queue

Verb: Take one's place in a queue: "in the war they had queued for food"; "companies are queuing up to move to the bay".
Noun: A line or sequence of people or vehicles awaiting their turn to be attended to or to proceed.

"Que" means what in Spanish.

What, there's not enough doom and gloom before our eyes in the article? We would have to fabricate more? We're in trouble people.

If we continue down the uninformed self-serving naysayer path, we could ALL lose. If we listen to scientists and start making some real changes, the worst we do is stop the pollution and create new and clean solutions... maybe spend a little money and create some jobs while we're at it.

Wow. Tough choice. Time we kick some a$$ and start being smart again.

Richard,

I think he might have meant

Cue - A signal, such as a word or action, used to prompt another event in a performance, such as an actor's speech or entrance, a change in lighting, or a sound effect.
a. A reminder or prompting.
b. A hint or suggestion.

Actually Richard , that would be cue. A queue is a line, as in people lined up waiting for their turn.
And que is pronounced 'kay', so it really doesn't belong in the list. Other than it looks sorta like queue. But queue and cue are homonyms.

English - ain't it cool?

Maybe Texas should take a fleet of ships up there, and tug that huge iceberg down to Galveston.

Global Warming is an obvious event - that the freezing and thawing cycle has occurred many times in the past is accepted by most scientists. How we have affected the cycle is the question on the table.

Meh. In two years a glacier melted back a little. Within ten years the climate went from mild to glacial. Ten years to the beginning of an ice age. The little ice age happened in two years.

Because people have not experienced a climate change first hand they seem to think it's gradual. Yet these same 'astonished' scientists now know that climate change is abrupt and dramatic. They know this through their paleoclimate research. It's time for their drama to end.

BTW, the beginning of every glacial episode was preceeded by an equally quick and dramatic rise in CO2 levels. Without the help of people.

What is breaking off is not exactly the glacier, but the sea ice sheet filling the fjord below the glacier. That is actually a totally different animal.

LMarcT...you give humans too much credit. The earth has been warming since the end of the last ice age many thousands of years ago. We simply do not have enough data to determine details of this warming event, i.e. how much warming will increase and at what rates and how long it will last. We have statistical data that indicates man may be affecting the rate of this natural warming cycle.

Geologist have known for over a century that sea-levels were once much higher than now. And they have been lower as well. But since we're in a warming cycle, it would seem logical to assume it will continue and we should react accordingly in a responsible manner. Clearly that has not happened based on how many human developments there are within a few feet of sea level.

Another good example of just how silly humans are is the Pompeii area. We know it was destroyed by the volcano Mt. Vesuvius. Yet even closer to Vesuvius, a still active volcano, lies the city of Naples. Population 1.4 million.

Silly, silly humans.

Blah Blah Blah… What’s the big deal, ice is just doing what ice does, it melts. Look at the size of that ice cube. Now there is an excellent opportunity for some enterprising company to go out and lasso that thing and start bottling water. Or just bag it up and sell it as is… Get your Greenland Ice here, get it while it lasts, no big deal.

Of course there is that big heat thingy in Texas, the State is starting to look like a charcoal briquette, but we all know that is a God thing and once they decide to get that evolution crap out of the classrooms Texas will become the world’s largest producer of roses.

Why in the world would anybody think that in the millions and millions of years of decay and natural ecological processes that it took to store up all that carbon we call oil, natural gas, and coal that releasing that carbon in about 100 years time would have any effect on anything except the pocket of a smart company?

No big deal, Nature will take its course, it always has. Have you seen the latest pictures of Mars? Is that cool or what?

@Chuck in Olathe Answer: Nada. 1 volcanic eruption will spew the equivalent of 100+ years of carbon emissions. That is just 1 natural example... There is no doubt that human caused pollution can kill fish or habitat or human occupation can displace a species so we should be "good" stewards of the earth... but Storms, glacier melts, heat waves are cyclical..... The above article proves it.... This "change" happened faster than the scientist could predict... ergo global changes can happen faster than Scientist theorize. In less than 10 years the Mt. St. Helen event has been "totaly" reclaimed by nature... We should take care of our planet but no one ,ZERO proof, can point to ANY factor that says "more hurricanes, Floods, (earthquakes .... hehe) are cause by "human living"

....and stop the wars man!!! Ah hell, we still love ya O'bama. Your doing your best...its the Repuclicants that are saying no man!

LMarcT- There is too much money to be made in oil and coal yet, too many businesses committed to those resources for there to be wholesale change.

its the Repuclicants that are saying no man!

Nancy brainwashed them all very well.

It's not warming.

Okay, okay, it's warming, but that's just mother nature.

Okay, okay, it's warming faster than ever, but it's not our fault.

Okay, okay, maybe it's our fault but it isn't so bad... new beach front property and all.

Okay, okay, it's warming, and it's us, and it's bad, but it will cost too much.

Okay, okay, it's warming, and it's us, and it's bad, and we can migrate to clean energy if we really tried, but India and China won't.

Okay, Okay, it's warming, us, bad, we can migrate to clean energy, be ahead of the development and production curve for a change, lead the global venture to cleaner air, rid ourselves of foreign and "big" oil, and live long lives, BUT... but WHAT!?!?! What now?

Do you people even listen to yourselves?

Chuck: I agree that that's a big problem... but a serious and gradual migration is better than nothing. :)

My name is Dummy, and I proudly profess to know more than scientists because I go to church, and never miss an episode of rush limpburgermeister...I know of sure he's super duper smart.

For a peoples that tout the wonders of evolution so astutely, you all sure do rely on others for your continued survival. Travel the road that is before you....hatch or rot. Stop your dependence of thine Shapard's nipple. Get off the teat, and see if you got what it takes to survive!

Yep, ain't nuttin' to this y'ere globull warnin' stuff. Big Jim Inhoffe our best man in the sinate told me so. Yep, he sez it's just meethane gas fum cow farts. We oughta get them cows a big batch o' beano and we'll all be jess fine. Big Jim said so.

^^^ See what I mean? ^^^

"Take a step back from these individual pieces and we see a mosaic that could not be clearer. Our world is becoming less hospitable with every passing year,"

Perhaps we are indeed going through a period of general global warming, but I have to take issue with that statement.

There have been several periods of warming and cooling in the last 1000 years, and the result has been great advances in health and welfare and the sciences in the warming periods (Renaissance) and great misery and death during the cooling periods (Little Ice Age). Even the UN study several years ago acknowledged that a warming trend would increase food supplies.

I think it's time that we stopped the rhetoric about "The sky is falling" and looked at the impact from a 'scientific' perspective. Besides, scientists have estimated that the amount of sea rise that we can expect over the next 90 years is no more severe than the amount we probably have already endured over the last 150 years - I don't think that resulted in 'the end of the World as we know it'.

Chuck in Olathe,

"There is too much money to be made in oil and coal yet, too many businesses committed to those resources for there to be wholesale change."

You're right about that, and what I'm afraid of is that, with the melting of glaciers in Greenland, the oil companies will take advantage of the absence of ice to rush in and start exploring and drilling for oil in Greenland, which will only make the situation worse.

Wow...there are an awful lot of "Scientists" on this thread...

Who knew?

111pct

From your post, it's obvious you are a liberal.

We need to stop publicly funding this nonsense. This is not science, but merely a theory.

er - and who made these inefficient appliances?, who built these cheap homes? Companies make money on scrimping on quality to garner higher profits, which is also why they ship jobs overseas. So your argument has little merit. Just like you are holding onto your inefficient car, many can't afford to upgrade their windows, appliances, etc. Sure the rich can, and should, but with the GOP's efforts to eliminate the middle class, it's not going to get better. Now the GOP wants to eliminate the EPA and promote fracking, which the industry says is safe - sure, but don't drink the water!

LMarcT- I'm with you there. It's better than sticking our head in the sand and whining "It isn't my fault."

Flame77 7 - since volcanic eruptions have occured all thru history they are already part of the "system". Anything we've done involving burning fossil fuels has added to the warming. Add to that the damage we've done to the ozone layer. Denying responsibilty won't change what's happening.

Nuff said, well put markmich!!!

Mickey - You've just scared me too. I had not considered oil reserves under the ice. Great point.

It appears the Earth 25 thousand year cycle is now being accepted by scientist, the North magentic pole is racing westward at about 3-4 miles per year, already airports are having to remark runways numbers to line up with the magnetic bearings; what is really interesting is the Mayans predicted this about 1500 years ago, how on Earth could a tribal society do the math to figure it out, is a wonder of the world; has anyone noticed how the weather patterns are changing, interesting times .

It doesn't matter. It's pretty decided that nobody is willing to do anything about it. I mean that global warming summit in Copenhagen pretty much said it all. All these top world leaders convened to talk about climate change and yet all of them flew into Denmark with their private jets and drove around in individual limos. I'll apologize to my son and advise him to move north when he grows older.

Hey Chuck. How have you been? I worked my self into insanity the past few weeks. Now it has become somewhat normal..LOL.. That is a very good point by Mickey. It makes perfect sense and we all know what rich conglomerates will do for money!! Have a good one Chuck!!

Ignorance can kill.

The speed of the kill can be expected to accelerate in direct proportion to the number of people who are determined to remain ignorant.

markmich "OK, ALL YOU ENVIROMENTALMANIACS, LISTEN UP."

Excellent Post.

How were you able to have a geothermal system installed - just curious.

I just bought a 1KW solar cell package (I have to assemble it) for electricity for what I think was a great price, and I look forward to installing it. I think we are in the early stages of the 'transition' from traditional fossil fuel energy sources, and this transition will accelerate as the cost curve begins to approach that of fossil fuels.

I agree completely with you that we can have a dramatic improvement in energy savings by simply taking advantage of conservation techniques already available - often with little or no cost available from our utility companies (audits).

I also agree that we should "DRILL BABY, DRILL" because we have the largest fossil fuel energy reserves in the WORLD (Link below), and it is total insanity to block development our own resources (and jobs) and send our wealth to unfriendly countries abroad.

I also think that we have a great many 'alarmists' about the effects of a warming trend, but ignore the potential positive aspects, even if it is true (See my Post #1.23 above).

Here's the link to show we have the most recoverable energy reserves in the ENTIRE WORLD;

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=34233

OMG!!! We're all going to DIE!!! HELP ME!!! I don't want to die@!!!

Where is Al Gore?? Please SAVE US!!! Let me kiss your boots Mr. Gore!!!

PLEASE HELP ME!!!! I don't want to die!!!! HELP!!!! WAHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

Global Warming? You folks realize the earth didn't warm a tenth of a degree in the past 10 years... right? What about NASA blowing a hole in the entire global warming theory with the recent satellite data that shows the atmosphere doesn't trap heat/carbon, but instead releases it into space?

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

http://reddogreport.com/2011/07/nasa-data-blows-gaping-holes-in-global-warming-hysteria/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14002264

I mean... Democrats around the world... listen up.

The earth hasn't warmed a bit even though carbon emissions went WAY up from 2000-2010. Oh...and the climate models that showed greenhouse gasses being trapped in the atmosphere...yeah...that's wrong too.

Now which 'tea partier' was wrong not to listen to climate 'scientist' dribble? I say 'scientist' because they are not really a science - it is more of an 'art'. Science would have to follow the scientific method for things like evidence collection. Just that alone invalidates 'predictions' of climate.

It simply is not possible to have a uniform way to accurately predict climate. Those who believe there is are the fools.

It doesnt' take a G.E.D. (that's general education diploma for you GOP'ers) to realize just how fast the climate is changing.

My home town of Philadelphia had the hottest July in its history, followed by the wettest August in its history (19 inches of rain this month).

The biggest significant change the scientific community have stated again and again in terms of climate change is redistribution of rainfall. Period.

In the simplest terms, dry/semi-arid regions will receive less than ever, and moderate to tropical regions will receive more than ever. Now think of the droughts/wild fires we've seen in the US over the past 5 years. Think of the catastrophic floods we've seen in the midwest and eastern seaboard.

Local problem?

OK, look at eastern Australia. It's a friggin dustbowl. Whole towns have literally been abandoned. Look at the drought, and subsequent famine, in eastern Africa. The island of Sicily has to have water brought in by tanker now they are in such bad shape.

Now think of all the flooding/mudslides that have been hitting Indonesia and CHina.

This $hit is for real people. You can bury your heads in the sand all you want, but it's only going to get worse.

Once we start seeing regular, mass die-offs of the coral networks (due to lower pH levels in water from carbon absorption) around the world (it's already happening in massive areas in Australia), I think that will be the tipping point. Once the coral is gone, it will wipe out a large percentage of species within our oceans. The amount of people that are sustained by fish in this world is huge.

You can shake your head all you want at the "liberal scientists". But would you do the same thing if you went to a doctor and he told you you had cancer?

"OHHH, I know your type!! You're just trying to sell me mediciine, and make me think I'm sick!! You don't know everything about me. No thanks, I'm just fine!"

111pct...From your post, it's obvious you are a liberal.

What does that mean exactly?

Because actually, if you knew me, you'd obviously see I'm just a content, well adjusted, normal, everyday hard working real American who isn't so keen on throwing one size fits all blankets over any and all of my neighbors who don't have their DVR stuffed with Becky Glenda re-runs.

So who are you, and what is your label?

D.Man

Your localized examples of weather show that you are ignorant to the fact of climate. There are known causes for what you describe (el nina and el nino). But alas, you went right to human's causing global changes in weather and the 'GOP'ers being the idiots. Whew. The hypocrisy of the left never ceases to amaze me.

But more importantly... did you even read the post above you? Take a look at the NASA data showing no increase in temperature for the globe...as well as invalidating the climate models that gave us an unrealistic warming prediction?

No? Of course not. Facts are like kryptonite to a liberal who already has formed an uninformed opinion.

The 'deniers': The glacier isn't really melting at an accelerated speed, the world is expanding creating an optical illusion that just makes it look that way.

G. Rose Marie

Sure the rich can, and should, but with the GOP's efforts to eliminate the middle class, it's not going to get better.

You Liberal Progressives sound so pathetic crying yourself a river. How is the GOP or any other entity stopping you from helping yourself? Are they stopping you from getting a job? If one job isn't covering your lifestyle are they stopping you from getting ANOTHER job? I doubt it. You just don't want to put the effort in or educate yourself.

For the last 15 years we have lived through the greatest explosion of information in history. If you can't research ANY topic on the internet you're not trying. Again, YOU don't want to do it, you want SOMEONE ELSE to do it because you think the rich owe you something. THEY DON'T. You pity yourself because you have been brainwashed for so long you think anyone successful became that way in some sinister global conspiracy to make you poor. Just think how ludicrous you sound. There are millions of wealthy people in our great Republic, do you think they were all lucky? Do you think they all belong to some clandestine cult that meets twice a year in some cave and they're given secret instructions?

No. They work hard. They take appropriate risks. They educate themselves in thrift and how to invest THEIR money. You probably have a few millionaires living in your community and you wouldn't know it if they slapped you. They live within their means, they save their money and they succeed. They live in regular houses, drive regular cars and work regular jobs.

In the last 20 years we have all lived through 2 of the greatest explosions of wealth in this country. The Dot-Com bubble and the Housing bubble. Did you take advantage of those events or abuse them? Did you invest in the massive rush of technology that bombarded the markets in the mid to late 1990's? Did you research your investments or HOPE someone else would? If it was the latter you deserve whatever fate befell you. Did you use the housing induced market run up from 2003-2008? If not, why not? NO ONE, not the GOP, Democrats, or the good Lord himself prevented you from taking advantage of those times.

Stop blaming everyone and get motivated. Quit pitying yourself and do something. The government WILL NOT help you. Look at what it has created over the past 60 years. Debt, unemployment and despair are the result of our elected leadership. Go ahead, believe in the Democrats because they tell you they are for the "little guy". YEAH RIGHT! How much has their social and economic justice helped YOU? More importantly, how much has it helped THEM?

Scientists Trace Heat Wave To Massive Star At Center Of Solar System

Global warming is a farce. It's G2V65, nothing more.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/scientists-trace-heat-wave-to-massive-star-at-cent,21088/

Global Warming doesn't exist, because:

1) It wasn't written in the Bible

2) My Politician told me it didn't exist

3) I don't like Al Gore and he made a film abou it. But if it was someone I liked, or of my political party, then it would exist. And then Al Gore's supporters would be wrong if they said it didn't

4) All of the Above

People have their heads so far up their a$$ when it comes to science, if this planet burns every human being alive, it will be well deserved. And make no mistake, all the 'Christians' are going to Hell. Personally, I don't feel the infantile need to have my beliefs come before facts (otherwise known as science). So if a politician I HATE has a message that is worth it, I can 'FREAKING hear the message. It takes a two year old, red faced, can't keep their mouth shut moron to have to either agree that Global Warming exists or doesn't exist because A ONE SINGLE person talking about it either isn't of their political party, or (cynically) may be even pushing a political agenda. George W. Bush did a lot of things that were good, but some people just can't ever admit it and those people are just as low a level of moron as people who can't possibly 'believe' in Global Warming.

Radicals on either side wouldn't do anything about it anyway, to boot. A-Holes who don't want to bother will just keep driving their cars, keep having fits that someone else wastes more energy than them, and blame someone else. There's no one admirable that I see in this, other than the few people who actually are not useless enough to have politics get in the way and are working on other means of energy, whether it be solar, wind, or nuclear (and no, coal doesn't count, for the shmucks who push it).

Thank you D.Man. It's not just a matter of the climate changing it's also a fact of the dying off of species at record rates. Yes, our planet is becoming less inhabitable every year and those who deny it aren't looking at the whole picture for alot of reasons. Do you realize that Bee populations are disappearing? What happens without pollination, can you figure that out. Bats are dying from a disease that biologist don't understand and can't cure. Why is this important? Bat's eat insect keeping down destruction of crops. We need crops to have food to eat. How has the climate change effected crops? Three years of wheat crop failure in Australia (either from drought or flooding), Texas crops have failed because of the worst drought in their history (to date), crops in the Carolina have failed due to weather, crops in Russia have failed. What does this all start with? Climate change. Per Einstein "once the bees disappear the human race has only a few years left." This has nothing to do any political party, it's what's happening in nature that will end our existence if we don't change.

Yes, we're skeptical... not that climate change occurs.. it's the HUMAN CAUSED part we are skeptical about.... because, first, it's well documented that glacial and temperate periods have happened in the past... and we're between glacial periods, so we could very well be in a warming period... second, the data of IPCC was cooked.. some was omitted, selectively gathered... using models that were tweaked to give the results they wanted... that have been retweaked when reality deviates from their doom and gloom predictions... third, carbon dioxide is a naturally occuring atmospheric molecule, and plants use it up.... and fourth, there's clearly a political agenda attached to the Global warming bugaboo that is intent on eliminating the relatively cheap energy that we have built our economy on... and the Cap and Tax carbon credits scheme was just another wealth redistribution scam to allow big gov't to piss away trillions more dollars...

ROY WILSON-336103

I have a unique situation. I live on 40 acres and have a 1 1/2 acre spring fed pond. The company I brought in to evaluate my possibilities decided to just create a open-loop system on the floor of the pond. It was cheaper and more efficient as the temperature gradient fluctuated very little at the depth the system was placed. It also benefits me in that IF anything needs to be repaired in the system it can be removed and serviced easily.

I just spoke to one of the restaurant owners in our town and he is considering a system for his business and is very impressed with the new technologies available. He probably needs a closed system due to his location. It will be interesting to see what he ends up with.

The technology is out there. Geo, solar even some wind systems are becoming more efficient and affordable. The on-line information is incredible. My only insistence was that my system be made by a USA company. This unfortunately, is becoming more and more difficult. China is 10 years ahead of us in the technology (unfortunately most of it pirated from us) and is saturating the global markets.

Outside of the Geo and solar systems I did all the work as far as insulation, window and door replacements, landscaping benefits and maintenance. I am NOT a builder or in the construction industry but I do ask a lot of questions of those that are in the business. It takes time and energy and money, but if you spread it out over time it is affordable. I estimate my cost inlay was just short of 6 figures over the years but as I said I save nearly 75% of my energy needs year over year. It can be done. You just have to WANT to do it.

BTW I see the coward Liberal Progressives have already collapsed my original post.

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!

You would think with their infatuation in Fat Al Gores religion they would be interested in doing more to help this fabricated crisis. Like I said, THEY don't want to do it, they want everyone else to do it because they're too incompetent to help themselves.

Such is their shame.

Everyone, just chill out. Or calm down rather, its perhaps too warm to chill out.

I had a chit-chat with GOD last night about all of this.

First, he says...this is all part of the process.

Second, he says...the earth is like a snow globe, when he wants it to be pretty...he gives it a good shake.

Third, he says...he hasnt shaken the globe yet, so if you think this is bad...keep on doing what your doing people, cuz then he'll have no choice but to shake, rattle and roll.

Fourth, he says...I would send a new messenger to earth about all this, but in this day and age, the people would not believe...even those who claim to be BELIEVERS. It's a waste of time to talk to my people...they were given free will, and squander it they will...it's their choice.

Fifth, he says...feel free to tell the people, but expect mocking and condemnation, expect the believers to not believe...expect the righteous and holy to be foul mouthed and ugly. Expect the worst, pray for the best...

and to quote Sarah McLachlan (he's a fan, who knew?)

HOLD ON, HOLD ON TO YOURSELF FOR THIS IS GONNA HURT LIKE HELL

The mythical global warming ‘consensus’
continues to crumble as top UN IPCC Scientists Turn on the IPCC and are now
bailing-out of the AGW sinking ship...

1. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, - Award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist, founding director of
the International
Arctic Research
Center, twice named one
of the "1,000 Most Cited Scientists," says much "Arctic warming
during the last half of the last century is due to natural change."

He writes of “inaccurate temperature
measurements,” including chapters that call man-made global warming fears “the
worst scientific scandal in the history” in his book 'Lies and Traps in the
Global Warming Affairs'.

2. Dr. Denis Rancourt,- A former Anthropogenic (man-made) Global Warming (AGW) advocate,
professor and peer-reviewed environmental science researcher at the University of Ottawa. Physicist Dr. Rancourt, has
officially renounced AGW in a June 8, 2010
essay, saying it is nothing more than a contrived imaginery ”myth” —
in other words, an elaborate conspiracy. (Rancourt’s e-mail: claude.cde@gmail.com)

3. Dr. Judith Curry, -An American climatologist and chair of the School of Earth
and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Has been
making critical statements about the IPCC and climate science, after working
for & with the IPCC for almost a decade. See her heretic piece http://judithcurry.com/2010/10/25/heresy-and-the-creation-of-monsters/

4. Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski,- is chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for
Radiological Protection in Warsaw and former chair of the United Nations
Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (1981–82). Dr.
Jaworowski--world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate
research--says the U.N. "based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary
assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false."
He has published more than 20 papers on
climate, most of them concerning atmospheric CO2.
One of the latest - Solar cycles, not CO₂, determine climate,
21st Century Science and Technology.

5. Dr. Antonino Zichichi, - One of the world's foremost physicists, former president of the European
Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter--calls global warming
models "incoherent and invalid."

6. Dr.
Richard Lindzen, - Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the
National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says
global warming alarmists "are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen
even if the models were right."

7. Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, - (Professor Emeritus, University
of Alaska) professor of
geophysics since 1964. Dr. Akasofu has published more than 550 professional
journal articles, authored and co-authored 10 books. He sincerely advises us‚
‘When people come to know what the truth is about AGW, they will feel deceived
by science and the scientist involved.'

For a book containing the hundreds of other
prominent scientist that deny the AGW myth.. see http://yhst-7134682615375.stores.yahoo.net/the-deniers-the-world-renowned-scientists-who-stood-up-against-global.html

The ONLY settled science is - The
Earth CHANGES, man can either ADAPT or become EXTINCT...

@ Derek Hinch

Wow! What a great source you're referencing!! An article written by a "senior fellow" at the Heartland Institute! A "free market advocacy group" that partners with the likes of Philip Morris and Exxon Mobil! I should've known he was truly unbiased when he used the term "alarmist" 9 times in the article!!!

You're a smart one, you!! No wonder the rest of us are so biased and ill-informed!

In the 1990s, the Heartland Institute worked with Philip Morris to question the link between secondhand smoke and health risks.^[6][15] Philip Morris used Heartland to distribute tobacco-industry material, and arranged for the Heartland Institute to publish "policy studies" which summarized Philip Morris reports.^[15][16] The Heartland Institute also undertook a variety of other activities on behalf of Philip Morris, including meeting with legislators, holding "off-the-record" briefings, and producing op-eds, radio interviews, and letters.^[15][17] In 1994, at the request of Philip Morris, the Heartland Institute met with Republican Congressmen to encourage them to oppose increases in the federal excise tax. Heartland reported back to Philip Morris that the Congressmen were "strongly in our camp", and planned further meetings with other legislators.^[18]

And -

Oil and gas companies have contributed to the Heartland Institute, including over $600,000 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005.^[23] Greenpeace reported that the Heartland Institute received almost $800,000 from ExxonMobil.^[14] By 2008, ExxonMobil had stopped funding to Heartland.^{[dubious – discuss]} Joseph Bast, president of the Heartland Institute, argued that ExxonMobil was simply distancing itself from Heartland out of concern for its public image.^[23]

Well then D.Man, you'd better stop driving your car and heating/cooling your house and food RIGHT NOW!! Or it may be too late...GO MAN! - DO IT!!!

markmich

Thanks for the info. You do have a relatively unique situation, but for people that take the time to learn and adapt, and especially for those that are willing to 'do-it-yourself' to some extent, there are great energy savings to be realized.

While there is a great amount of 'hoopla' about 'global warming', the one thing I object to most is the 'doomsday' rhetoric and the ridiculous cost associated with some of the proposed 'solutions'.

Interestingly, all of the reports focus on the 'negative' aspects of global warming, but totally ignore the potential positive aspects. The United Nations made a study some time back which indicated that a warming trend would actually result in a significant INCREASE IN FOOD SUPPLIES, which would significantly decrease the amount of hunger in the World. Of course, you never see that reported by the 'Doom and Gloom' crowd of environmentalists.

Gotta go to work now - building a 'granny unit' for a relative that will be homeless soon.

Have a nice day.

I had a chit-chat with GOD last night about all of this

@Jessica:

I BELIEVE YOU

Therefore what you said is 100% true. Anybody who disagrees with you is now a TRAITOR and of course not going to heaven.

Nothing to see here, folks. Global warming is a hoax invented by 98% of the scientific community to turn us all into socialists. This melted glacier is nothing more than Al Gore with a blow dryer. Continue to blindly oppose all climate legislation.

Talk about insults. Any whooo... I do carpool, I do travel by rail, my husbad works for a solar panel manufacturer and the rest of it is not feasable to us specifically because even with depressed home prices we still cannot afford a home in a decent area. It does take the government and big business to do something big to change the course of this nation. Everything is about money - and unfortunately we owe the Soudis big time - so we will buy whatever they can produce and whatever price they throw at us - Our roads will crumble - Our currency will fail - and then we will cry crisis.

You are correct that we do not have enough people doing what they should -

We also do not have elected officials doing what they should. I expect my government to do what I elected them to do and that is write and pass legislation that is in the best interest of this country BUT they just do whatever will get them enough campaign money to get reelected.

So, you are correct again! Don't waste your time - Print this post and send it to your congressional leaders.

Crystal 5

I expect my government to do what I elected them to do and that is write and pass legislation that is in the best interest of this country.

WHY?

Why do you need government to tell you what to do? I didn't need any legislation to make whatever improvements I could to my home. The free-market allowed me that and it was predominantly all online.

Can anyone Google (Yahoo or Bing) geothermal companies? Of course you can. You don't need it legislated. Can anyone go to their local lumber-yard or hardware store and talk to the people who are informed about energy saving possibilities? Of course you can.

You have become enslaved in the "only government can do it for me" mentality. This is the problem. There are hundreds of resources that allow you to do just about anything nowadays,,,IF YOU WANT TO.

AK Sabin - Seriously, anybody can find dissenting opinions on just about any subject especially with the WWW at your figure tips.

There are plenty of reputable Scientist in both corners who probably correct on some portion of the debate.

Markmich - I also agree with your post. However I don't believe drilling will do much to alleviate the real problem, which is how a gazillion people consume a product that is on the decline.

For those who think Drilling will end high prices then you obviously don't understand the current Oil Markets. Wall Street does not want excess supply unless your one of the ten traders that shorts the market. Oil Cartels do not want excess supply and finally Oil Companies do not want excess supply.

No one is going to flood the market with Oil so you can have dollar gasoline. Not Happening.

If the US Government cut programs in order to spend the next 20 years developing a way for us to live our lives without Oil as a primary fuel. It would be money well spent. Oil will be our next world war if we stay this course.

D.C. - How are you doing?

Ben-1671313,

AK Sabin;
Yep, you're right - the melting glaciers, changing weather patterns and monstrous storms are all just over-blown hooey, a hallucination. Lets all forget about and go home. After all, this story is fabricated by liberals and not worth listening to - right?

I'm just here for the blog. It's much more interesting than the articles...

D.man,

Greenpeace reported that the Heartland Institute received...

Greenpeace is not a reliable source for unbiased information. We all know who and what they are so let's stop pretending they're objective.

markmich,

Impressive. I took the training to be able to audit homes and did some development to mechanically create solutions for client's homes and apartment buildings, so I'm impressed with what you've done. I agree that all of us should take more responsibility... BUT..

Just because you have the will and the wherewithal to do what you did while others lack one or the other or both, how does that relate to the validity of global warming and our responsibility as a country? In my mind, if we wait until all of us act as responsibly as you seem to have, we will be waiting... forever.

My earlier post and position still stand. We as a country need to take global warming seriously... and yes, I have done my homework and researched the ins and outs of the possibility of man-made global warming. And based on credentials of those taking positions and interpreting what little I can swallow with my engineering background, I believe it has enough merit to do something about it.

So you won't take it seriously until us hypocrites take care of our own footprint? Sounds like a cop-out to me. You know your demand will never happen and that you can use your indignation to block all positions... cop-out. No?

Hey Chuck... in Olathe... I assume your in Kansas? I'm in KCMO. Hot here.

LmarcT -

You bet it is, but supposed to cool off this weekend. Yes, I live in Kansas.

I agree with your position, ignoring this certainly won't solve it, and the longer we wait the deeper the hole we're in. We should take responsibility.

Kornfed

We need to stop publicly funding this nonsense. This is not science, but merely a theory.

And no doubt, to you, evolution is just a theory.

Chuck in Olathe "ignoring this certainly won't solve it, and the longer we wait the deeper the hole we're in. We should take responsibility."

What should we do?
Who is included in "we"?
How much will it cost?
What are the expected Results?
What are the alternatives?

When we can get some answers to these questions, perhaps we can then answer the ultimate question;

Is it worth the cost?

Yes, the earth goes through cycles and has gone through them before however, never to this degree in such a short amount of time. Geez what's changed to cause such extremes in such a short amount of time?

And the second destruction will be from fire.....hmmmm .... what could that mean Global warming or a Nuke fits that.

Roy -

When we can get some answers to these questions, perhaps we can then answer the ultimate question;

Is it worth the cost?

I think we are beginning to see some of the "cost".

The "we" I'm referring to is first "we Americans", followed by "we the citizens of the world".

At best fossil fuel availability is finite. Even if there was no environmental impact to consider the day will come when we run out. Here, the "we" is probably a couple of generations down the line.

Cost? - who knows until we develop it, expected results? - reducing dependence on finite supplies, reducing cost of energy consumption, reduce the impact on the environment. The alternative to ignoring the situation is we run out fuel to drive industry, transportation and power generators.

Just like "our" national debt, just like the spending deficit - "we" are all to comfortable with passing the problem on the next generation. That's why "we" need to take responsibility.

Ha! It is not a theory that the ice is melting. That is a fact.

As we all know, global warming is a myth. So is that silly "round Earth" theory.

It is a fact that the ice is melting. What is not a fact is the statement that it is caused by man. That is the part that is the theory.

There is evidence that both Mars & Jupiter are experiencing similar warming conditions simultaneously, as well as evidence that sunspot activity is entering a period known as The Maunder Minimum - which last happened in the late 17th century. This same period in time also corresponds to a climatic period called the "Little Ice Age".

There is much we don't know. We don't even know for sure if there is a Higgs boson, but it seems like there sure should be. So we keep on theorizing and exploring and seeking answers. It would be nice if we could do it without fear mongering and political one-upmanship.

Here is the direct quote from the 13Nov2009 Science Daily article on Greenland ice loss.

"Since 2000, the ice sheet has lost about 1500 Gt in total, representing on average a global sea level rise of about half a millimetre per year, or 5 mm since 2000."

This amounts to 0.05% change in the TOTAL ice mass over a 9+year period. Gt equals a cubic kilometer of water/ice...

Unfortunately the Greenland ice volume has INCREASED 10% during the last 60+years... see http://nsidc.org/data/docs/daac/nsidc0092_greenland_ice_thickness/parca_paper1.pdf

The 10% INCREASE in greenland ice volume over a 60+year period offsets the latest 0.05% LOSS over a 9+year period...

For anyone truly interested in the science of climate change and global warming, try to find and watch the show "Earth: An Operators' Manual." It's an excellent explanation of the causes of global warming (yes, it's real), its observed and potential effects. It also goes into some detail about our current and projected energy uses, why fossil fuels are NOT the answer, and how alternative sources of energy can more than adequately fill the need.

Oh, and anyone who says alternative sources of energy are too expensive must not buy gas or pay utilities.

Yeah that's one thing I never hear mentioned in these articles: Yes, glaciers do indeed melt during the summer and may lose some pretty large chunks. To put things into perspective, how much mass is regained during winter?

To put things into perspective, how much mass is regained during winter?

According to the data I've looked at, less than what is lost during the summer.

Freedman....

Sources?

Giligan (how fitting of a name),

But you have to admit, showing a picture of ice in winter, then showing a summer pic is misleading

Deny and disbelieve facts all you want, but the pictures were taken in July and August respectively....

It's all pretty common information, We. Try planetary scientist Lori Fenton for starters = http://tinyurl.com/4yd2bkx - she is with the SETI institute and studies things Martian. You might try NASA for Jupiter info - http://tinyurl.com/4uaav3. Higgs Bosun? some short explanations -- http://tinyurl.com/3oak62
Info on the Maunder Minimum are located at http://tinyurl.com/3lqlkl3

These are things you can look up, anytime. This is the information age. I am happy to assist however.

here's a good picture - in 1959 a submarine surfaced in open waters at the North Pole

http://tinyurl.com/cxgxrk

According to the data I've looked at, less than what is lost during the summer.

Ok cool, but how much less? That's what I would like to see these articles start including, it would reflect more responsibility on the journalist's part.

As we all know, global warming is a myth. So is that silly "round Earth" theory.

I don't think most people have a disagreement over whether global warming is happening or not. The disagreement is over whether it's natural or if the human race is speeding it up exponentially.

I personally believe in global warming and to think it's a myth is outrageous. However, I'm skeptical that our contribution is as dire as some scientists admit. There is still a great deal of discussion over our contribution. Please don't link articles saying, "HUMAN BEINGS ARE DOING IT," because there are just as many articles that say the opposite.

In any case, if we can slow it down... I am all for it!

Another important thing to point out: Just because a majority of scientists back one theory or another does not mean that it won't be proven wrong later.

The Kuwaiti oil fires were caused by Iraqi military forces setting fire to 700 oil wells as part of a scorched earth policy while retreating from Kuwait in 1991. Many scientists, Dr. Carl Sagan was one, argued that some of the effects of the smoke could be similar to the effects of nuclear winter.

This never happened.

Jack,max,lebowsky, flame and the rest of the MINORITY. Yes, I'm afraid you'll have to accept that as fact; You are the minority, Scientists or not. The consensus of the Scientific Community includes 32 National Science Academies that issued joint Declarations confirming Anthropogenic Global warming and urged Nations of the World to reduce Emissions of Greenhouse Gases.

Some of you serve fairly intelligent rebuttal, even going as far as making sure you spell the Words correctly even though they may have been used out of context. Many more of you tend to simply Vomit on the page and expect that people will seriously listen to you.

Until any of you can provide (those of us who do believe in Global warming) some proof that your OPINION is more credible than the Scientists that comprise the majority, I will not respond to your Posts other than to vehemently reiterate my disgust for your blatant disregard of the facts at hand...

I believe most of you could Swan dive off the Empire State Building, land flat on your Head, dust yourself off and walk away...Skulls don't get much thicker than that...

Yep, ain't nuttin' to this y'ere globull warnin' stuff. Big Jim Inhoffe our best man in the sinate told me so. Yep, he sez it's just meethane gas fum cow farts. We oughta get them cows a big batch o' beano and we'll all be jess fine. Big Jim said so.

Not wanting to clean up our environment is petty and childish. It's like a kid not wanting to clean his room.

WHO CARES if man may or may not be causing climate change? Can't we all just agree that we are a dirty animal that soils its home, and that we should work to NOT BE SO DIRTY?

That shouldn't be up for debate.

...

Also, all of these odd theories that contradict man-made climate change facts strike me as a desperate clinging to man's religion-based dominion over the world.

Occam's razor says the simplest answer must be true. If you drive past a refinery and see the smokestacks belching god knows what, the thought "Wow! We put a lot of crap into our air!" should probably go through your head.

I think what's up for debate is carbon tax credits, cap & trade, the US paying more, developing nations, including China, paying less, doing less, having less responsibility so as to be fair.

Using Occam's razor ~ "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate" ~ determine who pays for cap and trade?

"Price increases are essential to the success of a cap-and-trade program." -- Peter Orszag -- Mr. Obama's budget director

The mythical global warming ‘consensus’
continues to crumble as top UN IPCC Scientists Turn on the IPCC and are now
bailing-out of the AGW sinking ship...

1. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, - Award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist, founding director of
the International
Arctic Research
Center, twice named one
of the "1,000 Most Cited Scientists," says much "Arctic warming
during the last half of the last century is due to natural change." He writes of “inaccurate temperature
measurements,” including chapters that call man-made global warming fears “the
worst scientific scandal in the history” in his book 'Lies and Traps in the
Global Warming Affairs'.

2. Dr. Denis Rancourt,- A former Anthropogenic (man-made) Global Warming (AGW) advocate,
professor and peer-reviewed environmental science researcher at the University of Ottawa. Physicist Dr. Rancourt, has
officially renounced AGW in a June 8, 2010
essay, saying it is nothing more than a contrived imaginery ”myth” —
in other words, an elaborate conspiracy. (Rancourt’s e-mail: claude.cde@gmail.com)

3. Dr. Judith Curry, -An American climatologist and chair of the School of Earth
and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Has been
making critical statements about the IPCC and climate science, after working
for & with the IPCC for almost a decade. See her heretic piece http://judithcurry.com/2010/10/25/heresy-and-the-creation-of-monsters/

4. Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski,- is chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for
Radiological Protection in Warsaw and former chair of the United Nations
Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (1981–82). Dr.
Jaworowski--world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate
research--says the U.N. "based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary
assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false."

He has published more than 20 papers on
climate, most of them concerning atmospheric CO2.
One of the latest - Solar cycles, not CO₂, determine climate,
21st Century Science and Technology.

5. Dr. Antonino Zichichi, - One of the world's foremost physicists, former president of the European
Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter--calls global warming
models "incoherent and invalid."

6. Dr. Richard Lindzen, - Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the
National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says
global warming alarmists "are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen
even if the models were right."

7. Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, - (Professor Emeritus, University
of Alaska) professor of
geophysics since 1964. Dr. Akasofu has published more than 550 professional
journal articles, authored and co-authored 10 books. He sincerely advises us‚
‘When people come to know what the truth is about AGW, they will feel deceived
by science and the scientist involved.'

For a book containing the hundreds of other
prominent scientist that deny the AGW myth.. see http://yhst-7134682615375.stores.yahoo.net/the-deniers-the-world-renowned-scientists-who-stood-up-against-global.html

The ONLY settled science is - The
Earth CHANGES, man can either ADAPT or become EXTINCT...

"Ok cool, but how much less? That's what I would like to see these articles start including, it would reflect more responsibility on the journalist's part."

What part of ocean/sea-level rise in almost all of these climate scientist's explanations have you missed? That's the end tally of what lost from glacial ice that had been suspended over land & sea.

The earth will be fine - it's a pretty big & resiliant flywheel - but we humans are pretty vulnerable (if you know or care enough about where most humans and their assets are - it's near coastlines and bays effected by ocean levels). Oh and being inland or moving there isn't all that safe a starting point when warmer ocean temps helps fuel super sizzed and frequent hurricanes with 1000mile+ in-reaching arms. Perhaps we've passed our apex in the grand timeline when politics and nationalism trump and obfuscate our repect for peer reviewed sciences.

"Ha! It is not a theory that the ice is melting. That is a fact."

Yes and the ice melts every single summer and the breakage is related to how warm the summer is and that has always varied from year to year. How strange. Could it be that summer is warmer than winter?

However, I'm skeptical that our contribution is as dire as some scientists admit. There is still a great deal of discussion over our contribution.

Here are some actual numbers:

Using air samples taken from Arctic ice samples dating back more than 50,000 years, CO2 has varied between 180 parts per million (ppm) and 280 ppm as the natural cycle of cooling and warming has occurred. This is an extremely consistent, measurable and demonstrable variation.

However, since the advent of fossil fuels, about 250 years ago, the ppm is currently 380 ppm and increasing as temperatures increase. This is a level not seen on earth for at least 400,000 years, maybe never seen before. The warming cycle is natural, but the ppm has vastly increased far beyond the natural cycle, and continues to climb. And it's easily proven as well that the more CO2 the atmosphere contains, the higher the temperature curve becomes. That is, we still have cold weather in the winter and hot weather in the summer, but winters are not generally as cold as they should be, and summers are far hotter.

Yes, the consumption of fossil fuels is absolutely contributing to and increasing the natural warming cycle.

YOU NEED TO LOOK UP "POST GLACIAL REBOUND THEORY" ON YOUTUBE.

it is very important that you gain understanding...

most people think this is caused by global warming or climate change... they are wrong...

POST GLACIAL REBOUND THEORY!

I agree that we do not know for sure what is happening. Most of the information I have been able to find shows stats from 2000 forward. There are some references dating back to 1920s but not of much help. In the grand scheme of things we have a very short period of data to make even an educated guess. Most of what I have seen deals with the temperatures of the winds and oceans. Very little if any info is out there for the laymen regarding the tectonic strike plates located beneath this area.

Like most natural systems, I feel, there is a tendency towards equilibrium resulting from a negative feedback mechanism. What I mean is that when something is out of balance the system tries to compensate to correct it, to bring it back to equilibrium. In this case if it is a CO2 imbalance which causes warming, the oceans would respond. The most likely response may be by the increase in algae growth. These algae would take in the CO2 and give off oxygen. Once the balance is reached, the lack of CO2 would cause a decrease in the amount of algae. Has anyone checked to see what the earth is doing regarding the other biological systems that would be responding to global warming?

There are instances, outside of this current trend of melting, where peculiar changes have occurred. An example would be the 13^th century where pack ice began advancing southwards in the North Atlantic and Greenland from 1600 to 1850 and shows strong retreat after that time. Some scientists believe we may still be recovering from that. A good site to understand what they believed may have been the causes is

I do sincerely believe we need to take care of the Earth! I do believe that there are those that are exploiting the Earth for capitalistic greed too. But I also feel we do not have enough information to determine if this is not just another increase in melting much like the tooth of a saw that represents weather cycles.

When I first read the article this morning, there was a before and after, wide area aerial photo of the ice sheet that broke off in the water, surrounded by land that was covered with snow. That picture is now gone, and for good reason.

The snow showed zero signs of melting from one picture to the other. The ice indeed did break, but all ice sheets must break eventually, otherwise ice would cover the Earth.

I was planning on using photoshop to merge the two images, to see just how much snow melted either side of that glacier.

Of note, while it is cool to point out facts and figures and various studies, to me the trump card of whether to determine the extent of global ice melt is to compare old photos or sea charts of islands, with satellite photos of today.

If those islands have shrunk, then the Earth is warming.

If those islands have grown, the Earth is cooling.

If you can't tell either way, then the Earth can't either.

Well then folks, you'd better stop driving your car and heating/cooling your house and food - then plant a garden. RIGHT NOW!! Or it may be too late...

GO NOW! - DO IT!!! QUICK!

Interestingly, all of the reports focus on the 'negative' aspects of global warming, but totally ignore the potential positive aspects. The United Nations made a study some time back which indicated that a warming trend would actually result in a significant INCREASE IN FOOD SUPPLIES, which would significantly decrease the amount of hunger in the World. Of course, you never see that reported by the 'Doom and Gloom' crowd of environmentalists.

The magnetism of the planet denounces this post glacial rebound nonsense.

The hotter it gets...the ferrous magnetic core gets weak on several poles.

Eventually twisting like an over wound spring. Then .....refreeze magnetically.

FACT:

Melting ice goes SOMEWHERE.

We are in for a new era of Climate Change.

RI Mom:

Melting ice goes SOMEWHERE.

Exactly, and it must go into the ocean, hence my post at 2.27.

let god sort it out ... there is nothing we can do about it ..

AK, your List does not negate MAJORITY in the Scientific consensus....Nice Parrot-phrasing.

GETANEDUCATIONVIGINIA, How astute and eloquent...Need I say more?

JONATHAN, THEORY is just that...

Another Swan dive with no injuries...

I think the problem is not if it is caused or not by man. It is more like man would be the most affected (a few benefited) by this and some people want to do something about it and others don't. The anti-man-made crowd it is basically saying let it be, it is a natural cycle, but even so, there are things that can be done to mitigate the effect, at the end most would be affected by this, no matter if you are pro or con.

It is stupid not to build a roof because you believe rain is send by God and not a natural phenomena, you are still going to get wet.

romilio, In essence, you have a great point....

I keep reading these posts and it never ceases to amaze me how many people on both sides don't understand the debate. The debate isn't about global warming...that's a given. It is happening and it is measureable. There is no denying the facts...

The debate is about to what extent, if any, is it caused by man. There are SEVERAL factors beyond man's use of fossil fuels that have occured over and over again that caused global warming/cooling. This is also a fact and measureable.

At this time, there is nothing that proves or disproves man is the cause. Do fossil fuels help? I doubt it, but the extent of the effect they are having on this NATURAL process is unknown.

Just a suggestion to most (not all) on this blog...understand what the issue is before commenting. Otherwise, you relegate your position to meaningless talking points.

It's a hoax perpetrated by scientists to make themselves rich. They did it with a hair dryer.

"At this time, there is nothing that proves or disproves man is the cause"

Only if you choose to ignore the arctic deep ice core data and correlation with recent fossil fuel use vs those many hundreds of thousands of years of natural events. This is no small time frame data as some mistakenly think. Apply Occam's razor rather than fight that strong and frankly damning correlation.

For lay people I suggest google searching & reading the BBC report "Carbon dioxide levels are substantially higher now than at any time in the last 800,000 years, the latest study of ice drilled out of Antarctica confirms."

"Just a suggestion to most (not all) on this blog...understand what the issue is before commenting. Otherwise, you relegate your position to meaningless talking points."

Please.

Here are some global warming facts to chew on:

1) There has been no serious disagreement in the peer-reviewed scientific community on the issue of man-made global warming for around forty years. Every year billions of new observations come in from satellites, earth stations, radiosondes, and ocean metrics. These universally support the contention that the earth is warming and the warming is primarily man-made.

2) For at least the last ten years there has been no serious disagreement in the peer-reviewed scientific community as to whether the "tipping point" has been reached. The tipping point is the point after which there is nothing significant that can be done to alter the outcome. The scientific community agrees that the tipping point is past and the change cannot be undone in any reasonable human-scale time period.

3) The current scientific discussion centers around the future role of methane in global warming. Methane is 30-40 times the greenhouse gas that CO/CO2 are. Trillions of long tons of methane are predicted to be releases with the warming of oceans and the thawing of permafrost. As the debate shifts to methane, the process will become more urgent and more rapid.

4) Weather and climate are not the same thing and are only tangentially related. Weather is what happens at one time in one spot. Climate is what happens in significantly large areas over long periods of time. You cannot look out of your window and see anything that resembles climate. If you do not understand this simple principle, you have no chance of understanding climate.

5) Both weather and climate are chaotic systems. (google Lorenz of strange attractors or chaos theory) The problem is that we lack the math to examine chaotic systems even though we know/suspect that the math exists. So we use linear deterministic models to try to predict both weather and climate. Scientists know this is a very poor way to do it, but it is the best we have at the moment.

6) There are serious problems with using linear models to predict chaotic systems. There is a famous Lorenz quote to the effect that a butterfly flapping its wings in Beijing can cause a Tornado in Oklahoma. This is why meteorologists cannot accurately predict weather beyond 4-5 days out. But it is also the reason why climatologists have completely missed every forecast of future warming or the specific effects of warming (ice melt, rises in sea levels, etc.) The linear models they use have consistently underestimated both the amount of global warming and the rate of acceleration of that warming. This generality can be applied to over 90% of all predictions whose significance period has already passed. Within the scientific community, current future predictors are being widely panned as simply not matching the new data --- global warming is consistently much faster and accelerating much faster than virtually any scientist is predicting.

7) Global warming is not a "theory" or even an interpretation of data. It is straight-forward aggregation of direct observational data that can be measured in a myriad of complementary and mutually supporting ways. The only way to refute global warming is with massive amounts of data --- and that refuting data simply does not exist. Any idiot can cherrypick small amounts of data to attempt to show that something different is happening. But no one who looks at the totality of the data doubts it. And saying that you don't "believe" in global warming is similar to saying you don't believe in the color green. It is nonsense and shows a lack of critical thinking process (for which an ill-informed "belief" system has been substituted.)

8) And finally --- this rant has gotten too long --- I want to point out that virtually all doubt about global warming could have been resolved by the launch of the DSCOVR satellite in 2002. "Popular Science" (April 2011) had an in depth article about the satellite that is well worth reading. PS --- hardly a liberal media source --- essentially blames the cancellation and mothballing of this key satellite on the personal intervention of Cheney and Armey. Both the Ukrainians and the ESA even offered to launch the satellite for free (the offers was declined by W via Colin Powell.) This satellite would have provided the gold standard data in changes in the Earth's albedo and not only would have answered many of the open questions about global warming, but would have served as a calibration tool to allow other observational satellites to be built and launched much more cheaply. But it sits in a NASA clean room ready to launch, but with funding completely cut off by the GOP House. I strongly suggest that you read the article to see the lengths to which the right wing will go to oppose research that might endanger the oil and gas industry.

The Luddite attitude of Americans toward science has always been with us. Ben Franklin was actually opposed in his research into lightening by a group of prominent American "scientists" who did not believe in electricity. About 60 of them signed a petition requesting that the Royal Academy NOT admit Franklin and caused Franklin not to get the recognition he had earned as a scientist in this country. Franklin died pretty fed up with Americans and their inability to accept science as a valid viewpoint. But what Franklin realized and his American critics did not was that the science around electricity was direct observable science. It made no difference that some did not "believe" in it. Electricity exists independently of its critics. And, like electricity, global warming exists independently of the naysayers.

Before every "acta" was voted on by the Roman Senate, Cicero used to ask "Cui bono?" "Who benefits?" (He also asked "Cui prodest?" which is a little more pointed.) His point was that without understanding who benefits from a law or from money spent, or for bestowed favors they one was not equipped to know whether to support an acta. It's time that Cicero's injunction was being used for global warming. Who benefits from loud and vocal denials of direct observational science?

You have sighted facts not in evidence.

There is much contention in scientific circles regarding AGW and most of it point to the conclusion there is nothing conclusive in the evidence.

You are a schill for the "Gorians".

When the oceans begin to rise and precipitously so we as a Country should dole out karmic retribution to all the climate deniers, obstructionist and profiteers. I'm thinking forcefully relocated to a man/woman Exxon Mobile corporate headquarters to Miami. Rush can broadcast just up the coast and for his unselfish and courageous work Hannity should be awarded by a grateful Nation a beautiful spacious beach side house. And when these exploiters of the planet and mental defectives try to swim back to shore encourage them to swim back out!

here's a good picture - in 1959 a submarine surfaced in open waters at the North Pole

There are many open water ways near the north pole during the brief summer months. Your link does not have the location of these photos... either the open areas or the frozen areas. This is another attempt at disproving facts that have nothing to do with politics... or religion. We are talking about science here and not some make-believe ploy.

The paranoid right wing needs to spend some time in the fresh air and out of their dark closets.

freedman1:

Thanks for presenting your views in a rational manner. One of the few, so kudos.

The question now becomes what to do. As you know, the vast majority of climatologists view GW as, at least, partially man-driven. Some people on the Vine have resorted to insulting science itself, pointing out times when a group of scientists developed an hypothesis that ended up a bust. However, rarely do we see an international consensus without there being some validity to it.

At this point in time, what would you recommend we do? Surely not just sit on our hands and hope it's 'not' man-made. It would seem wise, for a myriad of reasons, to ween ourselves off fossil fuels. At least that's a start in the right direction, and it would severely curtail the powers that be when it comes to reasons for war.

@adiosRussert,

Thank you for proving my case. It is "cited" not "sighted." And the statement that "You have sighted (sic) facts not in evidence." is just a cute, but entirely meaningless bit of lawyerly-sounding jingoism. Facts stand alone and until data that refutes man-made global warming comes forward, or a new observational conclusion comes along, it is the most accurate description we currently have of the process.

And 88% of all scientists with at least a Master's degree accept that global warming is real and man-made. If you exclude all scientists except those in meteorology, climatology, paleontology, and other related fields the number rises to 98%. Compare this with just 41% of the American people believe that man-made global warming is happening.

The issue that the right-wingers rely on is that science is a process. There is no such thing as "conclusive" evidence. In science everything we learn creates more questions than are answered.

And lastly but certainly more germain, it is "shill" not "schill." And yes, I think that Al Gore had the right idea and was in step with virtually all scientists who had expertise in the matter. The DSCOVR satellite was indeed a pet project of Gore's (and 3 other cosponsors.) But I am no one's "schill." The term implies that I am dishonestly supporting people or organizations with who I have a close, but undisclosed relationship. 'Tain't so, McGee." I read a lot and have a huge number academic friends who are intimately familiar with the scientific issues. (My wife is a PhD scientist and another of those "1,000 most cited" academics.)

My suggestions for you are that you read a lot on the subject and start finding out how much you don't know. And use the darned spell-checker. If you don't have the ability to type accurately, your credibility suffers as a result. As the old saying goes, "It is better to remain silent and be thought ignorant, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

BTW you went on ignore. I don't like your screen name either.

fishmail, thanks for the info...off on more exploration of this issue.

You know, a majority of scientists thought the Earth was flat and the center of the universe and one point (possibly due to the threat of beheading by the church though). Just sayin, just because a majority of scientists agree on something, doesn't make it so.

Nanette glad to exhange info & ideas with you and others. I found it fascinating that they may soon have upto a 1.5M year ice core for yet more comparative data. I also find it fascinating others would dare ignore & deny the samples and the remarkably high carbon high temp correlation with our industrial age practices just to argue policially rooted ideologies.

Cheers.

Ha, AK!

I googled all of those people and NOT ONE OF THEM EXISTS!!! You should check your facts before you copy and paste. Those scientists that you quoted have been made-up someone who probably has opportunity to become rich from letting oil/gas companies continue to go unchecked.

Just because you find a document on the Internet and it looks legitimate, that does not necessarily mean that it is. FACT CHECK should be your number one goal while you peruse FOXNEWS.COM. They routinely print things that are absoultely 100% false. This is why they are considered an "entertainment" channel instead of a real news program.

Open your eyes; don't be a sheep.

Since many of you on both sides like research, someone please go out and find the average temperatures over the past 50 years for non-urban areas.

I have been told that the urban heat island effect with the growth of cities around airports (where offical temps tend to be taken) is the rue cause of increased temps and the non-urban areas are actually decreasing. I do not know and am asking the community. Not opinion, but facts. Is this the case?

"You know, a majority of scientists thought the Earth was flat and the center of the universe and one point"

Philosophers & clergy are not the same thing as scientists.

"possibly due to the threat of beheading by the church though"

And there ya go - religion & bullying a long established practice to try to make people ignore science & logic.

"I have been told that the urban heat island effect with the growth of cities around airports (where offical temps tend to be taken) is the rue cause of increased temps and the non-urban areas are actually decreasing."

This is why ice core samples of up to a million or more years with captured CO2 gasses & temp implications make for good data vs anecdotal short term measurement of weather, as you're asking about, is weak data not used by real climate scientists.

gob-smacking scale of the break-up

Please, someone, define "gob-smacking" for me. What a dwebe.

We are all just a theory, dude, just a bunch of mathematical equasions describing energy density in the void. Come on, all we got is theory, it's just a theory that a blood transfusion will save your life if your leg gets cut off, but seriously, are you gonna say "no don't give me the blood, I don't make any decisions that are based on theory?" Whatever replaces us as life forms on earth, hopefully they are able to look at the big picture and actually act. We've shown no aptitude for that ourselves.

CHRIS, You're killing me! LOL! Excellent, outstanding and hilarious retort! The Ages old adage was a fine addition and the Shoe definitely fit...

fishmail: What do those show? I have read your other posts and think you are saying it is getting warmer over the last million or so years. Sorry, not as scientific as you. I just shoot where I am told.

Ah another psalm from the man-made global warming bible. These wacko zealots from the new "Green Religion" are just too funny.

rickeroo, For those comparative photographs, check out: . Glacier National Park has 26 Named Glaciers today, down from 150 in 1850.....

Some of you will be under 6 feet of water and keep saying that global warming is just a hoax....

I guees then Rick Perry's prayers will finally be answered.

Texas is having a major drought. Maybe if the coast came up a little it would make it better. Or maybe this is the work of Bush, he wants coastal property on his ranch.

That's it, lets blame this on Bush.

Gravity is only a theory.

"What do those show? I have read your other posts and think you are saying it is getting warmer over the last million or so years. Sorry, not as scientific as you. I just shoot where I am told."

Army, Good for you for asking questions! Once again:

For lay people I suggest google searching & reading the BBC report "Carbon dioxide levels are substantially higher now than at any time in the last 800,000 years, the latest study of ice drilled out of Antarctica confirms."

The article was actually titled "Deep ice tells long climate story"

Maybe this link will work but if not just copy paste that quote above into google and click on the BBC link - the scientist make their observations and concerns well and don't need me to parrot all of them:

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5314592.stm

Cheers.

adiosRussert

You have sighted facts not in evidence.

There is much contention in scientific circles regarding AGW and most of it point to the conclusion there is nothing conclusive in the evidence.

You are a schill for the "Gorians".

It is always best when an illiterate argues against one.

Chris-749391 "And 88% of all scientists with at least a Master's degree accept that global warming is real and man-made. If you exclude all scientists except those in meteorology, climatology, paleontology, and other related fields the number rises to 98%."

Meaningless numbers. If "all scientists except those in meteorology, climatology, paleontology, and other related field" make up 90% of all scientists, that would mean that 99% of those who are experts in climate sciences (meteorology, climatology, paleontology, and other related fields) could believe that global warming is NOT man made. Do the math.

Bob Onnit #2.17 - I am not minoity, I am episcopalian if you must know. I have a devilish side, love satire (#1.11) and long walks on the beach.

Fishmail - Ok, well bad example aside, I'm simply pointing out that just because a majority of professionals in a field believe things are a certain way doesn't make them right. There are numerous occasions where one great mind has discovered something and has had to prove that thing over and over again before the rest of the scientific community would accept it as fact. Personally I feel that short term climate change is difficult to diagnose, as true climate change takes at a minimum a few hundred years (which is dang fast in geological terms) and slower change can take 10s of thousands of years. As I've said in earlier posts, even if this current change ends up not to be caused by man, we STILL need to figure out ways to produce energy and move ourselves around with less pollution. The Earth is only getting more crowded every day and I enjoy my clean air out here in rural Iowa :-)

Although mine might enjoy their new waterfront property in my landlocked state...

Well, either all the world's poor and middle class folks die off and the rich have more room to build their mega-mansions...or...

the massive upheaval caused by the collapse of ecosystems worldwide leads to the fall of human civilization and after the Soylent Green runs out the few who remain are back to living in caves and cannibalizing the clan in the next cave over...

Sadly, I think it'll be the 2nd option.

I do not want kids and I will not be around so it doesnt matter to me.

This isn't THAT big really. Two decades ago a iceberg the size of Belgium derived...

lisamaria, Therefore, your opinion means??? Too bad your Parents didn't feel the same way you do...

Either we get rid of the republicans / conservatives or we get rid of the planet, TAKE YOUR PICK!!!

The Giligan,

The history of this planet is chock full of mass extinction events up to and including early humans.

The big difference this time is we have the science to see it looming on the horizon. Unfortunately we as a species are still plagued by a lot of caveman style thinking that prevents critical objective discussion regarding these big deal issues.

You don't think it will take much environmentally to send societies into drastic tailspins? I offer Hurricane Katrina as a model. Look at how fast things in New Orleans unwound - particularly with regard to the police force.

Now factor in all the xenophobic / ethnic / Us vs. Them madness humans have shown themselves to be more than experts at and I don't think my cynical slant on possible outcomes is all that far-fetched.

I think they will. The oil rigs in the Gulf have over the past 50 years experience very, very little sea level increase.

But then again who am I to say that nature will not cause sea levels to rise or fall much have they have over the millenia?

Yeah, those smug ones that live on the tree-covered heights, thinking that their new ocean-front property will be just swell -- it won't look so swell when it's on fire.

For those that could not afford beach front property...your dreams are coming true...Be careful what you wish for...you may actually get it.

As Gore rakes in $Millions for the cause...Let's ignore that fact!!!

Rally,

Miniscule to the non-taxed profits of the Energy industry that is the main source of BS you listen to!

Miniscule to the non-taxed profits of the Energy industry that is the main source of BS you listen to!

Tex:

First of all, I don't "listen" to propaganda by any group without doing my own assessment and formulating my own reasoning. Secondly, if the tax-codes allow big corporations to evade taxes, it's not their fault they take advantage of it, anyone would, including you!! Wash DC and Obama had the power to change this when he had a fillibuster proof house and congress and, instead chose to ignore it. Of course, you liberals choose to ignore this and instead praise that idiot we have in Wash!!!

Do we stay the same orbital distance from the sun year after year..??

How many square miles of rain forest have been cleared (lost)..?

Was there an ice sheet where New York is now..?? If so, was this caused by the green house gasses from burning petrol.?? Many questions..!!

Change is a guarantee..

So is hope...

Hopey, changy thing?

The Tea Party is blocking Hope and Change with Despair and the Status Quo.

The Tea Party is blocking Hope and Change with Despair and the Status Quo.

Sure, buy into that crap!!! Odumbo had a filibuster proof house and congress for close to two years and could push just about anything he wanted through and, even with that advantage, failed miserably. His own party and supporters blocked many of his ignorant and endeavors.

According to the ICE Cores from the Antarctic that the IPCC base their AGW beliefs on...

The temperature trends have been DECREASING for the last 11,000+years. see http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/Closer_Look/index.html

The only reason we don't have mass application of solar and wind energy is because the oil companies haven't yet figured out how to own the sun and wind.

if the tax-codes allow big corporations to evade taxes

Those corporations paid good money for those tax loopholes.

Those corporations paid good money for those tax loopholes

And those in Wash DC allowed it, including democrats. Don't think for one moment that the dems are not in the pockets of special interest groups including the oil companies.

Ahhh... the sky is falling!

Liberals see an ice sheet break off of Greenland and now President Obama's Socialist agenda is somehow vindicated? Uh...No.

How did we go from ice to politics?

The only reason we don't have mass application of solar and wind energy is because the oil companies haven't yet figured out how to own the sun and wind.

Actually it's because solar and wind are not anywhere near efficient enough to replace the power that our current coal fired plants do. We would have to use up pretty much every drop of empty land to get that kind of power out of solar and wind systems. They might be a good supplement to the grid, but a NEW method of producing power all-together needs to be invented. Which is why I'm watching fusion research with great interest.

"Filibuster proof" congress, eh? That's rich. No such thing, these days at least. Dems got their own conservative block and special interest sections, but so do the Repubs (Tea Party being a prime example). Just because a party holds the necessary seats doesn't mean all members of their own party are going to vote the party line. Boehner is finding that out now, much to his dismay, lol. If you think that one slim vote extra margin should allow someone to get through "whatever they want", you're quite naive. Congress has never worked that way.

There have been significant 'climate changes', fluctuations in Greenland for thousands of years - see Wikipedia 'History of Greenland'

Brokinarrow:

CUT OUT THOSE LIES. We would need VERY LITTLE land to solar power the entire nation. That "cover the nation with solar panels" line is TOTALLY BOGUS. That is RUSH DRUGADDICT talking and it is, as everything ELSE he says, A LIE.

I would say, do the math, but you OBVIOUSLY CAN'T.

I'm no engineer but, oh wait - YES I AM!!!

The "fusion solution" is going to gain ground during the next decade or so. We're close, but no cigar, yet. It will be the answer and it may well actually be a godsend to the human race. Small, powerful and safe reactors that don't pollute, waste product is water and ultimately, one the size of a milk jug can power an entire house, electric vehicles included.

Getting from here to there is challenging, expensive, difficult and will require bundles of money for the research and development beyond where we are today.

And, of course, the utilities, auto makers and oil/natural gas industries will likely try to buy up all the patents and development so they can push it into a back room, lock the door, swallow the key.

Before that, there will be a "balancing" of the population of this lovely planet. We are a race of last minute fixers. When millions upon millions die from thirst, famine, disease, drought, conflicts and all the other ways huge numbers of people die, then "save the planet" will be a sincere battle cry.

Until then, we can all talk a good game, but in our heart of hearts, we're thinking, "not me, brother. I'm safe and secure and that's all I'm worried about."

Be talkin' to you....................Webrydr

SRS - wow buddy, calm it down there. I'm just making some observations, I'm not out to attack anyone here. Last I checked the most efficient solar panels on the market are only about 15% efficient. There is also the problem storing enough energy to keep homes powered on off-days for both the wind and solar plants. Batteries are not a good solution if you're looking to minimize environmental impact.

@SRS

I'm assuming since it's so easy and viable you've created solar panels and wind turbines for your house?

Wind and Solar is definately an answer... but so is every other alternative. Excessive use of any source of energy is going to have a negative affect on something else.

Is Hydro-Electric power clean? Yes. Is it efficient? Yes. Does it have a negative impact on the environment? Yes. It's simple laws of physics. Energy comes at a price.

The only way to reduce overall damage is to have the equivalent of crop rotating with energy gathering.

"First of all, I don't "listen" to propaganda by any group without doing my own assessment and formulating my own reasoning."

LOL... where do you find the time to drill for ice core samples and cull raw data to correlate cause & effects? C'mon - You DO listen to propaganda - we all do, you choose yours and joe blow chooses his - usually based on ideologies and biases. It's ok to admit it - some want to trust scientist in academia who are clearly just out for securing another grant and some want to trust scientists bought by Exxon or the Oil Institute and who clearly don't have any biased because they're salaried and don't need grants ;-)

Observational science

..... so pithy

"..... so pithy"

Damned funny (thanks) - yes, we need to melt all the ice (uranium Pew-46 space modulator set to 4!) and make things happen.

Now THATs science! (queue up Thomas Dolby music)

Actually it's because solar and wind are not anywhere near efficient enough to replace the power that our current coal fired plants do.

Completely untrue. Check out the wind farms of Western Texas, Seville's solar tower, and a number of other alternate energy projects around the globe, including LED and compact fluorescent lighting which uses less than 30% of the energy required by "traditional" lighting sources (the incandescent bulb championed by GOP Congressional representatives). All green sources combined (solar, wind, geothermal, etc.) can meet and surpass the current yearly world consumption of 15.7 terawatts. Developments in wind turbines and solar panels mean solar and wind farms can take up no more space than a coal-fired plant, and far less than an oil refinery.

Also look for information on China's high efficiency coal plants that collect CO2 and pump it underground, where it's reabsorbed naturally. China is the world's greatest consumer of energy, and they have invested $20 billion into development of green energy sources. Guess we can buy energy from them, since we already buy pretty much everything else from there now.

I've seen plenty of wind farms and solar power plants. I'm all for using them to supplement the power grid, but realistically it takes a LOT more surface area of solar panels/land used for wind farms to match what a nuclear plant can produce. And in case you haven't noticed, the world's population is kind of exploding. We're going to need all the space we can get before too long.

SRS

As an Engineer you would be interested in this article.

The 80-MW San Joaquin Valley Customer Choice Solar Farm, which will be located near Fresno, California, will, at 640 acres, be 17 times the size of the current U.S. title-holder, the 4.6-MW Springerville Generating Station near Tucson, Arizona. It will also be approximately 7 times larger than the world's biggest existing plant and twice the size of the largest planned farm, both in Germany. "We're pretty confident that solar farms on this scale are going to have an industry-changing impact. We think it's the wave of the future. This scale of project, I think, creates a tipping point for renewable energy," said Bill Barnes, the CEO of Cleantech.

Upon completion, Barnes hopes to sell the solar-generated energy (enough to supply 21,000 homes, he claims) to the Kings River Conservation District, a public agency that provides power generation for 12 cities and 2 counties in the surrounding area. In addition, Cleantech announced last week that it also planned on building a 5-MW solar farm on 40 acres near Mendota, whose energy will be delivered to PG&E.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/07/largest_solar_farm_ever.php

So to supply 21,000 homes with Solar Power you need 640 acres.

Housing units, 2009---129,969,653 Census Data

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

129,969,653 / 21000 = 6189 Solar Plants

That's 6189 SQ. MILES WHERE DO WE HAVE THAT MUCH LAND FOR SOLAR PANELS? Then there is the problem of Right of Ways for the Roads needed and the Transmition Lines needed to connect to the rest of the Grid. Then there is the problem with the Blue Sage Lizard,the Giant Kangaroo Mouse,the Red Legged Frog,the Delta Smelt,not to mention the Plant Life that would halt or delay construction.

"Actually it's because solar and wind are not anywhere near efficient enough to replace the power that our current coal fired plants do"

That "actually" is changing fast - solar that is cost competitive with coal is likely a years not decades away. Claims are "10% per year through 2020, at which point solar electricity becomes cheaper than coal". MIT spin-off company near me (I have no stake in this) called 1366 Technologies is making cheaper but high quality silicon for PV cell makers in a new way that cuts 40% cost from traditional wafer making methods. If interested see 1366tech (dot com). While some vilify the DOE they (ARPA branch) were behind making sure 1366' could get loans in June to expand into commercializing and manufacturing.

So don't plant your flag too deep on what can or can't be done for as good a price per BTU & Watt-hr equiv as filthy coal. Solar PV will be a trillion dollar market for us if we don't get complacent and give it all up to China who recognizes they need to offset their coal plant growth and do so sooner than later.

fish

It would cost $26,000 for a Solar System for my 1200 sq.ft. house. It would pay for itself in 30 YEARS! Now tell me that is COMPETITIVE!

"It would cost $26,000 for a Solar System for my 1200 sq.ft. house. It would pay for itself in 30 YEARS!"

don that sounds like it's based on current numbers NOT what I wrote about so quit your virtual yelling. Forget the environmental reasons - Is the price of electric & transmission costs going down or up the next 30 years? Take a fair guess and note the supply demand challenges already on the daytime grid. Would free electricity at some earlier point from a lower amortized cost be a game changer - it sure as *&@# would. There are a lot of roofs that can be covered - and that radiation is going to hit them either way.

"Now tell me that is COMPETITIVE!"

What part part of competitive with coal did you not understand? And why is this an all or nothing game pinned on today & that has to ignore rising energy prices and ignore engineering photovoltaic advances?

China gets it - we better or we're screwed economically on this opportunity too - and again that's largely ignoring the environmental impacts of such choices that are another win. I'm an engineer not a hypnotist - do what you want - I look forward to markedly cheaper PV tech and so will the rest of us as long as we don't ignore half of the multiple benefits.

fishmail - Hey that's awesome. Trust me, if they came out with an affordable solar panel next year that got 50% efficiency I'd jump for joy and rush out to buy one :-) I'm all for improved technology and definitely love to see companies continue finding better solutions. But at current technology, solar plants just aren't feasible.

But if a few years down the road I can get a solar system that would power my house for .... lets say around $2,000, I would find that cost effective enough to jump on.

Chicago scraped from the earth? That would be bad why?

Do a little reading on the facts of your post, you are a few hundred miles off there Billy. The issue is not whether the climate swings back and forth making the greatest challenges for our survival as a species, it is whether WE are having an effect on that swing. Science (with little to gain or lose) says we are, your sources (the profit making boards in the energy industry) say we are not. Who should we believe?

Let say you are walking down the street and some guy steps out from behind a telephone booth and says, "Watch out there are people getting mugged where you are going!" Another guys who has several wallets in one hand and a gun in the other says, "Hey, dont worry, just keep walking, those are my friends down there, no problem!" What will you do? Keep walking is my guess!

Thanks Bill! I'm sure that NONE of the thousands of PhD climatologists that have devoted their entire adult lives to studying climate ever thought of the idea that Earth's climate changes over time!

It took a random Newsvine reader with little or no scientific training to point that out! When they read your post, their eyes will open wide, their jaws will drop open, and they'll slap their cheeks with their hands in astonishment! You've set them all straight now!

I hate to be the one to have to break the news to the many climate change deniers out there, but climatologists thought of the issue of natural climate variation LONG before you did. They thought of that from the very beginning and they've done all sorts of work (that you wouldn't understand even if you read it) that shows that human activity is warming the planet and that this is a serious problem.

Exactly how arrogant does one have to be to think that -- with no relevant scientific training at all -- one can do a better job of figuring out something like Earth's climate than thousands of people with PhDs that study it all day long every day?

But the earth didn't swing between temperatures in 50 years without a cataclysmic volcano or meteor. That's a slit second in geologic time. And when temperatures did change that fast, most everything died.

Good post AC.

Hundreds of scientists denying AGW, thousands of scientists supporting it. You can take your chances with either one. Science is rarely, if ever, 'settled'. I guess for me the point is: we are dumping large amounts of climate change chemicals (CO2, Methane, etc.) into the atmosphere in an unregulated experiment. Some scientists are saying it will do nothing to the earth. More are saying the its not good for the climate. History has shown that every time humans think the earth is an unlimited dump (or resource), they abuse it with very bad results. CFC's and the ozone depletion is a good example. If you don't like that, think back to DDT, leaded gas, etc. Everything we do affects the earth, because believe it or not, it is not unlimited in its ability to absorb the byproducts of our activities.

What we are doing now is dumping tremendous amounts of gasses into the atmosphere, and it is having an effect. Atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing globally, oceans are becoming more acidic. Whether you believe these are affecting climate change is kind of besides the point. Do you think it is right to continue to dump this stuff into the air, simply because its inconvenient or expensive to change?

Any time you see AC Robertson post you know it's time to click 'No Value' for the ludicrous unsupported conspiracy tripe that follows. What's the funding source for all your listed "studies" and "scientists". Most likely Big Oil.

Dangerous Mind - his post seems to be fairly well reasoned to me. I could quite easily say that most of these global warming scientists are in the pocket of the government. As with anything though, if you're going to make accusations it's best to provide proof along with them.

Hey what about little oil?

Don't forget about us?.

The Baby Oil industry is squashing thousands of innocent babies every day and nobody says anything about that.

You rainbow-unicorn coalition types are insensitive to babies!

Wakehead

But the earth didn't swing between temperatures in 50 years without a cataclysmic volcano or meteor.

Ya Wake....you've been making daily observational readings for the last 2.5 million years, right?

"The ONLY settled science is - The Earth CHANGES, man can either ADAPT or become EXTINCT"

LOl Can we get an amen? You hear that all you scientists out there?! Stop wasting your time on "unsettled" science and get back in line - suck it up the earth is changing and humans do not effect the long term environmental impact on other humans, animals, or plant life! So mote it be!

I thought it was my job as an engineer to figure out the adapt part - I was counting on the science guys to figure out all the unsettled parts so that I could be the applications guy. Damn AC you really are a spoiler with all your lists of 7 scientists (most selling books or with unrelated backgrounds(like Itoh)) and such...so, who do you work for? Big Earl? (wispers: o... i... l... ?)

AC, More Parrot-phrasing I see....What part of the Majority that is weighing in on this issue do you concur with? Oh, that would be the MINORITY....Excuse him folks, he got his little List and thought it meant he was on the larger side of the Debate......

He made sense and put refereneces to back it and you attempt to discredit him with your juvenile sacrasm. Your post only adds credence to his.

Read the Oregon Petition Project...

More than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition denying that man is responsible for global warming.

.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/2053842/Scientists-sign-petition-denying-man-made-global-warming.html

"The current list of 31,072 petition signers includes 9,021 PhD; 6,961 MS; 2,240 MD and DVM; and 12,850 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science."^[2]

A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global
warming scares... see http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/challenge-to-scientific-consensus-on-global-warming-analysis-finds-hundreds-of-scientists-have-published-evidence-countering-man-made-global-warming-fears-58004447.html

ADIOS, His references were discredited by the Scientific Community that holds the Peer reviewed majority's esteemed concurrence . The references hold little water when they are in fact, still the minority. If you believe my reaction to his incessant, reiterated points (evident in many other Posts) is adding credence to his porous "research", then you are a fool.

Your Post was very astute and eloquent. If you want to impress anyone with how "grown-up" you are, try writing at a High School level in the very least...ADIOS. Or, AMF!

"More than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition denying that man is responsible for global warming."

"Scientists"? By what convenient definition?

Adults make note that Fred Seitz, creator & promoter of this petition, was amongst other credits also the founding chairman of the George C. Marshall Institute (a politically conservative warhawk-promoting think-tank in part funded by Exxon-Mobile), and was a tobacco industry consultant. Not exactly a guy looking out for humanity or environment over profit eh? But he sure knew his audience - even the so called "scientists" willing to check a checkbox. Hey AC which oil company or PAC do you work for?

fishmail-1463615-2622323,

Do you have any published list of scientist that support AGW???

Back-up you mouth with references...

The people listed here are former AGW sporters, they worked directly for/held positions on IPCC panels, and supplied the original research used by the IPCC...

The mythical global warming ‘consensus’ continues to crumble as top UN IPCC Scientists Turn on the IPCC and are now bailing-out of the AGW sinking ship...

1. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, - Award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist, founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the "1,000 Most Cited Scientists," says much "Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change."

He writes of “inaccurate temperature measurements,” including chapters that call man-made global warming fears “the worst scientific scandal in the history” in his book 'Lies and Traps in the Global Warming Affairs'.

2. Dr. Denis Rancourt,- A former Anthropogenic (man-made) Global Warming (AGW) advocate, professor and peer-reviewed environmental science researcher at the University of Ottawa. Physicist Dr. Rancourt, has officially renounced AGW in a June 8, 2010 essay, saying it is nothing more than a contrived imaginery ”myth” — in other words, an elaborate conspiracy. (Rancourt’s e-mail: claude.cde@gmail.com)

3. Dr. Judith Curry, -An American climatologist and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Has been making critical statements about the IPCC and climate science, after working for & with the IPCC for almost a decade. See her heretic piece http://judithcurry.com/2010/10/25/heresy-and-the-creation-of-monsters/

4. Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski,- is chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw and former chair of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (1981–82). Dr. Jaworowski--world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research--says the U.N. "based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false."

He has published more than 20 papers on climate, most of them concerning atmospheric CO2. One of the latest - Solar cycles, not CO₂, determine climate, 21st Century Science and Technology.

5. Dr. Antonino Zichichi, - One of the world's foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter--calls global warming models "incoherent and invalid."

6. Dr. Richard Lindzen, - Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says global warming alarmists "are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right."

7. Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, - (Professor Emeritus, University of Alaska) professor of geophysics since 1964. Dr. Akasofu has published more than 550 professional journal articles, authored and co-authored 10 books. He sincerely advises us‚ ‘When people come to know what the truth is about AGW, they will feel deceived by science and the scientist involved.'

For a book containing the hundreds of other prominent scientist that deny the AGW myth.. see http://yhst-7134682615375.stores.yahoo.net/the-deniers-the-world-renowned-scientists-who-stood-up-against-global.html

The ONLY settled science is - The Earth CHANGES, man can either ADAPT or become EXTINCT...

Energy conservation and minimal environmental impact, should be the GOAL of EVERY HUMAN...

Damn collapse it and it just keep coming back Ha! Ha!

AK Sabin,

Did you have fun copying my post; dtd #23.10 - Thu Aug 18, 2011 1:03 PM EDT or from this thread #6.5 - Thu Sep 1, 2011 8:40 AM EDT and then publishing it numerous times???

Once is usually enough to piss the AGW crowd off...

Dr. Kiminori Itoh is a chemist, not a climate expert.
According to Dr. Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate
Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, in Boulder CO
and a UN IPCC lead author, “the only scientists who disagree with the IPCC
report are those who have not read it and are poorly informed.”

Dr. Denis Rancourt WAS a physics professor, not a climate expert. Google his name - you'll find he has a somewhat interesting history.

Dr. Judith Curry, a climatologist drew heat over her views on how climate change skeptics should be dealt with. She was opposed to the "circling wagons" approach of some researchers. But, hey, you be the judge if she's opposed to climate change:

"If climate science is to uphold core research values and be credible to public, we need to respond to any critique of data or methodology that emerges from analysis by other scientists. Ignoring skeptics coming from outside the field is inappropriate; Einstein did not start his research career at Princeton, but rather at a post office. I’m not implying that climate researchers need to keep defending against the same arguments over and over again. Scientists claim that they would never get any research done if they had to continuously respond to skeptics. The counter to that argument is to make all of your data, metadata, and code openly available. Doing this will minimize the time spent responding to skeptics; try it! If anyone identifies an actual error in your data or methodology, acknowledge it and fix the problem. Doing this would keep molehills from growing into mountains that involve congressional hearings, lawyers, etc."

Does this sound like someone who does not believe in climate change? She has been criticised for arguing that scientists be more open and transparant in their methods.

I leave as an exercise for the student, to look into the background of the others listed in AC Robertson's post.

Brokinarrow

Dangerous Mind - his post seems to be fairly well reasoned to me. I could quite easily say that most of these global warming scientists are in the pocket of the government. As with anything though, if you're going to make accusations it's best to provide proof along with them.

What does it mean to be "in the pocket" of the government? What financial interest does the government have in advancing anthropogenic global warming? None. Quite the contrary, acknowledging it puts any politician in the politically unenviable position of having to figure out what to do about it and dealing with the fact that Big Oil will donate megabucks to his or her political opponents.

In contrast, Big Oil has a VERY powerful financial interest in disputing anthropogenic global warming. This is no different from tobacco companies trying to deny the fact that smoking causes cancer. They are trying to avoid legislation that would threaten their profits. While that is entirely understable, it means that their credibility is ZERO.

Every time I hear a supposedly qualified scientist question anthropogenic global warming, I do some checking and EVERY SINGLE TIME I find out that he is on the payroll of Big Oil.

And, yes... I HIGHLY encourage the reader to check up on the people AC Robertson lists as global warming skeptics. You'll just keep finding that they either A) are not climatologists or B) are on the payroll of some company that has a financial interest in disputing anthropogenic global warming.

Gumps,

Nice spin but when these people went to college, the first time, there did not exist a speciality in 'Climate Scientist'.

These are the people that have established the standards and are TEACHING this generation of 'Climate Scientist'...

1. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, - Award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist, founding director of the International Arctic Research Center...

2. Dr. Denis Rancourt,- A professor and peer-reviewed environmental science researcher at the University of Ottawa...

3. Dr. Judith Curry, -An American climatologist and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. If you think she supports AGW read her latest blogs... see http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/16/manufacturing-consensus/

4. Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski,- world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research--says the U.N. "based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false."

5. Dr. Antonino Zichichi, - One of the world's foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter--calls global warming models "incoherent and invalid." You do not have to be a 'Climate Scientist' to reconize BS research models...

6. Dr. Richard Lindzen, - Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says global warming alarmists "are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right..."

7. Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, - (Professor Emeritus, University of Alaska) professor of geophysics since 1964. Dr. Akasofu has published more than 550 professional journal articles, authored and co-authored 10 books...

But you are right they are the recognized EXPERTS in their field of study. Which happens to be the EDUCATION of todays 'Climate Experts'...

AC, try doing a little research into these people beyond just cutting/pasting the list from some right-wing forum.

Grumps go to the peoples blogs, read their research papers, and Google their names to find other Internet sites...

Read the book that I referenced and then you can research the backgrounds of the hundreds of other senior scientist...

AGW was a theory & it has been proven to be corrupted by the supposed EXPERTS that massaged the data...

You mean like Dr. Judith Curry? She simply drew heat because she criticised the approach some of her colleagues responded to the skeptics - she does not believe that climate change is a fraud, as you'd like to believe.

How about Denis Rancourt? He was fired from the University of Ottawa. Why? Well, it might have something to do with giving every student in his 4yr Physics class an A+. Boy! Talk about grade inflation! I'm sure that made him popular with the student body!

Oh, and if AGW was a theory that has "been proven to be corrupted", then we'd se articles and papers in scientific journals, such as Nature. Read any lately? Oh, probably because the scientific community is engaged in a big conspiracy in order to get those grant dollars, eh?

The latest article about the DECREASING rates of Greenland ice??? I'll worry about the 0.05% DECREASE in ice volume over 9+years. When it catches up to the 10% INCREASE in ice volume over the last 60+years...

Or the reports about Antarctic ice levels that are DECREASING??? When the Antarctic obtained the LARGEST volumes and Max ice coverage in 2007, since satellite data was available...

Or the IPCC data that was proven FALSE by 25+years of satellite observations concerning atmospheric heat loss into space...

Or the INCREASING sea levels that have FAILED to materialize... One study covered 30+years of Pacific Islands and several Australian sea level studies, that covered a hundred years. Or you can IGNORE the sea level data from coastal Nations in Europe that cover hundreds of years, like the IPCC did...

Keep BELIEVING the HEADLINES without knowing the history behind the data...

How about Mann and his Hockey Stick temperature graph???

Or the head of the IPCC (train engineer) that stated the Himalayas would be ice free in 2039???

Or Al Gore (lawyer) and his Ozone hole over the USA???

That is such a stupid statement. There are two ways to guarantee a research grant. Say it cures cancer or has a military application. There is not a lot of money in climate research, unless an oil company is paying a pseudo-scientist to deny something.

That's right Rally, the only rewards for a scientist to make such dire predictions is the hope that the world will listen long enough to the facts to make reasonable decisions. On the other hand, the energy industry makes obscene untaxed profit out of telling you, "everything will be all right, you have nothing to worry about, keep on acting like a pig."

Turn Rush off and look at the reality around you!

There is not a lot of money in climate research,

That is why colleges and universities are vying for research money to study the climate, and provide their biased alarmist reports. Of course the reports and data are adjusted and skewed to paint the worst possible scenario!!!

You people better run and hide under the bed as the sky is falling because Al Gore says it's falling!!!

Yep, Rallyforge, you got it. Scientists like me spend 10 years in college earning our PhDs. At times, in grad school, I was working 100 hours a week. For most of us, grad school is followed by 5 to 10 years of making under $50,000 a year. (My first starting salary as a postdoc was $28,000 a year and that was 9 years ago.)

Now here's a real head-scratcher question for you:

Why would someone choose a career like that?

When you figure out the answer, you'll know why there are VERY few scientists out there that would knowingly argue something that isn't true just to get grant money.

YES!!!Colleges and universities are in constant competition for federal and state grants for research. That's a fact!!!

More research is needed to convince ignorant people.

Ignorant people are still going to believe the world is flat. You can't convince them.

and the science has to proceed without them. As always.

"So I think I will wait till all the facts are in and the squabbling stops before forming a opinion"

Why not admit you've already formed your opinion - you just won't admit it too was on 2nd hand information and on blind faith of not on political ideologies. Otherwise you'd be the Professor studying not the Gilligan waiting for "facts".

If you wait until "all the facts are in", you don't know much about science. Science is never about absolutes. It is all about a consensus reached on the best available facts. But you will never get absolute agreement among scientists on just about anything. I don't have any problem with scientists debating the merits about various parts of the evidence for or against AGW. Debate and challenge is what science is all about. But I do have a problem with individual studies being taken out of context and then being used to say that climate change is bunk because a few scientists don't believe it.

SCOTT, Great Post. Just had to say that part of your example may be off a little...A cure for Cancer would probably get "shelved" by the almighty Pharmaceutical Companies for fear of their profit loss. Probably already has...LOL!

Rallyforge

YES!!!Colleges and universities are in constant competition for federal and state grants for research. That's a fact!!!

It would seem that my post sailed right over your head.

If you understood anything about science, you would realize that grant funding decisions are made by independent teams of experts in the relevant field. The best way to get grant money is to show that you are doing good, sound science.

Junicon,

Such eloquence is wasted on the mentally less fortunate. Even sound argument can be lost in the fat some claim to be Brain Cells...

Great Posts! keep up the great Work..

No such thing as dinosaurs. The earth is only a couple thousand years old... according to the extreme right.

Nobody ever said that the Earth would become inhospitable to all life.

Ecosystems will drastically change everywhere, and all coastal areas will end up underwater. That would be fine, except that most of the world's major cities are in coastal areas so you're talking about trillions of dollars in losses.

That's right, it is a well established fact in the superstitious, self serving, religious right wing extremist ideology that those bones were put there by a very devious DEVIL to confuse us!

Ever notice that the very core of those who believe in the DEVIL are Christians? "I believe in God, therefore, I worship Him!" "I believe in the Devil, therefore, I worship Him." Evil is a product of the outdated gobbledygook coming from Judaism through Christianity to Islam. We suffer its consequences not because it exists outside those myths but because there are so many among us who worship it.

Mormon seminary teachers use that argument concerning dinosaur fossils. Of course, they also tried to claim to me that the Devil created marijuana and cocaine plants, which runs 100% contradictory to what is said in Genesis. I love religious people that completely ignore obvious sections of their own scriptures in order to push an agenda of control and obedience to the group mindset/brainwash.

God gave you free will, but if you're going to be a part of our group, we're going to need to confiscate that from you at the door.

So yes, I can see what you're saying as far as Devil worshiping "Christians."

There are numerous ancient temples and other archaeological sites that have pictures & stone carvings of dinosaurs...

But many scientist state that man did not coexist with them...

Even during mass extinction events, there was PLENTY of life left on Earth. It's just that species that could not adapt quickly enough started going extinct more and more rapidly over a period of hundreds of thousands of years. And then new species rose to take their place.

"Ecosystems will drastically change everywhere, and all coastal areas will end up underwater"

Is that based on proof you can provide? Or just a theory?

Bwahahahaha! Now AC Robertson wants to float the ridiculous notion that we all rode around on dinosaurs 5000 years ago just after the Earth was created.

Adjust the tinfoil hat buddy. Seriously. It's on way too tight.

Dangerous Mind,

Some people have traveled the world and seen these first hand...

There is a Buddhist/Hindu temple in Cambodia, in the Angkor Wat complex, that has depictions of dinosaurs (Stegosaur) carved into the elaborate stone murals. The complex was built during the early 1100s. I traveled there during the summer of 2007 and veiwed them myself...

There are also many other temples that also depict dinosaurs, spread across the world... see reference http://s8int.com/WordPress/?p=1075

If you can not go and see them yourself, look at the reference...

.

How do you know these ancient civilizations didn't simply unearth the skeletons and do what we did and guess as to what they may have looked like?

There are also depictions and stories of dragons, gargoyles, mermaids, unicorns, and other creatures of fancy. Just because these sculptures resemble some of the dinosaurs does not mean the sculptor actually had a model to work with, lol. And in fact, calling many of the sculptures dinosaurs are kind of a stretch.

"There is a Buddhist/Hindu temple in Cambodia, in the Angkor Wat complex, that has depictions of dinosaurs (Stegosaur) carved into the elaborate stone murals. The complex was built during the early 1100s. I traveled there during the summer of 2007 and veiwed them myself..."

Hence to you that's proof that, since they were painted, Stegosaurus were around 900 years ago? Hey you saw the painting - how much more proof should anyone need? L O L. It's not like religious “temple” or cathedrals ever took creative license to the extremes (including/especially depicting Jesus as if a model of handsome Norse-Viking lineage).

Course AC pretends that the bogeymen and other fictitious creatures and men they pain on their cave walls or temples weren't also just as fictitious. By his latest leap in logic and twisted argument you should also have to accept the existence of minoturs, dragons that breath fire, mermaids, centars, devil incarnate, flat words, and other creative illustrations used to spook the kids and keep the tribe in-line or entertained. And if he saw those ancient depictions with his own eyes and can provide a link that they were painted that's suppose to lend credibility to his nonsense and there is his suggestion of proof? To hell with modern science, right AC? If it was written in some book or cave wall of the past it must be so no matter how absurd and illogical eh?

So, if we dare stray back on topic, were suppose to ignore the untouched ice core samples of nearly a million years (soon we may have cores of 1.5M years span) but trust cave & religious temple paintings by man for an accurate unbiased depiction of the past, right?

Wow.

fishmail-1463615-2622323,

The archaeological site does not support one belief or another. It just validates the items found during a period in time...

I have participated in several archaeological site surveys and toured others around the world...

Keep placing your beliefs in ice cores. They do not match the data from other ice cores, sediment data, or even themselves when they try to duplicate the findings...

Or maybe it is the microbes living in the ice that effects the CO2 levels or the migration of the CO2 in the retrieved cores...

Or you can ask - Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski,- is chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw and former chair of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (1981–82). Dr. Jaworowski--world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research--says the U.N. "based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false."

He has published more than 20 papers on climate, most of them concerning atmospheric CO2. One of the latest - Solar cycles, not CO₂, determine climate, 21st Century Science and Technology.

Did you listen to the video? The scientist said that there is weather variability - due to volcanic action (release of carbon dioxide) and changes in the sun. But the recent warming being directly observed is NOT due to these. The carbon dioxide causing the present warming is due to human industrial activity.

Humans are generating much more carbon dioxide than the world's volcanoes. Volcanoes actually spew mostly sulfur dioxide.

The Sun's energy output has been slowly decreasing over the past 40 years, but we're also talking about a measurement of decrease at Earth distance of about 1 watt per square meter over that time frame. From about 1366.5 watts per square meter to 1365.5.

When it comes to climate change, don't drink the Alex Jones Kool-Aid. He doesn't know what he's talking about.

Volcanoes contribute about 1% of the TOTAL that mankind does, which is 3.4% of the TOTAL atmospheric CO2 cycle...

That is flat-out wrong. All volcanic CO2 emissions anually average out to around 200 million tons of CO2. Human activity emits around 27 billion tons per year. So volcanic activity is around 1% of human output. Try using Google before you post.

http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html

Giligan, I believe that "propaganda" Film you spoke of was endorsed by the US Geological Survey. Thinking for yourself is one thing, being a total moron is another...

There were iceburgs in the US hundreds of thousands of years ago. They are gone now. Where did they go? Those big SUVs back then must have caused them to melt. Oh god.....

Come on people. Use some common sense. The truth is the earth goes through totally natural cycles. We have to be concerned about polluting the air and water, but to think we are causing the world to warm is nonsense.

You haven't read some of the posts that address your issue, and it's obvious that you've done no research other than possibly read posts from some right wing forums. Do yourself a favor and try reading up on the subject - you'll soon realize what a fool you appear to be.

No it's not nonsense - fear is motivation. Why do you think that productivity is so high right now everyone is afraid of losing their jobs.

stopthespending,

I commend you on your success illustrating to all Posting here, which morons we should ignore on this Thread; Namely, you.....

LOL!!!

XD

Eh.... they might be pretty for their age, but they are still old heheh. That might end up being disturbing.

Yea there's a couple real experts.........

Need a gang of tea partyites led by Rick Perry to go there and check this out, hold a prayer session, then come back and report the real facts to the rest of us.

giligan, When you PAY for it, the Hooker should be more enthusiastic....Not much humble in any Post you've written thus far and not much in the way of intelligence either....LOL!

Don't know what you deleted, but more people need to follow your lead.

Did he actually say "millions of degrees?" Hahahahahha

Yes he did, it is on tape! It was one of his moron speeches. I have many more but that was his finest clip.

Here is his exact quote from the TODAY show with Conan Obrien.

"It definitely is, and it's a relatively new one. People think about geothermal energy - when they think about it at all - in terms of the hot water bubbling up in some places, but two kilometers or so down in most places 'cause the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees aces there are these incredibly hot rocks, , and the crust of the earth is hot ..."

The problem is that Al Gore got the temperature of the interior of the Earth wrong by several orders of magnitude. The actual temperature of the Earth's interior is upwards to six thousand degrees Celsius. "Several million degrees" would describe the temperature of the interior of the Sun.

In other words, if Al Gore were right, the Earth would not be a planet but a star.

the TODAY show with Conan Obrien

um, no. it was the TONIGHT show.

so, clearly, you don't know anything about anything.

Who cares what show it was. Gore made that stupid ignorant statement!!! And people follow that idiot like cattle with nose-hooks.

AGW - Al Gore Warning

Yeah, the comment was still ridiculous regardless of which show it was on. Stop trying to defend Gore.

I agree - we should get rid of ALL politicians that have ever made stupid statements. Wouldn't that be cool! No government at all! :P

Why is it that so many Global Warming Deniers (GWD for short, you deserve your own acronym) like to dump all over Al Gore. True he screwed up the temperature of the earth a few miles below the surface, but a simple correction would have sufficed. It's kinda like a kill the messenger syndrome.

A much larger strategic error committed by the Global Warming Crowd (GWC - just to be clear, a loose unorganized mob that I side with) was to give the phenomena the nice fuzzy innocuous name, "Global Warming." I personally like "Fossil Fuel Induced Global Climate Change" or FFIGCC for short but that would play havoc with the mental processing power of the GWD and add to the GW presently being felt.

"day of reckoning" will be for all. It's all about moderation, my box of Twinkies should last quite a while, but even with a shelf life of decades they do become stale faster than advertised and need to be consumed in deliberate haste. Sort of like the mountain of ice perched on Greenland, it too is disappearing, but unlike my box of Twinkies, instead of expanding the continental waste line, tis shrinking them. Gee, I must be one of those Twinkies Makes People Fat Deniers. (TMPFD)

giligan, I don't care about Gore either way, but at least he's not the "embarrassment" to the English language you have turned out to be...

"(ridding) on his racist fathers coat tails"

Hey - he's just supporting the American economy, man. Twinkies one of the last few things made in the USA, so Al is buying American. (And apparently buying a lot, lol). So cut him a little slack.

Gore's contributed more to society than you blowhards. Stop swallowing the Fox brand line of talking points.

markmich good Post.. heartily agree... (can't afford the changes) but little by little it is "worth it" to be more efficient energy users... less because of the carbon footprint (though that is a definite benefit) more because of the energy savings. (why do electric cars and hybrids cost so much?) as for "spouting the Fox line" or "how can you disbalieve in the 40 yrs of actual data/ Ozone study" it is really simple:

Fact if we were to go back to living in the early 1900 the "carbon emission" effect would not subside in my life time, your lifetime, grand children, great grand children.. etc. It would not do a thing for the environment. Here is a great example: The great dust bowl was caused by man's "over farming" exposed the topsoil. HOWEVER the prevailing winds and persistent drought conditions was natural... They had NOTHING to do with mans activity on the globe... we just provided the dust.

Relatively minor cost? We're putting up wind generators in Ohio that wind studies show will run 22% of the time. Even if the wind study is conservative and we hit 50% that's still not as efficient as a natural gas fired power generation facility that produces all the time.

While I agree nothing bad can come from taking precautionary measures, we as a nation could stop using oil today and India and China would more than make up for what we don't use.

Stew I couldn't have said it better myself.

I would add one thing.... Human Beings are nothing more then another species on this earth. When it comes to planetary disasters there is not a sign out that reads "Caution Human species onboard".... Our species can be just as devastated as any other species on this planet... and quite frankly Human are one of the YOUNGEST species on this planet...

Stew, I have saying the exact same thing for over 20 years. Thanks for the post.

In many cases, whole new cottage industries sprout-up when tougher regulations are inacted to protect society.

Why did the ice age end?

Buckeye, obviously that was man's fault, too--

Stew your post makes way too much sense for the deniers to understand. Brainwashed and delusional people cannot fathom facts, they are alien to them. Sad, but true. Putting ones head in the ground like an ostrich, will not protectt them or future generations they claim to care so much about. Insanity rules now, not reason.

Stew, you just used common sense, logic and intellect to explain the situation, something the political masses don't seem to have nowadays. They'd rather stick with fear, lies and lack of intelligence to explain away the problems facing the world.

michelle,

In the late 70's early 80's scientists were warning of another ice age due to colder than normal temps. Science isn't a science. It's an educated guess based upon what the scientist observes.

No one in the scientific community doubts that the Earth goes through climatic changes all on her own without the help of Human beings. What they are saying is that the changes now are being exasberated by Humans and the pollutants that we generate and spew into the atmosphere. There is a big difference. To sit by and say that Humans have NO effect on this planets climate and resources is just playing ostrich and sticking ones head in the sand.

Buckeye... Here's one for you..... If you put a frog in a pot of water and slowly bring it to a boil.... The frog will sit there and cook.... If you put a frog in a pot of boiling water it will frantically try to escape.... The outcome for the two frogs is the same however, they will both boil to death...just at a different speed.

Humans today are the frogs in the slowly boiling pot of water.... However, the outcome will be the same....

bnb,

So i'm sure I've got this correct, the record cold temps throughout the nation this winter were caused by global warming right?

It's not warming.

Okay, okay, it's warming, but that's just mother nature.

Okay, okay, it's warming faster than ever, but it's not our fault.

Okay, okay, maybe it's our fault but it isn't so bad... new beach front property and all.

Okay, okay, it's warming, and it's us, and it's bad, but it will cost too much.

Okay, okay, it's warming, and it's us, and it's bad, and we can migrate to clean energy if we really tried, but India and China won't.

Okay, Okay, it's warming, us, bad, we can migrate to clean energy, be ahead of the development and production curve for a change, lead the global venture to cleaner air, rid ourselves of foreign and "big" oil, and live long lives, BUT... but WHAT!?!?! What now?

Do you people even listen to yourselves?

Very well said, Stew. I'm afraid that too many people that are in a position to affect a change in policies to protect our planet either can't see the problem, don't want to see the problem; or like R.G.W., feel that this is "God's will" (give me a break)!

buckeye... Do you have any clue what happens to the water currents when so much fresh water is put into the ocean? I'll tell you... As fresh water is heavier then salt water it pushes the gulf stream downward shutting down the warm water conveyor system that allows for a more tepid winter. With colder water comes more snow, ice and winter storms. Global Warming is a misenomer...... and I wish people would see that. As a result of these cooler waters we do not see the migration of warm water speices of fish that we used to see even 30 years ago. go to any dock on the east coast and talk to the fishermen there... They will tell you that over the last 30 years the fishing has changed and the fish that were once abundant during the warmer water months are near non-existant now.

As Stew said unless people are willing to err on the side of caution our way of life is doomed... Will it happen in my lifetime? My childrens? Even my grandchildren's lives I don't know. But will it happen. Yes.

Martineer, please do not put words in my mouth. You don't know how I feel until I tell you. FYI, I do believe in environmental responsibility. I was just making what I felt was an even more important point. (Smile.)

I'm still alive but I'm barely breathing,

Just prayed to a god that i don't believe in.

RGW: Your post reminded me of the words to that popular song. I'm afraid your advice to turn to God as insurance won't work, because God doesn't honor such a tentative commitment.

On the contrary, Robert, I was using the word "insurance" in a very specific and limited context, in direct response to someone who had already used the word, and would therefore know exactly what I meant.

I fully concur with you that the half-hearted professor of the religion of Christ will find the bed too short to sleep on and the blanket too narrow to wrap himself in. Nevertheless, it was Jesus Himself who said that everyone whom the Father draws will come to Him, and the one who comes to Him He will by no means cast out.

Therefore, I seek by any means to encourage anyone to come to Jesus. Jesus knows how to take it from there, and the results can only be good.

buckeyenut, yes, I remeber the "coming ice age" of the 70's, my point was, ignoring trends and ideas thay may help, will not make the problems go away. I prefer to the new trend to talk about "climate change", as patterns of heat or cold will be possible with the changes in the gulf stream, and other sea patterns. And the jet streams, solar flares, and on and on. It is not a simple picutre, in my mind, and as scientists study all these changing patterns, I trust their ideas more than deniers claims. Maybe I'm not always clear enough in my thoughts and posts. Sorry.

Stew, I think your logic is sound, and I have something I want to add: if we really want to solve the world's problems, what we need is mass cooperation, which requires that we all agree on what must be done, and then act on it together. In this world full of crazy people, how likely would you say it is for that kind of mass agreement and cooperation to ever happen? So, logically, what the smart people need to be doing is looking for help from higher places, and when I say "higher places," I mean ABOVE the world's governments. The fact is, this world has become an insane asylum, and since mental illness is contagious, it will take down every last one of us, if a way out isn't provided in time.

Stop typing on your keyboards made from oil, while using energy generated to power it.

Someone said we are the youngest species. Your right so why do we think we know everything already. Yes climate is changing, it's been changing for 4.5 billion years.

There is nothing we can do to stop any form of climate change. If humans are accelerating it is still what the debate is about. Earth has gone through much more drastic changes in the past without any form of human interference. So how do we accurately judge if the culprit is time or humans?

Charlie, do you have any particulars in mind? I find that the Bible has the very solution to what you are suggesting. The way out has been provided. His name is Jesus, and He is quite capable of solving the problems. This is not a popular solution, perhaps because God is holy, and we are not naturally attracted to holiness. However, that problem has also been solved. If sought for and appreciated, the Holy Spirit will so transform us as to heal our deficiencies, until we can fit right into a happy, holy society which is eternally sustainable.

Does this fit your intended meaning?

Better safe than sorry is not a part of the Republican vernacular. It is dumbfounding to think so many people are willing to gamble on something so important.

R.G.W. have to tell you but posting religious Dogma on a blog isnt the way to bring people to your God. If fact it is the worst way to try to get people to come to your religion. Especially if you are trying to "harvest" followers on a blog where the subject is science related. If anything you come off as a punch drinking crazy person. The only people that you will have joining you are people that believe the same as you do.

Not trying to make fun of you or come down on you just trying to provide some perspective from the other side(the side that doesnt believe as you do)

I appreciate that, Pirate, but you have obviously missed my point. It's not about religious dogma, but real solutions. To me, at least, it seems crystal clear that my response to Charlie was exactly along the lines of what he was suggesting. So, if you think that there is anything crazy or irrational in what I have been saying, I respectfully ask you just one question. I have begun to show that the Bible has real, practical solutions to the world's problems. What solutions have you found, that will actually work?

Believing in a supreme being is not a logical or practical solution for anything. It's a way for people to cope with things they can't or don't want to understand.

The right wing nut jobs (I'm not saying everyone on the right is a nut job, but the climate deniers are pretty much all right wing) think it's a liberal conspiracy made up by all those evil money grubbing left wing mad scientists. Of course they implicitly trust the honest and ethical oil paid scientists who only wish to better our world and protect all the kittens.

Stew,

There is one flaw in your theory....the Earth will always be fine, it has been for 4.5 Billion years and will be fine for another 4.5 Billion years....it's man who has to worry. we are just but a blink of an eye on this Earth. The Earth has went through this kind of change dozens of times in it's history. It was done before man was here and will continue to do so after we are but a memory. There have been times in Earths past where it was nothing but a sea of molten lava (not caused by man) and at other times for hundreds of millions of years it has been a solid block of ice (not caused by man). the Sun has far more impact on the Earth's climate than anything man could ever do. Should we try and cut back and clean up our way of life? Syre but not for the Earth's good but for our own...if we kill ourselves with war, famine, disease whatever the Earth won't care, it will still be here and in a few hundred or a few million years no record of man will ever exist and the Earth will go on it's happy way until that day when the Sun runs out of fuel, becomes a red giant and swallows up the Earth.

I like how you say that it will only be minor cost, when the people that are on board with the whole green jobs movement state on the record that it is over a 10 billion dollar market just to get started. Sounds like only minor cost to me.

How much has Al Gore made selling carbon credits?

The cycle of climate change is not disputed. However, the first 6 global warmings occurred before man was industrialized.

Stew- You're applying the logic of Pascal's wager: There's a 50/50 chance that God will judge us with eternal damnation for our lack of piety, so we should bow down and be pious. After all, a few years on earth in nothing compared with eternity.

Same can be said of "Bush's Wager" going into Iraq to get those WMD. 50/50 chance right? We could have guessed wrong and seen a nukiular holocaust.

I hope the people who actually make policy aren't applying this sophomore logic. Yes, we are all much smarter than George Bush but we have to ask ourselves real cost/risk questions, and not let ourselves be tooled around by fear.

R.G.W. The Bible does not offer any solutions to the worlds current problems, where in the Bible does it offer a solution to global warming? Please point to the scripture where it addresses that. Telling someone to believe in Jesus and be saved and trust in his plan is just the same as telling someone dont worry bury you head in the sand its going to be all right.

The real solution is for man to stop using fossil fuels, to stop the wasteful practices that our society has trained us all to become accustomed to. Trusting in a God and for HIM to change things is just the same as passing the buck because its just too hard to make the changes.

Doesnt the Bible say God helps those that help themselves? (Which is ironic considering if someone makes it happen they made it happen and not God)

By the way the Bible might have some good moral stories(namely in the New Testament) but it is also full of evil deeds (check out the old testament as it condones killing non-believers, slavery, murder, pillaging, sex slaves, rape, lots of othr bad stuff its full of scriptures condoning these actions)

Here is something else to consider. You dont need God to be good. Personally I am Agnostic, Mankind can be compassionate, caring, moral and all the other attributes that help elevate mankind spiritually (and I am not talking about religion)without religion playing a part in that process.

I hate to break it to you but man can pray to God, Jesus, Mary or whatever other God to change things but nothing will ever happen. The way to make things happen and to change things for the better is for each and every human to make the effort to change things for the better.

You say the Bible offers practical solutions to the worlds problems, please enlighten me to what those solutions are and please refer to real world solutions and not anything that starts with Trust in God or Jesus. I would love to know what scriptures offer in terms of solving the man issues that are in the world today.

@ Son-Of_Anubis I have to correct you on one point, the Earth will not be okay 4.5 billion years from now. In 4.5 billion years the Earth will be a ball of molten lava. Our Sun will be going Red Giant in around 3-4 billion years. As a result of this its size will increase and swallow Mercury, Venus as possibly the Earth.
Of course mankind will either have already left the Earth for space, or mars, or have gone extinct along with all life around 2.5-3 billion years from now. Anyhow it was just your time frame that was off the rest was spot on

Agreed Stew. I've been arguing this point for years and most people try to cover up their unwavering laziness and inability to adapt to minor inconveniences by insisting disbelief, tomfoolery in science and denial of a real problem. Those who use God as a tool for the physical world have no business in the decisions that effect us on Earth, out of their spectral fantasy realm.

One small point - it's not 50/50. 87% of the experts in the world side with AGW, not with the Republicans.

OH GOODNESS!! Here we go again. "Man is responsible for climate changes, SUV's, fossil fuels, blah blah blah blah.". The climate has gone through increases in temperatures and decreases of temperatures for thousands of years. To think man even has the ABILITY to alter the earth's climate is a farce to begin with. You speak of "fossil fuels" and "SUV's" like that is responsible. First we have not identified a "global warming" is even occurring but let's assume for a moment it is. How do you identify it as "man-made"? A significant volcano eruption (like in Iceland last year) and earthquakes cause SIGNIFICANT changes to the climate as well. Much more than man could EVER consider making. Face it: the world has gone through changes for centuries. To think that TODAY and NOW man is the cause is ludicrous!!

And what is that change? It is being proposed that the change is something like 0.7 of a degree?? So, again, let's make the illogical argument that the temps have increased 0.7 degrees and man is the cause. How much do you plan on cutting? Let's assume for a moment we reduce our "environmental impact" by, say, 25% (which is virtually impossible but let's assume in this case it is the case) then how much do you propose the temps will drop? 0.05 degrees? 0.1 degrees? If we are in a "catastrophic mode" (that is being presented) then, in your illogical minds, we must cut our energy use by 75% or more to "save" this country. REALLY!?!?

So now (as you would like) we go back to living in caves, use horses for transportation, farm with mule and plow, and THEN a massive volcano erupts in Iceland, Yellowstone, or Italy and we are all screwed anyway.

Sorry, your logic is flawed. That has already been proven. How? In March 2000 Al Gore said "our children will not see snow". Funny, ask those in North Carolina to Maine if their children saw snow last year. Interesting that they had a SEVERE winter with massive amounts of snow. Then Al Gore claims the snow last year was CAUSED by global warming?!?! If Al Gore (and the "respected" scientists) were so CLEARLY wrong the last few years how can we trust them with what they claim will happen DECADES from now?!?!?

I have just one request: If you are going to claim "global warming" and "climate change" you can't continue to be wrong from year to year what the effects will be............

So "government policy" and paying more taxes is going to save the planet?? You have to either be insane, or narcissistically arrogant beyond belief to believe that.

Thanks for the reply, Pirate. Actually, I just asked you for one solution that will actually work. Your response was to say that we all need to stop using fossil fuels and change our wasteful practices. However, as Charlie already pointed out, and to whom I was responding, there doesn't seem to be any real hope of getting enough people (or even enough governments) to agree. So, I must respectfully point out that you have not offered a real, practical alternative.

As for how the Bible offers real solutions, I can see why you haven't been able to see this. Much of what passes for Biblical teaching really does lack substance. However, this is not the Bible's fault. You just need to know what it really says.

It is an entire worldview, which does not harmonize with the views that are popular today. That doesn't actually make it unscientific. It just means that we may have been just a bit credulous in accepting whatever the scientific community wants to tell us. It should not be overlooked that the Bible does uphold a moral law, and predict a judgement, which those who do not wish to deal with such issues may be strongly motivated to discredit.

Anyway, the Biblical view is of a special, perfect creation some 6,000 years ago, marred by our fall into sin, through the deceptions of a fallen angel whose rebellion began in heaven. Jesus, with His death on the cross, did more than provide atonement for sin. He redeemed the planet and the human race. When the sin experiment has come to a head -- when the rebellion has essentially dug its own grave -- the plan is for a complete remake of the earth, to be populated by the redeemed human race. Those to be destroyed are classed as those who destroy the earth.

So, the practical solution to what's happening to the earth has the Creator stepping in to stop the madness and to make the world new and perfect again, once and for all. The beauty of this solution is that it does not require everyone to agree. Those who oppose the solution cannot prevent it. They can only exclude themselves if they so desire. Also, not only is humanity saved from extinction, but individuals are saved as well. As it is now, everyone dies, sooner rather than later. But the plan is for all participating individuals to live forever, in a perfectly happy, fulfilling, and prosperous environment.

You asked me to point to a Scripture which solves the problem of global warming. I refer you to Revelation 21:1-7, which describes the new earth.

No, the Bible does not say that God helps those who help themselves. I understand that this is from Poor Richard's Almanac. You did challenge the Bible's assertions in regard to moral and ethical issues. You stated two things, that you do not need God in order to be good, and that praying will not accomplish anything. Personally, I have not found things to be as you say. I know myself, along with my needs and deficiencies, pretty well. And I've seen what God can and will do in answer to prayer.

But, that's a personal matter for each person to deal with. I'm not trying to impose anything on you. I just wanted to suggest a new angle of thinking to you -- that the Bible is much more practical than you may have imagined, and that a rational (and reasonably intelligent) person can actually see it as having the solution to every problem, from personal to global issues. Thanks for engaging me in conversation.

WoW Probusiness, your head is way down that hole in the sand, so you dont think that mankind has any impact on the environment whatsoever? The Toxins we dump, the trash we bury, the species we have made extinct. Destroying natural habitats for human development.
Mankind doesnt have any impact on the earth, so I guess all that hazy brown grey stuff that hovers over cities and industrial sites is made by nature?

I guess that Lead found in ice cores is just imaginary as well as well as the data that can track the decrease due to mankind fazing out leaded gasoline.

I guess all the millions or cars and billions of barrels of oil and to resultant Co2 that is released doesnt impact the environment in any way.

I guess that trash they are finding at the bottom of the deepest places in the ocean got there by natural means. I guess the clear cutting of millions of Acres of natural forest doesnt have a impact on Co2 lvls.

Do you see a pattern here, how blind can you be. The only thing that you can say that could be truthful is How much of an impact IS man having on global warming. There isnt a question that man is contributing to its advance. The real question is how is mans activity influencing it.

Pretty much everything you have said is a testament for your lack of knowledge about the subject and your blindness to how man can have a great impact on his environment. I can just watch the History Channel, Discover Channel, National Geographic Channel and get data that completely makes your statements look like kindergarten reasoning. Imagine if you actually study direct scientific data and proof

Wait do you work in govt, or do you control govt (as in your a corporation big wig?)your comments would make sense then....

RGW

I have enjoyed reading your posts. I am curious though. Are you suggesting God is responsible for global warming, and the only way humans will be able to do anything about it is if God wants it to be done?

Thanks, Bobby. No, I'm not suggesting that. I believe that we are responsible for messing up the planet, both directly and indirectly. I do believe that we could make things better, if we could collectively demonstrate both the will and the self-control to do so. Thus, I see fallen human nature as the problem, and God as the solution -- both for the individual and for the entire planet.

R.G.W.
The solution I gave might not have been practical (due to the fact that man is not going to change as man is reactionary and not proactive) but it is more practical then believing that God will destroy and remake the world. Your solution doesn't address how to fix the problem, in fact I would have given you more credit for a solution if you said the solution was to out into space and find another earth.

Okay so that being said,( and please don't take this as me trying to attack your faith) The reply that you said comes off to me and complete nonsense. If you understand my point of view (and I have to tell you that the core reasoning behind my belief that the Bible is a book written by man would take a while to tell you about in a blog.) what you are saying is nothing short of a fantasy to me. I know where you are coming from because long ago I was in that position of belief that you are in.

I am agnostic, I am a very logical person from what I have read of the Bible is has way too many mistakes and one has to suspend common sense for many of the stories to become plausible. I firmly believe in evolution down to my core and my heart. Also where in the Bible does it say the Earth is 6,000 years old? Seriously you cannot believe that. If you do and you really think the Earth was created in 7 days I have to ask you one question . What is a day to God? You cannot say its 24 hours because time is relative. To us a day is 24 hours because that is the time it take for the earth to revolve on its axis once. So if there is no Earth how long was Gods first day of creation? I could go one and on from Geneis on thru tribulation and ask question like that this is why to me the Bible is a book that man. I cannot imagine an Omnipotent being making a book with so many mistakes. One would think a God that created everything could make sure that his Book had the correct information

I also find it amazing that you don't think that people that are not religious cannot be good, moral and spiritual beings.
That's like saying other religions are wrong without having studied the tenant of that religion.

I don't want to discourage you in your faith, I am glad you feel the way you do because of your faith. But please do understand that trusting that God will destroy the world and make it new isn't a solution. I am just dumbfounded by your answer. I don't want to insult you but your answer seems illogical and pretty evil. That God will destroy the world and remake it so we don't have to worry about fixing the problems all we need to do is believe in Jesus? How is that a moral thing to just let the world go to hell because its not going to be our problem when God comes back and raptures us he will remake the world?

I have to ask can you see the inherent evil in that lack of action choice??

I will say this, when all the ice caps melt and sea lvls rise 20-50+ feet the world will be forced to change. They wont have a choice, yes there will be death and a great amount of it due to famine. But the world isn't going to be destroyed. Man will survive and hopefully learn. Maybe that is what is going to be required for our species to evolve spiritually (and I am not referring to religion)

Please if I have misread your post and misunderstood your meaning please correct me. I may well have misunderstood it.

Same blah blah blah - different decade..............

It's O.K., Pirate, I'm not quite sure whether I am understanding you correctly, either. Trusting God to remake the earth certainly is a solution, if He actually does it. This is not to say that I believe in inaction. Being a participant in the Biblical solution involves a real effort to change the way we live, and the kind of people that we are, while simultaneously counting on God to give us the power to pull it off. If everyone participated in this moral reform, I strongly believe that this would drastically change the way we are treating the planet.

It's probably going to come off all wrong, but I've got to give you my honest response to your problems with the Bible. Human intellect is not sufficient to grasp the things of God. It requires divine aid. I know that sounds like a copout, but I can say from personal experience that it really works, and it doesn't require setting aside common sense, or anything else but our pride. Please don't read anything personal into that statement. I've got no reason or basis for putting you down in any way. But, I do believe there is a solution.

The Bible is a combination of the human and the divine, and the human element is necessarily imperfect. But, the humble, obedient seeker will discern the underlying harmony. Why humble and obedient? Well, we are after all the creatures relating to our Creator. O.K.? That's the idea. I'm not trying to force it on you. I'm just trying to help you see that common sense and intelligence do not necessarily have to be an impediment.

What puzzles me most about what you said is your question about whether I can see the evil in the ideas that I have been sharing. Umm... what evil? No one is simply left to perish. There is a judgement, and the only ones rejected are those who have exercised a stubborn, perverse will in permanently unfitting themselves for a place in the universe.

Ah! This comes back to what you said about my thinking that people who are not religious cannot be good, moral, spiritual people. Actually, I didn't say that. I don't believe it's that simple. My belief is that the influence of the Holy Spirit pervades the world like the air that we breathe. How we respond to this influence determines how spiritual we are. No one (and certainly not God) has given me the job of judging anyone on the basis of religion or the lack thereof. I can't read the heart, so as to know (for instance) your reasons for believing (or unbelieving) as you do. Far be it from me to even think that I am any better than you!

I do believe that, ultimately, we are all going to need Jesus in order to make it to the only moral standard that we ourselves can really accept. But I also believe that God will help the honest in heart to be found by Jesus. I suspect that you have been exposed to some rather shallow views of Christianity, in which the believers are saved and the unbelievers are lost. Sure, there is doubtless some truth in that, but it's certainly not the whole picture! Calling ourselves Christians, and saying we believe, means nothing without real spirituality. And your saying that you are an agnostic means nothing to me. If you're as honest as I think you are, that can change whenever you are able to see your way clear. Ultimately, only stubborn pride can destroy a person, and it's a danger to anyone, regardless of religious affiliation.

I don't know, Pirate. Does this help? I believe that arrogance and judging others are an offence to God. And I must say that I have appreciated conversing with you.

Over population of this planet, greed, selfishness are all factors in the worlds demise but, this is nothing new to earth. It has gone through more changes than we can possibly imagine. It is one giant life sustaining rock in a universe we can't fathom.

Human beings evolved into a collective group of pompous asses that believe we can control what happens to the planet. Too little too late and never enough cooperation will seal its fate. Beijing will still have its cloud of floating scum so if the U.S. does their part what has it helped? In reality the U.S. is still the problem. We created regulations to stave off pollution and environmental hazards only to then allow corporations to move to areas of the planet where they just don't care. I guess as long as the pollution is on another land mass we are safe.

As was said earlier, we are just another species on this planet, fleas if you will, when you consider the size and scope of everything. If the planet decides to sneeze there is nothing we are going to do about it except grab something and ride out the storm.

Did humans cause this problem, yes and no. I will explain "no". Let's say we lived as minimalists and kept our forests, kept coal and other fossil fuels in the ground, can we truly say we know what this planet would be like today? Better, probably. Worse, possibly but doubtful.

As for the talk of god, if I remember my CCD classes correctly man was created last. If there truly is a god wouldn't he/she protect the larger part of the investment? The specs of dust that we are I would have dropped a giant Swiffer on this planet long ago and started all over. In reality god got it wrong. He/she created Pinto's instead of Lincolns and churches try to convince us that this is what we are supposed to worship. The "free will" excuse isn't cutting it anymore. We don't need stories of a man in the sky to explain how we are supposed to act. Our evolution should have taught us that a couple hundred years ago but it appears we didn't evolve equally.

We have written our own story, we aren't sure about the beginning but the future is becoming clearer. Just continue reading the comments and you will see what I mean.

One question I do ask myself from time to time, if we are hit by a rock like an asteroid or meteor, as the world dies how will we blame that on man?

There is too much separation between the haves and the have not's which in turn creates too much hatred. Everyone choose a side and points at the other. There aren't D's and R's there are humans who all bleed red and need the same things to survive and unless everyone figures out that we truly are equal we will self destruct into one big layer of fertilizer.

Now grab some booze and a rocks glass, there's still plenty of ice to have a party. For now.

As a "global warming skeptic" (not denier, but "skeptic"), Stew, I found your comments rather more reasonable than that offered by most of those who are "true believers" in "anthropogenic global warming". At least you allow the possibility that what we are seeing is neither abnormal nor man-made.

That said, BEFORE we do something (even following your "Pasqual's Wager" reasoning), we ought to determine WHAT it is we propose to do and then judge it against a cost-benefit analysis.

Here's my problem: CO2 build-up, historically, is a "trailing indicator" of global warming, NOT a "leading indicator" or cause of it. Addressing CO2 emissions, in fact, may be a very expensive non-solution to the problem, IF it is a problem (let us remember that Eric the Red did NOT name "Greenland" "Green Land" as a kind of real estate scam, but did so because, in fact, at the time, it was warmer than it is now and quite capable of supporting colonists, something which changed only as the "Medieval Warm Period" ended). Absent virtual certitude about global warming and CO2 build-up as the cause of it, addressing CO2 emissions guarantees only that we will use up our available resources "fixing" something that doesn't count.

Far more likely, as a culprit, in "global warming" are our land use patterns: Millions of acres of blacktop roads and parking lots, more millions of acres of charcoal colored roofs and heat absorbing plowed soils, etc. A cheap, easily instituted "fix", such as painting all of our roofs white, so as to increase the Earth's albedo, might actually do more to reduce "anthropogenic global warming" than the most draconian restrictions on CO2 emissions.

In applying your logic to the question, wouldn't it make sense to try the cheap, quick, easy and readily available solutions before we commit ourselves to the uncertain, long term, expensive and technically difficult "fixes"? Unfortunately, white paint just doesn't have the "sex appeal" (or profit potential) that windmills and solar farms have. Then again, it doesn't have the downsides, either (such as massive kill-offs of bats, birds, and other animals which windmills cause), plus, if we are wrong, the "false fix" is easily reversible.

That's not to say that we shouldn't proceed with alternative energy programs. We started that in 1973, following the OPEC oil embargo, but have never pursued it diligently or intelligently (still aren't, if you consider the corn-ethanol boondoggle). We have plenty of reasons, in addition to "climate change", to explore those alternatives and if "global warming" forces us to pursue the issue, even when oil prices drop, then it's all to the good, but it's a basket into which I don't think we should put all, or even most of our eggs.

" historically, is a "trailing indicator" of global warming, NOT a "leading indicator" or cause of it." - Sorry but you're wrong. Greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide and water vapor retain heat from infrared radiation, acting as a blanket, and warming the planet. It is not a trailing indicator.

Uh, "Gumps" - or should I call you "Forrest" - it always helps to have some notion what you're talking about before you speak. Why don't you do a little research on what ice core samples say about CO2 and global warming.

RGW

Please refrain from bringing mythology into a scientific discussion.

Uh, old fart, I have read about ice core samples and the relation between CO2 and climate change. Perhaps you should take your own advice and read up on the subject.

If you want to see the data from direct CO2 observations over the last 180+years. The pre-industrial CO2 levels were about the same as today... see Beck, 2008, “50 Years of Continuous Measurement of CO2 on Mauna Loa” Energy and Environment, Vol 19, No.7.)

Torture sounds better and better every day.

Can Odumbo be the first one out?

After that remark I'm ashamed to say I'm from Georgia.

That would make you a capitalist, which in turn means you're a closet republican. It's okay GA you can come out of the closet.

Tim, look at Georgia's voting record for the last forty years, and be ashamed. We go for the idiots.

I know it's not possible that you are as intellectually. challenged as your statement would lead us to believe. You would have been accidentally electrocuted by now while making toast in the bathtub.....

So tell me.... Is everyone in North Georgia a peanut farmer....

lol... dork

Wait let me get this straight. Your against water boarding terrorists, yet for torturing Americans. Priceless.