what ever happened to fair and balanced reporting. Check out these statements.


It also could reduce, for the first time, the pollution responsible for heating up the planet.

If Congress balks, the Obama administration has signaled a willingness to use decades-old clean air laws to impose tough new regulations for motor vehicles and many industrial plants to limit their release of climate-changing pollution.

In addition to attempting to solve a complex environmental problem associated with global warming, the bill also seeks to wean the nation off foreign oil imports and to create a new clean-energy economy.

After President George W. Bush did little about global warming in his two terms,

Antarctic ice growing, not shrinking (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Global-Warming/Antarctic-ice-growing-not-shrinking-/articleshow/4418558.cms)

Antarctic ice cover 'increasing due to hole in ozone layer' (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/antarctica/5200229/Antarctic-ice-cover-increasing-due-to-hole-in-ozone-layer.html)

So the use of CFC's actually increased the Antarctic ice cover????

so to fight "Global Warming" maybe we should use CFC's again :D

I can't believe I just saw this


Tale of Two Houses

House #1
A 20 room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house, all heated by gas. In one month this residence consumes more energy than the average American household does in a year.. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2400 per month. In natural gas alone, this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not situated in a Northern or Midwestern "snow belt" area. It's in the South.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------





House #2
Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university. This house incorporates every "green" feature current home construction can provide. The house is 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is nestled on a high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat-pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground.

The water (usually 67 degrees F) heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas and it consumes one-quarter electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Surrounding flowers and shrubs native to the area enable the property to blend into the surrounding rural landscape.


~~~~~


HOUSE #1 is outside of Nashville , Tennessee ;
it is the abode of the "environmentalist" Al Gore.

HOUSE #2 is on a ranch near Crawford , Texas ;
it is the residence of ex President of the United States , George W. Bush.

An "inconvenient truth."

it amazes me how the news and even tv shows keep talking about Global Warming as if it is fact instead of a theory.

It is kind of like this Swine Influenza thing, blown way out of proportion.

Study: Declining Great Lakes Levels Entirely Natural (http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDQ4OWI3NzUyMDMwMjRiOWY1YTgyNzVjN2Y5NGIzNTY=)

Za, you truly are amazing. So, Dr M�rner has convinced you, do you also support his belief in downing or divining rods? This guy is loopy at best. Let's think about his logic that there is no rise in the ocean levels.

We have clear pictorial evidence that:

1) the glaciers have shrunk significantly in the last 30 years
2) The ice caps, both of them, have shrunken significantly in the past 30 years.

So Za, where exactly is that water going? I know, Dr. Morner is storing it in his bathtub.

You might argue that man isn't the cause of this, but you can't argue it's not happening.

BTW - we also know that the glaciers and ice caps have melted in the past, what happens is that North America becomes two continents with a great inland sea. We know this cause them dumb scientists have found the fossils of sea creatures in Kansas. Of course it could be that them liberals carried them there and buried them, 100 years ago (that's when they first started finding them). Now that is some far sighted planning!

Dr. Morner doesn't even have the brains to make a logical argument, little alone a factual one.

it amazes me how the news and even tv shows keep talking about Global Warming as if it is fact instead of a theory.

It is kind of like this Swine Influenza thing, blown way out of proportion.

Study: Declining Great Lakes Levels Entirely Natural (http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDQ4OWI3NzUyMDMwMjRiOWY1YTgyNzVjN2Y5NGIzNTY=)

Let's work on our scientific terminology for a moment Za. A theory is essentially a fact. I know that the religious and the corporate media keep telling you that it's tenuous, but it's not. Something only gets to be a theory after many years of rigorous testing. What you want to say, incorrectly of course, is that Global Warming is only a hypothesis. A hypothesis is a supposition that is untested. Simply a good idea waiting for proof, or evidence that it is incorrect.

It is a theory that the earth revolves around the sun, and not vice verse. Now, clearly, if we accept the bible, this theory is incorrect, yet there is tons of physical and observational evidence that supports that darn stubborn notion. Of course let's not forget that the Catholic Church only just recently admitted that Galileo was correct. Global Warming is the same. It's been studied for 50 years now, and all the evidence, the credible and tested evidence, is consistent with it's occurrence. That's how it got to be a theory, not a hypothesis.

So, when you state that something is only a theory, you're in fact stating that it is by every measure we have, true. You are not degrading the idea, as much as showing how little the media, and general public misunderstand the definition of a theory.

Since you brought in swine flu, lets do a comparison. Swine flu was declared a problem as soon as a few people died of it. Remember, that was little after a few weeks, not 50 years of study. The people who declared it was a disaster didn't even bother to compare it to a typical flu, that kills thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people. They didn't compare it's actions in killing people to the actions of the flu plague of 1910 (which they compared it to). This flu, which killed millions was unique, in that it killed indiscriminately. It had an anti-coagulation factor, and a hemolytic factor (if I remember my basic biology correctly) that made it very deadly. Typical flu, like this one, kills the very young, and very old, and typically, the poorest, who can't get medical treatment. Comparing the swine flu thing with GW, suggests a complete disconnect with what occurred in either situation.

So you can see, making assumptions, without bothering to look at the factual, scientific information, can lead to incorrect conclusions. The same as with global warming, where one looks at the opinions of five or six, non-experts, who usually have no real data (or they went out and while they were dowsing, used their ruler to measure the height of the water) and decides it's not occurring, despite the body of work of over 3,000 scientists, over 50 years of time. Oh wait, did I say scientists, I meant to say, grifters, all working together, and never leaking the truth, over thousands of publications and 50 years. Man those guys are good!

BTW Za here's a link to a site that comments on your Australian notion that the arctic ice isn't melting.

http://www.harryrclarke.com/2009/04/18/propaganda-scepticism-toward-climate-science/

It discusses that there may be a local phenomenon causing the effect (written by the author of the scientific study) that does not negate the long term loss of ice. In other words, a news paper, a conservative one that doesn't believe in global warming, took a scientific paper, picked out part of it, and presented it as the whole story. Why am I not surprised?

BTW - the newspaper where this was published, the Australian, owned by one Rupert Murdock. Yawn!

I don't care

Just like Swine Flu, I just don't care. I do not want to be forced into paying extra for stuff just because someone thinks Co2 is increasing the temperature of the earth. If this is in fact true, we would have seen a much bigger increase in temperature. (in my unscientific opinion)

I don't care what the "Scientific" definition of Theory is, a theory is not fact, it is based on facts. Fact is, the sun just went though a hot phase with massive amounts of sun spots. Fact is the sun is much quieter now. Fact is the earth has been cooler lately.

Fact is the earth use to be MUCH cooler than it is currently, so much so that the Great Lakes were formed by glaciers. Oil in Alaska and Canada shows us that the earth was MUCH warmer before even that.


anyways, I have to get back to work, I just post articles as I come across them, take them for what they are. Do they have an agenda? probably, but I post them to counter the other sides agenda. I will not stop posting them as I come across them.

mmm, I must have been in a bad mood last time I posted on this thread.
__________________________________________________ __________

And that seems to be the preferred tactic of many in the alarmist camp. Rather than bring up these issues, they simply ignore them.

What if global-warming fears are overblown? (http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/14/magazines/fortune/globalwarming.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2009051417)



Like I said, I will keep posting articles as I come across them.

So, Lyle, you going to try to debunk the climate scientist???

Global Warming Petition Signed by 31,478 Scientists

by Ron Paul (http://www.house.gov/paul/mail/welcome.htm)

<!-- AddThis Button BEGIN --> <script type="text/javascript">var addthis_pub = "egarris";</script> <nobr></nobr>
<!--/* Start OpenX Javascript Tag v2.4.4 */--> <script type="text/javascript"><!--//<![CDATA[ var m3_u = (location.protocol=='https:'?'https://adserve.lewrockwell.com/www/delivery/ajs.php':'http://adserve.lewrockwell.com/www/delivery/ajs.php'); var m3_r = Math.floor(Math.random()*99999999999); if (!document.MAX_used) document.MAX_used = ','; document.write ("<scr"+"ipt type='text/javascript' src='"+m3_u); document.write ("?zoneid=5"); document.write ('&cb=' + m3_r); if (document.MAX_used != ',') document.write ("&exclude=" + document.MAX_used); document.write ("&loc=" + escape(window.location)); if (document.referrer) document.write ("&referer=" + escape(document.referrer)); if (document.context) document.write ("&context=" + escape(document.context)); if (document.mmm_fo) document.write ("&mmm_fo=1"); document.write ("'><\/scr"+"ipt>"); //]]>--></script><script type="text/javascript" src="http://adserve.lewrockwell.com/www/delivery/ajs.php?zoneid=5&cb=94462541307&loc=http%3A//www.pdga.com/discussion/newreply.php%3Fdo%3Dnewreply%26noquote%3D1%26p%3D1 377949"></script><script type="text/javascript" src="http://adserve.lewrockwell.com/www/delivery/ajs.php?zoneid=5&cb=24087516321&loc=http%3A//www.pdga.com/discussion/newreply.php%3Fdo%3Dnewreply%26noquote%3D1%26p%3D1 377949"></script><script type="text/javascript" src="http://adserve.lewrockwell.com/www/delivery/ajs.php?zoneid=5&cb=24038775391&loc=http%3A//www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul537.html"></script>[/URL]http://adserve.lewrockwell.com/www/delivery/lg.php?bannerid=89&campaignid=73&zoneid=5&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lewrockwell.com%2Fpaul%2Fpaul 537.html&cb=487cfc74dc
<noscript>http://adserve.lewrockwell.com/www/delivery/avw.php?zoneid=5&n=a39b1c5b (http://adserve.lewrockwell.com/www/delivery/ck.php?oaparams=2__bannerid=89__zoneid=5__cb=487cf c74dc__maxdest=http://signups.thedailycrux.com/fsm/signups/signup/262.html)</noscript>
<!--/* End OpenX Javascript Tag v2.4.4 */--> Statement before the US House of Representatives, June 4, 2009

Madam Speaker, before voting on the "cap-and-trade'' legislation, my colleagues should consider the views expressed in the following petition that has been signed by 31,478 American scientists:


"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.''


Circulated through the mail by a distinguished group of American physical scientists and supported by a definitive review of the peer-reviewed scientific literature, this may be the strongest and most widely supported statement on this subject that has been made by the scientific community. A state-by-state listing of the signers, which include 9,029 men and women with PhD degrees, a listing of their academic specialties, and a peer-reviewed summary of the science on this subject are available at www.petitionproject.org (http://www.petitionproject.org/).


<map name="rpbookMap"><area shape="rect" coords="0,0,201,222" href="http://www.mises.org/store/Revolution-The-A-Manefesto-P481.aspx?AFID=14"> <area shape="rect" coords="1,220,200,300" href="http://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Manifesto-Ron-Paul/dp/160024355X/lewrockwell/"> </map> [U]The peer-reviewed summary, "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide'' by A. B. Robinson, N. E. Robinson, and W. Soon includes 132 references to the scientific literature and was circulated with the petition.


Signers of this petition include 3,803 with specific training in atmospheric, earth, and environmental sciences. All 31,478 of the signers have the necessary training in physics, chemistry, and mathematics to understand and evaluate the scientific data relevant to the human-caused global warming hypothesis and to the effects of human activities upon environmental quality.


In a letter circulated with this petition, Frederick Seitz � past President of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, President Emeritus of Rockefeller University, and recipient of honorary doctorate degrees from 32 universities throughout the world � wrote:
"The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds.
This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.
The proposed agreement we have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world; especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries.
It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens who have the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound advice.
We urge you to sign and return the enclosed petition card. If you would like more cards for use by your colleagues, these will be sent.''
Madam Speaker, at a time when our nation is faced with a severe shortage of domestically produced energy and a serious economic contraction; we should be reducing the taxation and regulation that plagues our energy-producing industries.
Yet, we will soon be considering so-called "cap and trade'' legislation that would increase the taxation and regulation of our energy industries. "Cap-and-trade'' will do at least as much, if not more, damage to the economy as the treaty referred by Professor Seitz! This legislation is being supported by the claims of "global warming'' and "climate change'' advocates � claims that, as demonstrated by the 31,478 signatures to Professor Seitz' petition, many American scientists believe is disproved by extensive experimental and observational work.


It is time that we look beyond those few who seek increased taxation and increased regulation and control of the American people. Our energy policies must be based upon scientific truth � not fictional movies or self-interested international agendas. They should be based upon the accomplishments of technological free enterprise that have provided our modern civilization, including our energy industries. That free enterprise must not be hindered by bogus claims about imaginary disasters.
Above all, we must never forget our contract with the American people � the Constitution that provides the sole source of legitimacy of our government. That Constitution requires that we preserve the basic human rights of our people � including the right to freely manufacture, use, and sell energy produced by any means they devise � including nuclear, hydrocarbon, solar, wind, or even bicycle generators.


While it is evident that the human right to produce and use energy does not extend to activities that actually endanger the climate of the Earth upon which we all depend, bogus claims about climate dangers should not be used as a justification to further limit the American people's freedom.


In conclusion, I once again urge my colleagues to carefully consider the arguments made by the 31,478 American scientists who have signed this petition before voting on any legislation imposing new regulations or taxes on the American people in the name of halting climate change.

I don't care

Just like Swine Flu, I just don't care. I do not want to be forced into paying extra for stuff just because someone thinks Co2 is increasing the temperature of the earth. If this is in fact true, we would have seen a much bigger increase in temperature. (in my unscientific opinion)

I don't care what the "Scientific" definition of Theory is, a theory is not fact, it is based on facts. Fact is, the sun just went though a hot phase with massive amounts of sun spots. Fact is the sun is much quieter now. Fact is the earth has been cooler lately.

Fact is the earth use to be MUCH cooler than it is currently, so much so that the Great Lakes were formed by glaciers. Oil in Alaska and Canada shows us that the earth was MUCH warmer before even that.


anyways, I have to get back to work, I just post articles as I come across them, take them for what they are. Do they have an agenda? probably, but I post them to counter the other sides agenda. I will not stop posting them as I come across them.

Just Beautiful, in three short paragraphs, Za quite well lays out the problem. I don't understand science, or how it works, so I'm going to believe what I want to believe, no matter how much science has disproved it.

I won't take the time to fact check anything I post, especially if it's something I want to believe, true or not.

Most importantly, I want, in the American way, to own as much garbage as I possibly can. It is, after all, my right as an American. More importantly, I want to get it as cheaply as possible, even if that means making it in China where it gets contaminated with lead or melamine.

Yep, kill the world, as long as you do it cheaply. Very impressive Za.

mmm, I must have been in a bad mood last time I posted on this thread.
__________________________________________________ __________



What if global-warming fears are overblown? (http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/14/magazines/fortune/globalwarming.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2009051417)



Like I said, I will keep posting articles as I come across them.

So, Lyle, you going to try to debunk the climate scientist???

Yawn! Do you do any cross checking or thinking about this stuff at all?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy

Christy does not argue that climate change isn't occurring, he fully acknowledges it, he simply doesn't buy that it's going to be as dramatic as the models say it's going to be. He admits there is a human element to global warming. Go back and look at the research he's done, and you will see that none of it pertains to predictive models on the outcome, simply measurements of what is and has happened. Not sure he's the best source to determine the outcome...

This is the worst one of all. We've already talked about this petition and this scientist.

The reality is, that if we'd have spent as much on wind, thermal, geothermal and other renewable energy sources as we've spent on nuclear coal and oil, we'd be set. Problem is that the nuclear and oil lobbies keep that from happening by doing exactly what they've done here, going to congress, giving this line of b.s. and preventing us from investing our resources anywhere else but in their areas. How dumb do we have to be to not see this?


Global Warming Petition Signed by 31,478 Scientists

by Ron Paul (http://www.house.gov/paul/mail/welcome.htm)

<!-- AddThis Button BEGIN --> <script type="text/javascript">var addthis_pub = "egarris";</script> <nobr></nobr>
<!--/* Start OpenX Javascript Tag v2.4.4 */--> <script type="text/javascript"><!--//<![CDATA[ var m3_u = (location.protocol=='https:'?'https://adserve.lewrockwell.com/www/delivery/ajs.php':'http://adserve.lewrockwell.com/www/delivery/ajs.php'); var m3_r = Math.floor(Math.random()*99999999999); if (!document.MAX_used) document.MAX_used = ','; document.write ("<scr"+"ipt type='text/javascript' src='"+m3_u); document.write ("?zoneid=5"); document.write ('&cb=' + m3_r); if (document.MAX_used != ',') document.write ("&exclude=" + document.MAX_used); document.write ("&loc=" + escape(window.location)); if (document.referrer) document.write ("&referer=" + escape(document.referrer)); if (document.context) document.write ("&context=" + escape(document.context)); if (document.mmm_fo) document.write ("&mmm_fo=1"); document.write ("'><\/scr"+"ipt>"); //]]>--></script><script type="text/javascript" src="http://adserve.lewrockwell.com/www/delivery/ajs.php?zoneid=5&cb=94462541307&loc=http%3A//www.pdga.com/discussion/newreply.php%3Fdo%3Dnewreply%26noquote%3D1%26p%3D1 377949"></script><script type="text/javascript" src="http://adserve.lewrockwell.com/www/delivery/ajs.php?zoneid=5&cb=24087516321&loc=http%3A//www.pdga.com/discussion/newreply.php%3Fdo%3Dnewreply%26noquote%3D1%26p%3D1 377949"></script><script type="text/javascript" src="http://adserve.lewrockwell.com/www/delivery/ajs.php?zoneid=5&cb=24038775391&loc=http%3A//www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul537.html"></script>[/URL]http://adserve.lewrockwell.com/www/delivery/lg.php?bannerid=89&campaignid=73&zoneid=5&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lewrockwell.com%2Fpaul%2Fpaul 537.html&cb=487cfc74dc
<noscript>http://adserve.lewrockwell.com/www/delivery/avw.php?zoneid=5&n=a39b1c5b (http://adserve.lewrockwell.com/www/delivery/ck.php?oaparams=2__bannerid=89__zoneid=5__cb=487cf c74dc__maxdest=http://signups.thedailycrux.com/fsm/signups/signup/262.html)</noscript>
<!--/* End OpenX Javascript Tag v2.4.4 */--> Statement before the US House of Representatives, June 4, 2009

Madam Speaker, before voting on the "cap-and-trade'' legislation, my colleagues should consider the views expressed in the following petition that has been signed by 31,478 American scientists:


"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.''


Circulated through the mail by a distinguished group of American physical scientists and supported by a definitive review of the peer-reviewed scientific literature, this may be the strongest and most widely supported statement on this subject that has been made by the scientific community. A state-by-state listing of the signers, which include 9,029 men and women with PhD degrees, a listing of their academic specialties, and a peer-reviewed summary of the science on this subject are available at www.petitionproject.org (http://www.petitionproject.org/).


<map name="rpbookMap"><area shape="rect" coords="0,0,201,222" href="http://www.mises.org/store/Revolution-The-A-Manefesto-P481.aspx?AFID=14"> <area shape="rect" coords="1,220,200,300" href="http://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Manifesto-Ron-Paul/dp/160024355X/lewrockwell/"> </map> [U]The peer-reviewed summary, "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide'' by A. B. Robinson, N. E. Robinson, and W. Soon includes 132 references to the scientific literature and was circulated with the petition.


Signers of this petition include 3,803 with specific training in atmospheric, earth, and environmental sciences. All 31,478 of the signers have the necessary training in physics, chemistry, and mathematics to understand and evaluate the scientific data relevant to the human-caused global warming hypothesis and to the effects of human activities upon environmental quality.


In a letter circulated with this petition, Frederick Seitz � past President of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, President Emeritus of Rockefeller University, and recipient of honorary doctorate degrees from 32 universities throughout the world � wrote:
"The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds.
This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.
The proposed agreement we have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world; especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries.
It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens who have the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound advice.
We urge you to sign and return the enclosed petition card. If you would like more cards for use by your colleagues, these will be sent.''
Madam Speaker, at a time when our nation is faced with a severe shortage of domestically produced energy and a serious economic contraction; we should be reducing the taxation and regulation that plagues our energy-producing industries.
Yet, we will soon be considering so-called "cap and trade'' legislation that would increase the taxation and regulation of our energy industries. "Cap-and-trade'' will do at least as much, if not more, damage to the economy as the treaty referred by Professor Seitz! This legislation is being supported by the claims of "global warming'' and "climate change'' advocates � claims that, as demonstrated by the 31,478 signatures to Professor Seitz' petition, many American scientists believe is disproved by extensive experimental and observational work.


It is time that we look beyond those few who seek increased taxation and increased regulation and control of the American people. Our energy policies must be based upon scientific truth � not fictional movies or self-interested international agendas. They should be based upon the accomplishments of technological free enterprise that have provided our modern civilization, including our energy industries. That free enterprise must not be hindered by bogus claims about imaginary disasters.
Above all, we must never forget our contract with the American people � the Constitution that provides the sole source of legitimacy of our government. That Constitution requires that we preserve the basic human rights of our people � including the right to freely manufacture, use, and sell energy produced by any means they devise � including nuclear, hydrocarbon, solar, wind, or even bicycle generators.


While it is evident that the human right to produce and use energy does not extend to activities that actually endanger the climate of the Earth upon which we all depend, bogus claims about climate dangers should not be used as a justification to further limit the American people's freedom.


In conclusion, I once again urge my colleagues to carefully consider the arguments made by the 31,478 American scientists who have signed this petition before voting on any legislation imposing new regulations or taxes on the American people in the name of halting climate change.


This is the

I think that generally agreed upon facts are that the percent of CO2 in the atmosphere has been rising, as well as the mean average temperature (or ocean levels if you wish) of the earth.

What has not been shown to a reasonable degree is that the CO2 increase is the _primary_ cause of the effect on the earth we are seeing. I recall reading that the polar ice cap on Mars has recently decreased as well, which leads to a reasonable conclusion that the Sun is releasing energy at a higher rate than previously, so the Earth is absorbing more heat.

Does the increase in CO2 contribute to the effect? Possibly, and if so, probably to a minor degree.

As a Christian, I am called to be a good steward of the Earth, but not a perfect one. If I thought that CO2 emissions were going to have a future catastrophic effect, I would most certainly want to do something about it, and the largest producers right now are China and India.

Lyle, your sig has a quote from the OT. Are you a Jew or Christian?

Point of order: one can cite passages from scripture while being neither Jew nor Christian.

Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
Matthew 7:1-2

--
Cheers & chings!
Atheist Ray
#21579

Point of order: one can cite passages from scripture while being neither Jew nor Christian.



--
Cheers & chings!
Atheist Ray
#21579

Gosh, I did not know that! Thanks for the enlightenment, but I was kinda hoping to hear back from Lyle, since it was HIS sig tag that had scripture in it, and I'm sure he didn't put it there just as a dig.

This is one of the reasons I say this crap is overblown.

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/YKTnnZz0uwI&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YKTnnZz0uwI&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

Lyle, I mostly posted the Ron Paul speech here because he mentions the PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC STUDY like you are always talking about.

As far as the "I don't care" rant, it was because you are arguing the definition of a word. I am telling you that Global warming is a theory, not fact. Shoot, next thing you are going to tell me that we evolved from apes is a fact instead of a theory.

Instead you just bash me saying I don't know what I am talking about instead of accepting the fact that I may be correct.

Yawn! Do you do any cross checking or thinking about this stuff at all?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy

Christy does not argue that climate change isn't occurring, he fully acknowledges it, he simply doesn't buy that it's going to be as dramatic as the models say it's going to be. He admits there is a human element to global warming. Go back and look at the research he's done, and you will see that none of it pertains to predictive models on the outcome, simply measurements of what is and has happened. Not sure he's the best source to determine the outcome...

Exactly why I posted this article.

EPA May Have Suppressed Report Skeptical Of Global Warming (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/26/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5117890.shtml)

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ByIbVzvN0is&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ByIbVzvN0is&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

So let me get this straight. An economist, who works for the EPA's environmental economics division, with no scientific background in climatology submits a report critical of climate science, a report in which a full third of the citations are not peer reviewed, and is told by his supervisor to do required work within his expertise instead. And this is a scandal. YAWN!

I am watching this as I post it.

<embed id="VideoPlayback" src="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=288952680655100870&hl=en&fs=true" style="width:400px;height:326px" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"> </embed>

I may have posted this before, I remember seeing parts of it, but I am glad I posted it. I affirms my opinion on the matter.

From http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/the-real-global-warming-swindle-440116.html (emphasis added):

"Martin Durkin, who wrote and directed the film, admitted yesterday that one of the graphs contained serious errors but he said they were corrected in time for the second transmission of the programme following inquiries by The Independent.

Mr Durkin has already been criticised by one scientist who took part in the programme over alleged misrepresentation of his views on the climate.

The main arguments made in Mr Durkin's film were that climate change had little if anything to do with man-made carbon dioxide and that global warming can instead be linked directly with solar activity - sun spots.

One of the principal supports for his thesis came in the form of a graph labelled "World Temp - 120 years", which claimed to show rises and falls in average global temperatures between 1880 and 2000.

Mr Durkin's film argued that most global warming over the past century occurred between 1900 and 1940 and that there was a period of cooling between 1940 and 1975 when the post-war economic boom was under way. This showed, he said, that global warming had little to do with industrial emissions of carbon dioxide.

The programme-makers labelled the source of the world temperature data as "Nasa" but when we inquired about where we could find this information, we received an email through Wag TV's PR consultant saying that the graph was drawn from a 1998 diagram published in an obscure journal called Medical Sentinel. The authors of the paper are well-known climate sceptics who were funded by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and the George C Marshall Institute, a right-wing Washington think-tank.

However, there are no diagrams in the paper that accurately compare with the C4 graph. The nearest comparison is a diagram of "terrestrial northern hemisphere" temperatures - which refers only to data gathered by weather stations in the top one third of the globe.

However, further inquiries revealed that the C4 graph was based on a diagram in another paper produced as part of a "petition project" by the same group of climate sceptics. This diagram was itself based on long out-of-date information on terrestrial temperatures compiled by Nasa scientists.

However, crucially, the axis along the bottom of the graph has been distorted in the C4 version of the graph, which made it look like the information was up-to-date when in fact the data ended in the early 1980s.

Mr Durkin admitted that his graphics team had extended the time axis along the bottom of the graph to the year 2000. "There was a fluff there," he said.

If Mr Durkin had gone directly to the Nasa website he could have got the most up-to-date data. This would have demonstrated that the amount of global warming since 1975, as monitored by terrestrial weather stations around the world, has been greater than that between 1900 and 1940 - although that would have undermined his argument."

Statement from the British Antarctic Survey regarding the program (http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/about_bas/news/news_story.php?id=178)

Open letter to Durkin regarding the program. (http://www.climateofdenial.net/?q=node/1)

Commentary on Durkin detailing some of his other "scientific" programs titled "Modified Truth" and subtitled "Channel 4 has hired a charlatan to make its science programmes" (http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2000/03/16/modified-truth/)

Critique of program by Sir John Houghton, chairman of the IPCC (http://www.jri.org.uk/news/Critique_Channel4_Global_Warming_Swindle.pdf)

So, Bryan, will you take any time away from watching youtube to read my links?

Hmmm, I guess not. Sad.

have not had/taken the time, I always fall behind later in the week and catch back up at the beginning of the week.

We Need to Reduce Emissions in Congress (http://www.texasinsider.org/?p=11800)

BTW, I have read every single article you linked all referring to the same thing.

Ok, the video I posted has some mistakes in it, sorry I posted it. It was sent to me in an email, I posted it, then watched it.

But lets not forget that Al Gore's Movie also has serious mistakes in it and facts they made up. Those have been documented several times in this very long thread.

I do not deny that Co2 levels are very high right now, I contend they are still not high enough to make any sort of difference. Even right now, Co2 is actually graphing higher than they ever have, yet the Temperature is not. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.

http://www.ourworldfoundation.org.uk/IceCores1.gif

Ok, the video I posted has some mistakes in it, sorry I posted it. It was sent to me in an email, I posted it, then watched it.

Don't you ever get tired of saying that?

But lets not forget that Al Gore's Movie also has serious mistakes in it and facts they made up.

Show me where I have referenced Gore or his movie.

Even right now, Co2 is actually graphing higher than they ever have, yet the Temperature is not.

You do realize, don't you, that the Vostok ice core data which is the source of the graph you show does not include data more recent than over 2000 years ago? And that the CO2 data for that time is 284.7 ppmv? NOT the 370ish ppmv on your graph? Please, at least do your homework and provide valid data and attributions.

You do realize, don't you, that each tick on your graph's horizontal axis represents 10,000 years? Are you seriously trying to show industrial age CO2 levels on a graph that spans 414,000 years?

Look more closely at the graph you posted, or better yet do some research to find and understand the underlying data. When you do you will find that CO2 increases actually LAG temperature increases, but are part of a feedback loop that continues to amplify the warming trend. Over how long a period has this typically taken place? Well, look again at your graph -- thousands of years! Do you see any 10 or even 100 year trends on that graph? How could you possibly tell when 100 years is represented by only 0.024% of the graph?

It does not take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.

Perhaps not, but it clearly takes more than someone who is not even willing to ascertain the veracity of the data he recieves in mailing lists before reposting them on a web site.

BTW, I have read every single article you linked all referring to the same thing.

Really?

The article in the second to last link doesn't reference global warming at all, but dubious other work by Durkin.

The article in the last link takes issue with and details nine different specifics of your film, none of which include the fraudulent graph data indicated in the article from the first link.

The second link addresses how CO2 lags temperature similar to (but more detailed and much better than) my post above.

The third link was to an open letter with thirty-seven signatories objecting to plans to distribute DVD copies of your film due to misrepresentations and inaccuracies.

Just who are you trying to fool?

This is one of the reasons I say this crap is overblown.

By "crap" you mean b.s. posts?

SENSENBRENNER COW TAX FEARS COME OUT OF THIN AIR (http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/47958266.html):

"Washington - Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner went on national television Tuesday to warn people about a possible cow fart tax. That's right. Cow farts. Taxed.

Farmers aren't the only ones at risk, he argued, noting that every American could be hit with higher prices at the supermarket because of the "outrageous" tax.

"The average Joe when he goes to the supermarket and buys any kind of dairy product . . . is going to end up paying through the nose to pay for the cow fart tax," he said from the halls of the Capitol during an interview on Fox News.

But here's the rub: No one has proposed such a tax.

"I want to make one thing initially clear: EPA has not proposed a tax on dairy cows or any other farm animals," Elizabeth Craig, acting assistant administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency, told Sensenbrenner in a letter dated Feb. 23.

Sensenbrenner, however, continues to insist that it's a possibility because of the recent Supreme Court ruling that the federal agency can regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the law in order to curb climate change. Cows, Sensenbrenner notes, emit methane gas, which scientists believe contributes to global warming.

"This, in my opinion, shows how ridiculous the whole debate on climate change and global warming has become when you give a non-elected agency like the EPA the power to impose a tax on cow flatulence," he said, and added that farmers could be hit with a whopping $175-a-year tax per head of dairy cattle.

Sensenbrenner aides say he got that figure from the American Farm Bureau Federation, which calculated it based on the average emissions of cattle and the "presumptive minimum rate" that the EPA has set for taxes on emissions."

We need to reduce emissions in Texas.

Bryan, your linked article from the Texas Insider (http://www.texasinsider.org/?p=11800) is just another example of how people in whom you put your trust lie and distort to manipulate the view of those only too willing to subscribe to pundits who "affirm their position on the matter".

In the article, Colson sources a "recent article from the Wall Street Journal". In fact, it was not an article, but an op-ed by Kimberley Strassel (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html). This was an opinion piece written by the same person who wrote, in another WSJ op-ed (http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/kstrassel/?id=95000868) "Indeed, the goal of many environmental groups--from the Sierra Club to the Oregon Natural Resources Council--is no longer to protect nature. It's to expunge humans from the countryside."

Colson asserts "The Polish Academy of Sciences, for one, has publicly challenged the science behind man-made global warming." He, of course, neglects to inform you of item 9. of the statement (http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Com%20%20Geol%20%20Sci%20_PAS_Climate%20change.pdf ) which reads: "9. It is certain that increased content of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is connected partly with human activity. Therefore, all steps that restrain this emission and agree with principles of sustainable development should be taken, starting from a cease of extensive deforestation, especially in tropical areas. Various adapting measures that can mitigate effects of the recent trend of climate warming should be implemented by political decision makers."

And New Zealand? See for yourself at http://www.climatechange.govt.nz/

It doesn't matter what any of us think as this point. The house has passed the cap-and-trade bill that is sure to decimate all economies of the world (as well as take out the last leg supporting the dollar) and it's probably going to pass the senate.

Enough people were scared by Manbearpig, errrr..."global warming", errr...."climate change" that the spineless politicians in Washington thought they'd lose their jobs if they voted against anything that seemed to go against Al Gore.

If this bill passes our economy and all economies we interact with are screwed.

I'm super serial.

<object width="640" height="505"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4_ASjFzi7J0&hl=en&fs=1&hd=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4_ASjFzi7J0&hl=en&fs=1&hd=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="505"></embed></object>

You do realize, don't you, that the Vostok ice core data which is the source of the graph you show does not include data more recent than over 2000 years ago? And that the CO2 data for that time is 284.7 ppmv? NOT the 370ish ppmv on your graph? Please, at least do your homework and provide valid data and attributions.

BTW, my graph I posted came from a global warming web site. You just debunked global warming, thanks.

Here, you will love this one :D

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FfHW7KR33IQ&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FfHW7KR33IQ&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

As compared to an unregulated Wall Street and it's purchased cronies in Washington? Shirley, you jest.

These guys spend the last 20 years selling our manufacturing knowledge, to China, moving our jobs there, then letting them buy our country via governmental bonds, and you're worried that putting a limit on CO2 is going to be a problem? The real reason the business world doesn't want a limit on CO2 is because instead of making 100s of billions in profit, they'll make 1% less, I feel so bad for them...

I wonder at just how gullible the American public is sometimes. We were told for 30 years that if we didn't have open trade and less regulation our economy would go into the toilet. So, out of fear, we did it. They promptly took advantage and now the richest 1% owns 22% of our wealth (it was 9% before Reagan). That 13% difference came straight from the pockets of the bottom 50%. BTW - that includes everyone who posts on this site. Oh yeah, there's also that little tidbit that they still crushed our economy, while leaving themselves rich. You'd think we'd know better by now.

On the other hand, some of the cleanest economies in the world are some of the most powerful.

Of course, you may be right, are we all scared yet? Cause if you're not, they're going to have to roll out the boogie man and put him under your bed, otherwise we might impact their profit margins.

It doesn't matter what any of us think as this point. The house has passed the cap-and-trade bill that is sure to decimate all economies of the world (as well as take out the last leg supporting the dollar) and it's probably going to pass the senate.

Enough people were scared by Manbearpig, errrr..."global warming", errr...."climate change" that the spineless politicians in Washington thought they'd lose their jobs if they voted against anything that seemed to go against Al Gore.

If this bill passes our economy and all economies we interact with are screwed.

I'm super serial.

<object width="640" height="505"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4_ASjFzi7J0&hl=en&fs=1&hd=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4_ASjFzi7J0&hl=en&fs=1&hd=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="505"></embed></object>

Here, you will love this one :D

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FfHW7KR33IQ&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FfHW7KR33IQ&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

I love how this piece starts out, " I love the Weather Channel, it's one of my favorites, they have hot women there!"

Yep, that's your serious comment on Global Warming. I also love the comment on the 30,000 scientists, 9,000 of whom have a Ph.D., none in climatology... So, if have I have a Ph.D. in Mass Media, the title of my thesis being "The History of Lying On T.V.," does that make me qualified to comment on this issue? Yawn!

Here, you will love this one :D

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FfHW7KR33IQ&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FfHW7KR33IQ&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

I love how this piece starts out, " I love the Weather Channel, it's one of my favorites, they have hot women there!"

Yep, that's your serious comment on Global Warming. I also love the comment on the 30,000 scientists, 9,000 of whom have a Ph.D., none in climatology... So, if have I have a Ph.D. in Mass Media, the title of my thesis being "The History of Lying On T.V.," does that make me qualified to comment on this issue? Yawn!

BTW, my graph I posted came from a global warming web site. You just debunked global warming, thanks.

Bryan, the point is not to support or debunk global warming, but to form an educated opinion based on valid data. Throwing out populist arguments that are geared to sway those too lazy to ascertain their veracity doesn't work towards that goal. You claim not to be "sheeple", but to be sure there are "sheeple" on all sides of the debate. Skepticism should be used as a two edged sword.

From a Pew Research Center Survey Report (http://people-press.org/report/528/) published yesterday:

http://people-press.org/reports/images/528-8.gif

"SECTION 5: EVOLUTION, CLIMATE CHANGE AND OTHER ISSUES
Two issues on which there is widespread agreement among scientists – evolution and climate change – divide the general public. Not only do many Americans diverge from the dominant scientific positions in their own attitudes and beliefs, but many also believe that the scientific community itself is divided over these issues. While education levels matter – college graduates are more likely than those with less education to agree with the scientists – education is not the largest factor. Public views on evolution are, not surprisingly, strongly linked to religion, while public views on climate change are strongly linked to party and ideology."

http://people-press.org/reports/images/528-62.gif

Thinking about it, the above poll does not attempt to differentiate between scientific disciplines. Here is the results of a University of Chicago poll published earlier this year that identified specialties: http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

"In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered "risen” to question 1 [When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?] and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2 [Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?]."

"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists."

http://people-press.org/reports/images/528-8.gif

What I find interesting is that 93% of scientists favor federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

Of course they do, that is money in there pocket!!!!

Yep, that's your serious comment on Global Warming. I also love the comment on the 30,000 scientists, 9,000 of whom have a Ph.D., none in climatology...

Sorry Lyle, this is a list of the BS degrees or higher (this is a list of the qualifications of those in the field, the web site lists everyone's qualifications)

Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment (3,803)
1. Atmosphere (578) I) Atmospheric Science (113)
II) Climatology (39)
III) Meteorology (341)
IV) Astronomy (59)
V) Astrophysics (26)

2. Earth (2,240) I) Earth Science (94)
II) Geochemistry (63)
III) Geology (1,684)
IV) Geophysics (341)
V) Geoscience (36)
VI) Hydrology (22)

3. Environment (985)
I) Environmental Engineering (486)
II) Environmental Science (253)
III) Forestry (163)
IV) Oceanography (83)
Source (http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php)

Sorry Lyle, this is a list of the BS degrees or higher (this is a list of the qualifications of those in the field, the web site lists everyone's qualifications)

Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment (3,803)
1. Atmosphere (578) I) Atmospheric Science (113)
II) Climatology (39)
III) Meteorology (341)
IV) Astronomy (59)
V) Astrophysics (26)

2. Earth (2,240) I) Earth Science (94)
II) Geochemistry (63)
III) Geology (1,684)
IV) Geophysics (341)
V) Geoscience (36)
VI) Hydrology (22)

3. Environment (985)
I) Environmental Engineering (486)
II) Environmental Science (253)
III) Forestry (163)
IV) Oceanography (83)
Source (http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php)

I'm sorry Za, but this doesn't mean dooky. First there is only one class here that is qualified to really comment, those who are Climatologists. You're putting 39 against well over 3,000. Pretty weak. More importantly is what is the publication history of those climatologists vs. the rest? What do they work on and who do they work for? What does a B.S. mean against a Ph.D.? What does a Ph.D. mean against an active researcher, or a scientist.

The total number of "scientists" you have here is 3803, where are they other 26,197? How do these numbers compare to the real scientists, those with Ph.D.s who do research, in their respective areas?

As usual, you're looking at a small subset of data taken out of the context of the entire picture. While it would appear compelling to someone who is uninformed, it actually looks pretty weak with any kind of analysis whatsoever.

What makes it funny is that the goober who put it together pulled out all of the "scientists" who he/she thought would impress the reader as being expert in the physical sciences, no matter how remotely, related to climatology. Too funny.

What I find interesting is that 93% of scientists favor federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

Of course they do, that is money in there pocket!!!!

Is this really supposed to impress me, that the public is so uninformed that they can't understand science.

There's only one stat here that impresses me, that scientists supposedly support nuclear power. That in and of itself makes me wonder who ran the poll and what the questions were.

You, and those like you, should go read up on the history of the church and evolution. It's pretty amazing stuff. The reality is that long ago, religious leaders came to peace with evolution and the fact that the bible isn't 100% accurate. They concluded that the bible was a moral lesson on how to conduct one's life. This happened many times over the past 1000 years or so (or 100 years for evolution). It is only in the American South has the notion that the bible is inviolate and therefore that evolution doesn't exist that this has become an issue (one that is unfortunately spreading). Of course this also means that cars, planes, ties, America, the Native American, nuclear power, rocket ships and a whole host of other things, like protestantism don't exist either. That'd be a double YAWN!

Scientists believe in the things they believe because they understand the scientific method, they know how these things come to be. It's a whole lot more compelling than trusting your gut instinct.

BTW - did you hear - the earth is flat and the sun revolves around it! Remember, that's not in the bible either...

Beyond the minor fact that you feel the only reason scientists support ECR is because of the money, let me point out that until 30 years ago America dominated the science world. It made as rich and powerful. It won wars, and cured illnesses that were beyond our comprehension just 100 years ago.

Today, we no longer dominate. We've sold our best ideas to the Chinese for cash, and the world has caught us. How very short sighted of us.

Embryonic Cell Research represents one of the key research areas to cure many diseases. It's application spans from cancer to blindness. Only the totally uninformed can't realize that clear regulations and auditing will keep science from killing embryos for this research and that ignoring it, will allow this to happen in an uncontrolled fashion by the less scrupulous. Only the moderately uninformed don't realize that it is possible to carry out embryonic stem cell research with out endangering any life with the potential to become human (the world has changed).

Only zealots view such things as one dimensional, and are unwilling to inform themselves about the real situation.

Now, unlike some, I don't feel embryos are inviolate, but at least I realize that there are other options available. I think that giving what we are clearly willing to do to ourselves and other human beings, we are kidding ourselves when we label this as "bad."

First there is only one class here that is qualified to really comment, those who are Climatologists.
Ironic quote of the year (so far . . .)

Ironic quote of the year (so far . . .)

YAWN! In terms of credibility and what should be taken into account for public policy. Even more so, in terms of producing a credible scientific argument and study on the topic at hand, climatology. Go back and beat up JD for awhile.

http://www.tripledisc.com/preview/msdgc/unknown.png

http://www.tripledisc.com/preview/msdgc/douchenozzle.png

Is that what it looks like before or after you hit me over the head with it?

That is no bludgeon, my reptilian adversary.

I'm sorry Za, but this doesn't mean dooky. First there is only one class here that is qualified to really comment, those who are Climatologists. You're putting 39 against well over 3,000. Pretty weak. More importantly is what is the publication history of those climatologists vs. the rest? What do they work on and who do they work for? What does a B.S. mean against a Ph.D.? What does a Ph.D. mean against an active researcher, or a scientist.

The total number of "scientists" you have here is 3803, where are they other 26,197? How do these numbers compare to the real scientists, those with Ph.D.s who do research, in their respective areas?

As usual, you're looking at a small subset of data taken out of the context of the entire picture. While it would appear compelling to someone who is uninformed, it actually looks pretty weak with any kind of analysis whatsoever.

What makes it funny is that the goober who put it together pulled out all of the "scientists" who he/she thought would impress the reader as being expert in the physical sciences, no matter how remotely, related to climatology. Too funny.

Lyle, I only posted the ones who have studied this stuff for school. The web site lists what degree's everyone has if you click on the "Source"

What is funny is that the list of scientists that are saying this is wrong or overblown is GROWING, and the list of support is srinking, because scientists that were listed with the IPCC DID NOT AGREE with the report, but there names were still listed.

The IPCC (If I got those letters right) was mostly politicians, no scientists.

The IPCC (If I got those letters right) was mostly politicians, no scientists.

You really have no friggin' clue what you are talking about, do you?

Thinking about it, the above poll does not attempt to differentiate between scientific disciplines. Here is the results of a University of Chicago poll published earlier this year that identified specialties: http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

"In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered "risen” to question 1 [When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?] and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2 [Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?]."

"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists."
Yeah; start by not acting like a jackass. You think that everyone that doesn't agree with every extreme theory is an ignorant bible thumper? I agree with a lot of climate change arguments, but the loonies just hurt the effort. Start with what we all agree on & do just that... START doing something. And climb down from that high horse; & bring 'ol Lyle with you.

What the hell are you talking about, Darrell the Mailman? What "extreme theories" have I championed in this thread? Please be specific.

What the hell are you talking about, Darrell the Mailman? What "extreme theories" have I championed in this thread? Please be specific.
I am talking about the extreme theories these so-called experts come up with; not yours. I was referencing your attitude toward pizza. Its hard to have serious dialogue when experts talk about cow flatulence & killing off 80% of human population to save rest of "us"? Now if we could find one thing that everyone agrees needs fixing & start with that, then we could probably find another & another. But calling people clueless; or saying that only climatologists have a right to opinion, etc. etc. etc.... gets us nowhere. As for PhD's; I know a few & some are dumber than a fence post. Nice people, but I wouldn't necessarily trust their judgment.

Amen

And sometimes a person with a PHD will just change the whole complexion of things.

I am talking about the extreme theories these so-called experts come up with; not yours. I was referencing your attitude toward pizza.

Again, what theories, extreme or otherwise, have I championed in this thread? My "attitute toward pizza", and my emphasis in this thread should you choose to read it carefully, is to challenge him to support his posts with actual facts. It has become a major frustration for me how much people rely on columnists, television personalities, and bloggers to support their arguments. These sources are pandering to an audience. If one is truly interested in a subject, one needs to delve deeper. Question their sources, investigate the context of their quotations, seek out opposing viewpoints. Don't be sheeple, there are already plenty on both sides of every issue. As I said above, skepticism should be wielded as a two edged sword.

But calling people clueless;
What else would you call someone who refers to an active organization comprised almost exclusively of scientists (http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_bureau.htm) as: "The IPCC (If I got those letters right) was mostly politicians, no scientists."

...or saying that only climatologists have a right to opinion, etc. etc. etc.... gets us nowhere.

I'll ask you not to put words in my mouth. Never have I said only climatologists have a right to an opinion. However, if you are going to express that opinion on a message board, you should be prepared to support it with valid data rather that regurgitated crap from bloggers and PACs.

You used the term "ignorant" earlier. Ignorance can be defined as "lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact" (dictionary.com). When it comes to complex science, most of us are ignorant. The only people who are not are those that understand the current research. This is a generally a very small group of people who are either theorists or experimenters in the field, or lay people with a strong interest in and access to the original research, and that have the educational background necessary to understand it. So, if you want your opinion to have some validity you can either accept the consensus or do the hard work required to become part of that exclusive club.

As for PhD's; I know a few & some are dumber than a fence post. Nice people, but I wouldn't necessarily trust their judgment.

I would posit the same for mailmen and pizza shop owners.

Let me start over. I didn't call you an expert or your theories. I am saying that the extreme theories that are put out don't help advance any action. I can't speak for pizza; but I make no claims to being smarter than the next guy. But rarely do a group of experts ever get anything done that actually helps. It's up to the rest of us to do what has to be done. And we need to START. What have you done for our planet today? Everyone should ask themselves that question.
The line about climatologists was directed as Lyle's post. Remember I included him on that high horse with you. My opinions are mine; no better or worse than anyone else necessarily. And anything you see, read or experience is biased by your own mindset as well as the biases of whoever is presenting it. Data can be manipulated to say what you want it to say. But all you need to do to know we got to start doing something; is walk outside here in Texas in July. Or in January for that matter.

I was called an ignorant Bible thumper by (surprise) a PhD & it just bled into my train of thought as I posted. I also work for a Co run by a PhD.And you know how well the post office is run. Sometimes PhD just means long time in school.

But they (not You) will get a lot more help from mailmen & pizza guys if you don't talk down to them. And you will need our help. Those experts will still be debating bovine flatulence when we're frying in December.

what kind of god would let this happen?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8Sq-VmBMHkw&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8Sq-VmBMHkw&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

That is no bludgeon, my reptilian adversary.

Must've been phallic then?

You really have no friggin' clue what you are talking about, do you?

Agreed, that's what makes the IPCC important, it's mostly scientists, with a few politicians.

Yeah; start by not acting like a jackass. You think that everyone that doesn't agree with every extreme theory is an ignorant bible thumper? I agree with a lot of climate change arguments, but the loonies just hurt the effort. Start with what we all agree on & do just that... START doing something. And climb down from that high horse; & bring 'ol Lyle with you.

Classic, anyone who doesn't agree with you is in an ivory tower or on a high horsey. Doesn't matter that they argue from fact not fiction, and the opposition works... from the gut... Oh and from the pocketbook of the oil and coal companies. Too funny.

We've gotten in the habit, we being Americans, of arguing that what corporate America does is right. Meanwhile, over 60% of our population is unhappy with their lives (surveys say anyway), our standard of living is plummeting, while the guys who own the businesses are getting filthy rich, and pollution levels are on the rise after we had to clean up just 30 years ago. You guys forget what business will do to us if we let them, go look up three mile island, love canal, and the Cuyahoga river for a start. But don't come here and try and tell me that when business says there's no problem that everything is O.K..

I am talking about the extreme theories these so-called experts come up with; not yours. I was referencing your attitude toward pizza. Its hard to have serious dialogue when experts talk about cow flatulence & killing off 80% of human population to save rest of "us"? Now if we could find one thing that everyone agrees needs fixing & start with that, then we could probably find another & another. But calling people clueless; or saying that only climatologists have a right to opinion, etc. etc. etc.... gets us nowhere. As for PhD's; I know a few & some are dumber than a fence post. Nice people, but I wouldn't necessarily trust their judgment.

Please be specific, you tell me what expert says that cow flatulence is a significant problem. Fact is that only one person of "merit," that I know of, puts this notion forward, the Senator from Oklahoma... He is, how did you say it, dumb as a post. Find me a real scientist of merit and responsibility who puts forward the notion of killing off 80% of the people on the planet...

If you are putting forward the notion that a group of people should represent a credible voice on an issue, then those people should be expert in that issue. The notion that your car mechanic, an expert in the inner workings of your automobile, should have a say in how you get treated for heart disease, is at least risky. You might find his voice important, and even follow his advice, but you'd be wrong. Putting forward a list of people with a B.S. in scientific fields unrelated to climatology as having merit in the field is risky... no wait, it's clueless. Unless of course you think the most relevant voice in judging your heart disease is your sanitation engineer...

Your notion that judging the body of climatology work by the fact that you know some clueless Ph.D.s may be misplaced. This is why I've explained the scientific method here and how it works, so you'd understand that it takes into account the outliers and uses the body of work to determine theory. It makes the relevance of a few voices that are out of the mainstream either take on importance or be removed. Experimentation followed by checking and rechecking tests and retests the theory until the body as a whole becomes clear.

Let me start over. I didn't call you an expert or your theories. I am saying that the extreme theories that are put out don't help advance any action. I can't speak for pizza; but I make no claims to being smarter than the next guy. But rarely do a group of experts ever get anything done that actually helps. It's up to the rest of us to do what has to be done. And we need to START. What have you done for our planet today? Everyone should ask themselves that question.
The line about climatologists was directed as Lyle's post. Remember I included him on that high horse with you. My opinions are mine; no better or worse than anyone else necessarily. And anything you see, read or experience is biased by your own mindset as well as the biases of whoever is presenting it. Data can be manipulated to say what you want it to say. But all you need to do to know we got to start doing something; is walk outside here in Texas in July. Or in January for that matter.

I was called an ignorant Bible thumper by (surprise) a PhD & it just bled into my train of thought as I posted. I also work for a Co run by a PhD.And you know how well the post office is run. Sometimes PhD just means long time in school.

But they (not You) will get a lot more help from mailmen & pizza guys if you don't talk down to them. And you will need our help. Those experts will still be debating bovine flatulence when we're frying in December.

Again, you make an interesting point, but it is irrelevant to scientific method. I find it incredibly interesting that a position put forward by a global warming nay-sayer is that global warming theory is extreme. Especially given that the original position by many in that camp was that it wasn't happening. Then as evidence mounted that it was, it switched to, well it's not man kind. Some of the non-extreme theories put forward by them nay-sayers include - sun spots, aligning of the planets, cow flatulence (yes, that is theirs, and just general breathing. Pretty funny stuff. BTW - the cow flatulence thing, while unimportant to this issue, is very interesting.

As an aside, cow flatulence has gone up in the last thirty years. As we've turned to feeding them corn, instead of the grass they're meant to eat, their flatulence has gone up. They are less healthy as are we for eating their less healthy meat...

You may think the post office is run poorly, but you'd be wrong. I don't know what you're comparing it too or how, but the post office runs pretty well compared to many things, even to the over-hyped and poorly run courier services. It is human nature to judge situations based on how well the companies market. Microsoft has an awful product and yet is hugely powerful and rich. We've bought so much into the conservative model that every thing government is evil that we don't even measure performance there, we simply assume it is bad if it isn't perfect...

what kind of god would let this happen?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8Sq-VmBMHkw&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8Sq-VmBMHkw&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

OMG he's done it, he's proved global warming is a hoax. On the other hand, go look up lead poisoning in the Big Easy. It's so endemic there that they are going to have huge problems with child development. Gee, and it doesn't even oozzzze.

Last point, some judge educated people as harshly as they feel they are judged by the educated. How simplistic. The person who watches my child has no formal degree, she is self taught over 30 years and is one of the sharpest people I know. She has made both of my sons better human beings. I have a staff who have taken the rules I've given them on how to do their jobs, modified those rules to be more efficient, and carried out their jobs well. I'm proud of their efforts and need I say, common sense not to follow my directives without question.

Formal education has nothing to do with it, common sense does. Education is key, but it doesn't have to be in a formal setting. Those who pursue education show a certain determination and focus in obtaining higher degrees or more learning; my son's teacher takes courses and studies her topic, all informally; my staff, study the situation they're in, think about the outcome, and apply what they see, they take advice, and give it. The difference is an ability to participate and learn, not to judge everything from what I want or what I need, but rather from the real situation.

BTW - none of them would say that an education makes you dumb or clueless, all of them recognize that learning is important, and they all study hard, just not formally.

First there is only one class here that is qualified to really comment, those who are Climatologists.
Formal education has nothing to do with it, common sense does.
Funny.


Last point
One can only hope, but I seriously doubt it.

mmm, interesting discussion sense last time I was here.

For your amusement.

First-Ever Survey of IPCC Scientists Undermines Alleged 'Consensus' on Global Warming; Poll Exposes Disagreement and Confusion Among United Nations Scientists (http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/11-08-2007/0004701174&EDATE)

Interesting data out of that survey.

Only 14% said ideal climate should be cooler
61% said there was no ideal temperature. I tend to agree with them.

only 20% of them said humans were the principle driver of climate change.

44% didn't think out climate was unprecedentedly warm.
__________________________________________________ __
Bitten by the IPCC (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=0ea8dc23-ad1a-440f-a8dd-1e3ff42df34f&p=2)

As Prof. Reiter testified to a U.K. parliamentary committee in 2005, "The paucity of information was hardly surprising: Not one of the lead authors had ever written a research paper on the subject! Moreover, two of the authors, both physicians, had spent their entire career as environmental activists. One of these activists has published "professional" articles as an "expert" on 32 different subjects, ranging from mercury poisoning to land mines, globalization to allergies and West Nile virus to AIDS.

Prof. Reiter, wanting to know, wrote the IPCC with a series of detailed questions about its decision-making process. It replied: "The brief answer to your question below is 'governments.' It is the governments of the world who make up the IPCC, define its remit and direction. The way in which this is done is defined in the IPCC Principles and Procedures, which have been agreed by governments."

Prof. Reiter believes, the IPCC is a creature of government that meets governmental needs and abides by governmental strictures, and does so without public scrutiny.

And as for Lyles peer reviewed stuff

Even the peer-review process -- ordinarily designed to ensure rigorous science -- has mutated to meet IPCC needs. In professional science, the names of peer reviewers are kept confidential to encourage independent criticism, free of recrimination, while the deliberations of the authors being critiqued are made public.
"The IPCC turns this on its head," Prof. Reiter explains. "The peer reviewers have to give their names to the authors, but the deliberations of the authors are strictly confidential." In effect, the science is spun, disagreements purged, and results predetermined.

__________________________________________________ ____

Japanese IPCC scientists says global warming �worst scientific scandal� (http://orangepunch.freedomblogging.com/2008/06/18/japanese-ipcc-scientists-says-global-warming-worst-scientific-scandal/3343/)

Dr. Kiminori Itoh, award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist specializing in optical waveguide spectroscopy at the University of Tokyo, has a new book Lies and Traps in the Global Warming Affairs.


He writes of �inaccurate temperature measurements,� including chapters that call man-made global warming fears �the worst scientific scandal in the history.�

__________________________________________________ _


UN IPCC Scientist Says Global Warming Big Deception (http://www.rightsidenews.com/200907115419/energy-and-environment/un-ipcc-says-global-warming-big-deception.html)

The title refers to the same Dr Itoh from the last article, but in this article he quotes

John R. Christy, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alabama
Robert M. Carter, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental and Earth Sciences, James Cook University
S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia
Tom V. Segalstad, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Geology, University of Oslo
Robert C. Balling Jr., Ph.D. Professor of Climatology, Arizona State University
Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology
Keith E. Idso, Ph.D. Botany

Then he posts this
It took me only 11 minutes to find these scientists, and links to literally tens of thousands more like them (over 30,000). With that being said, how can any reasonable, thinking adult believe that the "debate is over" and that the "science is settled"?
CO2 is not a pollutant, it is not toxic, it is not responsible for Global Warming, it is responsible for life on this planet, and a critical trace element for life continuing. It is not, however, ever going to be responsible for what politicians, movie stars, eco-terrorist activists, and greedy cap 'n' trade proponents say it is, toxic pollution. Those words more appropriately describe Al Gore and his fawning sycophants as the fear and hate mongers they truly are.


Which is about all the time I am going to spend on this today.

So this is your tactic, Pizza? Completely ignore discussion of your previous posts and just continue throwing up crap to see what sticks? Well, you win. I'm more than willing to engage in honest discussion, but it seems you are not. After a few points on your survey, I quit. This will be my last post in this thread.


Interesting data out of that survey.

Only 14% said ideal climate should be cooler
While only 2% said it should be warmer
61% said there was no ideal temperature. I tend to agree with them.
Actually, it was ideal "climate", not temperature. Few would argue the point, since the question did not specify ideal for what. Humans? Biodiversity? Life? Stupid question.
only 20% of them said humans were the principle driver of climate change.
While an additional 74% said either "Human activity drives climate change, but natural variability is also important" or "Natural variability drives climate change, but human activity is also important".
44% didn't think out climate was unprecedentedly warm.
While 56% did, and of your 44% 31% answered "Within natural variability but moving to unprecedentedly warmer levels." Only 4% answered "Within natural variability and stable" with the rest answering either "No opinion" or "Not a useful metric"

But perhaps the most telling statistic from the survey is that of 345 targeted individuals only "Fifty-four responses were included in the final results". Why is that? According to this survey recipient (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/did-you-stop-beating-your-wife-yes-no/) he refused to participate because the survey is specious. I'll let him speak for himself:

I got an email Climate Expert Survey today from DemandDebate.com, a creation of Steve Milloy. Milloy has practiced to deceive before in the climate arena, and his junkscience.com, claiming to debunk the junk science of others, is actually a terrific source of specious deception in its own right. This survey looks like another such initiative. (Note added later: If you get a copy of this, post a comment or send us an email. We’d like to keep track.)


First question. Which best describes the reason(s) for climate change?

[ ] Human activity is the principal driver of climate change.
[ ] Human activity drives climate change, but natural variability is also important.
[ ] Natural variability drives climate change, but human activity is also important.
[ ] Natural variability is the principal driver of climate change.
[ ] No opinion.

The problem with this question is that it doesn’t specify what time frame I am to consider. Before the twentieth century, natural climate change was probably the most important factor. However, I fear that if I allow that, on whatever time scale, “natural variability is also important” my response will be used to argue that “X% of expert climate scientists think that natural variability is an important driver of climate”. As, of course, it is, but natural variability is no argument against the danger of human-induced climate change.

Second question. Which best describes the role of manmade CO2 emissions in climate change?

[ ] Manmade CO2 emissions are the principal driver of climate change.
[ ] Manmade CO2 emissions drive climate change, but other natural and human-related factors are also important.
[ ] Other natural and/or human-related factors drive climate change, but manmade CO2 emissions are important.
[ ] Other natural and/or human-related factors are the principal drivers of climate change.
[ ] No opinion.

Gee. We can’t choose the first option, because climate is sometimes also driven by the intensity of the sun, or by wobbles in the Earth’s orbit, or collapsing ice sheets… Again, though, if the question had been just about the last 30 years, the first option would be arguably right. But that’s not the question asked. Again, “X% of climate experts surveyed said that natural variability is important.” Again, it is, on some time scales. But it doesn’t give any reason not to fear global warming.

The questions being asked here are similar to another equally abused survey by Bray and von Storch. This survey is part of a larger agenda to try to challenge the consensus of climate scientists, and given the long list of statements of consensus from scientific organizations (http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm), you’d think they’d give up already.

I declined to participate in the survey and would advise you to do the same.

So more debate today instead of action. I'm buying stock in sunscreen. Who is this naysayer? Not me; I'm just a crap or get off the pot guy. Whether humans are the cause of global warming or not is whats irrelevant. Humans are the only ones that can fix it. Or God & Mother Earth will fix it for us. And we won't like their solution.

And cows aren't eating more corn now; it's all being turned into ethanol.

As for the post office; can I interest you in some swamp land?
Sorry I gotta run. I mow late as I can; it's better for the air.

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/rkxAm0RgMr8&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rkxAm0RgMr8&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

Parts 2, 3, 4, and 5 can be found in the video responses.

Funny.



One can only hope, but I seriously doubt it.

LOL. Have to agree. Not sure what your point was, but I do have to agree.