Global Warming

[Captain Dan]

Here is an interesting viewpoint:

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

I particularly like:

It wasn't until Pangea began breaking up in the Jurassic Period that climates became moist once again. Carbon dioxide existed then at average concentrations of about 1200 ppm, but have since declined. Today, at 370 ppm our atmosphere is CO2-impoverished, although environmentalists, certain political groups, and the news media would have us believe otherwise.

What will our climate be like in the future? That is the question scientists are asking and seeking answers to right now. The causes of "global warming" and climate change are today being popularly described in terms of human activities. However, climate change is something that happens constantly on it's own. If humans are in fact altering Earth's climate with our cars, electrical powerplants, and factories these changes must be larger than the natural climate variability in order to be measurable. So far the signal of a discernible human contribution to global climate change has not emerged from this natural variability or background noise.

[Teiwaz]

Wow. What an eye opener. Great site, I'll have to read it more thorougly. It's funny how things look different when you stand back further and take it in a broader context and greater time frames. Financial stuff is the same.

[The_Man]

Dan,
Took a while to read, but really a great wealth of information. I have never given much merit to the Global Warming alarmist. Not to change the direction of your thread, just want to insert my feelings. It seems like the more we learn about the natural workings of the world in which we live the less we understand why they work the way they do other than if they did not we could not survive on this planet. The wonder of all the complex things that must take place for life to be sustained could not be just an accident. To me it is folly for man to believe anything less than a higher power put all the things in motion required for man to exist in this awesomely wonderful world.

[PCIncorrect]

Climate change does occur naturally on its own, but dont you think the affect of all the cement and asphalt being laid causes a change in atmospheric pressure? The amount of heat radiated back to the atmosphere has to have some affect on climate. When more and more natural terrain is used up for buildings, highways, parking lots, etc there is no place for the heat generated to be absorbed. I guess a good example would be to stand on an asphalt rode in the middle of the day when temp is 100 degrees and you will feel the amount of radiated heat immediately, now do same simple test but stand on a large open grass field in the same temp. You will immediately see the difference, that the amount of radiated heat back to the atmosphere is much less. Now multiple that change by the growing population of buildings and such and I think you will find it does make a difference...

Just spouting my non-scientific .02

["shazbat"]

So far the signal of a discernible human contribution to global climate change has not emerged from this natural variability or background noise.

Bosh. Must a mouthpiece of the administration.
Reallistically I agree we can not truly measure the affect we've had on the enviornment because we had no game plan or score card to compare to.
To espouse that we've had no or negligible affect on the environment just because we have no yardstick is only a sign of our own ignorance and our own sense of self importance. The "Human Centrist World"
In "eastern" philosophies even the swatting of a fly has far reaching implications.
The weather of our planet is a product of the physics of the planetary action and the influences of all the climatic impacts contained therein. Just as it can be shown that occurances in asia last week or an "off shore wave" from africa can effect the Gulf of Mexico, so to can the affects of greenhouse gases, denuding of forest and the creation of asphalt deserts be shown to have effect.
The fact that archaeology can show that periodic rises and falls in temperature and changes in atmosphere happened naturally over that past many millenia does not belittle the affect that we can have on our environment.
If the equivalent was happening to your body your physician would call it a virus.
What long term effect does it have and does it require a cure, who knows.
Will the earths immune system fix it or do we need to medicate?

[retread]

http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_3899807

You'll often hear the left lecture about the importance of dissent in a free society.

Why not give it a whirl?

Start by challenging global warming hysteria next time you're at a LoDo cocktail party and see what happens.

Admittedly, I possess virtually no expertise in science. That puts me in exactly the same position as most dogmatic environmentalists who want to craft public policy around global warming fears.

The only inconvenient truth about global warming, contends Colorado State University's Bill Gray, is that a genuine debate has never actually taken place. Hundreds of scientists, many of them prominent in the field, agree.

Gray is perhaps the world's foremost hurricane expert. His Tropical Storm Forecast sets the standard. Yet, his criticism of the global warming "hoax" makes him an outcast.

"They've been brainwashing us for 20 years," Gray says. "Starting with the nuclear winter and now with the global warming. This scare will also run its course. In 15-20 years, we'll look back and see what a hoax this was."

Gray directs me to a 1975 Newsweek article that whipped up a different fear: a coming ice age.

"Climatologists," reads the piece, "are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change. ... The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality."

Thank God they did nothing. Imagine how warm we'd be?

Another highly respected climatologist, Roger Pielke Sr. at the University of Colorado, is also skeptical.

Pielke contends there isn't enough intellectual diversity in the debate. He claims a few vocal individuals are quoted "over and over" again, when in fact there are a variety of opinions.

I ask him: How do we fix the public perception that the debate is over?

"Quite frankly," says Pielke, who runs the Climate Science Weblog (climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu), "I think the media is in the ideal position to do that. If the media honestly presented the views out there, which they rarely do, things would change. There aren't just two sides here. There are a range of opinions on this issue. A lot of scientists out there that are very capable of presenting other views are not being heard."

Al Gore (not a scientist) has definitely been heard

[Teiwaz]

I for one have no idea who is right. I take anyone who argues from an agenda driven position with a big grain of salt. They advocate a position, and select their evidence. I would love to see a broad based debate on this issue. It would have to occur over time, and would need to be really well structured, but why, for example, doesn't Discovery Channel start a new series called Weather Sharmans, or Climate Crapshoot and let them all debate their predictions, quote their evidence, and be challenged. With a guiding hand to structure it and stop it getting too technical, and some cool graphics etc, I reckon they would trap a significant audience.

[The_Man]

Admittedly, I possess virtually no expertise in science. That puts me in exactly the same position as most dogmatic environmentalists who want to craft public policy around global warming fears.

I too would have to classify myself in this category. That said, all knowledge is acquired by study and research performed by others that are knowledgeable in their chosen field of expertise. From what I have seen there seems to be more evidence against “Global Warming” than for.

The debate seems to be more politically driven than Scientifically. History is a hard thing to refute, although it in itself has a history of being embellished and shaded.

"Quite frankly," says Pielke, who runs the Climate Science Weblog (climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu), "I think the media is in the ideal position to do that. If the media honestly presented the views out there, which they rarely do, things would change. There aren't just two sides here. There are a range of opinions on this issue. A lot of scientists out there that are very capable of presenting other views are not being heard."

A clue as to which political party controls the mainstream media can be found by just following the mainstream media’s position on the debate. Both political parties have a horse in this race so to speak. Politicians would love for us to be of the opinion that we need them to protect us from ourselves. That said, I will continue to follow the research and keep an open mind to the theories put out there, but for now I think the whole “Global Warming Alarm” is a bunch of bunk.

[nelson]

Politicians would love for us to be of the opinion that we need them to protect us from ourselves. That said, I will continue to follow the research and keep an open mind to the theories put out there, but for now I think the whole “Global Warming Alarm” is a bunch of bunk.I like your observation, The_Man, and I have to agree. Behold, politicians and proponents of big federal government present... a critical problem that apparently must be solved through mandate by bigger federal governments.

I think any reasonably intelligent person has to be open to all possibilities. But, for those who are genuinely interested in the issue, how do you hold an intelligent debate amidst a massive propaganda campaign? You can't. Propaganda-victimized participants have no reason behind their beliefs; they will tug at your emotions. Result: you're the bad guy, and you lose. Turn off the ridiculous propaganda in our schools, our government, and our media, and maybe we'll learn something.

If global warming is real (I think it's being called Global Climate Change now, I'd guess because "warming" is too specific and less provable), how do you eliminate this threat entirely - without simply postponing the global warming apocalypse? Do we destroy every trace of our existence, then go back to eating beans and berries and living in caves? Could the delicate earth survive the massive doses of methane? Not to make too much light of the topic, but when you honestly look at the roots of the global warming hoopla, it is pretty comical.

[Teiwaz]

Focus on things that matter, and are real and observable - like logging for EG. The rate at which we are clearing the worlds rainforests is disgusting. Forestry should be a sustainable industry, it's not necessary to clear old growth forests and enviromentally sensitive areas and ecosystems. The effect on World Climate Change from deafforestation is speculative, but stopping it is an end in itself from an enviromental standpoint. There are plenty of examples like this. Whether greenhouse gas emmisions like automotive exhaust, are going to result in the inundation of everyone living on the coast in 100 years isn't the point really, they and other pollutants should be more tightly controlled for any number of other reasons, like health.

[Captain Dan]

The real question, of course, is not if Global warming is real or not, but what will the politicians do. Kyoto wants to punish the develped countries, and let the developing countries "catch up" by getting a waiver on pollution and carbon emissions. Its not a technical problem, but a political one. I think our government is correct in not signing. If everyone was compelled to adhere to the same restrictions it would be another matter.
On the scientific side, as a research scientist for 30 years, I have first hand knowledge how funding (follow the money) affects the direction of research. There is no payback in proving that global warming is insignificant. Only research that says there is a problem, and "more study is required" gets funded. Its a self fulfilling prophesy.

["shazbat"]

Whether greenhouse gas emmisions like automotive exhaust, are going to result in the inundation of everyone living on the coast in 100 years isn't the point really, they and other pollutants should be more tightly controlled for any number of other reasons, like health.

I thought that was part of the purpose of the EPA?
Of course they're being subverted at every opportunity that might make someone money.

[jarhead]

Here is an interesting viewpoint:

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

I particularly like:

It wasn't until Pangea began breaking up in the Jurassic Period that climates became moist once again. Carbon dioxide existed then at average concentrations of about 1200 ppm, but have since declined. Today, at 370 ppm our atmosphere is CO2-impoverished, although environmentalists, certain political groups, and the news media would have us believe otherwise.

What will our climate be like in the future? That is the question scientists are asking and seeking answers to right now. The causes of "global warming" and climate change are today being popularly described in terms of human activities. However, climate change is something that happens constantly on it's own. If humans are in fact altering Earth's climate with our cars, electrical powerplants, and factories these changes must be larger than the natural climate variability in order to be measurable. So far the signal of a discernible human contribution to global climate change has not emerged from this natural variability or background noise.solar activity, solar flares, and distance between earth and sun all play a roll in our weather. i for one am not sold on the "global warming thing" as put by the enviromentalists aka (anti capitalists)

[nelson]

Congressional Scientific Commission: Global Warming Is Real, Caused by Humans
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200590,00.html

Not the first time the National Academy of Sciences has said this. The tone of this AP report is very official and leaves no question - there absolutely is global warming caused by human activities, which is resulting in hurricane disasters, and the Bush administration does not care. That is the real case made by this article and most others in the traditional media, the case being drilled into our heads. Do you buy it? I'm skeptical of everything that comes through these organizations.

[retread]

Congressional Scientific Commission: Global Warming Is Real, Caused by Humans
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200590,00.html

Not the first time the National Academy of Sciences has said this. The tone of this AP report is very official and leaves no question - there absolutely is global warming caused by human activities, which is resulting in hurricane disasters, and the Bush administration does not care. That is the real case made by this article and most others in the traditional media, the case being drilled into our heads. Do you buy it? I'm skeptical of everything that comes through these organizations.

In reality the affect mankind as a whole has had on the planet is not unlike the affect cancer has on a person.

It's not the Kyoto treaty that's the answer it's (was) ZPG (Zero Population Growth) as presented by Ehrlich in the late 60's... Mankind has over populated the planet and that is the real problem.

http://www.overpopulation.com/faq/people/paul_ehrlich.html

As always it is easier to point the finger at the USA and the life style of 300M Americans than to look at the effect 6.5B people as we collectively eat away at the planet.

There are too many people and the educated know this and act accordingly and the less educated just keep having babies.

On a side note: one political party benefits from this population growth more than the other as the veil they hide behind appears to depict them as more concerned, more caring, more charitable, more forgiving, more understanding, more environmentally conscious etc.

[nelson]

I find this take fascinating, retread. There is no denying the global population has exploded. Vast pockets of people in various parts of the world can't support themselves. The Chinese government has had a one-baby policy for 26 years in their effort to fight massive overpopulation leading to extreme poverty. Even Stephen Hawking says we've got to colonize other terrestrial bodies. Do you think, in our current political climate, the West is capable of overcoming this?

Or should we, like the NYT and other left wingers, focus on "fixing" a natural process that has occurred since the beginning of the world - global climate change.

New York Times 6/27/06: Scientists consider unorthodox ways to fight 'global warming' (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/27/science/earth/27cool.html?ex=1151985600&en=ca9e39a26d7e4ece&ei=5065&partner=MYWAY)

["shazbat"]

The EPA was established prior to any notion of "Global Warming" so I can agree to set aside the "GW" argument as irreconcileable for lack of substantive evidence.
The notion of the the EPA and like organizations was to prevent us from polluting ourselves out of existence. Still a good idea till there is an alternative plan which I don't expect within the next 100 years.
Can we conserve our resources that long at the current rate of growth and usage?

[nelson]

The US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has released a statement criticizing the Associated Press and essentially accusing them of falsely accrediting Gore's movie about global warming.

http://www.epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257909

["shazbat"]

The US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has released a statement criticizing the Associated Press and essentially accusing them of falsely accrediting Gore's movie about global warming.

http://www.epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257909

Gore? Isn't he the guy that invented the internet? ;) Come on, no one takes him seriously, not even liberals.

[nelson]

That's for sure! :)

[The G]

I'm enjoying these cool summers we've been having. the thermometer has to be wrong.

[nelson]

The Associated Press certainly loves Global Warming hysteria:

Heat Wave Blamed for 28 Deaths Nationwide
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,204880,00.html

But do hot temperatures today necessarily denote human-influenced global warming? I'm not convinced. I am told the Earth has seen such changes before, and also that humanity has survived them. Remember what they teach in geology? Cliff's Notes version...
3800-2500 million years ago during "Haldean" age the Earth was as hot as Hades 2500-570 million years ago during "Proterozoic" age the Earth theoretically freezes solid from pole to pole 570-248 million years ago during Paleozoic era Earth warms then two independent ice ages occur Throughout Earth's history geologists theorize at least five mass extinctions Ice ages have been long term events, lasting tens of millions of years, having their own cooling periods called glaciations and temporary warming periods called interglacials Humans theoretically appeared in Africa some 170,000 years ago during a glaciation 100,000 years ago, during the Eemian interglacial, humans migrated across the Sinai peninsula to the Middle East. There they died in the ice of the new Wisconsian glaciation - never made it to Europe. 85,000 years ago, still during the Wisconsian glaciation, humans migrated from Africa across the land at the opposite end of the Red Sea into Asia Humanity survived a catastrophic volcano in (what is today) Indonesia that almost wiped everyone out 73,500 years ago, plunged the Earth into long-term darkness, and altered the global climate. The long Wisconsian glaciation ended about 18,000 years ago and global warming began. Humanity flourished and migrated to higher latitudes than ever before. 12,000 years ago - temporary cooling provoked by large glacial sheet size of a Canadian province that split into the Atlantic. 10,000 years ago - global warming resumed, now called Holocene Epoch by geologistsThat's the super-abbreviated version as taken directly from Why Geography Matters by arm De Blij... of course the full history of Earth and its climate is a lot more complicated. At the very least geologists currently believe climate change has occurred many, many times through simple cycles and after natural/supernatural events... and we know the Earth has always survived. They also believe humanity has survived severe glaciations, radical interglaciations, and natural catastrophes the likes of which we have never seen. So if they are correct then today it seems very silly for humanity to worry about slight changes as precursors to a looming disaster, or to necessarily ascribe any such changes to themselves or their actions. We might try very hard, but I do not think we could be any more vain. Whatever happens, the Earth has likely seen much worse, and we'll survive it... but I don't think that will be because we migrate to hybrid cars.

[The_Man]

Nelson,
Thanks again for stating the provable facts of the history of global climate changes. The alarmists seem to ignore the cyclic nature of global climate changes. Although I am sure that there is an affect that man’s impact has on the environment and all efforts to keep the negative ones at a minimum should be pursued, the gradual warming trend we see is normal in the cycle we are now in.

[The G]

I don't think we are talking about what took place over a couple of million years, We're talking about our life time, NEVER has there been such a dramatic change in climate in such a short period of time.... Just because our leadership can't get there heads out of the oil company butts, our children... hell us shouldn't suffer for their lack foresight... Please !!!!!

http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1109337,00.html

[nelson]

I think the global warming "issue" is massive media and Hollywood propaganda. Many elected officials in the US government agree with me.

The US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has recently published "The Skeptic's Guide to Debunking Global Warming." It's basically an official government response to out-of-control journalists and Hollywood elites (and even other government figures) that have been peddling global warming to the public for years. Global warming fanatics, if they have the patience to evaluate positions that contradict their own, will find this 64 page publication makes some pretty compelling arguments. It covers everything from the Kyoto treaty to the media reversing course (prior to the seventies the media used to peddle a global cooling theory, decades before that it was another warming theory, and before that yet another cooling theory) and responds directly to many issues, editorials and media commentators - even Al Gore's movie.

US Senate memo about the guide's release:
http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=266711

Link to the guide itself:
http://epw.senate.gov/repwhitepapers/6341044%20Hot%20&%20Cold%20Media.pdf

[curt_the_flirt]

I don't think we are talking about what took place over a couple of million years, We're talking about our life time, NEVER has there been such a dramatic change in climate in such a short period of time.... Just because our leadership can't get there heads out of the oil company butts, our children... hell us shouldn't suffer for their lack foresight... Please !!!!!

http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1109337,00.html

How can anyone say, "NEVER has there been such a dramatic change in climate in such a short period of time?" Over eons of time, we have no observational data that can support such a conclusion.

I remember Senator Feinstein spouting off last year intimating that the hurricanes we were seeing were the result of global warming. This year, we had very few hurricanes and all were of moderate to low intensity. Yet, I haven't heard any of these so-called experts quoted in Time, nor Senator Feinstein retract or modify their opinions.

[BlackAdder]

After reading this thread I see why nothing will change.

Are those that don't believe in Global Warming the same that don't believe smoking causes lung cancer?

Being ignorant or nieve is not an excuse for not believing the facts. The very sad part about this is by the time we are able to say 'I told you so' it will be too late.

Are you trying to tell me that some of you believe that pollution hasn't increased in the past 100 years and therfore wouldn't effect Global Warming?

Very sad indeed.

[The G]

Ask the guys up North that can't ride snowmobile's like we used to when we where kids.... da ha its warmer... PLEASE open your eyes it right in front of you. you won't find it on "FOX" :rofl:

["shazbat"]

Very difficult subject.
Archaeologic evidence supports many up/down cycles in global climate though the ages.
Up till now the source or cause of all progressions must necessarily be "natural phenomena", whether related to orbital anomylies, volcanic actions, naturally occuring greenhouse gas, or other of the many projected causes.
Even will those the results are still "cause and effect".
Were there no humans cyclic climate change would still occur.
We can only ask ourselves if our actions have had any affect on that cycle.
To state catagorically that "Global warming" does not exist in the face of evidence that periods of warming and cooling have occured is an argument in semantics.
For the "nay sayers" to claim that the actions of men (pollution, mass deforestation, etc.) have had no affect on the timing of these cycles is short sighted.
On the other hand for the alarmists to think that it would not and could not possibly happen anyway due to natural causes is also short sighted, as the archaeologic record clearly demonstrates.
As stated it's cyclic, all "cause and effect". And I believe that we, or rather our actions over the past couple centuries are a factor in the rate, timing of or intensity of the current cycle, which would likely happen anyway.
We have other, possibly greater problems to consider which may make our affect on global climate a minor issue.
Fossil fuels are not reasonably self replenishing and WILL run out. At the current rate of population growth reliance on farming to provide food will become increasingly dependent on available land and climactic environment. The oceans fisheries are detrimentally affected by pollution and over fishing.
I love the town, state and nation in which I was born. But to be honest unless the people of the world can get by their petty ideas of nationalism and sectarianism and begin to think globally then we're all fucked.

[nelson]

Very difficult subject.
Archaeologic evidence supports many up/down cycles in global climate though the ages.
Up till now the source or cause of all progressions must necessarily be "natural phenomena", whether related to orbital anomylies, volcanic actions, naturally occuring greenhouse gas, or other of the many projected causes.
Even will those the results are still "cause and effect".
Were there no humans cyclic climate change would still occur.
We can only ask ourselves if our actions have had any affect on that cycle.Very well said.

To state catagorically that "Global warming" does not exist in the face of evidence that periods of warming and cooling have occured is an argument in semantics.Semantically, consider that "Global Warming" does not only mean an average increase in global temperatures; it is also a buzzword, a marketing term, even an industry unto itself. Today, Global Warming sells literature, transportation, entertainment, energy, research, and more. We may debate the merits, or lack thereof, in every influenced transaction. But with the word semantics I think you have hit on a very important point in this discussion.

For the "nay sayers" to claim that the actions of men (pollution, mass deforestation, etc.) have had no affect on the timing of these cycles is short sighted.
On the other hand for the alarmists to think that it would not and could not possibly happen anyway due to natural causes is also short sighted, as the archaeologic record clearly demonstrates.
As stated it's cyclic, all "cause and effect". And I believe that we, or rather our actions over the past couple centuries are a factor in the rate, timing of or intensity of the current cycle, which would likely happen anyway.I find it difficult to object to what you have stated here. My compliments!

We have other, possibly greater problems to consider which may make our affect on global climate a minor issue.
Fossil fuels are not reasonably self replenishing and WILL run out. At the current rate of population growth reliance on farming to provide food will become increasingly dependent on available land and climactic environment. The oceans fisheries are detrimentally affected by pollution and over fishing.I have read about peak oil theory but I am hesitant to make any assumptions, especially in light of massive modern oil reserve discoveries, and of new theories about how oil is formed. Is oil a even fossil fuel? (http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/8/9/9/1) (Well? (http://physicsweb.org/articles/review/12/2/1) We don't know. (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47675)) It seems science is the only religion - and it is, the religion of humanism - in which the preacher may remain credible even while continually and constantly revising his fundamental mantras. If oil is not a fossil fuel, then how many other assumptions have we inscribed as fact into the minds of school children for decades, what other theories have we bet our future, or based the livelihood of civilization, upon?

I do not debate whether pollution affects oceans and the earth in general, nor whether population growth will demand increased production of food. And anyhow, whether fossil fuels or not, we do know natural resources are limited, and that they replenish or must be replenished. My point here is simply to say that despite our best efforts, our knowledge still appears very limited.

I love the town, state and nation in which I was born. But to be honest unless the people of the world can get by their petty ideas of nationalism and sectarianism and begin to think globally then we're all fucked.I know you do, shazbat. But in the real world, people will get over petty nationalism and sectarianism as soon as the fathers of the world get over their petty ideas of family, and the mothers of the world get over their petty ideas of children. Hoping for anything close to this would be idealistic. To be more practical, we must be selective in our battles, fighting those which we can win. That is not to say that improvements ought not be made; efforts like cutting pollution are certainly worthwhile. But it is not realistic to remove humanity from human beings.

[nelson]

After reading this thread I see why nothing will change.

Are those that don't believe in Global Warming the same that don't believe smoking causes lung cancer?

Being ignorant or nieve is not an excuse for not believing the facts. The very sad part about this is by the time we are able to say 'I told you so' it will be too late.

Are you trying to tell me that some of you believe that pollution hasn't increased in the past 100 years and therfore wouldn't effect Global Warming?

Very sad indeed.BlackAdder, I think shazbat has summed it up succinctly on behalf of both the naysayers and the alarmists. I am a reasonable person and reserve the right to change my mind. However, at this time, in this debate, I will remain with the skeptics before I launch my alarmist tirade. In my view we simply do not know what the effect of our pollution, if any, may be. In reality we receive very little "factual" information today - and this includes scientific information and evidence - that is not manipulated in order to attach a specific agenda, which, in the case of scientific studies or research, is often to solicit private or government funding.

I do acknowledge that pollution has increased in the past 100 years. However, I lean toward the guilt-ridden hysteria explanation when someone draws the conclusion that we are responsible for changes in the weather, Katrina, and other looming catastrophes, or that we are doomed. Through the ages humanity has survived greater weather changes than we will face over the course of the next few hundred years, and with far less technology than we have today.

Ask the guys up North that can't ride snowmobile's like we used to when we where kids.... da ha its warmer... PLEASE open your eyes it right in front of you. you won't find it on "FOX" :rofl:

The G, Denver has received an enormous amount of snowfall over the last few weeks. I do not see anyone casting the blame at us, or attributing this snowfall to human-induced global cooling. Are they doing that on CNN?

How can anyone say, "NEVER has there been such a dramatic change in climate in such a short period of time?" Over eons of time, we have no observational data that can support such a conclusion.

I remember Senator Feinstein spouting off last year intimating that the hurricanes we were seeing were the result of global warming. This year, we had very few hurricanes and all were of moderate to low intensity. Yet, I haven't heard any of these so-called experts quoted in Time, nor Senator Feinstein retract or modify their opinions.I remember that, too. Curt is right, we have theories and geologic records - which are filtered through funding-reliant geologists before they reach us - but we do not have observational evidence showing a warming trend taking place in our time that is any different than all the various climate trends that have passed through the ages. As noted above, we should also note that humanity and the earth have survived some of these historical climate trends with far less technology than we have today. And at the very least we should see the caution flag whenever the party of 'reliance upon government' politically capitalizes on natural disasters to convince us that we need to rely upon government for a solution to the pending doom.

[BlackAdder]

BlackAdder, I think shazbat has summed it up succinctly on behalf of both the naysayers and the alarmists. I am a reasonable person and reserve the right to change my mind. However, at this time, in this debate, I will remain with the skeptics before I launch my alarmist tirade.

As I said in my post. By the time you are proved wrong it will be too late. Who wins then?

Were you with the skeptics who claimed smoking didnt cause cancer? How about the group that believed asbestos was fine or washing your hands in varsol or gasoline was fine.

Kinda wished we weren't to late to prove them wrong. Sometimes we refuse to acknowledge our mistakes because we are just so set in our ways and believe we can never be wrong.

[curt_the_flirt]

As I said in my post. By the time you are proved wrong it will be too late. Who wins then?

Were you with the skeptics who claimed smoking didnt cause cancer? How about the group that believed asbestos was fine or washing your hands in varsol or gasoline was fine.

Kinda wished we weren't to late to prove them wrong. Sometimes we refuse to acknowledge our mistakes because we are just so set in our ways and believe we can never be wrong.

I believe we should be good stewards of the resources of this world. It is the only one we have. In that sense, I approve of some plans to reduce pollutants we spew into the environment. However, I do remain skeptical to claims of anthropogenic climate change, and more to the point, I am dismayed by some of the suggested "changes" made by those who do. If Kyoto was applied with all vigor by all governments the costs would be staggering - to the point of sinking most of the world's economies, and for what? A possible .2 degree Celsius change in global temperature in 50 years - a change that as far as our ability to detect and record, remains in the noise of scientific ability.

The comparion to "skeptics who claimed smoking didnt cause cancer," fails on several levels. No, I was not a skeptic with respect to that. My father passed away from the results of smoking, something we all wished he would have stopped long ago. The evidence for connecting the direct inhalation of nicotine to disastrous health consequences is much higher than any evidence offered to date by "global warming experts." If these experts wish to have the credibility of those who study the effects of tars and nicotine, they should do and offer the same sorts of credible research using the scientific method. Michael Mann refused to include evidence of the Medieval Warming Period in his infamous "hockey stick." Would you allow any other scientific discipline to present the same sort of faulty analysis without criticism?
Al Gore shows cooling stacks from nuclear power plants on the cover of his DVD, yet nuclear power does not provide any sort of significant source of CO2 and in fact could significantly reduce our dependency on CO2 creating energy sources. Would you believe any other advocate of a "science" that produces something that is so blatantly wrong?

BTW, just so you know, I do put credence into what I said about being a good steward. I recycle, I don't own a vehicle with more than 6 cylinders, I've retrofitted my house with the best insulating windows I could find, use high-efficiency lighting, and automate my heating and cooling, and I'm probably forgetting some things in that list. I do this because it makes sense - it makes a demonstrable difference in the energy I consume. I am waiting for "global warming experts" to do the same - make sense.

[retread]

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm


Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide

Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?


Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and that for 32 years I was a Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.

What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?
Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.
No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?
Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.
I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.
Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.
No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.
I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.
In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?
Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.
I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.
Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.
I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.
As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.
Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.
Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.
I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.
Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (http://www.nrsp.com/) (www.nrsp.com), is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. He can be reached at letters@canadafreepress.com

[vrodderD]

For Immediate Release: February 26, 2007

February 26, 2007

For Further Information, Contact:
Nicole Williams, (615) 383-6431
editor@tennesseepolicy.org

Al Gore’s Personal Energy Use Is His Own “Inconvenient Truth”
Gore’s home uses more than 20 times the national average

Last night, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.

Gore’s mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

“As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.

In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.


###

**********
The Tennessee Center for Policy Research is an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization committed to achieving a freer, more prosperous Tennessee through free market policy solutions.

[curt_the_flirt]

And yet, Richard Cohen was singing his praises in the editorial section of the NY Times, today - which of course, the local San Jose Mercury News had to print.

Sigh!

[The G]

I found this interesting seeing no one believes in Global warming but will fight over shipping rights.:rolleyes:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7033498.stm.

[MYCAR47562]

is this bring thread back from the dead day?

[The G]

is this bring thread back from the dead day?
Yes and there should be a PM in your box notifying you of this change. :)

[MYCAR47562]

Yes and there should be a PM in your box notifying you of this change. :)

hum i guess somebody's stealing my mail

[gtrman66]

Must be the global warming...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090108/ap_on_re_us/alaska_extreme_cold

Extreme Alaska cold grounds planes, disables cars

JUNEAU, Alaska – Ted Johnson planned on using a set of logs to a build a cabin in Alaska's interior. Instead he'll burn some of them to stay warm.

Extreme temperatures — in Johnson's case about 60 below zero — call for extreme measures in a statewide cold snap so frigid that temperatures have grounded planes, disabled cars, frozen water pipes and even canceled several championship cross country ski races.

Alaskans are accustomed to subzero temperatures but the prolonged conditions have folks wondering what's going on with winter less than a month old.

National Weather Service meteorologist Andy Brown said high pressure over much of central Alaska has been keeping other weather patterns from moving through. New conditions get pushed north or south while the affected area faces daily extremes.

"When it first started almost two weeks ago, it wasn't anything abnormal," Brown said. "About once or twice every year, we get a good cold snap. But, in this case, you can call this an extreme event. This is rare. It doesn't happen every year."

...more on the web site

[MYCAR47562]

From What I Understand The Concept Of Global Warming Wouldn't Be Just Warming It Would Throw Everything Off. Hell Down Here We Can't Seem To Have A Steady Anything Its 30 One Day And 70 The Next It's Making Alot Of People Down Here Sick.

[nelson]

This is really funny... and scary.

With Al Due Respect, We're Doomed
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/28/AR2009012803318_pf.html



.

[Johnny Dangerously]

This is really funny... and scary.

With Al Due Respect, We're Doomed
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/28/AR2009012803318_pf.html



.

Hey now, don't be dis'n the inventor of the Internet...:rofl:rofl

[Remphoto]

This is really funny... and scary.

With Al Due Respect, We're Doomed
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/28/AR2009012803318_pf.html



.

Doggone right it's scary. Scary that so many people still take Algore and his Chicken Little stuff seriously. Recent scientific studies reveal additional conflicting data regarding "climate change" (the new term being used because "global warming" is a tough sale, given recent weather patterns). He and his followers stand ready to implement massive changes which will affect us as individuals and as society, based on theory. Great story, thanks for sharing Johnny.

[Johnny Dangerously]

Doggone right it's scary. Scary that so many people still take Algore and his Chicken Little stuff seriously. Recent scientific studies reveal additional conflicting data regarding "climate change" (the new term being used because "global warming" is a tough sale, given recent weather patterns). He and his followers stand ready to implement massive changes which will affect us as individuals and as society, based on theory. Great story, thanks for sharing Johnny.

Actually I think it was Nelson who brought that. But, your Chicken Little comment cracks me up. I was just thinking last night while I was watching the news - "this guy's like chicken little"...:rofl

[nelson]

The global warming backlash is heating up.

Yesterday the founder of the Weather Channel, a weatherman in San Diego, posted this column:

The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scam
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/38574742.html

That's pretty big news if you ask me. The founder of TWC is absolutely lambasting the theory of Global Warming. Funny, I don't see anything about this posted on the front page at CNN, MSNBC, ABC News, or CBS News.

[gtrman66]

Aw, Nelson, you beat me to it. (it is on Fox, but don't tell G & Engles)

[Remphoto]

Current management of TWC is in the tank for GW and a few years ago threatened its staff that they better be too if they wished to remain employed. Here's its policy statement (note how odd it sounds given weather conditions the last two years since it was written):

http://www.weather.com/encyclopedia/global/index.html

Here are the tactics TWC head Heidi Cullen is advocating against
meteorologist who dispute the theory:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528

Here is info on TWC founder's postion:


http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080303175301.aspx

[Oriondk]

After reading this thread I see why nothing will change.

Are those that don't believe in Global Warming the same that don't believe smoking causes lung cancer?

Being ignorant or nieve is not an excuse for not believing the facts. The very sad part about this is by the time we are able to say 'I told you so' it will be too late.

Are you trying to tell me that some of you believe that pollution hasn't increased in the past 100 years and therfore wouldn't effect Global Warming?

Very sad indeed.

I'm a little late to the discussion, but what facts? The problem is there is a concerted effort to intimidate any scientist that doesn't "believe" in the facts. But lately, more and more leading scientist are coming out against the whole global warming "theory".

Read this and look at the credentials of the global warming sceptics.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9&CFID=1720667&CFTOKEN=40746712

It's also interesting to note that every planet in the solar system has warmed recently.
Or to note that global temperatures cooled over the last two years, and judging from the winter we're having, will cool again.
Or to note that polar ice caps increased by 60%.