The global-warming hucksters

[Wabash]

Posted: October 23, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

The scaremongers are not always wrong. The Trojans should have listened to Cassandra. But history shows that the scaremongers are usually wrong.

Parson Malthus predicted mass starvation 250 years ago, as the population was growing geometrically, doubling each generation, while agricultural production was going arithmetically, by 2 percent or so a year. But today, with perhaps 1 percent of our population in full-time food production, we are the best-fed and fattest 300 million people on Earth.

Karl Marx was proven dead wrong about the immiseration of the masses under capitalism and the coming revolution in the industrial West, though they still have hopes at Harvard.

Neville Chute's "On the Beach" proved as fictional as "Dr. Strangelove" and "Seven Days in May." Paul Ehrlich's "Population Bomb" never exploded. It fizzled when the Birth Dearth followed the Baby Boom.

"The Crash of '79" never happened. Instead, we got Ronald Reagan and record prosperity. The Club of Rome notwithstanding, we did not run out of oil. The world did not end in Y2K, when we crossed the millennium, as some had prophesied. "Nuclear winter," where we were all going to freeze to death after the soot from Reagan's nuclear war blotted out the sun, didn't quite happen. Rather, the Soviet Empire gave up the ghost.

Is then global warming – a steady rise in the temperature of the Earth to where the polar ice caps melt, oceans rise 23 feet, cities sink into the sea and horrendous hurricanes devastate the land – an imminent and mortal danger?

Put me down as a disbeliever.

Like the panics of bygone eras, this one has the aspect of yet another re-enactment of the Big Con. The huckster arrives in town, tells all the rubes that disaster impends for them and their families, but says there may be one last chance they can be saved – but it will take a lot of money. And the folks should go about collecting it, right now.

This, it seems to me, is what the global-warming scare and scam are all about – frightening Americans into transferring sovereignty, power and wealth to a global political elite that claims it alone understands the crisis and it alone can save us from impending disaster.

Under the Kyoto Protocol, from which China and India were exempt, the United States was to reduce carbon emissions to 1990 levels, which could not be done without inducing a new Depression and reducing the standard of living of the American people. So, we ignored Kyoto – and how have we suffered? The Europeans who signed on also largely ignored it. How have they suffered?

We are told global warming was responsible for the hurricane summer of Katrina and Rita that devastated Texas, Mississippi and New Orleans. Yet Dr. William Gray, perhaps the nation's foremost expert on hurricanes, says he and his most experienced colleagues believe humans have little impact on global warming and global warming cannot explain the frequency or ferocity of hurricanes. After all, we had more hurricanes in the first half of the 20th century than in the last 50 years, as global warming was taking place.

"We're brainwashing our children," says Gray. "They're going to the Gore movie ('An Inconvenient Truth') and being fed all this. It's ridiculous. ... We'll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realize how foolish it was."

Gray does concede that for a scholar to question global warming can put his next federal grant in mortal peril.

While modest warming has taken place, there is no conclusive evidence human beings are responsible, no conclusive evidence Earth's temperature is rising dangerously or will reach intolerable levels and no conclusive evidence that warming will do more harm than good.

The glaciers may be receding, but the polar bear population is growing, alarmingly in some Canadian Indian villages. Though more people on our planet of 6 billion may die of heat, estimates are that many more may be spared death from the cold. The Arctic ice cap may be shrinking, but that may mean year-round passage through northern Canadian waters from the Atlantic to the Pacific and the immense resources of the Arctic made more accessible to man. Why else did Vladimir Putin's boys make their dash to claim the pole?

The mammoth government we have today is a result of politicians rushing to solve "crises" by creating and empowering new federal agencies.

Whether it's hunger, poverty or homelessness, in the end, the poor are always with us, but now we have something else always with us: scores of thousands of federal bureaucrats and armies of academics to study the problem and assess the progress, with all their pay and benefits provided by our tax dollars.

Cal Coolidge said that when you see 10 troubles coming up the road toward you, sometimes the best thing to do is nothing, because nine of them will fall into the ditch before they get to you. And so it will be with global warming, if we don't sell out America to the hucksters who would save us.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/staticarticles/article58279.html

[Wabash]

BOY HOWDY!!!!

[Yellowdogtexan]

Tell that to the people in San Diego who are suffering through the fires caused in part by global warming or the people in Georgia who were down to 90 days of water until the rains today. We are already feeling the effect of global warming and if anything the IPCC and Vice President Gore were being too conservative. The effects predicted by the IPCC and the other real scientists are occuring earlier than predicted.

[Wabash]

I saved this one to file YDT, so you can't conveniently lose it into the deep recesses of the archives and waste my time having to look for something I posted, as before.....:wink

[Wabash]

Tell that to the people in San Diego who are suffering through the fires caused in part by global warming or the people in Georgia who were down to 90 days of water until the rains today. We are already feeling the effect of global warming and if anything the IPCC and Vice President Gore were being too conservative. The effects predicted by the IPCC and the other real scientists are occuring earlier than predicted.

The sky is NOT falling!
Note the Calvin Coolidge quote...that will answer your ridiculous post!
In short....Shit Happenings in nature and it cycles thru, whether we are here or not!

The only ones being duped are you and folks just like you!

[Wabash]

An EXCELLENT article by Pat!!!:paclap:paclap:paclap

[Saguaro]

Posted: October 23, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

The scaremongers are not always wrong. The Trojans should have listened to Cassandra. But history shows that the scaremongers are usually wrong.

Parson Malthus predicted mass starvation 250 years ago, as the population was growing geometrically, doubling each generation, while agricultural production was going arithmetically, by 2 percent or so a year. But today, with perhaps 1 percent of our population in full-time food production, we are the best-fed and fattest 300 million people on Earth.

Karl Marx was proven dead wrong about the immiseration of the masses under capitalism and the coming revolution in the industrial West, though they still have hopes at Harvard.

Neville Chute's "On the Beach" proved as fictional as "Dr. Strangelove" and "Seven Days in May." Paul Ehrlich's "Population Bomb" never exploded. It fizzled when the Birth Dearth followed the Baby Boom.

"The Crash of '79" never happened. Instead, we got Ronald Reagan and record prosperity. The Club of Rome notwithstanding, we did not run out of oil. The world did not end in Y2K, when we crossed the millennium, as some had prophesied. "Nuclear winter," where we were all going to freeze to death after the soot from Reagan's nuclear war blotted out the sun, didn't quite happen. Rather, the Soviet Empire gave up the ghost.

Is then global warming – a steady rise in the temperature of the Earth to where the polar ice caps melt, oceans rise 23 feet, cities sink into the sea and horrendous hurricanes devastate the land – an imminent and mortal danger?

Put me down as a disbeliever.

Like the panics of bygone eras, this one has the aspect of yet another re-enactment of the Big Con. The huckster arrives in town, tells all the rubes that disaster impends for them and their families, but says there may be one last chance they can be saved – but it will take a lot of money. And the folks should go about collecting it, right now.

This, it seems to me, is what the global-warming scare and scam are all about – frightening Americans into transferring sovereignty, power and wealth to a global political elite that claims it alone understands the crisis and it alone can save us from impending disaster.

Under the Kyoto Protocol, from which China and India were exempt, the United States was to reduce carbon emissions to 1990 levels, which could not be done without inducing a new Depression and reducing the standard of living of the American people. So, we ignored Kyoto – and how have we suffered? The Europeans who signed on also largely ignored it. How have they suffered?

We are told global warming was responsible for the hurricane summer of Katrina and Rita that devastated Texas, Mississippi and New Orleans. Yet Dr. William Gray, perhaps the nation's foremost expert on hurricanes, says he and his most experienced colleagues believe humans have little impact on global warming and global warming cannot explain the frequency or ferocity of hurricanes. After all, we had more hurricanes in the first half of the 20th century than in the last 50 years, as global warming was taking place.

"We're brainwashing our children," says Gray. "They're going to the Gore movie ('An Inconvenient Truth') and being fed all this. It's ridiculous. ... We'll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realize how foolish it was."

Gray does concede that for a scholar to question global warming can put his next federal grant in mortal peril.

While modest warming has taken place, there is no conclusive evidence human beings are responsible, no conclusive evidence Earth's temperature is rising dangerously or will reach intolerable levels and no conclusive evidence that warming will do more harm than good.

The glaciers may be receding, but the polar bear population is growing, alarmingly in some Canadian Indian villages. Though more people on our planet of 6 billion may die of heat, estimates are that many more may be spared death from the cold. The Arctic ice cap may be shrinking, but that may mean year-round passage through northern Canadian waters from the Atlantic to the Pacific and the immense resources of the Arctic made more accessible to man. Why else did Vladimir Putin's boys make their dash to claim the pole?

The mammoth government we have today is a result of politicians rushing to solve "crises" by creating and empowering new federal agencies.

Whether it's hunger, poverty or homelessness, in the end, the poor are always with us, but now we have something else always with us: scores of thousands of federal bureaucrats and armies of academics to study the problem and assess the progress, with all their pay and benefits provided by our tax dollars.

Cal Coolidge said that when you see 10 troubles coming up the road toward you, sometimes the best thing to do is nothing, because nine of them will fall into the ditch before they get to you. And so it will be with global warming, if we don't sell out America to the hucksters who would save us.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/staticarticles/article58279.html

Pat Buchanan , 'nuff said

[Wabash]

Pat Buchanan , 'nuff said

Damn Straight! A voice of Common Sense!:clap:clap:clap:electric


Not ....liberal lunacy!

[Trueblue]

I saved this one to file YDT, so you can't conveniently lose it into the deep recesses of the archives and waste my time having to look for something I posted, as before.....:wink

Raving paranoia about YDT, while you ignore scientific reality. You are such a con!!!! :lol

[Wabash]

Raving paranoia about YDT, while you ignore scientific reality. You are such a con!!!! :lol

Thanks TB! I know what Pat says is Right On the Money! That's IT! Follow the money! Always....follow the money! Those who profit in politics and enviro whacko stuff...it's ALL about the money!
Sure glad you see it my way!:hotdog

[Wabash]

'08 isn't in the bag folks...

[April15]

Karl Marx was proven dead wrong about the immiseration of the masses under capitalism and the coming revolution in the industrial West, though they still have hopes at Harvard.
Marx only missed it by a hundred years. I can not see capitalism lasting another 40 in this nation without some radical changes.

[Wabash]

Karl Marx was proven dead wrong about the immiseration of the masses under capitalism and the coming revolution in the industrial West, though they still have hopes at Harvard.
Marx only missed it by a hundred years. I can not see capitalism lasting another 40 in this nation without some radical changes.

But then...liberals are noted for being myopic! The capitalists are the visionaries! Liberals, if left to their foilables, would have us in the Stone Age! That's where they would like to see us, to promote their current agenda.

Communism, as proposed by Clinton ...is NOT the way to go!

[Yellowdogtexan]

I saved this one to file YDT, so you can't conveniently lose it into the deep recesses of the archives and waste my time having to look for something I posted, as before.....:winkYou are kidding. Even you are not that dumb to consider this piece from wing nut daily to be meaningful. This is not even close to being considered scientific or credible unless you are an idiot. If this is the quality of the articles that you posted earlier and if you thought that any such articles were meaningful or intelligent, then I feel very very sorry for you.

This piece is a puff piece with no science and no analysis by a political puindit and failed candiate that is too dumb for words. :ydt

[Wabash]

You are kidding. Even you are not that dumb to consider this piece from wing nut daily to be meaningful. This is not even close to being considered scientific or credible unless you are an idiot. If this is the quality of the articles that you posted earlier and if you thought that any such articles were meaningful or intelligent, then I feel very very sorry for you.

This piece is a puff piece with no science and no analysis by a political puindit and failed candiate that is too dumb for words. :ydt

WND is quoting Buchannan! You don't believe they are correct? Email Pat and ask him!
Science? Pat knows ALL about science, and the agenda by liberal Commies like you!
Puff piece? Albore is a Puff Piece!

Pat is the voice of common sense and reason! Albore...the voice of lunacy and "the sky is falling!"

[Saguaro]

WND is quoting Buchannan! You don't believe they are correct? Email Pat and ask him!
Science? Pat knows ALL about science, and the agenda by liberal Commies like you!
Puff piece? Albore is a Puff Piece!

Pat is the voice of common sense and reason! Albore...the voice of lunacy and "the sky is falling!"


:rofl

[Wabash]

:rofl

He'd make a damn good President too! Making more sense than Albore ever made!



Capitalism....new fiber optic cable being laid across the Pacific Ocean to vastly improve communications with China! (Earth Quake proof too)! Liberals, with all their high and mighty rhetoric, do not....cannot ...replace Capitalism with anything better!

The Dow, with all it's ups and downs, has doubled in the last 5 years! Capitalism....it's what gives you all the conveniences and luxuries you have today!

[Trueblue]

Thanks TB! I know what Pat says is Right On the Money! That's IT! Follow the money! Always....follow the money! Those who profit in politics and enviro whacko stuff...it's ALL about the money!
Sure glad you see it my way!:hotdog

Ha-ha. Pat also thinks that we should have sided with Hitler during WWII.

You realize how ridiculous it is to accuse independent scientists of going after the money when the big money is with the oil and gas industry. Even you know that following the money backs my argument, not yours.

[Trueblue]

'08 isn't in the bag folks...

No, it's not in the bag. The liars and deniers may be successful in fooling people again. But at least Bush and Cheney will be history.

[Wabash]

No, it's not in the bag. The liars and deniers may be successful in fooling people again. But at least Bush and Cheney will be history.

Well.......................YA...Term limits!:rofl:rofl:rofl

[Yellowdogtexan]

Science? Pat knows ALL about science, and the agenda by liberal Commies like you!"Your statement is so stupid that it is funny. Your ignorance about science is up there with Pat buchanan. One statement made by this stupid article was so dumb that I laughed. The glaciers may be receding, but the polar bear population is growing, alarmingly in some Canadian Indian villages. Yes we are seeing more polar bears on land because there is no ice available for them to hunt and live on. Without sea ice, the polar bears will be basically wiped out by 2050. http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/press/global-warming-10-17-2007.htmlA U.S. Geological Survey report this year projected that two-thirds of the world’s polar bears, including all of the bears in Alaska, will be extinct by 2050 due to the impacts of global warming and the subsequent loss of sea ice. Last month, Arctic sea-ice extent reached a historic low, approximately one million square miles smaller than the average minimum of the past three decades. The USGS’s predictions of polar bear extinction are premised on “business as usual” emission scenarios.

“Business as usual will doom the polar bear to extinction,” said Siegel. “But if we can address global warming quickly enough to save the polar bear and the Arctic, then we will be well on our way to solving the problem for the rest of the world as well.”Over the long term, the survival of these bears depends of there being ice and if there is no ice, then these bears willl be unable to find sufficient food on land to survive. Colntrary to the stupidity of the comment set forth above, it is a bad thing to see more polar bears on land because this means that these bears are not on the ice where they belong.

Wabby, you claimed to have posted some studies that contradicted global warming on the old board and I was unable to recall anything that you posted that was memorable. If you consider this puff piece of garbage to have helped your position then you are just as ignorant as Pat buchanan.

[patriotsblade]

Damn Straight! A voice of Common Sense!

Some Common Sense From Pat Buchanan


"I don't care about the circumstances of a child's conception. You want to execute somebody in the case of rape, execute the rapist and let the unborn child live." - From the New York Times [2/24/96]

"There were no politics to polarize us then, to magnify every slight. The "negroes" of Washington had their public schools, restaurants, bars, movie houses, playgrounds and churches; and we had ours." - From Right from the Beginning, Buchanan's 1988 autobiography [p. 131]

From an April 1969 memo where Buchanan urges President Richard Nixon not to visit Martin Luther King's widow on the first anniversary of King's death:

"[this visit would] outrage many, many people who believe Dr. King was a fraud and a demagogue and perhaps worse... Others consider him the Devil incarnate. Dr. King is one of the most divisive men in contemporary history." - From the New York Daily News [10/1/90]

On the US's move to sanction apartheid South Africa:

"Why are Americans collaborating in a U.N. conspiracy to ruin [South Africa] with sanctions?" - From his syndicated column [9/17/89]

"There is nothing wrong with us sitting down and arguing that issue that we are a European country." - From Newsday [11/15/92]
On Capitol Hill:

"Our culture is superior. Our culture is superior because our religion is Christianity and that is the truth that makes men free." - From a speech given to the Christian Coalition in September 1993, as reported by an ADL 1994 report

"Rail as they will about 'discrimination,' women are simply not endowed by nature with the same measures of single-minded ambition and the will to succeed in the fiercely competitive world of Western capitalism." - From a syndicated column [11/22/83]

Which one is your favorite Wabby?

Pat Buchanan is probably the slimiest thing to come down the pipe since John Wilkes Boothe.

[Trueblue]

Well.......................YA...Term limits!:rofl:rofl:rofl

Yep, otherwise we could reelect Bill.

Your statement is so stupid that it is funny. Your ignorance about science is up there with Pat buchanan. One statement made by this stupid article was so dumb that I laughed. Yes we are seeing more polar bears on land because there is no ice available for them to hunt and live on. Without sea ice, the polar bears will be basically wiped out by 2050. http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/press/global-warming-10-17-2007.htmlOver the long term, the survival of these bears depends of there being ice and if there is no ice, then these bears willl be unable to find sufficient food on land to survive. Colntrary to the stupidity of the comment set forth above, it is a bad thing to see more polar bears on land because this means that these bears are not on the ice where they belong.

Wabby, you claimed to have posted some studies that contradicted global warming on the old board and I was unable to recall anything that you posted that was memorable. If you consider this puff piece of garbage to have helped your position then you are just as ignorant as Pat buchanan.

I see this a lot-the deniers just can't get their understanding straight...

Some Common Sense From Pat Buchanan






From an April 1969 memo where Buchanan urges President Richard Nixon not to visit Martin Luther King's widow on the first anniversary of King's death:



On the US's move to sanction apartheid South Africa:








Which one is your favorite Wabby?

Pat Buchanan is probably the slimiest thing to come down the pipe since John Wilkes Boothe.

Good point, Blade.

[Yellowdogtexan]

I see this a lot-the deniers just can't get their understanding straight....It is not that difficult of concept. If there is no ice for polar bears to live and hunt, then the remaining polar bears will be stuck on land to fight over an inadequate food supply. The fact that people are seeing more polar bears is a bad thing unless you are a complete idiot

[Wabash]

Why is this discussion of GW not in it's Proper place?
It's a main stream, on going debate...nothing is written in stone on GW and it should stay where it belongs!

[Yellowdogtexan]

Why is this discussion of GW not in it's Proper place?Because there is no science in this article. These are the political rants of an idiot who does not understand science.

If you think that this qualifies as a meaningful article on global warming, then you are truly clueless about the issue. Again, for there to be a debate, some thought and intelligence would have been nice and there was none in this puff piece.

[Saguaro]

Why is this discussion of GW not in it's Proper place?
It's a main stream, on going debate...nothing is written in stone on GW and it should stay where it belongs!

Do you REALLY want me to moderate this thread ?

You placed it in my moderated forum.I moved it

[Wabash]

Because there is no science in this article. These are the political rants of an idiot who does not understand science.

If you think that this qualifies as a meaningful article on global warming, then you are truly clueless about the issue. Again, for there to be a debate, some thought and intelligence would have been nice and there was none in this puff piece.

The topic also says Enviromental Discussions! It certainly qualifies as GW is a scam anyway! It's guess work...because we don't have a clue what happpened a million years ago..it's all guessing...Albore is a puff piece...

[Lone Laugher]

SHIT.....we need some more conservatives to come on here.....the ones we got just ain't providing a challenge.

[Wabash]

SHIT.....we need some more conservatives to come on here.....the ones we got just ain't providing a challenge.

Surely you jest?

[patriotsblade]

SHIT.....we need some more conservatives to come on here.....the ones we got just ain't providing a challenge.

I know some from another board but I wouldn't wish them on anyone, even Wabby and Ringo. :lmao

[Yellowdogtexan]

Surely you jest?If you consider the article in the orginal post to be meaningful at all, then he is not jesting. That article was a joke. I had honestly searched my memory for any articles that you claimed to have posted about global warming that you claimed to have posted on the old board and could not come up with anything. I have a very very good memory and was surprised when you insisted that you had posted a dozen articles that showed global warming was not real. It turned out that your idea of a good article is a joke just as the article posted above is a joke.

[Lone Laugher]

Surely you jest?

No. I'm being serious. Aside from the rather unique rants about the Clinton's being murderers....the conservative posters on here are painfully predictable.

[AYFR]

Fact: there is Global Warming (this I have never denied)

Speculation: Man caused it. (this has not yet been proven)

Fact: the Earth does go in temperature cycles (hot to cold and back to hot again)

Speculation: Man can stop Global Warming (this is only true if speculation 1 is true)

Question: We are so worried about global warming but who are we to say just what the ideal temp for the Earth is? Maybe just mabe the Earth was designed to regulate itself.

[AYFR]

No. I'm being serious. Aside from the rather unique rants about the Clinton's being murderers....the conservative posters on here are painfully predictable.

As are the moveon Liberals here. (then again you knew I was going to say that right.)

I guarantee that I can predict with 90% accuracy which stand people will take here on certian issues. (Hey but who knows I could be wrong)

[Lone Laugher]

Well...I really should qualify my statement....MOST of the conservative posters on here are painfully predictable. The fact that you admit that you could be wrong is an indication that not ALL conservatives are the same.

Actually, I think people that describe themselves as "liberal" are, in general, less predictable. I think "liberals" are more likely to at least TRY and see both ( or all ) sides of an issue. They are more likely to undsertand that many serious issues are complicated ( abortion rights, for example ) and require solurtions that are complex.

[Trueblue]

The topic also says Enviromental Discussions! It certainly qualifies as GW is a scam anyway! It's guess work...because we don't have a clue what happpened a million years ago..it's all guessing...Albore is a puff piece...

You don't understand science if you believe that "it's all guessing".

Your view is not based on science, it is based on politics.

SHIT.....we need some more conservatives to come on here.....the ones we got just ain't providing a challenge.

That's been an issue on every forum I've posted on. The rational conservatives here are drowned out by the ravers.

Fact: there is Global Warming (this I have never denied)

Speculation: Man caused it. (this has not yet been proven)

It is known to a virtual certainty that the problem is man-made. Anyone who says otherwise is denying scientific reality. They have every right to do that, but we're still going to call it what it is. Denying scientific reality.

Fact: the Earth does go in temperature cycles (hot to cold and back to hot again)

Speculation: Man can stop Global Warming (this is only true if speculation 1 is true)

Question: We are so worried about global warming but who are we to say just what the ideal temp for the Earth is? Maybe just mabe the Earth was designed to regulate itself.

Again, this is not about the Earth and its ideal temperature. The Earth is an object. This is about the best climate for the 1) humans, 2) animals, 3) plants.

These changes are going to impact life on Earth, and not in a positive way for the current life forms. And I'm in no hurry to give the Earth over to the next species.

[AYFR]

It is known to a virtual certainty that the problem is man-made. Anyone who says otherwise is denying scientific reality. They have every right to do that, but we're still going to call it what it is. Denying scientific reality.



Again, this is not about the Earth and its ideal temperature. The Earth is an object. This is about the best climate for the 1) humans, 2) animals, 3) plants.

These changes are going to impact life on Earth, and not in a positive way for the current life forms. And I'm in no hurry to give the Earth over to the next species.
No it is virtual certianity that humas are changing the composition of the earth atmosphere not that we caused global warming

What's Known

Scientists know with virtual certainty that:

Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere.

Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.
The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.

An “unequivocal” warming trend of about 1.0 to 1.7°F occurred from 1906-2005. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans (IPCC, 2007).

The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades.

Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet.


Also what is interesting to note is that the EPA says that this has been going on for a very long time not just recently as most GWer's claim

Another note is

What's Not Certain?

Important scientific questions remain about how much warming will occur, how fast it will occur, and how the warming will affect the rest of the climate system including precipitation patterns and storms. Answering these questions will require advances in scientific knowledge in a number of areas:

Improving understanding of natural climatic variations, changes in the sun's energy, land-use changes, the warming or cooling effects of pollutant aerosols, and the impacts of changing humidity and cloud cover.

Determining the relative contribution to climate change of human activities and natural causes.

Projecting future greenhouse emissions and how the climate system will respond within a narrow range.

Improving understanding of the potential for rapid or abrupt climate change.

So basically that says that scientists DO NOT know what will happen if GW continues.

Also (addressing you last statement) what if evolution (which you say that you believe in) means that things will change and the GW is part of that and that we are not meant to stay this way. Can't stop evolution now can you.

Link
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html

[AYFR]

I also challange you to prove me wrong about the earth going in cycles

[Yellowdogtexan]

I also challange you to prove me wrong about the earth going in cyclesYou are not going to quote that economist and his tobacco industry stooge are you? They are true whores and dumb ones at that. The global warming swindle film has been so discredited that it is not even funny but I would be glad to dump all of the science that has been marshalled showing that these claims are stupid if you insist.

If you have some real claims, I will be glad to bury you with real science. Remember that the IPCC has actually looked at this junk science claims and have rejected them. I would urge you to stay away from the idiots pushing the 1500 year cycle crap because it has been shown to be that.

[Wabash]

Some Common Sense From Pat Buchanan






From an April 1969 memo where Buchanan urges President Richard Nixon not to visit Martin Luther King's widow on the first anniversary of King's death:



On the US's move to sanction apartheid South Africa:








Which one is your favorite Wabby?

Pat Buchanan is probably the slimiest thing to come down the pipe since John Wilkes Boothe.

Pat Buchanan is a very smart person...but, since you probably think Hillary is smart or Whoopie, or Rosie, then you have no conception what smart is!
As for those statements made by him above......I like em all and agree with him on each and every one of them...being a lib...you don't get it, you can't possibly get it and never will get it! Indoctrination for you was complete, huh?

It is not that difficult of concept. If there is no ice for polar bears to live and hunt, then the remaining polar bears will be stuck on land to fight over an inadequate food supply. The fact that people are seeing more polar bears is a bad thing unless you are a complete idiot

You are full of shit! Trying to tell the bears where to shit, when you don't have a clue for yourself! The polar bears will adapt, no matter where they are! If they are stuck on an ice flow, sure they will starve, but if they can get to deer, bison, caribou, rabbit, etc. They will survive just fine!
They claimed that old growth forest was the only habitat for spotted owl, yet they found them nesting an surviving in a K Mart sign....you liberals are soooo stupid, I just can't imagine how you find your asses to wipe em!

If you consider the article in the orginal post to be meaningful at all, then he is not jesting. That article was a joke. I had honestly searched my memory for any articles that you claimed to have posted about global warming that you claimed to have posted on the old board and could not come up with anything. I have a very very good memory and was surprised when you insisted that you had posted a dozen articles that showed global warming was not real. It turned out that your idea of a good article is a joke just as the article posted above is a joke.

The article WAS meaningful and accurate. If you can't comprehend it, that's your deficiency, not mine!

No. I'm being serious. Aside from the rather unique rants about the Clinton's being murderers....the conservative posters on here are painfully predictable.

The Clintons are murderes(not directly). Nothing wrong with being predictable when you speak the Truth, it's repetitive!

Fact: there is Global Warming (this I have never denied)

Speculation: Man caused it. (this has not yet been proven)

Fact: the Earth does go in temperature cycles (hot to cold and back to hot again)

Speculation: Man can stop Global Warming (this is only true if speculation 1 is true)

Question: We are so worried about global warming but who are we to say just what the ideal temp for the Earth is? Maybe just mabe the Earth was designed to regulate itself.

Yep...You have it correct! So simple a 5th Grader could get it, but not these elitist libs on this forum!

Well...I really should qualify my statement....MOST of the conservative posters on here are painfully predictable. The fact that you admit that you could be wrong is an indication that not ALL conservatives are the same.

Actually, I think people that describe themselves as "liberal" are, in general, less predictable. I think "liberals" are more likely to at least TRY and see both ( or all ) sides of an issue. They are more likely to undsertand that many serious issues are complicated ( abortion rights, for example ) and require solurtions that are complex.

I think...in general.....you are full of shit!

You don't understand science if you believe that "it's all guessing".

Your view is not based on science, it is based on politics.



That's been an issue on every forum I've posted on. The rational conservatives here are drowned out by the ravers.



It is known to a virtual certainty that the problem is man-made. Anyone who says otherwise is denying scientific reality. They have every right to do that, but we're still going to call it what it is. Denying scientific reality.



Again, this is not about the Earth and its ideal temperature. The Earth is an object. This is about the best climate for the 1) humans, 2) animals, 3) plants.

These changes are going to impact life on Earth, and not in a positive way for the current life forms. And I'm in no hurry to give the Earth over to the next species.

That's the WHOLE point TB...it ain't science...it's a fucking guesstimate! GW is real, I know this, and man made is NOT written in stone, it's a work in progress! GW was here long before man ever exisited, and will be long after we are gone! The ice age will most likely return as well....

I also challange you to prove me wrong about the earth going in cycles

They can't, if they did, they would be.....................GUESSING!:rofl:rofl:rofl:ro fl

[Wabash]

You are not going to quote that economist and his tobacco industry stooge are you? They are true whores and dumb ones at that. The global warming swindle film has been so discredited that it is not even funny but I would be glad to dump all of the science that has been marshalled showing that these claims are stupid if you insist.

If you have some real claims, I will be glad to bury you with real science. Remember that the IPCC has actually looked at this junk science claims and have rejected them. I would urge you to stay away from the idiots pushing the 1500 year cycle crap because it has been shown to be that.

No................actually your interpretation of things is CRAP! These Bozos are Guessing to beat hell...they can't tell what happened 1500 years ago let alone a million years ago.....records were poor if they even existed.....

You libs live in a world of here and now,(last 100 years or so) and we are just a speck in the evolution of the earth. The existence of the USA is a speck in time...so is all of man's existence.
This hysteria about GW is absolutely so ridiculous, it defies intelligent thought and certainly defies common sense!
Pat B is a very smart guy and you Bozos would do well to listen to him! But,........since libs have a mental defect...you can''t and won't comprehend...The Sky is Falling! Ya, keep believing that crap!

[Trueblue]

Wabash, you are mistaken. GW science is not based on guessing. You don't understand how science works. Also, it's really sad that you like those statements by Pat Buchanan.

No it is virtual certianity that humas are changing the composition of the earth atmosphere not that we caused global warming

Read this, and stop trying to dodge the reality. Seriously.

Some aspects of the science are known with virtual certainty, because they are based on well-known physical laws and documented trends. Current understanding of many other aspects of climate change ranges from “very likely” to “uncertain.”

Logic and scientific fact:

Scientists know with virtual certainty that:

* Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.
* The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.
* An “unequivocal” warming trend of about 1.0 to 1.7°F occurred from 1906-2005. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans (IPCC, 2007).
* The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades.
* Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html

Also what is interesting to note is that the EPA says that this has been going on for a very long time not just recently as most GWer's claim

Another note is

I haven't heard anyone ever claim that the climate doesn't change over time. Where are you getting your information about what "most GWer's claim"?

So basically that says that scientists DO NOT know what will happen if GW continues.

Also (addressing you last statement) what if evolution (which you say that you believe in) means that things will change and the GW is part of that and that we are not meant to stay this way. Can't stop evolution now can you.

Link
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html

They are basing predictions on what is known. I don't really see how what you're saying proves a thing.

I also challange you to prove me wrong about the earth going in cycles

Straw man.

[Yellowdogtexan]

Fact:Fact: the Earth does go in temperature cycles (hot to cold and back to hot again).This is some real science that is no doubt way to complicated for The Reverend or Wabby to understand but I am posting it anyway. http://scholarsandrogues.wordpress.com/2007/07/23/anti-global-heating-claims-a-reasonably-thorough-debunking/#m6 MYTH #7: The Medieval Warm Period/Medieval Climate Anomaly (MWP) was warmer than conditions today (Source: “Apocalypse Canceled”, by Christopher Monckton among others).
Debunking: This claim has been addressed repeatedly, and every example I found basically summarized down to this: The evidence used by most scientists that believe this claim is anecdotal at best and that while this evidence applies regionally to the area between Greenland and the Ural Mountains, there is not yet enough evidence to support this claim on a hemispherical basis, never mind a global basis. In addition, there is a chance that the MWP and the Little Ice Age (see DENIAL MYTH #9 below) are both artificial and arbitrary and are actually representative a gradual cooling trend as opposed to a periodic oscillation in the global temperature. Check through all the sources for more detailed information. (Sources: Climate of the Last Millennium, by Raymond S. Bradley, Climate System Research Center, Dept. of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, IPCC Working Group 1 Report, Chapter 6, Figure 6.10 and Box 6.4, pages 467-469, Climate Over Past Millennia, by P.D. Jones and M.E. Mann, Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age Myths)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
DENIAL MYTH #8: The MWP has been ignored in order to produce the desired conclusion (Source: “Apocalypse Canceled”, by Christopher Monckton as well as others).
Debunking: Even if this were true in the past (and the sources for Claim #7 above show it has been addressed repeatedly since the release of the TAR), the IPCC Working Group 1 Report, Chapter 6, Figure 6.10 and Box 6.4, pages 467-469 (shown at right) addresses this specifically. In essence, there is statistical evidence that the MWP was not warmer than the last 25 years (since 1980), but there are enough errors in the MWP data to warrant additional research into the scope (Europe? The entire Northern Hemisphere? Global?) and magnitude of the MWP. (source linked above)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
DENIAL MYTH #9: The temperatures we’re experiencing in the later part of the 20th century are a result of the global climate finally coming out of the Little Ice Age (Source: distillation of multiple people’s claims at Wikipedia.org).
Debunking: The Little Ice Age is a period of significant cooling in Europe, but there are questions as to whether this known regional change was truly global in dimension. However, if you look at the graph of the temperature data for the last 2000 years, there is no period where the reconstructed global temperatures have changed at a faster rate than in the last 50 years or so. I refer people to the IPCC Working Group 1 Report, Chapter 6, Figure 6.10 and Box 6.4, pages 467-469 (image shown above in Myth #8 above), but also to this NCAR press release that verifies that the basic conclusions of the original “hockey stick” remain accurate even using multiple different models.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
DENIAL MYTH #10: There was a significant period of global cooling between the 1940s and the 1970s. This cooling period existed as anthropogenic CO2 levels were rising significantly. If anthropogenic CO2 is more important than natural drivers, then this cooling period would not exist, yet it does (Sources: produced by Rcronk in the comments to Eastern seaboard of the United States to be much hotter, but also made in the Wikipedia.org claims).
Debunking: That this cooling period existed and was global in scope is not disputable as the scope of the MWP is - scientists were directly monitoring temperatures globally by this point, and these three decades were cooler than the decades preceding them and dramatically cooler than recent decades. So what caused the cooling?

First, there is a correlation between sunspots and solar irradiance (output) on the Earth. During this period, sunspots were less common and there was less solar energy reaching the Earth, allowing it to cool slightly. Second, there were several volcanic eruptions that released massive amounts of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere. Sulfur dioxide is an aerosol that forms droplets of sulphuric acid in the high atmosphere and reflects solar energy back into space, so these two volcanic eruptions had some short- to medium-term effects. In addition, prior to the 1970s there were limited pollution controls, allowing pollutant aerosols to act as coolants via reflection of solar radiation. Ultimately, though, it is believed that sometime after 1970 the concentration of CO2 rose to the point that solar forcing was no longer the dominant climate factor, anthropogenic CO2 was. (Sources: Do Models Underestimate the Solar Contribution to Recent Climate Change?, Swindled!)
The nice think here is that if you to the article, you can access the studies that are used to debunk these myths.

[AYFR]

Wabash, you are mistaken. GW science is not based on guessing. You don't understand how science works. Also, it's really sad that you like those statements by Pat Buchanan.



Read this, and stop trying to dodge the reality. Seriously.


Logic and scientific fact:


http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html



I haven't heard anyone ever claim that the climate doesn't change over time. Where are you getting your information about what "most GWer's claim"?



They are basing predictions on what is known. I don't really see how what you're saying proves a thing.



Straw man.
I am not dodging anythin, there is not proof that man caused GW at all.

It proves that when people say that this or this is going to happen that they are full of bull.

[Yellowdogtexan]

You are full of shit! Trying to tell the bears where to shit, when you don't have a clue for yourself! The polar bears will adapt, no matter where they are! If they are stuck on an ice flow, sure they will starve, but if they can get to deer, bison, caribou, rabbit, etc. They will survive just fine!
They claimed that old growth forest was the only habitat for spotted owl, yet they found them nesting an surviving in a K Mart sign....you liberals are soooo stupid, I just can't imagine how you find your asses to wipe em!Your ignorance is truly sad. Polar bears go on to the sea ice to hunt and fatten up. Without sea ice, the bears can not hunt the seal that is their main prey. The polar bears are white so that they blend in with ice and are not brown because they do not live in woods. Without sea ice to hunt on, the polar bears will die out because they are not suited for hunting away from the ice (brown bears are brown for a reason). Hopefully this explanation is simple enough for even you to understand. If not, I will find a five year old who may be able to bring the explanation down to your level.

[AYFR]

TB according to the EPA link that you repeatedly keep posting and the same one that I posted it says nowhere that man is responsible for the cause of GW.

Also my reasoning that most GWers say this is a recent thing is the fact that scientists were just 30 years ago saying that the earth was experiencing Global Cooling.

Yellowdogtexan

I have not said any of those things that your site debunked. I said that man did not cause GW and that the earth goes in cycles (which is proven).

Even if I did there are plenty of sites debunking your debunking.

Again yes GW is a fact BUT there is not hard proof tha it was caused by man.

I just happen to believe that it is not as big a problem as y'all think it is especially when the EPA says that we can not predict what will happen.



http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st279/

The Earth currently is experiencing a warming trend, but there is scientific evidence that human activities have little to do with it. Instead, the warming seems to be part of a 1,500-year cycle (plus or minus 500 years) of moderate temperature swings.

It has long been accepted that the Earth has experienced climate cycles, most notably the 90,000-year Ice Age cycles. But in the past 20 years or so, modern science has discovered evidence that within those broad Ice Age cycles, the Earth also experiences 1,500-year warming-cooling cycles. The Earth has been in the Modern Warming portion of the current cycle since about 1850, following a Little Ice Age from about 1300 to 1850. It appears likely that warming will continue for some time into the future, perhaps 200 years or more, regardless of human activity.

Evidence of the global nature of the 1,500-year climate cycles includes very long-term proxies for temperature change — ice cores, seabed and lake sediments, and fossils of pollen grains and tiny sea creatures. There are also shorter-term proxies — cave stalagmites, tree rings from trees both living and buried, boreholes and a wide variety of other temperature proxies.

Scientists got the first unequivocal evidence of a continuing moderate natural climate cycle in the 1980s, when Willi Dansgaard of Denmark and Hans Oeschger of Switzerland first saw two mile-long ice cores from Greenland representing 250,000 years of Earth’s frozen, layered climate history. From their initial examination, Dansgaard and Oeschger estimated the smaller temperature cycles at 2,550 years. Subsequent research shortened the estimated length of the cycles to 1,500 years (plus or minus 500 years). Other substantiating findings followed:
An ice core from the Antarctic’s Vostok Glacier — at the other end of the world from Greenland — showed the same 1,500-year cycle through its 400,000-year length.
The ice-core findings correlated with known glacier advances and retreats in northern Europe.
Independent data in a seabed sediment core from the Atlantic Ocean west of Ireland, reported in 1997, showed nine of the 1,500-year cycles in the last 12,000 years.

Other seabed sediment cores of varying ages near Iceland, in the Norwegian and Baltic seas, off Alaska, in the eastern Mediterranean, in the Arabian Sea, near the Philippines and off the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula all also showed evidence of the 1,500-year cycles. So did lake sediment cores from Switzerland, Alaska, various parts of Africa and Argentina, as did cave stalagmites in Europe, Asia and Africa, and fossilized pollen, boreholes, tree rings and mountain tree lines.
None of these pieces of evidence would be convincing in and of themselves. However, to dismiss the evidence of the 1,500-year climate cycle, it is necessary to dismiss not only the known human histories from the past 2,000 years but also an enormous range and variety of physical evidence found by a huge body of serious researchers.


JUST FOR FUN YDT a sites that debunk GW. Believe them if you want or not I dont' care I just posted them for fun as I don't agree with everythin in them.
http://www.abd.org.uk/green_myths.htm
http://www.predictweather.com/global_warming/index.asp
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777


This from ABC news

The heavy breathing over global warming is enough to terrify anyone.

Last week the Washington Post interviewed a 9-year-old who said the Earth is "just starting to fade away." In 20 years there will be "no oxygen" he said, and he'll be dead. The Post went on to say that "for many children and young adults, global warming is…defining their generation." How sad.

Thirty-six years of consumer reporting have taught me to be skeptical of environmental scares. Much of what the media scares us about turns out to be myths.

Watch "Myths, Lies and Downright Stupidity" on a special edition of "20/20" Friday, May 4th at 10 p.m. EDT

But is the global warming crisis a myth? Read on.

Excerpts from "Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity," coming out in paperback May 1. (Click here to buy "Myths, Lies and Downright Stupidity").

MYTH: Global warming will cause huge disruptions in climate, more storms, and the coasts will flood! America must sign the Kyoto Treaty!

This has to be broken into four pieces.

MYTH No. 1: The Earth is warming!

TRUTH: The Earth is warming. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said the global average surface temperature increased about 0.6 degrees Celsius over the 20th century.

MYTH No. 2: The Earth is warming because of us!

TRUTH: Maybe. The frantic media suggest it's all about us. But the IPCC only said it is likely that we have increased the warming.

Our climate has always undergone changes. Greenland was named Greenland because its coasts used to be very green. It's presumptuous to think humans' impact matters so much in comparison to the frightening geologic history of the earth. And who is to say that last year's temperature is the perfect optimum? Warmer may be better! More people die in cold waves than heat waves.

MYTH No. 3: There will be storms, flooded coasts and huge disruptions in climate!

TRUTH: There are always storms and floods. Will there be much bigger disruptions in climate? Probably not.

Schoolchildren I've interviewed were convinced that America is "dying" in a sea of pollution and that "cities will soon be under water!"

Lawyers from the Natural Resources Defense Council (another environmental group with more lawyers than scientists) warn that "sea levels will rise, flooding coastal areas. Heat waves will be more frequent and more intense. Droughts and wildfires will occur more often."

Wow.

But many scientists laugh at the panic.

Dr. John Christy, professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Alabama at Huntsville said: "I remember as a college student at the first Earth Day being told it was a certainty that by the year 2000, the world would be starving and out of energy. Such doomsday prophecies grabbed headlines, but have proven to be completely false." "Similar pronouncements today about catastrophes due to human-induced climate change," he continued, "sound all too familiar and all too exaggerated to me as someone who actually produces and analyzes climate information."

The media, of course, like the exaggerated claims. Most are based on computer models that purport to predict future climates. But computer models are lousy at predicting climate because water vapor and cloud effects cause changes that computers fail to predict. In the mid-1970s, computer models told us we should prepare for global cooling.

Scientists tell reporters that computer models should "be viewed with great skepticism." Well, why aren't they?

The fundamentalist doom mongers also ignore scientists who say the effects of global warming may be benign. Harvard astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas said added CO2 in the atmosphere may actually benefit the world because more CO2 helps plants grow. Warmer winters would give farmers a longer harvest season, and might end the droughts in the Sahara Desert.

Why don't we hear about this part of the global warming argument? "It's the money!" said Dr. Baliunas. "Twenty-five billion dollars in government funding has been spent since 1990 to research global warming. If scientists and researchers were coming out releasing reports that global warming has little to do with man, and most to do with just how the planet works, there wouldn't be as much money to study it."

MYTH No. 4: Signing the Kyoto Treaty would stop the warming.

TRUTH: Hardly.

In 1997, the United Nations met in Kyoto, Japan, and asked the developed nations of the world to cut CO2 emission to below 1990 levels.

It continues here
http://www.abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3061015&page=1

[AYFR]

You are not going to quote that economist and his tobacco industry stooge are you? They are true whores and dumb ones at that. The global warming swindle film has been so discredited that it is not even funny but I would be glad to dump all of the science that has been marshalled showing that these claims are stupid if you insist.

If you have some real claims, I will be glad to bury you with real science. Remember that the IPCC has actually looked at this junk science claims and have rejected them. I would urge you to stay away from the idiots pushing the 1500 year cycle crap because it has been shown to be that.

Really

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/milankovitch.html
You do know who NOAA is don't you? If not it is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.


http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn5094

So whether it is every 1500 years as my first site says or every 41,000 years as the second site says the fact remains that the earths temps. goes in cycles.

[Yellowdogtexan]

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st279/
Oh boy, the exxon global warming machine in action. http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=55National Center for Policy Analysis has received $465,900 from ExxonMobil since 1998.Here are some good links showing that the little ice age that is the basis of this theory did not occur. http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Bradley.pdf and http://iri.columbia.edu/~goddard/EESC_W4400/CC/jones_mann_2004.pdfThe theory behind this cycle appears to the claim that either there is some variation in the earth's orbit or pattern in output from the sun that caused these cycles which according to the above studies do not exist. All of the studies show that the global warming that has occured over the last couple of decades is not explained by any cycle and if fact during this period, the output or heating from the sun has actually declined while temperature have gone up. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6290228.stmA new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change.

It shows that for the last 20 years, the Sun's output has declined, yet temperatures on Earth have risen.

It also shows that modern temperatures are not determined by the Sun's effect on cosmic rays, as has been claimed.

Writing in the Royal Society's journal Proceedings A, the researchers say cosmic rays may have affected climate in the past, but not the present.

"This should settle the debate," said Mike Lockwood, from the UK's Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory, who carried out the new analysis together with Claus Froehlich from the World Radiation Center in Switzerland.

Dr Lockwood initiated the study partially in response to the TV documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, broadcast on Britain's Channel Four earlier this year, which featured the cosmic ray hypothesis.

"All the graphs they showed stopped in about 1980, and I knew why, because things diverged after that," he told the BBC News website.

"You can't just ignore bits of data that you don't like," he said.

Warming trend

The scientists' main approach on this new analysis was simple: to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature, which has risen by about 0.4C over the period.

The Sun varies on a cycle of about 11 years between periods of high and low activity.

But that cycle comes on top of longer-term trends; and most of the 20th Century saw a slight but steady increase in solar output.

However, in about 1985, that trend appears to have reversed, with solar output declining.

Yet this period has seen temperatures rise as fast as - if not faster than - any time during the previous 100 years.

"This paper reinforces the fact that the warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment of climate science. Solar radiation goes down and yet the temperatures are going up. The increase in temperatures are due to greenhouse gases and the claims that the cycle patterns explain global warming because according to such patterns, temperatures should be declining and not increasing.

I hope that the concept of cause and effect is not too complicated for the Reverend to understand

[Yellowdogtexan]

You do know who NOAA is don't you? Yes. They are the same people who are working with the IPCC to document the effects of greenhouse gases on global warming. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/media/2007/elninowarming.htmlGreenhouse gases likely accounted for more than half of the widespread warmth across the continental United States last year, according to a new study by four scientists at NOAA's Earth System Research Lab in Boulder, Colo. Last year's average temperature was the second highest since record-keeping began in 1895. The team found that it was very unlikely that the 2006 El Niño played any role, though other natural factors likely contributed to the unusual warmth. The findings will appear September 5 in the Geophysical Research Letters, a publication of the American Geophysical Union

Preliminary data available last January led NOAA to place 2006 as the warmest year on record. In May, NOAA changed the 2006 ranking to second warmest after updated statistics showed the year was 0.08 degree F cooler than 1998.

The annual average temperature in 2006 was 2.1 degrees F above the 20th Century average and marked the ninth consecutive year of above-normal U.S. temperatures. Each of the contiguous 48 states reported above-normal annual temperatures and, for the majority of states, 2006 ranked among the 10 hottest years since 1895. See also http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/research/themes/carbon/Continued emission of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will affect climate and ocean chemistry, subsequently influencing both marine and terrestrial ecosystems. The warming effects of increasing CO2 and other greenhouse gases impinge on agriculture, natural systems, and a host of environmental variables. Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere also directly translates to increasing acidity of the oceans. Carbon dioxide dissolves in water to form carbonic acid, which is corrosive to the shells and skeletal material of many marine organisms. Subsequent impacts on ecosystems are largely not understoodThe IPCC worked with NOAA and other agencies in making its conclusions. Contrary to the silly claims of the global warming deniers, the effect of past cycles if any were looked at. However the global warming that has occured over the last 40+ years is due to greenhouse gases and not any cycle.

[AYFR]

See Yellowdog what you fail to understand is that I do not deny Global Warming, I just deny that man caused it and that it is as dangerous as the scare mongers make it out to be.


I also did not say that we didn't affect it or make it worse.

My whole ponit is that we did not cause GW and that the EPA says that we can not predict what it will do.

Yes we can make scientific guesses but those are still just guesses.

The best thing we can do is conserve our resources and look for new and alternative fuels. We can do this without stupid government legislation for business and people.

I have already proven that my carbon footprint is better then most here (including yours) so untill you and the other scare mongers put up they need to shut up.

[Yellowdogtexan]

I went back to the IPCC report because literally these scientists considered everything relevant. Here is the section of paleoclimatology http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch06.pdfBottom line according to the IPCC is that the recent global warming is not explaiined by any cycles or climate patterns and these changes are due to greenhouse gases and man. Even a complete idiot like bush has accepted the truth of the science here because the science is clear unless you are a dolt or someone too stupid to understand simple concepts.

I found this article about bush's main science advisor amusing.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6994760.stmProfessor John Marburger, who advises President Bush, said it was more than 90% certain that greenhouse gas emissions from mankind are to blame.

The Earth may become "unliveable" without cuts in CO2 output, he said, but he labelled targets for curbing temperature rise as "arbitrary".

His comments come shortly before major meetings on climate change at the UN and the Washington White House.

There may still be some members of the White House team who are not completely convinced about climate change - but it is clear that the science advisor to the President and director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy is not one of them.

In the starkest warning from the White House so far about the dangers ahead, Professor Marburger told the BBC that climate change was unequivocal, with mankind more than 90% likely to blame.

Despite disagreement on the details of climate science, he said: "I think there is widespread agreement on certain basics, and one of the most important is that we are producing far more CO2 from fossil fuels than we ought to be.

"And it's going to lead to trouble unless we can begin to reduce the amount of fossil fuels we are burning and using in our economies."

Trouble ahead

This is an explicit endorsement of the latest major review of climate science from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Professor Marburger said humanity would be in trouble if we did not stop increasing carbon emissions.

"The CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere and there's no end point, it just gets hotter and hotter, and so at some point it becomes unliveable," he said. Again, when even an idiot like bush and his science advisors agree that global warming is real and is caused by man then the other idiots should really give up this fight. :ydt

[Kurtz]

One has to wonder who has done more damage to the earth, man made global warming or bush?

[AYFR]

Since man-made global warming doesn't exist (GW does but it is not man made) it has to be Bush.

It is funny that an idiot like Bush could fool Hillary and other Democrats, just prove how really smart they aren't

[Trueblue]

I am not dodging anythin, there is not proof that man caused GW at all.

It proves that when people say that this or this is going to happen that they are full of bull.

There is a great deal of evidence that global warming is caused by humans.

TB according to the EPA link that you repeatedly keep posting and the same one that I posted it says nowhere that man is responsible for the cause of GW.

Also my reasoning that most GWers say this is a recent thing is the fact that scientists were just 30 years ago saying that the earth was experiencing Global Cooling.

Yellowdogtexan

I have not said any of those things that your site debunked. I said that man did not cause GW and that the earth goes in cycles (which is proven).

Even if I did there are plenty of sites debunking your debunking.

Again yes GW is a fact BUT there is not hard proof tha it was caused by man.

I just happen to believe that it is not as big a problem as y'all think it is especially when the EPA says that we can not predict what will happen.



http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st279/



JUST FOR FUN YDT a sites that debunk GW. Believe them if you want or not I dont' care I just posted them for fun as I don't agree with everythin in them.
http://www.abd.org.uk/green_myths.htm
http://www.predictweather.com/global_warming/index.asp
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777


This from ABC news



It continues here
http://www.abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3061015&page=1

You are wrong, it does say that it is caused by human activity.

See Yellowdog what you fail to understand is that I do not deny Global Warming, I just deny that man caused it and that it is as dangerous as the scare mongers make it out to be.


I also did not say that we didn't affect it or make it worse.

My whole ponit is that we did not cause GW and that the EPA says that we can not predict what it will do.

Yes we can make scientific guesses but those are still just guesses.

The best thing we can do is conserve our resources and look for new and alternative fuels. We can do this without stupid government legislation for business and people.

I have already proven that my carbon footprint is better then most here (including yours) so untill you and the other scare mongers put up they need to shut up.

Scare mongers? Do you call a smoke alarm a "scare monger"?

Since man-made global warming doesn't exist (GW does but it is not man made) it has to be Bush.

It is funny that an idiot like Bush could fool Hillary and other Democrats, just prove how really smart they aren't

You guys vacillate from saying you are sure to saying that you KNOW it's not human caused-which outs the fact that you are voicing a political, and not a scientific, viewpoint.

[Trueblue]

Read it again, Rev:

What's Known

Scientists know with virtual certainty that:

* Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.
* The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.
* An “unequivocal” warming trend of about 1.0 to 1.7°F occurred from 1906-2005. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans (IPCC, 2007).
* The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades.
* Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the plane

[AYFR]

Let me rephrase it then, until I see further undeniable proof that man cause GW i do not believe that we did.

BTW my comment to Kurtz was intended as humor.

I am not ruling it out but more evidence is needed.

As for taking care of the planet, sure we need to but the legislation that has been proposed in the past will not help, nor will the enviromental groups always getting their way.

How does a Smoke Detector have to do with GW?

As for me being wrong, maybe I will be wrong but as of right now nope not at all, there are scientist that agree that GW is man-made nad those that don't. Without further proof who's to say just who is right?

I rate the GW scare the same as Dems do the Terrorist scare.

[AYFR]

Read it again, Rev:

NONE of what you posted says that man created it. I never argued that we were not adding to it.
Also once again from the SAME site

What's Not Certain?

Important scientific questions remain about how much warming will occur, how fast it will occur, and how the warming will affect the rest of the climate system including precipitation patterns and storms. Answering these questions will require advances in scientific knowledge in a number of areas:
Improving understanding of natural climatic variations, changes in the sun's energy, land-use changes, the warming or cooling effects of pollutant aerosols, and the impacts of changing humidity and cloud cover.
Determining the relative contribution to climate change of human activities and natural causes.
Projecting future greenhouse emissions and how the climate system will respond within a narrow range.
Improving understanding of the potential for rapid or abrupt climate change.

The future is not as certian as claimed

[Trueblue]

Let me rephrase it then, until I see further undeniable proof that man cause GW i do not believe that we did.

The proof is so overwhelming that a majority of scientists accept, that an international committee has stated that we are in the midst of a crisis, that even the oil companies have stopped denying it, and the Nobel committee awarded the Nobel Peace prize to those who helped the public understand the crisis.

There is no proof that is satisfactory to deniers.

How does a Smoke Detector have to do with GW?

You confuse a legitimate warning with fear-mongering. It's like claiming that a smoke detector is just trying to scare you.

As for me being wrong, maybe I will be wrong but as of right now nope not at all, there are scientist that agree that GW is man-made nad those that don't. Without further proof who's to say just who is right?


There are a handful of such scientists. There is little disagreement. And the sources that are posted here that deny are usually opinion articles, or articles that distort the facts.

I rate the GW scare the same as Dems do the Terrorist scare.

Both are legitimate concerns.

NONE of what you posted says that man created it. I never argued that we were not adding to it.
Also once again from the SAME site

You can't read.

The future is not as certian as claimed

So you respectfully demand that we all wait till it's too late. Gotcha.

[Trueblue]

See Yellowdog what you fail to understand is that I do not deny Global Warming, I just deny that man caused it and that it is as dangerous as the scare mongers make it out to be.


I also did not say that we didn't affect it or make it worse.

My whole ponit is that we did not cause GW and that the EPA says that we can not predict what it will do.

Yes we can make scientific guesses but those are still just guesses.

The best thing we can do is conserve our resources and look for new and alternative fuels. We can do this without stupid government legislation for business and people.

I have already proven that my carbon footprint is better then most here (including yours) so untill you and the other scare mongers put up they need to shut up.

Do you really believe that the government has no place working towards a solution? I don't. I've yet to see the business community act for the greater good just for the sheer goodness of it.

It is going to take legislation and pacts with other nations.

The government exists so that we can defend ourselves more effectively, whether the enemy is al Qaeda or a hurricane. Global warming is just another threat to our national security, in more ways than one.

[AYFR]

It is going to take legislation and pacts with other nations
I said without STUPID Government Legislation, that is what all the past has been.

Good legislation I am not opposed to, but I yet to see any of that