Is global warming real?

[bdk]

GLOBAL VIEW
By BRET STEPHENS

Global Warming as Mass Neurosis

July 1, 2008

Last week marked the 20th anniversary of the mass hysteria phenomenon known as global warming. Much of the science has since been discredited. Now it's time for political scientists, theologians and psychiatrists to weigh in.

What, discredited? Thousands of scientists insist otherwise, none more noisily than NASA's Jim Hansen, who first banged the gong with his June 23, 1988, congressional testimony (delivered with all the modesty of "99% confidence").

But mother nature has opinions of her own. NASA now begrudgingly confirms that the hottest year on record in the continental 48 was not 1998, as previously believed, but 1934, and that six of the 10 hottest years since 1880 antedate 1954. Data from 3,000 scientific robots in the world's oceans show there has been slight cooling in the past five years, never mind that "80% to 90% of global warming involves heating up ocean waters," according to a report by NPR's Richard Harris.

The Arctic ice cap may be thinning, but the extent of Antarctic sea ice has been expanding for years. At least as of February, last winter was the Northern Hemisphere's coldest in decades. In May, German climate modelers reported in the journal Nature that global warming is due for a decade-long vacation. But be not not-afraid, added the modelers: The inexorable march to apocalypse resumes in 2020.

This last item is, of course, a forecast, not an empirical observation. But it raises a useful question: If even slight global cooling remains evidence of global warming, what isn't evidence of global warming? What we have here is a nonfalsifiable hypothesis, logically indistinguishable from claims for the existence of God. This doesn't mean God doesn't exist, or that global warming isn't happening. It does mean it isn't science.

So let's stop fussing about the interpretation of ice core samples from the South Pole and temperature readings in the troposphere. The real place where discussions of global warming belong is in the realm of belief, and particularly the motives for belief. I see three mutually compatible explanations.

The first is as a vehicle of ideological convenience. Socialism may have failed as an economic theory, but global warming alarmism, with its dire warnings about the consequences of industry and consumerism, is equally a rebuke to capitalism. Take just about any other discredited leftist nostrum of yore – population control, higher taxes, a vast new regulatory regime, global economic redistribution, an enhanced role for the United Nations – and global warming provides a justification. One wonders what the left would make of a scientific "consensus" warning that some looming environmental crisis could only be averted if every college-educated woman bore six children: Thumbs to "patriarchal" science; curtains to the species.

A second explanation is theological. Surely it is no accident that the principal catastrophe predicted by global warming alarmists is diluvian in nature. Surely it is not a coincidence that modern-day environmentalists are awfully biblical in their critique of the depredations of modern society: "And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart." That's Genesis, but it sounds like Jim Hansen.

And surely it is in keeping with this essentially religious outlook that the "solutions" chiefly offered to global warming involve radical changes to personal behavior, all of them with an ascetic, virtue-centric bent: drive less, buy less, walk lightly upon the earth and so on. A light carbon footprint has become the 21st-century equivalent of sexual abstinence.

Finally, there is a psychological explanation. Listen carefully to the global warming alarmists, and the main theme that emerges is that what the developed world needs is a large dose of penance. What's remarkable is the extent to which penance sells among a mostly secular audience. What is there to be penitent about?

As it turns out, a lot, at least if you're inclined to believe that our successes are undeserved and that prosperity is morally suspect. In this view, global warming is nature's great comeuppance, affirming as nothing else our guilty conscience for our worldly success.

In "The Varieties of Religious Experience," William James distinguishes between healthy, life-affirming religion and the monastically inclined, "morbid-minded" religion of the sick-souled. Global warming is sick-souled religion.

ABOUT BRET STEPHENS

Mr. Stephens writes the Journal's "Global View" column on foreign affairs, which runs every Tuesday in the U.S. and is also published in the European and Asian editions of the paper. He is a member of the Journal's editorial board, and has previously worked for the paper as an assistant editorial features (op-ed) editor in New York and as an editorial writer in Brussels for The Wall Street Journal Europe.
From March 2002 to October 2004 Mr. Stephens was editor-in-chief of The Jerusalem Post, a position he assumed at age 28. At the Post, he was responsible for the paper's news and editorial divisions. He also wrote a weekly column.
In 2004, Mr. Stephens was named a Young Global Leader by the World Economic Forum, where he is also a media fellow. He is the recipient of a prize for commentary from the South Asian Journalists Association for his coverage of the 2005 earthquake in Kashmir, and of the Frank Knox Media Award for his coverage of U.S. military affairs. He is the 2008 winner of the Eric Breindel Award for Excellence in Journalism. Raised in Mexico City and educated at The University of Chicago and the London School of Economics, Mr. Stephens is married and has two children.

[muddyboots]

Mr. Stephens is married and has two children.

who will spit on his grave in twenty years

(just kidding of course)
It doesn't say how he votes or if he's religous. What's your bet?


Here's another guy who's worried, and he actually studies science, not dollars. Which might be a better resume for deciding. Or maybe not. we can always bund;e dollar bills up and tie billions together and make a big raft to float on this christmas...

http://www.norwegianmoose.com/2008/03/p ... -2008.html

[bdk]

This photo was taken the year before global warming was invented...

Are Volcanoes Melting Arctic?
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, June 30, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Climate Change: While the media scream that man-made global warming is making the North Pole ice-free, another possible cause is as old as the Earth itself. They just have to look deeper.

To the delight of Al Gore and the rest of the Gaia groupies, scientists at the National Snow & Ice Data Center in Colorado are predicting that the North Pole will be completely free of ice this summer. The apocalyptic headlines already are starting to appear.

"From the viewpoint of science, the North Pole is just another point on the globe, but symbolically it is hugely important," says the center's Mark Serreze. "There is supposed to be ice at the North Pole, not open water."

From a media standpoint, this is another sign of the apocalypse — proof positive of man-made climate change. But we've heard this before.

In August 2000 the New York Times ran a piece claiming the pole was free of ice for the first time in 50 million years, long before SUVs roamed Earth. As earth scientist Patrick Michaels noted, "It was retracted three weeks later as a barrage of scientists protested that open water is common at or near the pole at the end of summer."

As reported in the June 26 edition of ScienceDaily, a research team led by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute (WHOI) has uncovered evidence of massive undersea volcanic eruptions deep beneath the ice-covered surface of the Arctic Ocean. "Explosive volatile discharge has clearly been a widespread, and ongoing, process," according to the WHOI team.

The WHOI researchers found that evidence of a series of strong quakes and eruptions as big as the one that buried the ancient city of Pompeii took place in 1999 along the Gakkel Ridge, an underwater mountain range snaking 1,100 miles from the northern tip of Greenland to Siberia.

Their first glimpse of the ocean floor 13,000 feet beneath the Arctic ice through visual and sonar images showed an ocean valet filled with flat-topped volcanoes over a mile wide and hundreds of feet high that remain active. They're not like Mount St. Helens or Krakatoa, but more like the less bombastic, oozing Kilauea variety that slowly built the Hawaiian Islands.

Robert Sohn, WHOI geophysicist, lead author and chief scientist of the July 27, 2007, Arctic Gakkel Vents Expedition, estimates that exploding mixtures of lava and gas were expelled at speeds of more than 500 meters a second.

Sohn says the large volumes of CO2 gas that belched out of the undersea volcanoes likely contributed to rising concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Is it possible that it these eruptions, part of an "ongoing process," have played a part in whatever melting there has been of the Greenland and Arctic ice sheets?

Scientists at NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory have put together a chart showing Arctic ice relatively stable until a precipitous decline began in 1999 — the very year the Arctic eruptions started.

Icebergs breaking away and polar bears supposedly drowning are good theater, but they do not reflect reality. In April, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) published a study, based on last September's data, showing Arctic ice has shrunk from 13 million square kilometers to just 3 million.

What the WWF didn't mention was that by March of this year the Arctic ice had recovered to 14 million square kilometers and that ice-cover around the Bering Strait and Alaska was at its highest level ever recorded. Ice freezes. Ice melts. That's what ice does.

At the other end of Earth, we're told the Larsen B ice shelf on the western side of Antarctica is collapsing. That part is warming and has been for decades. But it comprises just 2% of the continent. The rest is cooling.

At the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change, hosted by the Heartland Institute, keynote speaker Patrick Michaels of the Cato Institute and the University of Virginia debunked claims of "unprecedented" melting of Arctic ice. He showed how Arctic temperatures were warmer during the 1930s and the vast majority of Antarctica is indeed cooling.

Earth is not a museum, but a geologically active place that reminds us frequently how relatively puny our activities are. The WHOI's voyage to the bottom of the sea shows it is climate alarmists who are skating on thin ice.

Gakkel Ridge
Written by Damond Benningfield
Sunday, 22 October 2006

Despite centuries of exploration, the oceans continue to yield many surprises.

In the last few years, for example, scientists have found that a long ridge beneath the north polar ice cap is dotted with volcanoes, and with vents of superheated water that could be home to many new species.

It’s known as Gakkel Ridge. It stretches 1100 miles, from Greenland to Siberia. It’s part of the Mid-Ocean Ridge, which circles the globe at the boundaries between continental plates. As the plates move apart, molten rock rises to the ocean floor, forming new crust.

Gakkel Ridge is spreading more slowly than any other part of the Mid-Ocean Ridge -- only about half-an-inch per year. Because of that, scientists expected it to be pretty quiet.

But in 1999, scientists aboard a Navy submarine detected evidence of volcanic eruptions. And two years later, an international expedition compiled the most complete picture to date.

Scientists plucked samples from the ocean floor, and used sonar to map most of the ridge. They also “sniffed” for chemicals pouring from vents of superheated water known as “black smokers.” Typically, they’re surrounded by an amazing variety of life, which feeds off chemicals that bubble up through the vents.

Scientists found evidence of up to a dozen black smokers along Gakkel Ridge. An expedition next summer will carry robotic submarines to photograph them and gather samples of the water and life around them. The expedition is sure to reveal a few more surprises about the bottom of the sea.

http://www.scienceandthesea.org/index.p ... &Itemid=10

[bdk]

From a San Diego, CA TV Weather Forecaster

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/38574742.html

The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scam

By John Coleman

The key players are now all in place in Washington and in state governments across America to officially label carbon dioxide as a pollutant and enact laws that tax we citizens for our carbon footprints.

Only two details stand in the way, the faltering economic times and a dramatic turn toward a colder climate. The last two bitter winters have led tthe public to be skeptical that any runaway global warning. There is now awareness that there may be reason to question whether CO2 is a pollutant and a significant greenhouse gas.

How did we ever get to this point where bad science is driving big government? And how will we ever stop it?

The story begins with an Oceanographer named Roger Revelle. He served with the Navy in World War II. After the war he became the Director of the Scripps Oceanographic Institute in La Jolla in San Diego, California. Revelle saw the opportunity to obtain major funding from the Navy for doing measurements and research on the ocean around the Pacific Atolls where the US military was conducting atomic bomb tests. He greatly expanded the Institute's areas of interest and among others hired Hans Suess, a noted Chemist from the University of Chicago, who was very interested in the traces of carbon in the environment from the burning of fossil fuels. Revelle tagged on to Suess studies and co-authored a paper with him in 1957. The paper raises the possibility that the carbon dioxide might be creating a greenhouse effect and causing atmospheric warming. It seems to be a plea for funding for more studies. Funding, frankly, is where Revelle's mind was most of the time.

Next Revelle hired a Geochemist named David Keeling to devise a way to measure the atmospheric content of Carbon dioxide. In 1960 Keeling published his first paper showing the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and linking the increase to the burning of fossil fuels.

These two research papers became the bedrock of the science of global warming, even though they offered no proof that carbon dioxide was in fact a greenhouse gas. In addition they failed to explain how this trace gas, only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, could have any significant impact on temperatures.

Now let me take you back to the1950s when this was going on. Our cities were entrapped in a pall of pollution from the crude internal combustion engines that powered cars and trucks back then and from the uncontrolled emissions from power plants and factories. Cars and factories and power plants were filling the air with all sorts of pollutants. There was a valid and serious concern about the health consequences of this pollution and a strong environmental movement was developing to demand action. Government accepted this challenge and new environmental standards were set. Scientists and engineers came to the rescue. New reformulated fuels were developed for cars, as were new high tech, computer controlled engines and catalytic converters. By the mid seventies cars were no longer big time polluters, emitting only some carbon dioxide and water vapor from their tail pipes. Likewise, new fuel processing and smoke stack scrubbers were added to industrial and power plants and their emissions were greatly reduced, as well.

But an environmental movement had been established and its funding and very existence depended on having a continuing crisis issue. So the research papers from Scripps came at just the right moment. And, with them came the birth of an issue; man-made global warming from the carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.

Revelle and Keeling used this new alarmism to keep their funding growing. Other researchers with environmental motivations and a hunger for funding saw this developing and climbed aboard as well. The research grants began to flow and alarming hypothesis began to show up everywhere.

The Keeling curve showed a steady rise in CO2 in atmosphere during the period since oil and coal were discovered and used by man. As of today, carbon dioxide has increased from 215 to 385 parts per million. But, despite the increases, it is still only a trace gas in the atmosphere. While the increase is real, the percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2 remains tiny, about 41 hundredths of one percent.

Several hypothesis emerged in the 70s and 80s about how this tiny atmospheric component of CO2 might cause a significant warming. But they remained unproven. Years have passed and the scientists kept reaching out for evidence of the warming and proof of their theories. And, the money and environmental claims kept on building up.

Back in the 1960s, this global warming research came to the attention of a Canadian born United Nation's bureaucrat named Maurice Strong. He was looking for issues he could use to fulfill his dream of one-world government. Strong organized a World Earth Day event in Stockholm, Sweden in 1970. From this he developed a committee of scientists, environmentalists and political operatives from the UN to continue a series of meeting.

Strong developed the concept that the UN could demand payments from the advanced nations for the climatic damage from their burning of fossil fuels to benefit the underdeveloped nations, a sort of CO2 tax that would be the funding for his one-world government. But, he needed more scientific evidence to support his primary thesis. So Strong championed the establishment of the United Nation's
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This was not a pure climate study scientific organization, as we have been led to believe. It was an organization of one-world government UN bureaucrats, environmental activists and environmentalist scientists who craved the UN funding so they could produce the science they needed to stop the burning of fossil fuels. Over the last 25 years they have been very effective. Hundreds of scientific papers, four major international meetings and reams of news stories about climatic Armageddon later, the UN IPCC has made its points to the satisfaction of most and even shared a Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore.

At the same time, that Maurice Strong was busy at the UN, things were getting a bit out of hand for the man who is now called the grandfather of global warming, Roger Revelle. He had been very politically active in the late 1950's as he worked to have the University of California locate a San Diego campus adjacent to Scripps Institute in La Jolla. He won that major war, but lost an all important battle afterward when he was passed over in the selection of the first Chancellor of the new campus.

He left Scripps finally in 1963 and moved to Harvard University to establish a Center for Population Studies. It was there that Revelle inspired one of his students to become a major global warming activist. This student would say later, "It felt like such a privilege to be able to hear about the readouts from some of those measurements in a group of no more than a dozen undergraduates. Here was this teacher presenting something not years old but fresh out of the lab, with profound implications for our future!" The student described him as "a wonderful, visionary professor" who was "one of the first people in the academic community to sound the alarm on global warming," That student was Al Gore. He thought of Dr. Revelle as his mentor and referred to him frequently, relaying his experiences as a student in his book Earth in the Balance, published in 1992.

So there it is, Roger Revelle was indeed the grandfather of global warming. His work had laid the foundation for the UN IPCC, provided the anti-fossil fuel ammunition to the environmental movement and sent Al Gore on his road to his books, his move, his Nobel Peace Prize and a hundred million dollars from the carbon credits business.

What happened next is amazing. The global warming frenzy was becoming the cause celeb of the media. After all the media is mostly liberal, loves Al Gore, loves to warn us of impending disasters and tell us "the sky is falling, the sky is falling". The politicians and the environmentalist loved it, too.

But the tide was turning with Roger Revelle. He was forced out at Harvard at 65 and returned to California and a semi retirement position at UCSD. There he had time to rethink Carbon Dioxide and the greenhouse effect. The man who had inspired Al Gore and given the UN the basic research it needed to launch its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was having second thoughts. In 1988 he wrote two cautionary letters to members of Congress. He wrote, "My own personal belief is that we should wait another 10 or 20 years to really be convinced that the greenhouse effect is going to be important for human beings, in both positive and negative ways." He added, "…we should be careful not to arouse too much alarm until the rate and amount of warming becomes clearer."

And in 1991 Revelle teamed up with Chauncey Starr, founding director of the Electric Power Research Institute and Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, to write an article for Cosmos magazine. They urged more research and begged scientists and governments not to move too fast to curb greenhouse CO2 emissions because the true impact of carbon dioxide was not at all certain and curbing the use of fossil fuels could have a huge negative impact on the economy and jobs and our standard of living. I have discussed this collaboration with Dr. Singer. He assures me that Revelle was considerably more certain than he was at the time that carbon dioxide was not a problem.

Did Roger Revelle attend the Summer enclave at the Bohemian Grove in Northern California in the Summer of 1990 while working on that article? Did he deliver a lakeside speech there to the assembled movers and shakers from Washington and Wall Street in which he apologized for sending the UN IPCC and Al Gore onto this wild goose chase about global warming? Did he say that the key scientific conjecture of his lifetime had turned out wrong? The answer to those questions is, "I think so, but I do not know it for certain". I have not managed to get it confirmed as of this moment. It's a little like Las Vegas; what is said at the Bohemian Grove stays at the Bohemian Grove. There are no transcripts or recordings and people who attend are encouraged not to talk. Yet, the topic is so important, that some people have shared with me on an informal basis.

Roger Revelle died of a heart attack three months after the Cosmos story was printed. Oh, how I wish he were still alive today. He might be able to stop this scientific silliness and end the global warming scam.
Al Gore has dismissed Roger Revelle's Mea culpa as the actions of senile old man. And, the next year, while running for Vice President, he said the science behind global warming is settled and there will be no more debate, From 1992 until today, he and his cohorts have refused to debate global warming and when they are asked about we skeptics, they insult us and call us names.

So today we have the acceptance of carbon dioxide as the culprit of global warming. It is concluded that when we burn fossil fuels we are leaving a dastardly carbon footprint which we must pay Al Gore or the environmentalists to offset. Our governments on all levels are considering taxing the use of fossil fuels. The Federal Environmental Protection Agency is on the verge of naming CO2 as a pollutant and strictly regulating its use to protect our climate. The new President and the US congress are on board. Many state governments are moving on the same course.

We are already suffering from this CO2 silliness in many ways. Our energy policy has been strictly hobbled by no drilling and no new refineries for decades. We pay for the shortage this has created every time we buy gas. On top of that the whole thing about corn based ethanol costs us millions of tax dollars in subsidies. That also has driven up food prices. And, all of this is a long way from over.
And, I am totally convinced there is no scientific basis for any of it.

Global Warming. It is the hoax. It is bad science. It is a high jacking of public policy. It is no joke. It is the greatest scam in history.

John Coleman
1-28-2009

John Coleman's Global Warming Links

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/11159136.html

[muddyboots]

KUSI in San Diego greatly appreciates his being their weatherman with no degree in meteorology . I'm sure he goes home to his wife every day and says "I'm kind of a big deal around here," I bet he's real proud of working for the television station that Ron Burgundy's station was modeled on.

This is the guy who founded the Weather Channel. And was ousted as president because he was so loony. He got fired in Chicago after 6 months because he was a loon.

Sorry buddy, this is not only a non scientist, he an embarrassment to the anti global warming conspiracy.

[muddyboots]

Edited by Mod... no need to dig up past threads and thrash them about...No politics rules are still in effect...

Thanks
Zane

[A2C]

It doesn't take a lot of common sense to see that GW is an attempted power grab by socialist types in order to create more government control.
Look at the way it was aggresively pedaled by A.G.

Anyway, to those who believe in G.W. I would say think about it logically, but (I'm sure you can't since it's like a religion).

The science of physics clears it all up. The theory known as conservation of energy and Newton's 1st law.--"Energy can neither be created or destroyed" explains how to deal with the unproven science of G.W.

First, recognize that there is a limited amount of coal and oil on earth. Once all is used in probably 300-400 years some other fuel will need to be found. We will run out of fossil fuels anyway, so why the attitude that we must do this now, etc? And what exactly will we do now? have the government step in and create 5 year plans on what kind of cars and vehicles everybody can drive? It's nonsense, we will run out of the fuels anyway.

By the logic that we will run out of fuel, whatever emmissions are created now will be absorbed back into the earth. By conservation of energy alone, GW is something not to worry about.

Even if it was something to worry about, so what? More trees will grow, becasue guess what? Trees breathe in CO2. So that isn't a problem either.

And the funny thing is this:

GW is unproven on the scientific level, and yet politicians are pushing to start harmful restrictive gestapo like legislation. So my question is why do they need their hands in it so quickly, why can't they wait? I smell a rat right there as well.

I also find it funny that A.G. cancels his GW speeches when severe winter storms occur right before in the same town. Funny? It's true, and has happened a bunch of times.

I also find it funny that this winter, one of the worst in 20 years less and less people believe in it. In a scientific symposium last month, I beleeve close to 700 weather scientists agreed that GW is a farce, and that we should be considering a possible mini ice age instead.

[muddyboots]

Edited by Mod... no need to dig up past threads and thrash them about...No politics rules are still in effect...

Thanks
Zane

Sorry Zane, my point was really just that BDK keeps posting articles and editorials by people who have agendas beyond investigating whether GW is fact or fantasy. I'd love to talk about the theory, not so much whether Ron Burgundy's opinion about it.

The problem is, scientists keep adding to the information about it, and all these people who have no idea what they are talking about keep claiming it's all made up. Sort of like the moon landings imo. The problem is, of course, that they have no facts to back up their claims because they aren't scientists, so they either flat out lie, or distort what is being shown by the data, or they just refuse to believe it, sort of like the Catholics used to do when told the earth wasn't the center of the universe, or the flat earthers do today...
If you can't actually show facts, you shouldnt' bother coming to the table is all I'm saying.

BDK, how about you look THIS one up and find someone who can explain it...



Maybe we'd do better posting examples of our views instead of posting editorials with obvious bias...

[muddyboots]

It doesn't take a lot of common sense to see that GW is an attempted power grab by socialist types in order to create more government control.
Look at the way it was aggresively pedaled by A.G.

And thousands and thousands of scientists who Al Gore got his information from.

Anyway, to those who believe in G.W. I would say think about it logically, but (I'm sure you can't since it's like a religion).

Not the first time you've insulted me, prolly not the last either. And you're description of science as a religion is sort of silly as well.

The science of physics clears it all up. The theory known as conservation of energy and Newton's 1st law.--"Energy can neither be created or destroyed" explains how to deal with the unproven science of G.W.

Boy I feel all better now that you've thrown a scientific law out there on the table and used it to fix the problem. Why haven't all those thousands of scientists who are collecting data out there worldwide not done the same thing? Stupid little men, if only thaty had YOU there wit them, to show them Newton's First Law... If only they had ever studied it...in college...where they were earning about sciency stuff...like laws... *pokes A2C with stick*

First, recognize that there is a limited amount of coal and oil on earth. Once all is used in probably 300-400 years some other fuel will need to be found. We will run out of fossil fuels anyway, so why the attitude that we must do this now, etc? And what exactly will we do now? have the government step in and create 5 year plans on what kind of cars and vehicles everybody can drive? It's nonsense, we will run out of the fuels anyway.

This makes absolutely no sense so I can't argue it. Point to you A2C, in this round but I'll be back to get you. You and your little dog too.

By the logic that we will run out of fuel, whatever emmissions are created now will be absorbed back into the earth. By conservation of energy alone, GW is something not to worry about.

Oh My GOD! He's beat me again with his superlogic. My grandchildren will so appreciate his wisdom as they claw and struggle and stranglke each other for that last piece of the Top of Mount Everest and try to avoid being eaten by sharks in the water that has flooded the whole world, leaving no room for the likes of me and A2C and his little dog.

Even if it was something to worry about, so what? More trees will grow, becasue guess what? Trees breathe in CO2. So that isn't a problem either.

Yeah, you're right. Oh wait. The trees are all being clearcut and burned (adding to that CO2 btw) so they won't be able to absorb all that gas. Shame that, but in a few years it won't matter because we'll have no way to transport all the beef they grow on that newly cleared land because we'll have burned all the fossil fuels up in order to transport beef they grew on land they clearcut which...Oh heck. Here's another point A2C. You win.

And the funny thing is this:

GW is unproven on the scientific level, and yet politicians are pushing to start harmful restrictive gestapo like legislation. So my question is why do they need their hands in it so quickly, why can't they wait? I smell a rat right there as well.

In what way is it harmful to enact rules which restrict pollution, which both provides jobs to people who are responsible for that pollution control work (building and maintaining the filters etc) and which keeps our land and air clean so our children can have nice places to play and streams to drown each other in? I mean com eon. WE had our chance to drown each otehr in clean streams as kids...

I also find it funny that A.G. cancels his GW speeches when severe winter storms occur right before in the same town. Funny? It's true, and has happened a bunch of times.

You must have missed the part about how GW will result in freak weather patterns...like crazy winters and crazy summers and...storms...Oh, and flooding of coastal areas and melting ice...

I also find it funny that this winter, one of the worst in 20 years less and less people believe in it. In a scientific symposium last month, I believe close to 700 weather scientists agreed that GW is a farce, and that we should be considering a possible mini ice age instead.

The argument isn't that we done it all ourselves. You realize there are theories that we caused the past few mini ice ages as well, right? The black plague might well have extended the last one when it killed so many people that they forests regrew, thus soaking up a bunch of CO2, and keeping the Earth colder longer....DOWP!

The thing I keep seeing is that this whole GW thing as you guys present it is a simple single facet idea, when it isn't. GW encompasses a wide variety of causes and affects.

The theory is not: It is gonna get hot and we're all going to get rained on a lot. Every single aspect of our weather is and will change, and IS changing. And we don't know for sure why,a nd we don't know for sure how long it will take or last to happen. But we ARE pretty sure that we are affecting weather patterns, and we ARE concerned taht these changes are changing some things in ways we don't really want them to change. I know all that science makes your head hurt, A2C. I have my very own headache as well. But it's prolly just the global warming drying my sinuses out.

[muddyboots]

It doesn't take a lot of common sense to see that GW is an attempted power grab by socialist types in order to create more government control.
Look at the way it was aggresively pedaled by A.G.

And thousands and thousands of scientists who Al Gore got his information from. (mind AG isn't a very good poster child for AG--he took atht mantle himself. So make fun of him, please. Not the theory, which has plenty of sane and normal men and women out there studying it to see if it's real.

Anyway, to those who believe in G.W. I would say think about it logically, but (I'm sure you can't since it's like a religion).

Not the first time you've insulted me, prolly not the last either. And you're description of science as a religion is sort of silly as well.

The science of physics clears it all up. The theory known as conservation of energy and Newton's 1st law.--"Energy can neither be created or destroyed" explains how to deal with the unproven science of G.W.

Boy I feel all better now that you've thrown a scientific law out there on the table and used it to fix the problem. Why haven't all those thousands of scientists who are collecting data out there worldwide not done the same thing? Stupid little men, if only thaty had YOU there wit them, to show them Newton's First Law... If only they had ever studied it...in college...where they were earning about sciency stuff...like laws... *pokes A2C with stick*

First, recognize that there is a limited amount of coal and oil on earth. Once all is used in probably 300-400 years some other fuel will need to be found. We will run out of fossil fuels anyway, so why the attitude that we must do this now, etc? And what exactly will we do now? have the government step in and create 5 year plans on what kind of cars and vehicles everybody can drive? It's nonsense, we will run out of the fuels anyway.

This makes absolutely no sense so I can't argue it. Point to you A2C, in this round but I'll be back to get you. You and your little dog too.

By the logic that we will run out of fuel, whatever emmissions are created now will be absorbed back into the earth. By conservation of energy alone, GW is something not to worry about.

Oh My GOD! He's beat me again with his superlogic. My grandchildren will so appreciate his wisdom as they claw and struggle and stranglke each other for that last piece of the Top of Mount Everest and try to avoid being eaten by sharks in the water that has flooded the whole world, leaving no room for the likes of me and A2C and his little dog.

Even if it was something to worry about, so what? More trees will grow, becasue guess what? Trees breathe in CO2. So that isn't a problem either.

Yeah, you're right. Oh wait. The trees are all being clearcut and burned (adding to that CO2 btw) so they won't be able to absorb all that gas. Shame that, but in a few years it won't matter because we'll have no way to transport all the beef they grow on that newly cleared land because we'll have burned all the fossil fuels up in order to transport beef they grew on land they clearcut which...Oh heck. Here's another point A2C. You win.

And the funny thing is this:

GW is unproven on the scientific level, and yet politicians are pushing to start harmful restrictive gestapo like legislation. So my question is why do they need their hands in it so quickly, why can't they wait? I smell a rat right there as well.

In what way is it harmful to enact rules which restrict pollution, which both provides jobs to people who are responsible for that pollution control work (building and maintaining the filters etc) and which keeps our land and air clean so our children can have nice places to play and streams to drown each other in? I mean com eon. WE had our chance to drown each otehr in clean streams as kids...

I also find it funny that A.G. cancels his GW speeches when severe winter storms occur right before in the same town. Funny? It's true, and has happened a bunch of times.

You must have missed the part about how GW will result in freak weather patterns...like crazy winters and crazy summers and...storms...Oh, and flooding of coastal areas and melting ice...

I also find it funny that this winter, one of the worst in 20 years less and less people believe in it. In a scientific symposium last month, I believe close to 700 weather scientists agreed that GW is a farce, and that we should be considering a possible mini ice age instead.

The argument isn't that we done it all ourselves. You realize there are theories that we caused the past few mini ice ages as well, right? The black plague might well have extended the last one when it killed so many people that they forests regrew, thus soaking up a bunch of CO2, and keeping the Earth colder longer....DOWP!

The thing I keep seeing is that this whole GW thing as you guys present it is a simple single facet idea, when it isn't. GW encompasses a wide variety of causes and affects.

The theory is not: It is gonna get hot and we're all going to get rained on a lot. Every single aspect of our weather is and will change, and IS changing. And we don't know for sure why,a nd we don't know for sure how long it will take or last to happen. But we ARE pretty sure that we are affecting weather patterns, and we ARE concerned taht these changes are changing some things in ways we don't really want them to change. I know all that science makes your head hurt, A2C. I have my very own headache as well. But it's prolly just the global warming drying my sinuses out.

[Ztex]

Locked....No politics rules are still in effect.

Please try and remember that.

Thanks
Zane