Global warming? Not so fast, skeptics say at meeting


U.S. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher was in a froth, and his audience loved it.

The California Republican was talking about global warming and could barely contain his disgust.

"Al Gore has been wrong all along!" Rohrabacher yelled into the microphone. "This is outrageous! All of this is wrong! The people who have stifled this debate have an agenda that is just frightening!"

Welcome to the third annual International Conference on Climate Change, a daylong session of speeches and scientific presentations that took place Tuesday just blocks from the U.S. Capitol. Almost no media covered the event.

Organized by The Heartland Institute and other conservative think tanks and groups, the conference drew about 250 guests, most of them researchers and policy analysts, some from as far away as Japan and Australia.

There was plenty of wry laughter during the day, especially when former Vice President Gore and his award-winning movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," were brought up, which was often.

The conference hall also was filled with a tangible air of frustrated defeat, like the brainy kid in math class who thinks he knows all the answers, raises his hand time and again, but is never called upon.

"We are seldom heard in the policy debate," said Joseph L. Bast, president of The Heartland Institute. "If you open your newspaper, turn on your TV set, you're likely to see global warming alarmism, and nothing else."

Bast labeled as "popular delusion" the current conventional wisdom on the issue - that man-made emissions, notably carbon dioxide, from the burning of fossil fuels is dangerously heating up the planet, causing sea levels to rise and is increasing the ferocity of storms and drought.

As such, the conference represents a lingering - and still powerful - sentiment that global warming is not such a big deal after all.

Instead, attendees argued, the slow and slight increase in air, water and atmospheric temperatures during much of the 20th century is part of a natural cycle of the Earth's unpredictable, roller-coaster weather patterns.

Carbon dioxide, they debated, is not a pollutant that should be regulated, as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Supreme Court now hold; it is an attribute that helps plant and sea life.

Bast acknowledged that the conference was hurriedly organized, and moved from New York City to Washington, to counteract proposals from President Barack Obama for a "cap-and-trade" program aimed at fighting global warming by drastically limiting carbon emissions.

Bast and others described the proposed programs as a complete waste of money, with potentially crippling consequences for the economy, and without any attainable goals.

"How do you control the weather?" asked Bob Carter, an Australian scholar from James Cook University. "For us to assume we can somehow control nature and regulate weather patterns, when we cannot even predict them correctly, is patently absurd."

Others saw darker motives in the climate debate.

These skeptics, including Rohrabacher, contended that global warming is a liberal-inspired hoax, intended to wrest control of world energy policy and wealth from Western countries so the United Nations can have its way.

To them, liberty, capitalism and the U.S. economy are at stake.

"I have to wonder what has happened to the sovereignty of the United States," said U.S. Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., the keynote speaker at the conference and the ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which debates climate policy.

Skeptics, or "realists," as they call themselves, focus much of their scorn on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which shared a Nobel Peace Prize with Gore in 2007.

The IPCC consists of hundreds of scientists from across the globe who, for two decades, have tracked climate research and temperature trends, and attempted to interpret what they mean for policymakers.

Its most famous pronouncement, in 2007, was that a marked increase in greenhouse gases from mostly man-made sources is "very likely" causing climate change.

"Very likely," the IPCC wrote, means a 90 percent certainty that human activity, not natural variability, is the driving force.

The IPCC also noted that many geographical areas seem especially susceptible to climate change, including low-lying coastal areas, such as southeastern Virginia and northeastern North Carolina.

But scientist after scientist at the conference pointed out flaws and shortcomings in the calculations of the IPCC, especially its reliance on computer models to make forecasts.

One researcher, Roy Spencer, a professor at the University of Alabama-Huntsville, noted that the IPCC did not adequately calculate how clouds play a major role in ground temperatures.

When there are few clouds in the sky, temperatures typically are warmer, Spencer said, and when it is cloudy outside, conditions typically are cooler.

Is it possible then, Spencer asked, that decreasing clouds in recent decades caused the warmings recorded on Earth?

Spencer said he asked the IPCC about this and was surprised to learn that the organization had not researched this point and had assumed that cloud cover does not change over time but is fairly consistent.

The two revelations sparked more wry laughter from the audience.

"If a 1 percent change in cloudiness could trigger global warming, or global cooling, wouldn't you think that'd be a pretty important thing to nail down?" Spencer asked. "They have never gone there."

Skepticism over climate science is hardly new. Indeed, skepticism has always been a part of scientific discourse and has been around global warming since the 1970s, when the theory first gained credence.

William "Skip" Stiles, a Norfolk environmentalist, was working as a congressional aide back then, and he remembers the committee hearings, the charges and countercharges of bias and flawed science.

"I will agree that these models are only as good as the data that goes into them," Stiles said. "But when you think of all the shots these folks have had at this, and all the years of research by the IPCC - we're talking 25 years! - you have to think we've reached some fairly solid conclusions that global warming is real and we, as humans, are playing a major role in it."

Carl Hershner, a researcher and professor at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science who has tracked sea level rise in Virginia for years, expressed similar thoughts.

"One thing about science is that you never get rid of all the naysayers," Hershner said. He described the IPCC as "an extremely conservative group" that "constantly looks at achieving consensus, and updates its findings regularly."

In his keynote address Tuesday, Sen. Inhofe predicted that cap-and-trade will pass the House of Representatives - "Nancy Pelosi has the votes," he said - but will stall in the Senate, where previous climate-change programs have similarly died.

Last year, without any action coming from Washington, Gov. Timothy M. Kaine appointed a Climate Change Commission to suggest ways Virginia can reduce carbon emissions and lessen its role in accelerating warming.

The theory that global warming is a natural phenomenon, and not man-made, was not part of commission deliberations.

"The fact that global climate change is happening and is largely human-caused is now widely accepted," reads the commission's final report, published in December.

At the bottom of the page, however, is a footnote: "While we have concluded that the overwhelming evidence supports these points, we have heard testimony providing contrary information during public comment periods at our meetings."

State Sen. Frank Wagner, a Republican from Virginia Beach, was a member of the climate commission. He also has attended one of the skeptics' conferences in New York City.

"I've tried to keep an open mind," Wagner said. "There are so many theories out there, and so much detail, you're kind of overwhelmed.

"I mean, even the scientists themselves are debating with each other at these meetings. You're left wondering what the truth really is."

Scott Harper, (757) 446-2340, scott.harper@pilotonline.com

Posted to: Environment News

COMMENTS ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here; comments do not reflect the views of The Virginian-Pilot or its websites. Users must follow agreed-upon rules: Be civil, be clean, be on topic; don't attack private individuals, other users or classes of people. Read the full rules here.
- Comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the report violation link below it.

SInce 1859

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat. This was proved experimentally in 1859. We have increased atmospheric CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years. We continue to add BILLIONS OF TONS of CO2 to the atmosphere each year. Therefore, we have warmed the earth. The world's glaciers are melting as well as the North Polar Ice Cap, in spite of the fact that the sun is currently at its lowest level of activity in 80 years. Every major scientific society in every country on the Earth believes in man-made global warming, yet the Republican Party does not believe in it. Are they nuts?

Two things you probably don't know

The infrared spectrum (radiant heat) is wide, but CO2 only blocks three narrow bands of the spectrum. Think of the shadow of a picket fence with all but three pickets knocked out. The CO2 already in the air blocks almost all of the energy in those narrow bands, so adding CO2 only blocks a tiny bit more in those wavelengths and does nothing at all in the other 95% or so of the infrared spectrum. So, CO2 is already doing all it can to retain heat, more CO2 will have negligible added impact.

Sunspot activity has declined in the last few years, but prior to that it was at a 1000 year high. Not coincidentally, the increase in global temperature stopped in 1998, and has reversed in the last two years. This tracking of temperature change and solar activity points to the opposite of your conclusion.

We simply do not know enough about long term climate factors to dial in the temperature we want by changing the kind of light bulb we use or car we drive.

climate change or global warming

So much information, so many theories, so much anger. In the final analysis, every farmer knows you can only put so many cows, goats, etc. on so much land before you deplete the sources of water and nutrition. You can only plant so many beans on so many acres before the plants fail to grow. Land, nutrients, water are not infinite. Air is subject to heating and pollution.

We're at the tipping point of nurturing the human race on this planet and no one can deny that fact. Research the continent of Africa to see the ever increasing failure of states due to higher temps, loss of water, etc. Go ahead, look the other way, have some more kids, drive bigger cars, build more sub-divisions, eat more beef and argue about whether Al Gore is intelligent or dumb, who's paying for research at MIT (It's a school and tuition pays for it's research!). When we finally overuse, overload and the planet quits, what are you gonna do?

when all that happens, we will be long dead

as it is going to take way to long for that to happen even if I buy Al Gores carbon credits, or support cap and trade, or feed my cows beans. Nothing humans are doing is really devestating to the planet. When the planet is tired of us, we will be gone, simple.

We easily have 20,000 years to worry about this. Guess what, we will have colinized mars or some other planet by then. Who cares. It just to far away to even worry about. Folks where saying a similar thing with whale hunting, nothing to replace it, yada yada yada. We found fossil fuels. Nuclear energy is just as bad as mercury bulbs, no one has a problem with those bulbs, but are freaked about nuclear. Use nuclear, we be fine. That core drilling thing is awesome as well. There are options, and al gore, and the rest of cap and trade, carbon trading folks dont want to hear about that because they cant make money on it. It is that simple. Relax folks, mother earth is no where near ready to kick us off the planet. When she is, you wont care anyways as we will all be gone. Big dang deal then.

1859, yea!

Wasn't that when they thought we could control the weather with cannon fire and they thought Galveston, Texas couldn't be struck by a hurricane?

Yea, got to love that 100+ year-old science, huh?

some simple math based on your arguement

200 years, makes it 1809, prior to the industrial rev, not a bunch of people and no SUVs or them hideous florescent bulbs. Mother earth, with all her plants are in balance and easily reprocessing the CO2 into O2. 200 years later, we have increase the amount of CO2 into the air by 40%. Humm. 40% of what, unknow as there was not measuring device back then so not sure what the 40% is based on. Since there was nothing of significant generating CO2, would have to make the tons minimal. An increase of 40% on a minimal number is still minimal. NOW we are about to double this minimal number, which still makes it minimal. Ok, I see the value in addressing it, but nothing more. Doing global scares is not good. Looks like more people believed the scares of the 60s and 70s then listened to logic. The Indian crying over a dump still burns bright in some peoples minds. CO2 by the BILLIONS? really? Egads, based on that statement, everything should have carbon dust on it. When it rains, it should be black, my pool should be covered in this grime, and no plants could possibly grow. BILLIONS, I'm quacking in my boots, thanks for the scare tactic, not gonna work on this NON-MIT individual with a brai

The scam is getting ready to expose

Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’
"Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research. A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes. Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research, said: "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures"

Has any liberal ever blame the sun or is it just the fact they want everyone in the world to get rid of large pick ups and SUV's and drive those little death cars?

Al Gore should be arrested for his little scam that is making him millions of dollars. You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can fool a liberal all the time.


Name the source for your data.

The Cost?

I think it's odd that global warming advocates can compile all the data necessary to support their theories yet they can't tell you exactly what cap and trade will cost each and every American. Sorry, but I never buy anything from a salesman who refuses to tell me what his product costs. Smells like a scam to me.

Ok Chris, perhaps. But is

Ok Chris, perhaps. But is it enough to affect us more than a fraction of a fraction of a degree? Does the heat caused by CO2 compare with that caused by volcanos and/or the sun. What are the exact percentages? Where did you get your data? Prove it was not skewed. Prove the research was not supported by organizations that benefit from an acceptance of so-called global warming. What about the cycles that apparently have been occurring throughout the last few millenia? Are you so sure of your suspicions? Or are you just out to call the Republicans ignorant like the rest of the clan seems to be? Maybe you do have some of the answers, at least more than the top scientists of that field have. But anyone (including those top scientists) with enough wisdom knows that the more he learns about any subject (including atmospheric science, the more that person learns he does not know. Claiming to 'know' is to expose an ignorance. Be smart. Acknowledge that you do not really know that much and that you are not really that sure what's going on.


I wish I’d of thought of this global warming thingy first. I could have been the one getting all those prizes and money like good old Uncle Al.

At last

I do want to express my appreciation for the Pilot finally covering the opposing point of view on climate change. (This is the THIRD conference, the previous two passed without mention.)

Cap and Trade will be the largest transfer of wealth in history, dwarfing even Social Security and Medicare. It should not come to pass without a thorough examination of the basis for that economy destroying tax. Up until now, only one side has been heard, I hope this is the beginning of that full consideration of the science of climate change and the end to the quasi-religious litany of apocalyptic predictions squelching all debate.

Suggested Reading

I would recommend 'The Skeptical Environmentalist' and 'Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalists's Guide to Global Warming' by Bjorn Lomborg. These books present unbiased data on many environmental 'issues' without much rhetoric or hyperbole, other than to say 'gee, that makes sense'.

Flat Earthers?

This might as well be a report on a convention of the Flat Earth Society if our corporate interests and their most vociferous supporters found a flat earth to be important to their agenda. A better scientific analysis can be found in MIT studies: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=38818 We can not afford the denial and obfuscation that puts off addressing this most important issue if for no other reason than that our survival as a civilization depends on our ability to adapt to real conditions. That will take time and knowledge not ideological idiocy.

Follow the real money

You got it backward. World government have spent over $50 Billion trying to prove anthropogenic warming, yet all we hear about is the piddle few million oil companies spend trying to counter the lies.

The problem is

that neither side really knows what has caused warming and what has caused the melting of glaciers and polar caps aside from the rise in temperatures. One side wants to tell you that its our fault while the other side says its not and that there's nothing happening at all well we all can see that something is going on when you look at yearly photo's of Glacier national park and the ice sheets of the north and south pole and other area's that have been recording for 20 or more years. I'm tired of the politically based bickering of both sides and wish that they would work together to find the source of the problem and potential solutions.

Barely Noticed?

That's because the biased mainstream media refuses to give equal time to views contrary to theirs! Recent studies have shown how slanted the coverage was in favor of Obama--facts not supposition!

The poster child, Al Gore (whose 1 of several homes uses more energy in a day than the average home does in a month!), has now changed his cry from "global warming" to global "change" because more and more evidence and empirical data has shown it isn't getting as warm as they believe. But without an urgency these people and their agenda don't get attention, so they must create a sense of crisis.

In the gas "crisis" of the 70's, all the environmentalist declared that the world would be completely out of oil by 2000! Today we have confirmed reserves projected further than ever.

Stop the con artists!

The change from "global

The change from "global warming" to "climate change" was merely a political correctness issue. "Global warming" had been too sensationalized. It's similar to changes like going from "manic depression" to "bipolar disorder." It doesn't mean they were backing off their claims.

Politically correct?

thought politics was not in science. True science reports the findings regardless of the hypothesis. It does not modify the findings to make someone feel good.
It is for us to determine what the results of the science is. If the conclusion from the findings can be swayed because it "hurts" someones feelings, then that science is not based on facts of the study, but on the desired outcome.
From a true science point of view, because the findings no longer meet the hypothesis, the name is changing.

If global warming is not a valid term, then that implies the planet is not warming, which means we are no longer in a global temperature increase, but a sustained, or lowering cycle. If true science is being applied, the name does not need to be changed for political correctness. Guess we are dealing with pseudo-science?

You completely missed my

You completely missed my point. Changing the name didn't change the data or the conclusions, it just changed the name. Again, just like we now use the term bipolar doesn't mean those people suffer from a different disorder than manic depressives.

And coffee is bad for you...

no wait, it is good for you! Unless we all commit mass suicide we will have some affect on out planet, but over the next 100 Million years, we are pretty insignificant! Just wait, next year it will be global cooling.....

Carbon credits for sale

During the post WW II industrial boom from 1940 to 1980, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increased rapidly, but the earth's temperature decreased. In the early 70s scientists were trumpeting, "the coming ice age," and Time Magazine featured a cover story about the coming ice age. How fickle these men of science can be. During the medieval warming period, about 800 to 1300 AD, global temperatures were as much as 5 degrees warmer, but atmospheric CO2 levels were much lower than present. It is apparent that the relationship between global temperature and CO2 is not well correlated as some would have us believe.

If you're wondering why the big push to control CO2, look no further than Algore. His net worth has increased from $2 million in 2000 to an estimated $100 million today. He's either a very astute businessman, or has suckered a whole lot of folks into buying worthless carbon credits. Have you bought any today?

And coffee is bad for you...

no wait, it is good for you! Unless we all commit mass suicide we will have some affect on out planet, but over the next 100 Million years, we are pretty insignificant! Just wait, next year it will be global cooling.....we know very , very little about this planet and mankind can not even cure the common cold!

The "common" cold isn't just

The "common" cold isn't just a single virus strain. If it were, we would be much more likely to have a cure/vaccine. How can you expect to get rid of something that changes year to year?


how can we expect to stop global cycle of climate change? as you say, "How can you expect to get rid of something that changes year to year?" While the cycles are not year to year to us, to the world, they certainly are, or would they be minute by minute? Second by second? millisecond to millisecond?

Please explain how Chicago is there? At one point in time, there was one mile of ice over the land now know as Chicago. What made all that ice melt? Global cyclic weather changes.

If man is so powerful to the world that we can change the temperature, then surely we can stop a hurricane from forming, tornados from happening, blizzards from dumping, or make green all the deserts of the world. We CANT. WE are along for the ride. At some point, the earth will eject us, just like it ejected the dinosaurs. When that happens, we will be gone. That aint gonna happen any time soon.

The issue isn't about

The issue isn't about stopping the natural cycle, it's about stopping our alteration and acceleration of that cycle.

Have you never seen the acres of green lawns in the southwest, or practically everything east of the Mississippi that used to be forest? The earth is a lot smaller, and there are a lot more of us, than you seem to realize.

normal function of mother earth

Global warming is a normal function of the earth. The earth heats itself up and cools itself down regulary. The doom and gloom prophets will quite upset when sometime in the near future we actually enter a significantly cooler era. Then it will be global cooling oh no, just another reason more doom and gloom rhetoric.


I can imagine these Gore-worshipping nuts behavior when we enter a natural climactic cooling cycle. They will then be telling us we must burn fossile fules, take off the envoronmental protection devices from factories and go back to the old style aerosols to keep us warm!

Many many things in this

Many many things in this world have natural cycles. Why should that imply that humans aren't capable of altering that cycle?

Thanks, Pilot!

And ditto what the DDS said.

God Bless Global Warming!!!

It would be 40 below right now if it were not for warming!


Intellectual smog

You can always find someone who is sure the earth is flat.

Of course, you can forgive flat-earthers because their senses tell them the earth is flat.

The anti-global warming crowd, for whom the planet's environment is just another ideological poker chip, doesn't have that excuse. The evidence is all around them but, armed with the ‘wisdom’ of crackpots and Fox TV, they choose to ignore it or explain it away.

Fortunately, global warming in obvious to almost every country and every scientist on the planet. And our own national leadership has improved markedly. Progress is now possible.

The republican party and its herd of blue collar knuckle draggers can spout deductive fallacies and display their stubborn close mindedness 24 hours a day and all they will get is pity.

Because even a small mind is a terrible thing to waste.


Wow. Now even Maynard G. Krebs is a global warming expert. Aren't those global warming so called scientist the same so called scientist that were trying to panic people about a coming ice age in the seventies?

Do a little reading, please

The deniers need to do a little reading. You can start with this link...http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm and http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686. There is a reason every major scientific society in every country on the Earth believes in man-made global warming. Adding BILLIONS OF TONS of CO2 to the atmosphere every year is causing the earth to warm. Soon we will have DOUBLED the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

I've done a lot of reading

Every major scientific society at one point that the Sun revolved around the stationary Earth, yet it moves.

Just like Maynard and Al, you simply invoke authority on issues you do not understand. That means little to me. I have read the IPCC report, and I am qualified to evaluate it. I am not convinced CO2 is the prime driver of climate change. I don't claim to know everything which does affect climate, but I am quite certain no one else does either.

I do know the policies being advocated to "fix" this uncertain problem will wreck economies worldwide and cause deep poverty and countless deaths in the third world, so I would suggest that we be a lot more certain we know before taking steps that will certainly cause great harm.


The sun is currently at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, yet the ice continues to melt. Why?

Arctic Pack Ice

The ice waxes and wanes in response to cyclical ocean currents which are utterly unaffected by CO2 or even air temperature.

Conversely, the changes in albedo which result does affect air temperature.

"Every major scientific society?"

That was not a conclusion of scientific study, but the superstition of the time.
I respect your stand for individual liberties but, I find it difficult to understand your support for the corporate oligopoly that seeks to rob us of what liberties we have left. This is what happens when you assign greater freedoms to corporations than to individuals. You rail against collectives and yet support the most powerful.

hindsight sure is 20/20 aint it?

At the time, it was the conclusion. Education was not what it is today. Because of environmental/nurturing issues, people where not developing intellectually to our capacities, with the critical mass of today to discover these things. The science of that time was simple observation, it was again at its infancy. Regardless of what we know today, it was science then. Just like the science back then, which has now been shown to be less then scientific to today's standards, this global superstition you advocate just might be proven wrong also. At this point, global warming is superstition. There is no proof that is widely accepted that man is creating the impacts to the environment that would kill us, not at our present levels or even future elevated levels. If you wish to convince me that I, and my cows are killing the planet, you might want to try another tactic. Calling me superstitious, dumb, uneducated, or to stupid to figure things out is not going to get me on your side. It will encourage me to buy 200watt bulbs by the gross as my way of supporting the Cult of Al Gore.

I didn't write that, must be your imagination!

"Calling me superstitious, dumb, uneducated, or to(sic) stupid to figure things out is not going to get me on your side."

Nothing about the flat earth superstition was scientific. Just look at the history of persecution towards those that tried to publicly introduce scientific data that contradicted the contemporary misconceptions.

I'm not theone siding with the oligopoly

In case you haven't noticed, the major energy corporations have found ways to profit from the climate change hysteria, and none of those plans involve preserving your freedom.

The elite will always find ways to preserve their lifestyle(such as buying carbon credits for their private jets from Al Gore) while subjecting everyone else to a diminished standard of living, or in the case of many in the third world, to not living at all.

The economic effects of carbon cap and trade will fall most heavily on those with the fewest options. I'm surprised you would stand for this. What do you have against emerging economies of the world struggling to rise out of poverty? Raising the price of energy will set them back generations and will reduce our middle class to relative poverty.

economic effects

The economic effects of not retooling would be even more devastating.

Have you read reports from

"every major scientific society in every country on the Earth"? To say that "every major scientific society in every country on the Earth believes in man-made global warming", you are saying that you've have read a report from or talked with each one. I think NOT. You have read the reports that the SOAP BOX people (rock/movie stars and liberal media) want you to see. These were the same people behind the GLOBAL COOLING scare of the mid-seventies. Follow the money and you'll see the true reason for the "THEORY". You also need to realize that a "THEORY" in NOT FACT. The THEORY of global warming is NOT supported by FACTUAL data from the consistent reports from the SAME sensors in the SAME locations. I have seen FACTUAL reports stating that inaccurate data from malfunctioning sensors and misplaced sensors have resulted in inaccurate conclusions.

Mother Nature.

I guess the dinosaurs created the ice age that we are still in. Yes I said it and yes we have polar ice caps still to prove it. Who changed the climate millions of years ago that removed the oceans from our mid and western states? Did Mt Pinatubo pollute the earths atmosphere more in one day than man in the 20th century? Do people who eat meat help the enviroment by removing methane, co2 producing animals yet vegetarians remove the plants that clean the air?
Mother Nature is more powerful and stronger than man and yes we do need rules and regulations to prevent pollution and the destruction of the planet but GLOBAL WARMING is a natural cycle, ask the Dinosaurs if you believe that much in science!

It could not have been the dinasaurs

as there was no previous dinosaurs to produce the fossil fuels they needed to drive their SUVs. Think of the CO2 their SUVs produced. And you would think some of the vegetarian dinosaurs would be similar to cows. Now talk about methane production from a herd of them things.
We are going to find that future man made a time machine, went back to the time of dinosaurs, built solar powered biodegradable yet still CO2 producing SUVs and it was MAN of the future that went back and killed the dinosaurs so they would then die and give us the fossil fuels we need today so we could evolve into the man of the future, it is a vicious cycle we MUST do.

I do agree with you that we need to make smart rules, not draconian rules based on a science that has not had a chance to prove its conclusions or explain the variations noted. Rules that acknowledge we are in the forefront of supporting the planet, and not rules that punish us for being on the planet.

I do not belive in the cult following Al Gore the wise.

Global warming has not been proven. Just like those who claim it does not exist. What I see is those who scream global warming is real have to resort to name calling and bashing, while those who oppose or question this cult just ask questions. My questions. In the early 70s my father was learning HVAC. His class taught him the earth, a few feet down, was always at 54- 56 degrees, always. Has that core temp changed? To increase the temp, BTUs have to be imposed, how many BTUs would it take to raise the temp this much, remember, it has to raise the global water temp, as well as the air up to inner space, that is a lot of space requiring a lot of BTU generation? Has anyone figured out, and have temp probes in space monitoring the outer space temp? Could it be that outer space is not at absolute zero, but slightly higher or even cyclic? There would be a source of BTU that could impose global warming, and that would also answer the other historical climate change fluctuations noted. It is pure arrogance to think man could have such a dramatic effect on the earth above how much mother earth already fluctuates. We are insignificant with regard to global warming.

Billions of tons of CO2

We are adding BILLIONS OF TONS of CO2 to the atmosphere every year. Soon we will have DOUBLED the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The scientists at MIT calculate that that will cause the earth to warm 5-9 degrees. Are you smarter than the scientists at MIT?


Sounds like you better dig a hole and prepare for the end?

Im taking psch 101, since this field of study has

started, the number of changes, and leading thought process has varied so often, and with so much fluctuations that it seems extremely contradictory. They use "scientific" principals, developed their hypothesis, studies, conclusions, etc at universities. The stuff has been published in various intellectual publications, and there is still different ways/methods/philosophies of getting into the human mind and figuring out what makes us tick. Each iteration of this new science firmly believed they have it right, like the group that felt children should not be handled at an early age. These were learned individual with credentials out the gazoo. Things that where identified as "the bomb", have been shown to be less then what was concluded. Global warming is the same thing. There is a eureka moment, everyone gets all glassy-eyed with tears of excitement, the band is brought out, the drums are beat, and off we go. Next thing you know we are all trading in florescent bulbs for mercury filled bulbs, and what do we do now with these bulbs to stop .000000000000000001 total increase in global warming over florescent bulbs?

Essentially what you're

Essentially what you're arguing here is that everything we know is wrong, about everything. If you want to get ultra philosophical, perhaps that's true, but just because past scientific discoveries have been proven false doesn't mean that all scientific discoveries will find the same fate.

There's nothing wrong in questioning global climate research, but discrediting it completely on the assumption that it will be proven false in the future is absurd.

EVERYthing is wrong? nope, not saying that

utilizing an absolute hurts an arguement. Makes the argument binary, right/wrong. Global warming arguement is not binary. The science is to young for us to place in a binary thought process. We are going to find other conditions that will move this arguement around. We do NOT have all the pertinent facts to definitively claim anything on this subject. We can make tons of studies, which are needed, with tons of reviews on the various factors we wish to study to determine which is the true culprit, if any one single thing is the culprit in the planets march to destruction. Just like philosophy, the science is to young and has already gone through cycles of concern to warrant the drastic steps man is doing now. Being environmentally sensitive is one thing, making laws based on this new science when the information is not universally accepted is another. Press forward with studies, but we are jumping the gun by saying man is bad and we MUST safe the planet from certain man-made destructive forces. It is going to take years to validate what the scientists are saying. And there will be fluctuations in conclusions, count on it.

Just out of curiosity, who is paying for the studies

at MIT for this global warming? Where is the ideology of the scientists performing the studies? Are they introducing a bias into the study? Are they "looking" quick to discount those things that might be negative to the hypothesis?
How many of these scientific conclusions have been reproduced somewhere else that was not payed for by the same group of people? We have MIT saying all this carbon, who else has collaborated this finding? Did they create their own model with their own scientific data, or did they re run the model from MIT? Has anyone made a scientific and definitive connection between CO2 and global temperature that also explains why we have had global climate change in the past when man was extremely insignificant, or not present? If global warming is so true, then we should be in an ice age thanks to the industrial rev. That dumped tons of junk.
I am NOT a MIT grad, and I do not have to be one. When the cult of Al can answer question like that, then I will readdress this issue, till then, I think I will go feed my cows some beans!

I do feel that man has flaws in our stewardship of mother earth

which Al and his band are professing. We should be taking care of our planet. Watching what we put in our dumps, making sure we impact the environment is little as possible. The truth is, the US is doing its part, for the most part, in this.

This county has taken great strides in education and making ourselves "green". The country is not "as green" as some would like, but that is more of a political agenda then a reality. Just like some despise the military, nuclear anything, abortion or capital punishment. These are things people rally behind.

We are very green, and moving in a green direction for the most part is a good thing. We are getting there. Patients is prudent.
For folks to claim 'the vast majority' or 'almost a general consensus', etc 'that we are doomed because of man' is wrong. I do not believe that and I am not wrong.

I am insignificant, but I am

I am insignificant, but I am not alone.

Hey Doc

Weren't you a little disturbed by the fact that politicians untrained in science had the floor, that a senator was the keynote speaker at a scientific conference, and that it was organized mainly by a conservative political think tank and not a scientific organization? Don't you wonder what their agenda is? If your skeptical about Gore in this area you should also be skeptical about Inhofe and Rohrabacher.

Good science considers all the data and comes to a conclusion based on all of it. If you don't then you're just a crackpot scientist. That goes for both sides of the debate.


How many of you Global Warming crowd shop at Wal Mart and Target?
Supporting one of the worst countries on the planet when it comes to pollution. Ask the people across the border in Russia who's toxic river once fed them. Hypocrites.

I did stay at a holiday inn express

Not smarter than the scientists at MIT but I have loads more common sense.

The Sun Did it.

Why not place the blame where it belongs: the Sun. Now that's some cycle.

Climate change

Your polling question on Global Warming is not objective. There should be a few other ways to ask the question that reveal honest ideas on this subject. As we all know, questions can and are many times asked in such a way as to assure that the answers can be used to make a point that the resonder did not intend.
The term "Global Warming" is misleading as, given the unfactual information we have been pounded with from money hungry politicians on this subject, the term has come to leave people thinking that the earth is warming and will never stop. This is the fallacy. The same people who support the idea that the earth is warming and will never stop and we are the cause also believe and say that the earth is 6 billion years old. Since they believe the earth is 6 billion years old, how can they possibly think that they can come to any conclusions with only 50 years of decent temperature history? If you divide 50 years by 6 billion, you get the ratio.
It is a scientific fact that the earth has been going through climate cycles for a very long time as recent ice core samples have proved. This subject is being used for political purposes. Please don't play in to the political and f

You do realize you've just

You do realize you've just completely contradicted yourself, yes?

You claim that we have only 50 years of decent temperature history on which to base our entire understanding of climate change, and then you stat that ice cores have shown the scientific fact of climate cycles over millennia?

'bout time

Like Dr. Tabor, I too, give credit to the Pilot for showing some objectivity for a change & not continuing to just push Al Gore's take on things (of which he's made & stands to make all kinds of "green.")
Though I'm not qualified to make the call, I've heard & read just as many learned scholars & scientists refute the theory that global warming is anything more than a natural cycle; influenced more by solar flare activity than anything man might do.
Whatever the cause, I hope the Pilot will enjoy their new found objectivity & continue in that vein.

I see so many attacks at Al

I see so many attacks at Al Gore for being deceitful and greedy about this. First of all, Gore has stated that all of the funds he receives for his work on climate change go to charity. You can argue over his honesty, but I really don't care. What I'm more interested in is why the same people who demonize those who want to try to curb carbon emissions never seem to ask the same questions of motive to those who seek to disprove global warming.

Because shortly we are all going to be under

CAP and TRADE which is going to hurt us. I live on a fixed income and I am not prepared to pay a tax because my energy producer is "harming the planet". This entire cap and trade and carbon credits is such a joke. Global warming has enabled an entire industry to emerge that buys and sells nothing, but I have to be involved in it. If carbon is so bad, why are carbon credits allowed? The math behind that philosophy stinks. Basically, because I do not produce all the CO2 I am "allowed", I can sell the delta to someone else, so they can produce more CO2, and the avg is equal. NO, by me NOT producing all my allotted CO2, I am doing what folks are pushing for, reduction of global CO2 production. That offending company, or country MUST bring their production DOWN, not sustain the AVG, which according to greenies is hurting. Dont provide industries that hurt the earth a way to continue hurting. This country is on the forefront of supporting Mother Earth, we are not the bad guys. Yet our current crop of law makers desire to impose sanctions against us because we are terrible to the planet. "Al Gore" is the figure head of all this BAD in my eyes.

First of all, you're stating

First of all, you're stating that you have a financial interest in global warming being discredited, by not being prepared for a tax. Why then are we to trust anything you say on the matter?

And this "emerging" industry is nothing more than the existing corporations who are fighting to prevent cap and trade (or any cap at all) from being imposed. And an immediate cap on emissions would shut down many (perhaps most) factories and plants in this country, which is why we're looking at cap AND trade, to allow companies the time they need to retool and lower their emissions without being forced to completely shut down.


It's convenient to overlook or discard data that do not fit your conclusions; that applies to both sides of the argument. There is no definitive proof of man-made global warming and quite a bit of data to support a conclusion that it is a red herring. For instance, the average temperature at the Antarctic reached a peak in 1958 and has been gradually decreasing ever since. The ice at over 70% of the Antarctic has been recorded as growing denser and thicker. It's taken decades to figure out how a bee flies since theoretically it shouldn't be able to...does anyone seriously think global climate change will be solved in a few years? It requires far more unbiased study.

Bad politics based on bad science

It's amazing how definitive those are that claim man-made global warming is so severely impacting the environment bringing us closer to a catastrophic end. Any sample data cited barely covers the last 100 years; much of it assumed or only recently collected using reliable measurement systems. This represents less than a percent of a "drop in bucket" of the earth's measurable history and climate fluctuations.

I'm in favor of protecting the environment, but not using costly unproven policies that force US businesses to follow baseless standards in the name of political agenda. How can you trust politicians that suddenly sell themselves on wind power and bio-fuels, which can't possibly provide a sustainable energy alternative and may create even greater environmental damage?

The new radical environmental position is not saying don't pour toxins in the ground or into our water supply, it is saying "feel guilty for driving a car, using aerosols, and owning too many material things because it's causing bad storms and floods." No proven correlation to the cause or that costly changes will affect weather conditions, just an attack on a way of life and means to impose their ideal

It's also amazing how

It's also amazing how definitive those are that claim man-made global warming is a liberal conspiracy when those people have no understanding of the science involved.

well, chris did throw out the FOX news

as the anti-climate change's source of information. The implication there is anti climate folks rely on fox for their lives, which has also been connected to the conservative movement, which is well encamped in the Republican party. Pro climate changers also been saying put your bibles down, which is another slight at those with an ideological right leaning philosophy typically associated with a conservative philosophy.
Throw in the push by the Democratic party to push for cap and trade because it is "universally accepted" (Butterfield, Dem, NC-1) that global warming is upon us and yes there is a split down ideologies based what would appear to be politically in nature. Really is it split down ideological basis that politics have gravitated toward? I see it as an ideology first.
As far as the science goes, there is enough evidence for me to accept that man is NOT the primary/secondary contributing factor, nor are we at an end of the world scenario like the cult of al profess. Nor is the USA the worst offender of this, as many of that cult feel.

No surprise

So by your logic you have to be a liberal or agree with liberal theory to have an understanding of science? So typical. This issue is politically and financially driven, not by science or defendable fact. Get over yourself.

Some sheeple will believe anything

Amazing the number of people who themselves have little or no knowledge of the issue. Yet they believe anything they hear and read put out by many that have agenda's no related to change in climate.

Could it be that many of these believers are the same ones who fell for Obamas "Change you can believe in"? "If they say it it has to be be true".

Many areas of the earth now are covered with ice but in past years were tropical meaning at one time the earth was much warmer than it is today and is projected to be. That's one big reason Greenland was able to be inhabited as it was temperate. Increased sea levels? At times in our past the seashore was not where it is today but west of Richmond. Just because people developed what is dry land now doesn't stop the natural shifts in the conditions in the future.

A little study of the climate history of the earth would be in order for some of the sheeple who will believe lying politicians instead of facts.

Again, why does the

Again, why does the existence of natural climate cycles automatically negate the possibility of humans affecting said cycles?

While we have the ability to impact the earth

we cannot do it to the extent the cult of al expound. If you belief the scientists, we will be out of fossil fuels yesterday and we will not be able to drive our SUVs. With that, soon, our greatest contributors to the destruction of earth will be removed, fossil emissions.
Before Mother Earth does something drastic, like polar shift or green house gas umbrella similar to the astroid hitting Gulf of Mexico, we will long have exhausted the primary culprit, Bush's OIL, errrr, I'm sorry, simply oil. Then the next big culprit will be cows.
Man is like an ant and the rest of nature is like an elephant. If that elephant desires to go in one direction, no amount of pulling by the ant will make it go another direction. Only if the elephant is going the direction of the ant, can the ant say it is in control of the elephant.
That from someone who has no clue where MIT is! I wonder, has MIT included that variable in their studies?

A single sting from a fire

A single sting from a fire ant is nothing more than an annoyance to me. But cover me in a few thousand of them and I probably wouldn't survive.

Put enough ants on that elephant and you'll see that numbers outweigh size.

global warming

Got God Gang

global warming?

based on the little knowledge i have of science

energy goes in one direction

hot to > cold

more later....

More CO2

Means Plants can grow better, since during the day, photosynthesis converts CO2 to oxygen. More CO2, means more plants can thrive, and convert.

In the 70's scientists were worrying about global cooling, now it's warming, , and soon it will be cooling again.

Lastly, for our first poster, I challenge your CO2 has increased 40% arguement. What factual evidence can you provide to back that statement.

Addtionally, what WAS the co2 levels then and now, again, provide proof to back this up, especially since 200 years ago, they were not measuring CO2 levels. . . .

Plants will benefit to an

Plants will benefit to an extent, they have a saturation point. But with continuing deforestation and urbanization, there are less and less plants to benefit from anything.

And there are other ways of obtaining CO2 levels before we began measuring it directly. Ice cores are the most common form.

Plants will benefit to an

Plants will benefit to an extent, they have a saturation point. But with continuing deforestation and urbanization, there are less and less plants to benefit from anything.

And there are other ways of obtaining CO2 levels before we began measuring it directly. Ice cores are the most common form.

Plants will benefit to an

Plants will benefit to an extent, they have a saturation point. But with continuing deforestation and urbanization, there are less and less plants to benefit from anything.

And there are other ways of obtaining CO2 levels before we began measuring it directly. Ice cores are the most common form.

global warming

Got God Gang

global warming?

based on the little knowledge i have of science

nuclear power waste is cancer to all living

earth is alive

we are all inside God's living body aka science's cosmos

the only reason i figured it out before science is because i'm an artist

God is our father and we're inside his living body

God is our father plus the father of animals + plants + all things

God on the outside looks like you and me but on the inside God is different

i know; most can't see the forest for the trees

more later....

Cap & Trade

Politicians Exhale and the Planet Heats Up

By: Gerald Dudley Ph D

In all of the years of scientific discovery, we have not been able to detect any other planet in the universe with our unique chemical makeup, which sustains all forms of animal and plant life. Today, we are said to be on the verge of ruining that life opportunity by our careless overproduction of one of those natural chemical substances, now called a pollutant.

Like many who read this, I had education classes in high school and college that give me the background to examine this dilemma in a simple and practical manner. In my time, scientists had identified all 92 elements within our planet. Since then, that detected number has grown to slightly over 100, using the scientific advancement of microscopic power. These elements are called atoms and have been given names and symbols. They exist all around us as unique chemicals and are sometimes naturally combined together and called molecules.

These atoms and molecules exist in three different forms within this climate bubble where we all live together. One form is a solid and can be easily seen—like dirt. Another is a fluid form that is also visible—

if you believe rock and movie stars, you believe al gore.

Al Gore spent nearly ten years to get a bachelors degree which was most likely bought, NOT earned. His followers are the Hollywood crowd who barely made it through high school and if they went to college, it was to get a degree in being a parakeet (acting). A report from REAL environmental scientist can be found in a report to the US Senate (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport) The bias in the media is overwhelmingly obvious. How often have you seen a reporter use the word "FROTH" to describe Al Gore? Yet you see him froth at the mouth when spewing his rant of inaccurate claims of global warming so he can sell you some "carbon credits". What has he cut back on to reduce his "carbon footprint"? I remember the "global COOLING" rant of the mid-seventies. We were all going to die as a result of global cooling. Billions of dollars wasted and many products and businesses ruined, they were proven wrong and quickly vanished. It's already been proven that sensors were inaccurate or had been positioned wrong. What a bunch of bunk you people believe in while Gore rips in the cash and lives large on your dime.

Why do people think Gore is

Why do people think Gore is the only one going around spreading this stuff? He wasn't the first and he certainly isn't the only.

In ether case, we should respect our environmnt

I think we should do as much as we can to help our environment no matter what the reality is with global warming. I am very intrigued that many of the strongest advocates of Al Gore's doomsday propective are also the harshest critics of solutions such as the expansion of nuclear energy in our country. I agree that putting up wind mills and solar panels where it is appropriate should be done but, from what I have read from valid sources, that won't be enough. The nay sayers condemn the use of coal burning plants but don't really give any real alternatives outside of nuclear power. I also agree that conservation must be a part of the formula, but it has to be economically viable. I think that a real and honest discussion should be done in regards to nuclear power without knee jerk reactions from both sides of the issue. I believe that if all the real unbiased information on the safety and environmental advantages of nuclear power were known, that the American People would demand that it be used much more than it is now. The Europeans have been way ahead of us on this issue.

a source ignored

The most environmentally friendly and cheapest means of generating power is being ignored. This would be what was called an "earth tap" back in the seventies. Today it would be called a geothermal power generation plant> There is one near the Salton Sea in Imperial County, CA. Geothermal power generation uses steam heated deep within the Earth’s crust to power turbines and generate electricity. This has largely been ignored because the politicians and their buddies cannot make huge piles of money from it as the plants do not use ANY form of fossil fuel and produce NO pollution yet generate huge amounts of power from steam turbine generators.

Now this is something I would jump on!

no need for cap and trade, drill down into the earth and let the earth work for us. The sun, the earth, wind, and water, throw in nuclear and we are fossil independent. make batteries that are not environmentally damaging and we have achieved our goals without the need for cap and trade.

This geothermal power for this dummy non-MIT individual is exciting. Why wont the Cult of Al jump on this, or even address it? Because there are no carbon credits to trade. There is nothing to scare school kids. There is no demon to point at, and require ME to throw money at.

For the most part I can

For the most part I can agree with these arguments. I don't understand why geothermal isn't getting more attention. Perhaps it's political, perhaps it's engineering. I don't know completely, though I do know that some places are more suited to it than others, due to variations in crust thickness (in some places it's not feasible to drill deep enough to reach the necessary temperatures).


How dare anyone disagree with the elitist pinheads from the great centers of all knowledge.

To abandon common sense must be the first thing they teach in know it all Leftist brainwashing schools. The Marxist politics come second.

Sound the alarm! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! lol.

Science as a Political Football

I find it Amusing that the "Oh my God! The earth is Warming!" debate is split neatly along political affiliations. Makes me think that neither extreme is right and that the TRUTH lies somewhere in the middle.

Closing words on Climate Science freedom

So the Heartland Institute hires a bunch of experts to espouse their belief in a Global Climate Conspiracy and these people lecture about exactly what they're brought in to say. Then the key note speaker leaves them with this call to fight the scientific community's great global conspiracy:

"In the end, it will be here, in the United States, that the truth will first emerge in all its glory. Not in Europe, for we are no longer free. Not in Russia or China, for they have never been free. Not in the Middle East, for while militant Islam endures it can never become free.

I'm sorry but empirical scientific fact trumps self-promoting political clap-trap and hired pseudo-science any day. Sometimes when everybody else in the world is wrong, it really isn't them, it's you.

Thank you, Al Gore and the

Thank you, Al Gore and the rest of the democrats, for creating un-necessary chaos, taxes and more expenses through false representation in this nation and many others. You should all be brought on charges of fraud and covicted to life terms in federal prisons. I always knew that global warming was a farce, but old Al and the democrats had so many gullible people convinced. The only thing that old Al acheived is making tons of money off the lie. Lock em all up.

It's all b.s.

I seem to recall in the 70's that it was the next Ice Age. That was "scientifically proven" by panels of "experts".

Get 100 scientists together and you'll end up with 100 different theories. Kinda like politicians - if you look hard enough you'll find a politician that will tell you exactly what you want to hear.

Man-made global warming is

Man-made global warming is not a scientific fact, it is an unproven theory. That's right, UNPROVEN. Show me where it is universally accepted.

More to the point, global warming is a POLITICAL issue. Why else would it be split along party lines?

Global warming is NOT a theory

Atmospheric CO2 causes the Earth to retain heat. This was proven experimentally in 1859. We are adding BILLIONS OF TONS of CO2 to the atmosphere every year. We have increased atmospheric CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years. Therefore, we are warming the Earth. This is not theory, this is fact.

Oh, but it has only

Been since the 90's that Global warming took over from Global cooling in the 70's and 80's. And it is SOOOOOO bad that the east coast will be 200 feet under water in the next 10 years. Please.

What party lines?

President Bush, a republican, ultimately acknowledged it, so does President Obama. So do countless other people of on both sides of the aisle.

The loudest voice protesting there's no such thing as global climate change is the representative from Galveston who saw his district get washed away by Hurricane Ike. But I'm sure he still got his speaker's pay from his PAC oil cronies, so he'll be okay.

This isn't a political party line issue. It's a science vs. intellectually lazy consumer with an entitlement complex issue. If there were no such thing, free enterprise wouldn't be creating jobs and rebuilding more efficient economies around it.

Science vs Religion

"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —President George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002


I believe that saying is in

I believe that saying is in all 57 states.


When will global warming be debunked?

I think that global warming will be debunked within the next 10 years. Already they are starting to get away from the term, global warming. The global warming guys are starting to use the term climate change as a buz word for global warming. This is to give them cover later after global warming has been debunked.
Look at their charts on global warming. The charts always stop at the year 2000. You wonder why this is. After the year 2000 it was getting colder.
If you want to know the true facts check out Global Warming: A Chillinhg Perspective.
Don't expect any apology for the global warming guys after golbal warming has been debunked.
They will just make some remark such as, "Well you must be for pollution".

The North Polar Ice Cap is melting

The North Polar Ice Cap is melting in spite of the fact that the Sun is now at its lowest level of activiy in 80 years. Check out the facts at this link...


You're suggesting people read a web page report created by an engineer for the West Virginia Office of Miner’s Safety to get the true facts on global climate change?! That's you're great authority?

I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for the world's scientific minds to declare Mr. Monte Hieb's junior high looking presentation to be the pinnacle of scientific enlightenment.

Latent Heat...lol

Reminds me of a speech in 2006, " Earth might end up like Venus, at 250 degrees centigrade and raining sulfuric acid."-Stephen Hawking, but then again what does this guy know about it compared to the knuckleheads on here.

What global warming!!

I cannot believe there still a debate on "global Warming" In my book, there is no such thing as global warming. It is just climate change that has been going on since the day of time. If people do not believe that, let me ask you this. How did the earth warm up after the ice age? We, as a nation, is going overboard with all the debates and taxpayers money that we are spending combating what is a normal cycle for the planet. We are not helping any by polluting the planet with trash we throw in the landfill. And by the way, This so called global warming Did not start the same year that President Bush took office. So people who think that, I have one thing to say GET OVER IT!!!!

I will state this as many

I will state this as many times as possible: The existence of natural climate cycles does not negate the possibility of humans affecting said cycle.

And who ever tried to argue that Bush created global warming??

Al Gore is a complete

Al Gore is a complete idiot!!! He has nothing better to do than pretend to be some kind of scientist who knows more than anyone else about global climate changes. This comes after his claims of being responsible for creating the internet. He is nothing but another socialist democrap making money for himself.

All propaganda contains at least SOME truth

Post #1) Here are the facts. The earth has (slightly) warmed in the last 150 yrs. But, our planet is just now emerging from the cold phenomenon known as the "Little Ice Ace". And, of course, CO2 is a (slightly) photo-reactive gas. However, the CO2/temperature effect is highly logarithmic. Meaning, CO2's temperature effect diminishes (dramatically) as the atmospheric concentrations rise. Most importantly, water vapor is by far the most potent "greenhouse gas", & mankind has absolutely no control over atmospheric water vapor concentrations whatsoever.

All propaganda contains at least SOME truth #2

Also, historically, increased atmospheric CO2 is a lagging indicator, of any increase in warmth. Meaning, ice core records clearly indicate that atmospheric temperatures always rise 600-800 years PRIOR to any significant increase of atmospheric CO2. Equally important, more than 97% of all atmospheric CO2 is naturally occurring. And, whenever we discuss these issues, we must learn and/or recall, earth's carbon cycle, & some basic science/physics. Cold water retains much more CO2 than warm water, & as atmospheric CO2 levels rise, various plant (C3-C4) & animal (most prominently, immeasurable tons of phytoplankton) lifeforms increase & sequester (bind & retain) an ever larger share of available CO2. Meaning, life (initially, largely oceanic) on earth increases & enter into the diverse food-chain.

All propaganda contains at least SOME truth #3

And significantly higher levels of plant (C3-C4) & animal life is dependent on additional CO2, to thrive. With all that true, anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 is not a significant issue. There is no way, & there will be no, man-made CO2 centered apocalypse. Anyone holding a contrary view, is ignoring these facts & relying on self generated faith in skewed misleading GCM's (computer generated ((garbage in = garbage out)) global climate models), rather than on well known principles & observational (sound) science, to make any such ludicrous claims.

news flash

today jue 6th 2009, it's snowing in north dakota and minnesota,uh! global what

Just another thought

Scientist say the co2 levels are rising in the atmosphere well do you think this could have more to do with trees being harvested at an alarming rate yearly? Since trees are the largest consumer of airborne co2. A good point from another commenter on here what did warm the earth after the ice age? Wasn't co2 from humans!

So we start cleaning up the

So we start cleaning up the air by reducing the man made pollutants, guess what? Those man made pollutants are filtering out around 20% of the suns rays. Less pollutants = more sun = more heat. Now what?

reality irrelevant to government

Very little progress will be made toward honest evaluation and self-check of "global warming" policies. This is because the issue enables government to expand and increase its own power with little or no restraint. Furthermore, through global warming and the "green" movement, government can enforce new restrictions over the mobility of its own citizens, many of whom will willingly acquiesce; this is a great power. Increasing power is why most officials have no interest in slowing this movement, much less debating or checking it. Global warming will simply be promoted as truth, while skepticism and reality are deemed irrelevant.


Regardless of your opinion on climate change, don't you think it is worth endeavoring to become energy independant? Do you like giving money to the middle east? How about getting better mpg and spending less on gas? How about conserving energy and finding cleaner alternatives to coal and oil? Do you really think the planet is a bottomless resource we can take from as the world population doubles before the end of the century? If climate change is bogus, so be it, we'll pollute less, save more, and extend our resourses. This is common sense.

Breathtaking ignorance

The ignorance displayed here is breathtaking. CO2 causes the Earth to retain heat. We are pumping BILLIONS OF TONS of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. Soon we will have DOUBLED the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. What effect will that have? It will cause the Earth to warm. Why is Venus hotter than Mercury, even though Mercury is millions of miles closer to the Sun? Because Venus has CO2 in its atmosphere. I have yet to see any articles claiming that CO2 is not the reason that Venus is hotter than Mercury. Why? Because there are no oil and coal companies on Venus! The scientists at MIT have just completed an exhaustive study of the effect of CO2 on world temperatures. You can read about it at this link...

Of course some of you think you are smarter than the scientists at MIT because you watch FoxNews!

MIT is NOT the end all to beat all in smarts

It is kind of ludicrous to rely on one source for information. Just because MIT has a study that says the sky is green, should I believe it? (ok, i know, they do not have that study). The premise of garbage in, garbage out (GIGO) is a POSSIBILITY with any study. Many things written here, such as LOG effects of CO2, water vapor have a greater sway, etc, are also valid statements which contradicts MIT.
Because you like to bring up Venus, ok, where are the SUVs and MAN on that planet that is ruining it or is it something else? Or did something else cause a high level of CO2 on venus and your studying the effect of something, vice the cause? GIGO. A venus study would support the notion that CO2 is more natural in nature vice man made on planets. Man is not on Venus, and there is a high level of CO2. If man is not there, then how did the CO2 get there at those dangerous levels? MUST be NATURAL. Mercury disipates its heat faster then Venus because what ever atmosphere tried to establish was burned away long time ago. No atmosphere, heat dissipates quicker. Also, are you taking AVG temp of mercury vice hottest and coldest?


Actually your comment is scientifically inaccurate. Water vapor in the first hundred meters above the ground is responsible for 80% of the global heat retention. Carbon dioxide is responsible for <0.1% of global heat retention. You would get more bang for the buck covering reservoirs and water sprinklers than in controlling carbon dioxide. Fortunately neither is necessary since this phenomenon actually is reflecting changes in solar sunspot activity. The melting of Martian ice caps is real but cannot be attributed to human generation of Carbon Dioxide - rather it reflects normal variations in solar activity as has happened in the over 600 periods of "global warming" seen in the last 1 million years.

Ever wonder if they publish this just to stay relevant?

The study you cite came from MIT's Center for Global Climate Change. No reason to think *they* may be biased, is there? I mean, if they found out that there wasn't any climate change (beyond the normal variation) they would put themselves out of a job, right?

That's the problem with the debate on global warming today. There's a lot of money and vested interest in seeing that the Earth *is* warming, in spite of any contrary evidence. For an intelligent and skeptical counter balance to the pro-warming media blitz, check out the site Watts up With That. This MIT study is dealt with briefly here:


It is a given that the earth

It is a given that the earth is warming faster than any given time according to recorded history and ice and tree ring samples. [if you don't know how this works, put down you Bible and learn some science]
Does it take an Einstein to figure out man is contributing to the problem?

Regardless of whether it is man made or natural, unfortunately I believe it cannot be reversed. Now if the poles do a 180 and the ocean currant changes [it has happened before] we could go into an ice age.

But down your Cult of Al bible

If mother earth decides to do this "shift" which I know what your talking about, we cannot stop it, nor is our feeble actions causing the earth to work toward that shift. If the earth is working towards that, we are just an ant pushing with an elephant against something, which is doing more?
Folks like to look to science for their arguments. How bout when the A bomb was set off, they actually thought there could be a chance that this bomb would be so powerful, that a chain reaction just might destroy the planet. That we harnessed the power of the universe. Just recently, scientists again fired off an experiment where there was a chance of cataclysmic earth ending consequences. The possibility was there, put the probability was not. There is something called a risk assessment, what is the probability of this adverse effect happening? The A bomb, this latest experiment, and CO2 global warming all have a possibility of complete destruction, but the probability are 10^-14% (NCguy odd generation, almost like MIT). If you want, we can double global warming, to 10^-13%. There, I think I can live with them odds.

Reality may be disturbing

beetle-juice wrote: "earth is warming faster... (snip) ...ice and tree ring samples"

Nonsense. Proxy data, such as "ice & tree ring samples" do not reflect true temperature history. It's impossible to separate the temperature signal from the precipitation signal with those methodologies. Also, we only have accurate (but not fully global) instrument data for the last 150 years. That data is primarily of Northern Hemisphere origin. Truly global satellite data collection didn't begin until the late 1990's, and Dr. Roy Spencer ( www.drroyspencer.com ), the principal researcher & pioneer of global satellite climate data collection, agrees with me. That being, anthropogenic CO2 will not cause any of the apocalyptic scenarios that Al Gore & the CO2 alarmist claim.

More reality that may be disturbing

Chris33 wrote: "CO2 causes the Earth to retain heat."

Although true to a point, you fail to fully recognize the physical characteristics of (photo-reactive) CO2. CO2's temperature effect is logarithmic. Meaning (again), in mixed atmosphere, the temperature effect of CO2 diminishes (is reduced) as CO2 concentrations rise. This is (in part) due to the limits of the shortwave (sunlight) energy's opportunity to strike CO2 (rather than another photo-reactive substance) & therefore convert through it, into longer wave (infrared-heat) energy.

Regarding the remainder of your hysterical post, stop acting out as a biased jejune fool. These are serious issues of science & important public policy, that deserve serious discussion, full understanding, & mature treatment as well.

Why not debate?

Why are Al Gore and the rest of the anthropogenic global warming 'experts' unwilling to have an open debate on the subject? If it is of dire world importance, then a live, televised debate would help everyone involved. Al Gore will not even submit to a question and answer session!

Here are a couple of interesting articles.



Where does all that heat go

you believe you just want to believe. I learned at a very young age that you need blankets in the desert in July. Just go out into one of America's vast deserts. Its a 110 f at 10 am. let that sun go down, set up a cot and stretch out for a hot nights sleep in the desert. I guarantee you will wake up in the middle of the night miserable cold. So where does all that heat go? My suspicion is right back out into space where it came from. There simply is no way that the co2 content of our atmosphere blocks the loss of heat energy that the planet radiates on its dark side. If you believe that then you simply have no concept of science or physics and you really should stop showing your ignorance...

The earth is a thermal mass and space is an infinite heat sink. Get over yourself.

Our Best Intentions Don’t Automatically Beget Good Science:

We live at a time in mankind’s history, which in the last 100-odd years, has made what is arguably the most dramatic advancements in the practical & theoretical sciences.

But, for all our knowledge, it would be narcissistic folly to claim that we have solved most of science’s riddles.

Or that we have developed a thoroughly explicit and accurate understanding of how the world works & what measures of control we as a species have, to shape or modify the world to suit our collective & individual needs.

Yet, not only have the socio-politically motivated Environmentalists & some members of the scientific community, made just those kinds of highly inflammatory & intellectually questionable pronouncements.

They have collectively engaged in a formal campaign of dogmatic rhetoric to browbeat into quiet submission, any and all who might question their motives, methods & conclusions.

The underlying agenda

The evidence for man-made global warming is far from definitive. There have been >600 periods of global warming in the last million years, what caused the other 599? The underlying agenda is to use the idea of global warming to justify increased taxation and the expansion of governmental power. With the fall of the USSR and the thorough discrediting of the ability of leftist governments to deliver the goods economically, the left has been thrashing around for some rationale to extend government. (Critical thing since most of the key supporters - public service workers, teachers unions, industrial unions, trial attorneys - either work for government or can only exist with a friendly government.) All the groups that live as parasites to government support want more money into the government. Global warming is the last gasp of the left in trying to expand government in an era when even the Communist Chinese and socialist Indians are shrinking government.

If this article doesn't sum up..

the typical mindset of the leftist media, nothing will. Hardly any media bothered to cover this. The reason for that is simple: their Dem Party masters won't allow it. The Dems have made it clear that global warming is going to be the new 'Bible' that they preach from, and all other considerations, possibly even truth and facts, be darned!

I say 'possibly', because I'd like to see unfettered, non-political analysis of this issue. It has become so politicized that no one can come to a reasonable conclusion, it's all based on which side of the political spectrum one views the world from. That is sad, and that is squarely on the media for that state of affairs. The Pilot's editors will not even allow for discussion of this within their walls, if one is not on the GW bandagon, they will not even give that person the time of day. I know this from personal interactions with some of them. But at least this article shows how snarky the media truly is about this issue.

beetle-juice - faith and science

I wish I had your faith... to be able to believe in global warming as told by Al Gore and his disciples(those so called scientists counting tree rings) while watching it snow in June makes me feel inadequate in my faith.

As a student, I was taught that when performing an experiment, you should always use the same methods at the beginning of an experiment and at the end of the experiment so you can get accurate results... you know, like taking an insignificant sample of tree ring data at the beginning of the experiment, then use high tech satellite and hundreds of other (and should I dare say, faulty) temperature measuring devices at the end of the experiment. Then come up with a predetermined conclusion that makes you wealthy... and with the help of Al Gore and Jeffery Immelt (you know, the head of GE, MSNBC, NBC and other insignificant news media) pushing their agenda on the weak minded... well I have a feeling that if they get their way, they'll make Bill Gates look like a pauper.

Think for yourself! If global warming is a crises, you need to look at the contrasts... ask youself what should our climate look like now if there wasn't global warming? If it does exist, when yo

which religion?

I believe that God is in control of EVERYTHING. That would be including our climate. To think that we, as human beings can alter the heating or cooling of our planet is absurd! Why would I believe the "religion" of Al Gore and put my faith in what he says over what God says. So all you people who make fun of us Christians for our faith in God should stop being hypocrites because you are putting your FAITH in someone who is just out to make money and who cares nothing about you.

God has a plan for his people and his earth. When it is time for earth as we know it to end it WILL end and it will be because of HIS will, not because of anything we did.

Cap & Trade Legislation

Cap & Trade legislation as proposed is simply this...A company that emits air pollution is given a cap on the pollution it is allowed to emit. Once that cap is reached, the company can then purchase carbon offsets "permits" to emit more pollution.

The carbon offsets are made available by farmers, who may not be planning to farm certain areas of their farms anyway. For example, if Farmer Ted owns 600 acres and farms only 400 and the remainder is covered in trees, he can sell carbon offset credits for his 200 acres of trees. A Carbon Offset Broker will then sell the carbon offsets to the "polluter" and the "polluter" will then be allowed to "pollute" just as much as they did before except it will cost them more. These costs will of course be passed on the the consumer. So, the "polluter" still emits just as much as they did prior to the Cap & Trade legislation.
If this legislation were really about cutting down or eliminating the "harmful emissions" it would simply be called "CAP and NO MORE". Once you hit the "CAP", you cannot emit any more pollution.
Who profits from the proposed legislation? Looks like only the carbon offset provider, (in the example, the farmer who wasn'


What happened to the global warming period that appeared about 900 years ago that allowed Vikings and such to travel and settle the new world?
It is all a cycle. Why do I find fossils of rain forest plants here in the desert? It is all acycle.
Why do Al Gore and such have to use doctored photos to bolster their argument? When they have to lie, I presume it it is all fluff.

Disney educated global warming political-scientists

It's obvious the global warming political-scientists have ignored scientific method in order to pursue the riches of government funded global warming grants! Real scientists would utilize scientific method before they ran out to scare the pants off of everyone with their sky-is-falling chicken little scenarios. Where is the big money at - studying so-called "manmade" global warming, or studying the lack of manmade global warming? Obviously, the only area of study receiving money is pro-manmade global warming!!

All plant life is dependant upon CO2 as a food source. Global warming fanatics are unable to explain how plants discern the difference between good, "naturally occurring" CO2 and the evil manmade CO2 "pollution". It's simple: more CO2, more plants, more biodiversity! Less CO2, less plants, less biodiversity.

Earth is constantly evolving - not just the creatures that live on the planet, but Earth itself is evolving. And that includes the climate. Global warming con men want us to believe that the earth temperature should be constant. For some odd reason, the government funded manmade global warming drones don't believe in planetary evolution! That is reason enough to

Disney educated global warming political-scientists II

Earth is constantly evolving - not just the creatures that live on the planet, but Earth itself is evolving. And that includes the climate. Global warming con men want us to believe that the earth temperature should be constant. For some odd reason, the government funded manmade global warming drones don't believe in planetary evolution! That is reason enough to ignore these fools.

If CO2 is truly a "pollutant" then it is incumbant upon us to scrub ALL CO2 "pollution" from the atmosphere - not just the small percentage of "manmade" CO2. If a little manmade CO2 is pollution, then ALL CO2 is pollution, right? Is now the time for a CO2 Superfund to clean the planet of this dangerous, poisonous trace gas, CO2??


Beetle-juice needs to check

Beetle-juice needs to check his facts. We are not in one of the fastest warming periods by any count. And carbon dioxide levels have been much higher than they are now. YES, the globe warms. And yes it cools. When the Vikings colonized "Greenland", they called it that because they found it to be warm, green, and an excellent place to raise crops and live. Then came the "little ice-age". When the glaciers of Greenland melt we will be at the level of "global warming" that they were. Until then, or perhaps much beyond then, quit worrying about "global warming" and recognize this political (and not scientific) movement for what it is!

Global climate 101

The Earth is heated by two primary sources: the Sun and the Atmosphere.
The Atmosphere is heated by one primary source: the Sun.
The reason is scale: Sun huge, Atmosphere big, Earth small.

President Obama Changing Global Warming

Politics, ie global warming, is just like statistics or the Bible. You can use them to prove anything you want! The only difference is that Obama, and his supporters, think he is the Messiah and can do anything. Wake up and get real. God, not man, controls the universe!

Some hard cold facts

CO2's role: CO2 is just one of many O2 components in the atmosphere. It doesn't absorb any more heat per molecule than any other. It exists at less than .04% while O2 exists at 21%.

Rumors: Some have tried to claim that somehow CO2 more closely matches some "Narrow" band coming from the Sun with no real evidence to back up that claim - that sames very unlikely at this point.

Stats: They don't back a CO2 causality link, unless you deliberately ignore large chunks of them - as the IPCC editorial staff has done, apparently for political reasons. In fact they show that CO2 may be a trailing indicator, by 300 to 700 years.

Politics: Cap/Trade & CO2 taxes would transfer over $3,000 US per person to the government every year.

Al Gore Invests Millions to Make Billions in Cap-and-Trade Softw

Someone sure is getting rich on your expense

Operating as a stealth tax, cap-and-trade will make the vast majority of Americans poorer and less free — but Al Gore, Kleiner Perkins, Amit Chatterjee and Hara will be laughing all the way to the bank.


Green House effect

Not a scientist first off.

I took many science classes: biology, astronomy, some chemistry, and many labs. The first thing my professors warned me about was even supposed hard facts could be changed overnight. This is why I couldn't do buy-back on my books. Facts, to me, are nothing more than confirmed hypothesises until just 1!!! person finds a variation that doesn't work. The odds are that (just look at any thing written 100+ years ago and how certain people were of themselves) we are wrong about many things.

I'm not the kind of person that instantly jumps on the "the world is gonna be nuked," "the Earth is heating up and New Jersey will be an underwater museum," bandwagon. Just look at all the pharmeceutical companies and their failed drugs that do more harm than good.

I'm a realist; therefore, I ask if the CO^2 emissons are excessive, the ocean's are so acidic, the rainforest is being turned into grazeland, there are no more fireflys or few amphibians, or that the loss of coral reefs are bringing about the end of the world...where do we draw the conclusion that it is all 100% bad. Life evolves, just look at what happened to the dinosaurs. Just look at the black

Why is it bad?? The

Why is it bad?? The primordial soup that was the beginning of life on earth is over, never to happen again. A drastic climate change could wipe out all life on earth. Life will be no more and it will never come about as it had done in the beginning. Now lets say we are the fluke of the universe, that is why earth supports life. Pretty scary to think the only life in the entire universe could be wiped out by mans indifference to his planet.

what is the truth?

I am totally open minded about this, and I reject the cult like 'believers' who keep claiming man-made warming is a 'fact' which is only questioned by right-wing fanatics. Any pure scientist would welcome debate and scrutiny in order to refine their theories. Likewise, anyone who rejects the theory COMPLETELY, is also lacking objectivity, because there is enough scientific data to demonstrate we should be concerned AND need to do more research.

One 'believer' posted this link to support and inform people.

I just read the entire piece and was left with a few questions. Weart's writing plainly states that CO2 is a lagging indicator, and then states it causes a feedback loop which amplifies the effect. If that was the case, then what broke the loop in previous warm cycles? That is not addressed but seems like an important piece of the puzzle, especially if they maintain we are in one of these feedback loops now...

And the conclusion states that if human's moved to producing zero CO2 emissions, the warming cycle would continue (because of the feedback loop) for a few more centuries, after which a new equilibrium would be reached with

continuation part 2

Just look at the black moths vs the white moths of Russia after the coal pollution.

The Earth was formed 4 billion years ago, and in that time it has seen asteroid collisions, violent gamma bursts, volcanic eruptions, a moon with greater tidal force, and yet here we are.

Tree samples, ice samples, and ozone layers are just 3 things that may mean nothing in the long run. Unless these scientists test every aspect under ever condition, there is nothing that can be made fact. Yet, everyone knows, that to test every thing would be pedantic, costly, and lose funding, interest, or prove that our methods of inductive reasoning is merely generalizing the facts or leaving them for religion to claim that "one does not play God."

We must never forget that life will survive, even if it means the replacement of humans with cockroaches; life will survive on a world similar to Venus if it had been like ours. My best guess is that Venus never had life to begin with. Yet look at Earth, they found micro-organisms in lava and glaciers.

Bacteria rapildy evolves to the conditions; we don't evolve so quickly.

I digress, but this could mean we could infect Mars or Mars could infect u

Turn your money over to fat Al.

Of course the climate is cooling! Global warming CAUSES Global cooling. The only way to stop this vicious cycle is to turn your money over to fat Al.

Global Warmers have no credibility

Man made global warming advocates, whether scientists with PhDs or the ignorant pro global warming laymen posting comments here, have no credibility until they can explain away the Medieval Warm Period (MWP). None of the global warming hucksters (excuse me, it's now "Climate Change" hucksters, as the earth has been steadily cooling since 1998...), such as Algore and James Hanson ever mentions the Medieval Warm Period because none of their theories and none of their computer models (Garbage In, Garbage Out) can deal with it.

It's an historical fact that the Vikings grew grapes on Greenland around the 11th and 12th centuries, proving the earth was at least 5 degrees warmer back then than it is now. Where were the coal fired power plants and SUVs belching CO2 into the atmosphere 800 years ago? The REAL Inconvenient Truth is that no matter how much grant money governments shovel their way to generate those theories, and no matter how much the mainstream media parrots those theories while ignoring anything the the contrary (above article excepted..), until all those scientists lining up behind Algore can reconcile their theories with the Medievel Warm Period, their theories are bunk.

From chris33...

"The ignorance displayed here is breathtaking. CO2 causes the Earth to retain heat. We are pumping BILLIONS OF TONS of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. Soon we will have DOUBLED the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. What effect will that have? It will cause the Earth to warm."

The President's own science 'Czar' is proposing, if the need arises, to shoot pollution into the atmosphere to 'help keep the sun out'. The site below is one of many that show this:


If we're supposed to be getting rid of pollution to save the planet, why would pollution be part of the fix? It appears to one and all that the alleged 'cures' are far more lethal than the problems they are suppose to address.

The 'ignorance displayed here', indeed!

Follow the Money

Two points:1. Money and 2. Power.

Money: Who stands to profit from the new "Global Warming Religion"? When Al Gore left office he had a net worth of around two million dollars. Now he is worth over $100 million! Its time for everyone to wake up and see this fantasy for what it is; a new source of tax advantaged money for the Leftist Political Class.

Power: If the Socialist can replace our Private Sector controlled Petroleum Based Energy Economy with a Government Based "Green Energy" based economy, they will pretty much control all our lives from cradle to grave.

This is what they want: Money and Power.

Green jobs

Hilda Solis on C-Span this A.M. Talks about all the $ the government is pouring in to retrain otherwise unemployed and unemployable people for green jobs This is hand in glove with the alleged global warming "fact" which, according to the proponents, must be countered with clean and "green" energy production. I don't think there is a big demand for "green energy" trained rank and file workers at this time. These people being retrained for jobs of that kind will not find them available without the government also legislating and narrowing the legal supply of energy to fit the training they will be giving these folks. That will be a huge whack in Free enterprise and lead only to more socialism. Some day, there may actually be the kind of green jobs these people are "preparing" these folks to perform and for the rest of us to accept. As of now, I think all the "green" is government money going into the pockets of selected individuals who are "recognized" as the only ones with the knowledge, vision, and ability to convince the rest of us they know what they are doing. All is being spent on additional research and presently valueless training.

The cap & trade shell game has been tried and failed

In the EU they have had Cap & Trade for awhile now.

Even if CO2 was a "pollutant", this wouldn't be the way to deal with it.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emission_Trading_Scheme


Whatever the climate does in our lifetimes we can adapt to. We have brains and opposable thumbs.

If water levels rise, we can build levies - using New Orleans as an example of what not to do.

If the temperature drops, we can build more nuke plants.

If the roads freeze over, we can spread more salt.

If that doesn't work we can build cars that drive and/or fly over the ice.

It is apparent that some

It is apparent that some people have forgotten how one small incident, the eruption of Mt. St. Helen affected the climate of the US for three years. Now take into consideration the massive amounts of hydrocarbons being strewn into the atmosphere. What do suppose would be the outcome, nothing?

Do scientists have a definitive test to demonstrate how mankind is affecting the climate? No. Do they have a reasonable hypotheses based on a myriad of evidence? Yes. And for that person who thinks that because it is snowing in one area during the wrong time of year changes the fact that the Polar ice cap is melting at an alarming rate, such a statement is referred to as "junk science".

Regardless of whether or not the climate change is mostly man made or an earth cycle, it is happening and I seriously doubt we can do anything to change it.

Global Warming Hoax

Amen! The garbage that the far left has been spewing is exactly the reason why Europe is finally coming to their senses and voting out the liberal majority! If only America could regain her conservative stance-- think the Reagan era-- we could begin to climb out of the mess that the "anointed one", aka Obama, has created for us, our children, our grandchildren, and most likely, our great-grandchildren. What goes around comes around...

Global warming IS the United Nations' way of striving for power and anyone who buys into those theories needs to start thinking independently instead of believing everything they hear, read, and watch in the super-liberalized media. Yes, recycling is good. Yes, saving endangered species and rainforest is good. Yes, reducing pollution is good. No, fat people are not contributing to global warming. NO, I will not adhere to a climate-friendly, low-carbon diet. No, I will not support the government's push for control over what kind/color of car I can buy. NO, I will not support government's push for control over my AC/thermostat in MY home. Let's not forget-- People exhale carbon dioxide. Plants need carbon dioxide to grow. Plants give off oxygen. Peo



There it is in black and white, all the "garbage" on global warming from scientists who got past high school chemistry. The right bell dingers love a good conspiracy.
Take note, it has been posted before Obama was elected to ruin the lives of the lay scientists.

Reply to beetle-juice

beetle juice wrote: "Regardless of whether or not the climate change is mostly man made or an earth cycle, it is happening and I seriously doubt we can do anything to change it."

Acknowledging that until Dr. Roy Spencer (and later, others) began assessing earth's atmospheric temperature trend with satellite measurements, quantifying earth's temperature was an imprecise science at best. Therefore, we have no precise average any longer than the beginning of Spencer's precision data-stream, that began in earnest during the middle 1990's. Since the late 1990's, global atmospheric temperature has been quiescent (although an insubstantial cooling trend has emerged) for nearly eleven years. This is occurring despite atmospheric CO2 levels continuing to (slightly) increase throughout the entire period. With all that so, we should abstain from embracing dogma, & return to the hard work of understanding climate, before we assume to control it.


The most aggravating thing about topics like Global Warming is that everyone fancies themselves to be an expert. How many references to the Vikings appear in this thread? All, no doubt, made by people who know absolutely nothing about Vikings beyond what they think they heard somewhere from someone.

While I don't presume to be an expert (unlike many foolish people here), I think we should all agree that opinions made by people who confuse weather and climate are worthless.

Too Funny

"Europe is finally coming to their senses and voting out the liberal majority! If only America could regain her conservative stance"

Remember the saying, be careful of what you wish for?

"Fighting climate change was also a priority for the center-right, which still favors spending more than Europe's free-market Liberal Democrats or many conservatives in the United States."

On Tuesday, June 2, 2009...

there was an article in the Pilot's Op-Ed pages titled "Cap and trade is all cost, no benefit". The author is a Harvard professor, and he appears to support cap and trade as a practice, but recognizes, and thus cautions, against its implementation because there will be no 'payoff' unless other countries are part of ironclad agreements to do the same. In particular, he cites China and India. His main point is that there will be no significant return on efforts in this country by way of cap and trade if those 2 nations continue with their present environmental policies, i.e., any 'cleaned air' here will be negated by the increasingly 'dirtied air' there! Martin feldstein is the profesor's name, and I recommend to all that they seek this article out. It is available in the Pilot's archives, but that will change soon..

"There it is in black and white"

Reply to beetle-juice.

Your EPA website does indeed contain some truth.

However, as I've stated before on this thread, "All propaganda contains at least some truth".

Unfortunately, your EPA website does not address many issues of contention within the climate science debate. And it appears to deliberately minimize, gloss over, or ignore, any & all information outside of their propaganda agreement.

With that true, I invite you to study the 880 page 2009 NIPCC Report (the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change) here: http://www.heartland.org/publications/NIPCC%20report/PDFs/NIPCC%20Final.pdf

I'll be (somewhat) available, and happy to discuss, any area of the report you may wish to dispute, and/or better comprehend.

If CO2 is the culprit..

then stopping the pillaging of the rain forests world wide should be the FIRST priority. Don't trees absorb CO2? It would be interesting to see any scientific measurements correlating CO2 increases with measurable rain forest destruction.

follow the money

According to ExxonSecrets.org, the Heartland Institute received $561,500 (unadjusted for inflation) from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005. They're just doing what Big Oil pays them to do. Thank you, Scott, for seeing the conference for what it really was.


TheGreenMiles wrote: "ExxonSecrets"

Who "funds" "ExxonSecrets"?

Discover The Networks reports it is a Greenpeace affiliate, "funded" by many Leftist individuals, foundations & groups.

Including: the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Bauman Family Foundation, the Blue Moon Fund, the Columbia Foundation, the Compton Foundation, the Minneapolis Foundation, the Nathan Cummings Foundation, the Scherman Foundation, Ted Turner's Turner Foundation. The organization has also drawn support from numerous celebrities, including singers Sting, Tom Jones, and Elton John, who have sponsored its "save the rainforest" campaigns.

In 2004, Greenpeace received $15,844,752 in grants, and held net assets of $1,893,548. That same year, the Greenpeace Fund received grants totaling $6,866,534 and held net assets of $7,532,018.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Please note: Threaded comments work best if you view the oldest comments first.

Daily Deal |  | Promote your business