# The North Pole could melt this year



## Chris (Jun 27, 2008)

North Pole could be ice-free this summer, scientists say

By Alan Duke
CNN

(CNN) -- The North Pole may be briefly ice-free by September as global warming melts away Arctic sea ice, according to scientists from the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado.


Scientists say it's a 50-50 bet that the thin Arctic sea ice will completely melt away at the geographic North Pole.

 "We kind of have an informal betting pool going around in our center and that betting pool is 'does the North Pole melt out this summer?' and it may well," said the center's senior research scientist Mark Serreze.

It's a 50-50 bet that the thin Arctic sea ice, which was frozen last autumn, will completely melt away at the geographic North Pole, Serreze said.

The ice retreated to a record level in September when the Northwest Passage -- the sea route through the Arctic Ocean -- opened up briefly for the first time in recorded history.

"What we've seen through the past few decades is the Arctic sea ice cover is becoming thinner and thinner as the system warms up," Serreze said.

Specific weather patterns will determine whether the North Pole's ice cover melts completely this summer, he said.

Don't Miss
Special Report:  Planet in Peril 
Study: Global warming sends plants uphill 
Global warming could increase terrorism, official says 
"Last year, we had sort of a perfect weather pattern to get rid of ice to open up that Northwest Passage," Serreze said. "This year, a different pattern can set up so maybe we'll preserve some ice there. We're in a wait-and-see mode right now. We'll see what happens."

The brief lack of ice at the top of the globe will not bring any immediate consequences, he said.

"From the viewpoint of the science, the North Pole is just another point in the globe, but it does have this symbolic meaning," Serreze said. "There's supposed to be ice at the North Pole. The fact that we may not have any by the end of this summer could be quite a symbolic change."

Serreze said it's "just another indicator of the disappearing Arctic sea ice cover" but that it is happening so soon is "just astounding to me."

"Five years ago, to think that we'd even be talking about the possibility of the North Pole melting out in the summer, I would have never thought it," he said.

The melting, however, has been long seen as inevitable, he said.

"If you talked to me or other scientists just a few years ago, we were saying that we might lose all or most of the summer sea ice cover by anywhere from 2050 to 2100," Serreze said. "Then, recently, we kind of revised those estimates, maybe as early as 2030. Now, there's people out there saying it might be even before that. So, things are happening pretty quick up there."

Serreze said those who suggest the Arctic meltdown is just part of a historic cycle are wrong.

"It's not cyclical at this point. I think we understand the physics behind this pretty well," he said. "We've known for at least 30 years, from our earliest climate models, that it's the Arctic where we'd see the first signs of global warming.

"It's a situation where we hate to say we told you so, but we told you so," he said.

Serreze said the Arctic sea ice will not be the same for decades.

"If we had a few cold years in a row, we could put sort of a temporary damper on it, but I think at this point going to an ice-free Arctic Ocean is inevitable," he said. "I don't think we can stop that now."

Reduced greenhouse gas emissions could "cool things down a bit," he said.

"It would recover fairly quickly, but it's just not going to happen for a while," he said. "I think we're committed at this point."

There are some positive aspects to the ice melting, he said. Ships could use the Northwest Passage to save time and energy by no longer having to travel through the Panama Canal or around Cape Horn.

"There's also, or course, oil at the bottom of the Arctic Ocean," he said. "Now, the irony of that is kind of clear but the fact that we are opening up the Arctic Ocean does make it more accessible."


----------



## Abelian Sea (Jun 27, 2008)

Nuuuu! Poor Santa 







*"There's also, or course, oil at the bottom of the Arctic Ocean," he said. "Now, the irony of that is kind of clear but the fact that we are opening up the Arctic Ocean does make it more accessible." *

So _that's_ how he's been funding his operation all these years


----------



## nomdeplume (Jun 27, 2008)

What's next a "save the ice campaign" from greenpeace? Bombing of refrigerator factories that subjugate the poor endangered ice within it?

When antarctica starts melting(instead of thickening like its been doing for years), give me a call. Until then, this is all pointless bullshit.


----------



## Chris (Jun 28, 2008)

nomdeplume said:


> What's next a "save the ice campaign" from greenpeace? Bombing of refrigerator factories that subjugate the poor endangered ice within it?
> 
> When antarctica starts melting(instead of thickening like its been doing for years), give me a call. Until then, this is all pointless bullshit.



Escalating Ice Loss Found in Antarctica
Sheets Melting in an Area Once Thought to Be Unaffected by Global Warming

By Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, January 14, 2008; A01



Climatic changes appear to be destabilizing vast ice sheets of western Antarctica that had previously seemed relatively protected from global warming, researchers reported yesterday, raising the prospect of faster sea-level rise than current estimates.

While the overall loss is a tiny fraction of the miles-deep ice that covers much of Antarctica, scientists said the new finding is important because the continent holds about 90 percent of Earth's ice, and until now, large-scale ice loss there had been limited to the peninsula that juts out toward the tip of South America. In addition, researchers found that the rate of ice loss in the affected areas has accelerated over the past 10 years -- as it has on most glaciers and ice sheets around the world.

"Without doubt, Antarctica as a whole is now losing ice yearly, and each year it's losing more," said Eric Rignot, lead author of a paper published online in the journal Nature Geoscience.

The Antarctic ice sheet is shrinking despite land temperatures for the continent remaining essentially unchanged, except for the fast-warming peninsula.

The cause, Rignot said, may be changes in the flow of the warmer water of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current that circles much of the continent. Because of changed wind patterns and less-well-understood dynamics of the submerged current, its water is coming closer to land in some sectors and melting the edges of glaciers deep underwater.

"Something must be changing the ocean to trigger such changes," said Rignot, a senior scientist with NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. "We believe it is related to global climate forcing."

Rignot said the tonnage of yearly ice loss in Antarctica is approaching that of Greenland, where ice sheets are known to be melting rapidly in some parts and where ancient glaciers have been in retreat. He said the change in Antarctica could become considerably more dramatic because the continent's western shelf, an expanse of ice and snow roughly the size of Texas, is largely below sea level and has broad and flat expanses of ice that could move quickly. Much of Greenland's ice flows through relatively narrow valleys in mountainous terrain, which slows its motion.

The new finding comes days after the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said the group's next report should look at the "frightening" possibility that ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica could melt rapidly at the same time.

"Both Greenland and the West Antarctic ice sheet are huge bodies of ice and snow, which are sitting on land," said Rajendra Pachauri, chief of the IPCC, the United Nations' scientific advisory group. "If, through a process of melting, they collapse and are submerged in the sea, then we really are talking about sea-level rises of several meters." (A meter is about a yard.) Last year, the IPCC tentatively estimated that sea levels would rise by eight inches to two feet by the end of the century, assuming no melting in West Antarctica.

The new Antarctic ice findings are based on mapping of 85 percent of the continent over the past decade using radar data from European, Japanese and Canadian weather satellites. Previous studies had detected the beginning of ice loss in West Antarctica and substantial loss along the peninsula, but the current research found significantly greater changes.

Rignot and his team found that East Antarctica, which holds a majority of the continent's ice, has not experienced the same kind of loss -- probably because most of the ice sits atop land rather than below sea level, as in the west. In several coastal areas of East Antarctica, however, small but similar losses have been detected, he said.

In all, snowfall and ice loss in East Antarctica have about equaled out over the past 10 years, leaving that part of the continent unchanged in terms of total ice. But in West Antarctica, the ice loss has increased by 59 percent over the past decade to about 132 billion metric tons a year, while the yearly loss along the peninsula has increased by 140 percent to 60 billion metric tons. Because the ice being lost is generally near the bottom of glaciers, the glacier moves faster into the water and thins further, as a result. Rignot said there has been evidence of ice loss going back as far as 40 years.

The new findings come as the Arctic is losing ice at a dramatic rate and glaciers are in retreat across the planet. At a recent annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union, Ohio State University professor Lonnie Thompson delivered a keynote lecture that described a significant speed-up in the melting of high-altitude glaciers in tropical regions, including Peru, Tibet and Mount Kilimanjaro in Kenya.

Thompson, who has studied the Quelccaya glacier in the Peruvian Andes for 30 years, said that for the first half of that period, it retreated on average 20 feet per year. For the past 15 years, he said, it has retreated an average of nearly 200 feet per year.

"The information from Antarctica is consistent with what we are seeing in all other areas with glaciers -- a melting or retreat that is occurring faster than predicted," he said. "Glaciers, and especially the high-elevation tropical glaciers, are a real canary in the coal mine. They're telling us that major climatic changes are occurring."

While the phenomenon of ice loss worldwide is well documented, the dynamics in the Antarctic are probably the least understood. Glaciers and ice sheets are sometimes miles deep, and researchers do not know what might be happening at the bottom of the ice -- but it clearly is being lost along the peninsula and West Antarctic coast.

Rignot theorizes that the warmer water of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current is the cause. Douglas Martinson, a senior research scientist fellow at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, has studied the issue and agrees.

Martinson said the current, which flows about 200 yards below the frigid surface water, began to warm significantly in the 1980s, and that warming in turn caused wind patterns to change in ways that ultimately brought more warm water to shore. The result has been an increased erosion of the glaciers and ice sheets.

Martinson said researchers do not have enough data to say for certain that the process was set in motion by global warming, but "that is clearly the most logical answer."

Pachauri, the IPCC's chief of climate science, will visit Antarctica this week with Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg to get a firsthand view of the situation.

"You can read as much as you want on these subjects, but it doesn't really enter your system. You don't really appreciate the enormity of what you have," Pachauri said.


----------



## nomdeplume (Jun 28, 2008)

I'm not even reading whatever you posted because I know it's not true. Sure, some parts of antarctica are melting, but others are thickening. When it's all melting, then there is some ground for concern. The north pole's ice melting is nothing. And its bullshit to claim that it has never happened before. We know the north pole, in the past, has existed without ice. Sorry that we didn't have a historian sitting on the north pole to "record it in the historical record". Nothing but a bunch of intellectual dishonesty.


----------



## Chris (Jun 28, 2008)

nomdeplume said:


> I'm not even reading whatever you posted because I know it's not true. Sure, some parts of antarctica are melting, but others are thickening. When it's all melting, then there is some ground for concern. The north pole's ice melting is nothing. And its bullshit to claim that it has never happened before. We know the north pole, in the past, has existed without ice. Sorry that we didn't have a historian sitting on the north pole to "record it in the historical record". Nothing but a bunch of intellectual dishonesty.



It is obvious you are not reading. 

Facts interfere with your world view.


----------



## nomdeplume (Jun 28, 2008)

Kirk said:


> It is obvious you are not reading.
> 
> Facts interfere with your world view.



I talk to a geologist at least 2-3 times a week. They share and use all the analystical chem labs at my university, and all have PhD. North pole's ice is a complete "non issue" according to all I've spoken to.


----------



## Chris (Jun 28, 2008)

nomdeplume said:


> I talk to a geologist at least 2-3 times a week. They share and use all the analystical chem labs at my university, and all have PhD. North pole's ice is a complete "non issue" according to all I've spoken to.



Wow! You talked to a geologist who thinks that the North Pole melting is a non issue. How convincing an argument is that?

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen by one third in the last 200 years. CO2 is now at the highest level ever tested, and the Antarctic ice core record goes back 600,000 years. Half the North Polar Ice Cap has melted in the last 50 years, and the rate of melting is accelerating. Fortunately for us, Antarctica has so much land based ice, that it is much harder for rising temperatures to effect it.But now Antarctica has begun to melt. If Antarctica melts then global seal levels will rise 20 feet. Ask your geologist friend if that will be a problem.


----------



## nomdeplume (Jun 28, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Wow! You talked to a geologist who thinks that the North Pole melting is a non issue. How convincing an argument is that?
> he amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen by one third in the last 200 years. .



 Nice non-sequitur. What, you think the north pole is made of *DRY *ice? ROFL


----------



## Chris (Jun 28, 2008)

nomdeplume said:


> Nice non-sequitur. What, you think the north pole is made of *DRY *ice? ROFL



CO2 is not a "non-sequitur?" 

Greenhouse gases are warming the planet, and you have no facts to refute that.


----------



## nomdeplume (Jun 28, 2008)

Kirk said:


> CO2 is not a "non-sequitur?"
> 
> Greenhouse gases are warming the planet, and you have no facts to refute that.


Yes, your comment was non-sequitur. Take a basic logic class and you will know why, though you are probably too stupid to get it even then.

Run chicken litte, run. I hear mars is nice this time of year. Oh, but wait. Its ice caps are melting, too. Last I checked there weren't any martian SUVs out there.


----------



## Chris (Jun 28, 2008)

nomdeplume said:


> Yes, your comment was non-sequitur. Take a basic logic class and you will know why, though you are probably too stupid to get it even then.
> 
> Run chicken litte, run. I hear mars is nice this time of year. Oh, but wait. Its ice caps are melting, too. Last I checked there weren't any martian SUVs out there.



Insults are not convincing arguments.

We are pumping millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. This is warming the earth. Not too hard to figure out.


----------



## nomdeplume (Jun 28, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Insults are not convincing arguments.
> 
> We are pumping millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. This is warming the earth. Not too hard to figure out.



Sure it is. But how much? That's the question. Is it of any significance or consequence? What is warming mars? The hot air global warming alarmist are always blowing?


----------



## BrianH (Jun 28, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Wow! You talked to a geologist who thinks that the North Pole melting is a non issue. How convincing an argument is that?
> 
> The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen by one third in the last 200 years. CO2 is now at the highest level ever tested, and the Antarctic ice core record goes back 600,000 years. Half the North Polar Ice Cap has melted in the last 50 years, and the rate of melting is accelerating. Fortunately for us, Antarctica has so much land based ice, that it is much harder for rising temperatures to effect it.But now Antarctica has begun to melt. If Antarctica melts then global seal levels will rise 20 feet. Ask your geologist friend if that will be a problem.



water vapor is more of a green house gas than CO2, and the sun has the most affect on our globe.  The ice caps of mars are retreating as well....


----------



## BrianH (Jun 28, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Insults are not convincing arguments.
> 
> We are pumping millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. This is warming the earth. Not too hard to figure out.



Kirk, what warmed the earth at the end of the Ice Age as well as the Little Ice Age that peaked in the 1700s?  What caused the ice?  There is no doubt that we are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere and we should clean up our act.  But do not jump on the first GW wagon you see and claim that the earth is warming because of humans.  Sure, we pollute and we put CO2 in the air, but it's not even close to being the main cause.


----------



## Chris (Jun 28, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Kirk, what warmed the earth at the end of the Ice Age as well as the Little Ice Age that peaked in the 1700s?  What caused the ice?  There is no doubt that we are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere and we should clean up our act.  But do not jump on the first GW wagon you see and claim that the earth is warming because of humans.  Sure, we pollute and we put CO2 in the air, but it's not even close to being the main cause.



The Little Ice Age was caused by the eruption of volcanoes near the earth's equator, but no one disputes this because the oil and coal companies don't own any volcanoes.


----------



## BrianH (Jun 28, 2008)

Kirk said:


> The Little Ice Age was caused by the eruption of volcanoes near the earth's equator, but no one disputes this because the oil and coal companies don't own any volcanoes.



And the other things I addressed?


----------



## Chris (Jun 28, 2008)

BrianH said:


> And the other things I addressed?



Mars wobbles on its axis a great deal more than earth. Check out this link.


SPACE.com -- Wobbles of Mars Produced 40 Ice Ages


----------



## Chris (Jun 28, 2008)

And the Stanford Solar Center....

Global Warming -- Research Issues


----------



## nomdeplume (Jun 28, 2008)

Kirk said:


> And the Stanford Solar Center....
> 
> Global Warming -- Research Issues





I think the point is a bit lost on you. People point to Mars to demonstrate that's not just greenhouse gasses that cause climatic change. It would be nice to write it off to "wobble" effects, except that the entire planet has warmed over .5 Centigrade in the last thirty some years. The global warming notballs are busy tripping over themselves trying to explain it. yes, turbo-lava flows causing wind and dust to migrate. Uh-huh. The whole fucking planet is a dustball. There is dust blowing in from where you just blew it away. Junk science. No one is saying GW isn't real, just that it's much bigger than humans and our role may be negligible

Maybe we have too many non-white people being born on planet earth and they are reflecting too much light back into the atmosphere. Doh! Just using a little GW nutball logic. Don't mind me.


----------



## Chris (Jun 28, 2008)

nomdeplume said:


> I think the point is a bit lost on you. People point to Mars to demonstrate that's not just greenhouse gasses that cause climatic change. It would be nice to write it off to "wobble" effects, except that the entire planet has warmed over .5 Centigrade in the last thirty some years. The global warming notballs are busy tripping over themselves trying to explain it. yes, turbo-lava flows causing wind and dust to migrate. Uh-huh. The whole fucking planet is a dustball. There is dust blowing in from where you just blew it away. Junk science. No one is saying GW isn't real, just that it's much bigger than humans and our role may be negligible
> 
> Maybe we have too many non-white people being born on planet earth and they are reflecting too much light back into the atmosphere. Doh! Just using a little GW nutball logic. Don't mind me.



Everyone who disagrees with you is a nutball.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by one third in the last 200 years. It is now at the highest level ever recorded, and the ice core record goes back 600,000 years. Do you really think that increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere by one third has no effect?


----------



## BrianH (Jun 28, 2008)

Kirk said:


> And the Stanford Solar Center....
> 
> Global Warming -- Research Issues



All planets in our solar system are warming....it cannot be simply written off as more wobble than earth.  The earth is also closer to the sun, therefore would heat more rapidly than mars would in the event of solar irregularities.  The sun has more to do with global warming than CO2


----------



## nomdeplume (Jun 28, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Everyone who disagrees with you is a nutball.
> 
> CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by one third in the last 200 years. It is now at the highest level ever recorded, and the ice core record goes back 600,000 years. Do you really think that increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere by one third has no effect?



The non-white population is also the highest its ever been too. You don't think that has any effect?

Sure does, but the questions are:
Is it significant? If so, rectifiable?


These things are highly debated, contrary to what the IPCC's cabal of cons say.


----------



## BrianH (Jun 28, 2008)

nomdeplume said:


> Sure does, but the questions are:
> Is it significant? If so, rectifiable?
> 
> 
> These things are highly debated, contrary to what the IPCC's cabal of cons.



Exactly, and the IPCC has been wrong before.  IN their 2008 report, they've left off their ever so famous "hockey-stick graph"


----------



## Chris (Jun 28, 2008)

From the Stanford Solar report....

"Solar irradiance changes have been measured reliably by satellites for only 30 years. These precise observations show changes of a few tenths of a percent that depend on the level of activity in the 11-year solar cycle. Changes over longer periods must be inferred from other sources. Estimates of earlier variations are important for calibrating the climate models. While a component of recent global warming may have been caused by the increased solar activity of the last solar cycle, that component was very small compared to the effects of additional greenhouse gases. According to a NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) press release, "...the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases...greenhouse gases are indeed playing the dominant role..." The Sun is once again less bright as we approach solar minimum, yet global warming continues."


----------



## editec (Jun 29, 2008)

Regardless of the root cause of glabal wierding, surely the debate about whether or not it is happening is over, yes?

Something is clearly happening folks.


----------



## Chris (Jun 29, 2008)

editec said:


> Regardless of the root cause of glabal wierding, surely the debate about whether or not it is happening is over, yes?
> 
> Something is clearly happening folks.



Something is happening big time, and the rate of change is accelerating. 

Algae farming could help. They can grow 10,000 gallons of ethanol per acre, and algae use a lot of CO2.


----------



## jreeves (Jun 29, 2008)

Kirk said:


> CO2 is not a "non-sequitur?"
> 
> Greenhouse gases are warming the planet, and you have no facts to refute that.



All of the scientist disagree with you that global warming is man made.


.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.

Following the U.S. Senate's vote today on a global warming measure (see today's AP article: Senate Defeats Climate Change Measure,) it is an opportune time to examine the recent and quite remarkable momentum shift taking place in climate science. *Many former believers in catastrophic man-made global warming have recently reversed themselves and are now climate skeptics.  The names included below are just a sampling of the prominent scientists who have spoken out recently to oppose former Vice President Al Gore, the United Nations, and the media driven consensus on man-made global warming.  *
The list below is just the tip of the iceberg.  A more detailed and comprehensive sampling of scientists who have only recently spoken out against climate hysteria will be forthcoming in a soon to be released U.S. Senate report. Please stay tuned to this website, as this new government report is set to redefine the current climate debate. 

In the meantime, please review the list of scientists below and ask yourself why the media is missing one of the biggest stories in climate of 2007.  Feel free to distribute the partial list of scientists who recently converted to skeptics to your local schools and universities. The voices of rank and file scientists opposing climate doomsayers can serve as a counter to the alarmism that children are being exposed to on a daily basis. (See Washington Post April 16, 2007 article about kids fearing of a climactic Armageddon ) 

The media's climate fear factor seemingly grows louder even as the latest science grows less and less alarming by the day. (See Der Spiegel May 7, 2007 article: Not the End of the World as We Know It ) It is also worth noting that the proponents of climate fears are increasingly attempting to suppress dissent by skeptics. (See UPI May 10, 2007 article: U.N. official says it's 'completely immoral' to doubt global warming fears )


----------



## Chris (Jun 29, 2008)

NASA study.......

NASA Team Pinpoints Human Causes of Global Warming


----------



## nomdeplume (Jun 29, 2008)

NASA sucks off the government tit for grants. In fact, thats why a lot of these nutjobs are throwing out the scientific method for a little fatter wallet.


----------



## Chris (Jun 29, 2008)

nomdeplume said:


> NASA sucks off the government tit for grants. In fact, thats why a lot of these nutjobs are throwing out the scientific method for a little fatter wallet.



Damn NASA! With their landing men on the moon and going to mars and stuff!


----------



## nomdeplume (Jun 29, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Damn NASA! With their landing men on the moon and going to mars and stuff!



Dude. You'd be shocked if you knew all the shit NASA has pulled. They know the Bing Bang theory is a crock, yet don't come out and debunk it. They know relativty is bunk, but don't come out and debunk it. They have airbrushed/manipulated many, many photos of pictures taken in space for completely unknown reasons. Many of the pictures from the moon landing have been so manipulated that more of the picture is fake than real. They've never given reasons for these things. All they care is for a bigger chunk of cash every year.

NASA is as dirty as the CIA. They are just fixated on space.


----------



## Ninja (Jun 29, 2008)

If the sea level hasn't risen 12 feet come September I am really going to be laughing at the whackjob environazis.


----------



## Chris (Jun 29, 2008)

Ninja said:


> If the sea level hasn't risen 12 feet come September I am really going to be laughing at the whackjob environazis.



Sea level won't rise until the ice in Antarctica melts. The North Polar Ice Cap is the canary in the coal mine.


----------



## CharlestonChad (Jun 29, 2008)

nomdeplume said:


> Maybe we have too many non-white people being born on planet earth and they are reflecting too much light back into the atmosphere. Doh! Just using a little GW nutball logic. Don't mind me.



You're saying White absorbs light and Dark reflects light. 

I guess this makes you the resident authority on all science, ya jackass. You are starting to paint yourself as someone obsessed with toting Hannity's jock and possessing mild racial overtones in about half your posts. Welcome to the boards, and don't expect to be an original poster cause we already got a bunch of your type.


----------



## Ninja (Jun 29, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Sea level won't rise until the ice in Antarctica melts. The North Polar Ice Cap is the canary in the coal mine.



Well I hope it melts soon. Last time I drove through Eastern Cali and Western Nv on my way to Vegas, there were quite a few spots that made me think, "damn, that'd be a nice beach!"


----------



## nomdeplume (Jun 29, 2008)

CharlestonChad said:


> You're saying White absorbs light and Dark reflects light.



That's not a correct statement. It just speaks of your ignorance. The moron global warming nutjobs are making that argument, not me.

Their argument for mars temperature rising was that wind blowing sand might reveal darker soil under the dust, which will reflect more light.

More darker skinned people would thus increase global warming on planet earth. You ready for some genocide to save the planet?

You get the joke yet? It's satire.




CharlestonChad said:


> I guess this makes you the resident authority on all science, ya jackass. You are starting to paint yourself as someone obsessed with toting Hannity's jock and possessing mild racial overtones in about half your posts. Welcome to the boards, and don't expect to be an original poster cause we already got a bunch of your type.



I'm pretty science savy, yes. I doubt anyone has more knowledge of the physical sciences than me who frequents this site. I have to visit some pretty esoteric websites to find such people.


----------



## jreeves (Jun 29, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Damn NASA! With their landing men on the moon and going to mars and stuff!



Over 300 world renown scientists saying that man made global warming is a myth, I guess by your definition means that we didn't land on the moon.


----------



## Chris (Jun 29, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Over 300 world renown scientists saying that man made global warming is a myth, I guess by your definition means that we didn't land on the moon.



Half the North Pole has melted in the last 50 years. It may melt completely this year. 800 wildfires are burning out of control in California. They have already burned 550 square miles of land. The fire season has not even begun yet. Wake up and smell the smoke.


----------



## jreeves (Jun 29, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Half the North Pole has melted in the last 50 years. It may melt completely this year. 800 wildfires are burning out of control in California. They have already burned 550 square miles of land. The fire season has not even begun yet. Wake up and smell the smoke.


Wildfires
What causes a wildfire?
Common causes of wildfires include lightning, human carelessness, arson, volcano eruption, and pyroclastic cloud from active volcano. Heat waves, droughts, and cyclical climate changes such as El Niño can also have a dramatic effect on the risk of wildfires. *Although, more than four out of every five wildfires are caused by people.*

It seems you have inhaled a little too much of the enviromental wacko smoke....most wildfires are caused by careless people...


----------



## Chris (Jun 29, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Wildfires
> What causes a wildfire?
> Common causes of wildfires include lightning, human carelessness, arson, volcano eruption, and pyroclastic cloud from active volcano. Heat waves, droughts, and cyclical climate changes such as El Niño can also have a dramatic effect on the risk of wildfires. *Although, more than four out of every five wildfires are caused by people.*
> 
> It seems you have inhaled a little too much of the enviromental wacko smoke....most wildfires are caused by careless people...



One of the consequences of global warming is more drought. Drought leads to wildfires. I am not an enviromentalist, but is obvious what is going on.


----------



## Chris (Jun 29, 2008)

Global CO2 emissions


----------



## nomdeplume (Jun 29, 2008)

Who gives a shit. CO2 in the greenhouse effect is like me pissing in the ocean and someone worried New York is going to flood.

We have been warming for hundreds of years now. We are still coming out of the little ice age. Give it a couple years and we may be talking about global cooling and everyone will be saying we need more CO2 in tha air to keep as warm when we dip into another little ice age.

Gllobal warming reminds me of those "population bomb" morons of several decades ago. In fact, I think the global warming morons and the population bomb morons are a bran of the same retards. They needed some doom and gloom scenario for them to worry about.


----------



## Chris (Jun 29, 2008)

nomdeplume said:


> Who gives a shit. CO2 in the greenhouse effect is like me pissing in the ocean and someone worried New York is going to flood.
> 
> We have been warming for hundreds of years now. We are still coming out of the little ice age. Give it a couple years and we may be talking about global cooling and everyone will be saying we need more CO2 in tha air to keep as warm when we dip into another little ice age.
> 
> Gllobal warming reminds me of those "population bomb" morons of several decades ago. In fact, I think the global warming morons and the population bomb morons are a bran of the same retards. They needed some doom and gloom scenario for them to worry about.



The rate of warming is accelerating and if the methane locked in the permafrost is released, it will accelerate the warming further because methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gase than CO2. Dought will be the first result of the warming, and if Antarctica melts then that is the nightmare senario. Luckily Antarctic ice is hard to melt because it is largely landlocked.


----------



## jreeves (Jun 29, 2008)

Kirk said:


> One of the consequences of global warming is more drought. Drought leads to wildfires. I am not an enviromentalist, but is obvious what is going on.



Yet, of all the wildfires only 1 out of 5 derive from other sources other than carelessness by man.


----------



## jreeves (Jun 29, 2008)

Kirk said:


> The rate of warming is accelerating and if the methane locked in the permafrost is released, it will accelerate the warming further because methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gase than CO2. Dought will be the first result of the warming, and if Antarctica melts then that is the nightmare senario. Luckily Antarctic ice is hard to melt because it is largely landlocked.



Looks as though we are safe right now, peculiar isn't it?

An important article appeared in the literature recently with some surprising results given the predictions of the climate models. Konstantinos Andreadis and Dennis Lettenmaier of the University of Washington have published a paper in Geophysical Research Letters entitled Trends in 20th century drought over the continental United States, and the results are peculiarin light of climate model projectionsto say the least. In the abstract, they write *Droughts have, for the most part, become shorter, less frequent, and cover a small portion of the country over the last century. *
World Climate Report  Where are the Droughts?


----------



## Chris (Jun 30, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Looks as though we are safe right now, peculiar isn't it?
> 
> An important article appeared in the literature recently with some surprising results given the predictions of the climate models. Konstantinos Andreadis and Dennis Lettenmaier of the University of Washington have published a paper in Geophysical Research Letters entitled Trends in 20th century drought over the continental United States, and the results are peculiarin light of climate model projectionsto say the least. In the abstract, they write *Droughts have, for the most part, become shorter, less frequent, and cover a small portion of the country over the last century. *
> World Climate Report  Where are the Droughts?



That report is two years old. This is a little more current...

US Drought Monitor


----------



## jreeves (Jun 30, 2008)

Kirk said:


> That report is two years old. This is a little more current...
> 
> US Drought Monitor



This is why you should read your posts before you submit them. My post spans a hundred years, your post spans 5 days.

The NWS forecast products utilized include the HPC *5-day QPF and 5-day Mean Temperature progs,* the 6-10 Day Outlooks of Temperature and Precipitation Probability, and the 8-14 Day Outlooks of Temperature and Precipitation Probability, valid as of late Wednesday afternoon of the USDM release week. The NWS forecast web page used for this section is: Climate Prediction Center - Forecasts & Outlook Maps, Graphs and Tables.


----------



## jreeves (Jun 30, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Global CO2 emissions



Good looks as though trees will be healthier than ever.
National Policy Analysis #334: Carbon Dioxide is Good for the Environment - April 2001
Carbon dioxide is good for the environment.

That simple fact must be restated to counter environmentalists' baseless allegations that the accumulation of man-made carbon dioxide, produced by cars, power plants and other human activities, is causing dangerous global warming.

Indeed, far from being a poisonous gas that will wreak havoc on the planet's ecosystem, carbon dioxide is arguably the Earth's best friend in that trees, wheat, peanuts, flowers, cotton and numerous other plants significantly benefit from increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Dr. Craig Idso of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, one of the nation's leading carbon dioxide research centers, examined records of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and air temperature over the last 250,000 years. There were three dramatic episodes of global warming that occurred at the end of the last three ice ages. Interestingly, temperatures started to rise during those warming periods well before the atmospheric carbon dioxide started to increase. In fact, the carbon dioxide levels did not begin to rise until 400 to 1,000 years after the planet began to warm. Concludes Dr. Idso, "Clearly, there is no way that these real-world observations can be construed to even hint at the possibility that a significant increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide will necessarily lead to any global warming."1


----------



## editec (Jun 30, 2008)

I can't believe people are still debating this issue.

Denial is a serious mental disease, I guess.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 30, 2008)

editec said:


> I can't believe people are still debating this issue.
> 
> Denial is a serious mental disease, I guess.



So is the 'Chicken Little' syndrome.  Some seem to thrive on doom and gloom end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it scenarios not even considering the huge profits being raked in by those successful in keeping the gullible convinced that we are in anthropogenic crisis.

The record shows that the Arctic has been ice free in the past before humans had ability to affect anything and it will likely be ice free in the future as we will no doubt be unlikely to affect the cyclical patterns of the universe.  (Ice caps on other planets in our solar system have also been observed shrinking - I wonder if they also drive Hummers there?)

It is a given that humans can manipulate their immediate environment for their own advantage or detriment, but on a global level?  Even with six billion people on Earth, that is not a conclusion drawn by even most scientists who have actually studied this.

And even if we could, the fact remains that in the grand scheme of things, warmer is better than cooler for both humans and many other species on Earth.  Some of the greatest recorded famines have not occured because of excessive heat, but rather from unusual cold.


----------



## editec (Jun 30, 2008)

*Foxfire opines:*



> So is the 'Chicken Little' syndrome


 
If you define _accepting the best evidence of our scientific community over the inane blatherings of somebody talking out his ass on the internet_ as suffering the Chicken little syndome, then I guess I'm suffering from that disease.

Your scientifc credentials are what, exactly?

I tend to believe experts in fields in which I am unqualified to arrive at my own conclusions.

Call me crazy, but that's just how I deal with the fact that I know I don't know everything.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 30, 2008)

editec said:


> *Foxfire opines:*
> Your scientifc credentials are what, exactly?
> 
> I tend to believe experts in fields in which I am unqualified to arrive at my own conclusions.



My scientific credentials are limited strictly to being able to read and/or listen to and understand scientific opinion.  And I have read (or listened to) very few qualified climate scientists who have actually done studies or reviewed in depth studies on AGW who are convinced that humans are much of a factor at all in causing global warming.  I am seeing reports from hundreds of scientists who were once AGW believers now defecting from that camp and going on the record as saying that the science simply is at least not sufficient to support a conclusion of AGW and at most does not support a conclusion of AGW at all.

I also tend to at least pay attention to experts in fields in which I lack expertise, and then I prefer to arrive at my own conclusion based on the preponderance of available information and evidence rather than just believe what somebody tells me I am supposed to believe.  In the case of AGW you can have two 'experts' taking absolutely opposing points of view.


----------



## BrianH (Jun 30, 2008)

editec said:


> *Foxfire opines:*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not everything is as it seems editec.  I agree that global warming is happening, but it's not because of humans.  The IPCCs credibility is being questioned, as well as the information in its reports....

[ame]http://youtube.com/watch?v=zfafW_3oJ3Q&feature=related[/ame]


----------



## Chris (Jun 30, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Good looks as though trees will be healthier than ever.
> National Policy Analysis #334: Carbon Dioxide is Good for the Environment - April 2001
> Carbon dioxide is good for the environment.
> 
> ...



The group you quoted is funded by Exxon....

On it's website Sherwood B. Idso writes that "our typical response is that we never discuss our funding. Why? Because we believe that ideas about the way the world of nature operates should stand or fall on their own merits, irrespective of the source of support for the person or organization that produces them ... It is self-evident, for example, that one need not know from whence a person's or organization's funding comes in order to evaluate the reasonableness of what they say, if - and this is a very important qualification - one carefully studies the writings of people on both sides of the issue."[2]

The Center states on its website that it "accepts corporate, foundation and individual donations" and that "all donations are kept confidential".[3]

Sherwood Idso confirmed that Exxon "made some donations to us a few times in the past" but attributed this to the fact that "they probably liked what we typically had to say about the issue. But what we had to say then, and what we have to say now, came not, and comes not, from them or any other organization or person."[2]

ExxonMobil's 2001 list of groups it funded listed a $10,000 contribution to the CSCDGC in 2001. Center for Science in the Public Interest, "Center for the study of carbon dioxide and global change", Integrity in Science, undated, accessed March 2004. [4]

StopExxon.org reports CSCDGC has received $90,000 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005 comprising: [5]

1998: $10,000 
2000: $15,000 
2003: $40,000 
2005: $25,000


----------



## Chris (Jun 30, 2008)

Foxfyre said:


> So is the 'Chicken Little' syndrome.  Some seem to thrive on doom and gloom end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it scenarios not even considering the huge profits being raked in by those successful in keeping the gullible convinced that we are in anthropogenic crisis.
> 
> The record shows that the Arctic has been ice free in the past before humans had ability to affect anything and it will likely be ice free in the future as we will no doubt be unlikely to affect the cyclical patterns of the universe.  (Ice caps on other planets in our solar system have also been observed shrinking - I wonder if they also drive Hummers there?)
> 
> ...



When was the Arctic ice free? Do you have a link to that information?


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 30, 2008)

Exxon/Mobile as well as other energy producing companies give contributions to various foundations and research groups, yes.  But do they do it to influence the outcome of scientific studies?  There is no evidence that this is the case.  Do they do it because the research reports being produced are not slanted against the oil and coal companies?  That would be reasonable to assume though so far as I know there is no evidence for that either.

Don't you give contributions to those organizations that you believe are doing good work?   If you are the National Hula Hoop champion or spokesperson for Tiddlywinks Anonymous, should that be a consideration when evaluating those organizations that you support?  If so, would your contribution automatically disqualify the work of the receiving organization?  If not, then why shouldn't oil companies also be able to provide funding for what they believe to be good science especially if such science correctly absolves the oil companies for responsibility for global warming?


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 30, 2008)

Kirk said:


> When was the Arctic ice free? Do you have a link to that information?



Given some time, I can probably come up with at least some reference sources, but this article in the NYT, while not specifically mentioning an 'ice free' Arctic ocean, does mention year round temperatures that would preclude the presence of ice:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/01/science/earth/01climate.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 30, 2008)

It's a non-issue.
The climate changes. Get over it.


----------



## Chris (Jun 30, 2008)

Foxfyre said:


> Exxon/Mobile as well as other energy producing companies give contributions to various foundations and research groups, yes.  But do they do it to influence the outcome of scientific studies?  There is no evidence that this is the case.  Do they do it because the research reports being produced are not slanted against the oil and coal companies?  That would be reasonable to assume though so far as I know there is no evidence for that either.
> 
> Don't you give contributions to those organizations that you believe are doing good work?   If you are the National Hula Hoop champion or spokesperson for Tiddlywinks Anonymous, should that be a consideration when evaluating those organizations that you support?  If so, would your contribution automatically disqualify the work of the receiving organization?  If not, then why shouldn't oil companies also be able to provide funding for what they believe to be good science especially if such science correctly absolves the oil companies for responsibility for global warming?



More info....

The Center has means of disseminating information, their magazine and website CO2 Science, includes articles both questioning the existence of climate change as well as touting the benefits to the biosphere from carbon dioxide enrichment. All aspects of climate change and its predicted effects - from melting ice caps to species extinction, to more severe weather - are criticized by the Center and either refuted or presented as beneficial. Fred Palmer, head of Western Fuels, said about the center: "The Center's viewpoint is a needed antidote to the misleading and usually erroneous scientific claims emanating from the Federal scientific establishment and adopted by leading politicians, such as Vice President Al Gore." The Center has since tried to distance itself from the Western Fuels Association, however, the Center is run by Keith and Craig Idso, along with their father, Sherwood. Both Idso brothers have been on the Western Fuels payroll at one time or another. Keith Idso, then a doctoral candidate at the University of Arizona, was a paid expert witness for Western Fuels Association at a 1995 Minnesota Public Utilities commission hearing in St. Paul, MN, along with MIT's Richard Lindzen, Patrick Michaels, and Robert Balling (The Heat is On). According to news from Basin Electr ic, a Western Fuels Association member, Craig Idso produced a report, "The Greening of Planet Earth." Its Progression from Hypothesis to Theory," in January 1998 for the Western Fuels Association (Basin Electric Latest News no date given).


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 30, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> It's a non-issue.
> The climate changes. Get over it.



It isn't a non-issue when our President and Congress are forcing more and more taxes and regulation on us and could lock us into international agreements that could impact every aspect of our collective lives together.  I think the responsible thing is to learn as much as possible about it using ALL the scientific opinion out there and making our voices heard.

I have a natural disinclination to willingly accept restrictions on my freedoms and/or making major lifestyle changes that reduce my quality of life based on what very well may be flawed or bogus science.


----------



## Chris (Jun 30, 2008)

Foxfyre said:


> Given some time, I can probably come up with at least some reference sources, but this article in the NYT, while not specifically mentioning an 'ice free' Arctic ocean, does mention year round temperatures that would preclude the presence of ice:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/01/science/earth/01climate.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin



55 million years ago? You must be joking. The seabed there wasn't even at the pole 55 million years ago. Ever heard of plate tectonics? 

We are pouring 8 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. Half the North Pole has melted in just 50 years. This is no joke.


----------



## BrianH (Jun 30, 2008)

Kirk said:


> 55 million years ago? You must be joking. The seabed there wasn't even at the pole 55 million years ago. Ever heard of plate tectonics?
> 
> We are pouring 8 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. Half the North Pole has melted in just 50 years. This is no joke.



IPCC....Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change...Not Intergovernmental Panel for Human Made Global Warming.   And look at the vid (link) I posted about the "authors" of the IPCC fourth report.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 30, 2008)

Kirk said:


> 55 million years ago? You must be joking. The seabed there wasn't even at the pole 55 million years ago. Ever heard of plate tectonics?
> 
> We are pouring 8 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. Half the North Pole has melted in just 50 years. This is no joke.



Fifty years isn't even half a blink in the grand scheme of things on Earth.  Five thousand years is barely a blink and whether you like it or not, the Arctic was ice free 55 million years ago and has been more ice free than it is now numerous times and even NASA doesn't think the current ice melt is due to AGW or global warming:



> October, 2007--Assume for a moment that a new study by NASA proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that manmade global warming was indeed responsible for the recent ice melts in the Arctic. Think media would have reported it?
> 
> In reality, that's a bit of a trick question, for in the past several weeks, television newscasts, papers, and magazines have been filled with hysterical assertions about decreasing Arctic ice levels destined to cause imminent flooding to coastal regions around the world.
> 
> ...


 
I happen to love storms.  When a really promising cloud comes up, even though I do not hope for lives to be endangered or property destroyed, I eagerly anticipate the charged air, lightning, thunder, and rain pounding on the roof.  If the cloud doesn't meet expectations I am disappointed.

Is that the phenomenon at work here?  Some of you people are so desperate for us to be in global crisis, you don't want to see any evidence that even suggests that all is quite well?


----------



## Chris (Jun 30, 2008)

BrianH said:


> IPCC....Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change...Not Intergovernmental Panel for Human Made Global Warming.   And look at the vid (link) I posted about the "authors" of the IPCC fourth report.



Attacking the hockey stick graph. Here's a graph for you..


----------



## Chris (Jun 30, 2008)

Foxfyre said:


> Fifty years isn't even half a blink in the grand scheme of things on Earth.  Five thousand years is barely a blink and whether you like it or not, the Arctic was ice free 55 million years ago and has been more ice free than it is now numerous times and even NASA doesn't think the current ice melt is due to AGW or global warming:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why do you lie about NASA?

May 15, 2008
NASA Team Pinpoints Human Causes of Global Warming
 Human-caused climate change has impacted a wide range of Earth's natural systems, from permafrost thawing to plants blooming earlier across Europe to lakes declining in productivity in Africa.

Cynthia Rosenzweig of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Science in New York and scientists at 10 other institutions have linked physical and biological impacts since 1970 with rises in temperatures during that period, including changes to physical systems, such as glaciers shrinking, permafrost melting, and lakes and rivers warming. Impacts also included changes to biological systems, such as leaves unfolding and flowers blooming earlier in the spring, birds arriving earlier during migration periods, and ranges of plant and animal species moving toward the poles and higher in elevation. In aquatic environments such as oceans, lakes, and rivers, plankton and fish are shifting from cold-adapted to warm-adapted communities.

"This is the first study to link global temperature data sets, climate model results, and observed changes in a broad range of physical and biological systems to show the link between humans, climate, and impacts," said Rosenzweig, lead author of the study.

Rosenzweig and colleagues also found that the link between human-caused climate change and observed impacts on Earth holds true at the scale of individual continents, particularly in North America, Europe, and Asia.

Photograph of a forest When permafrost melts, the layer of loose soil deepens and trees lose their foundations and tip over. Similar impacts across Earth are likely due to human-caused climate change. 

To arrive at the link, the authors built and analyzed a database of more than 29,000 data series pertaining to observed impacts on Earth's natural systems, collected from about 80 studies each with at least 20 years of records between 1970 and 2004. 

The team conducted a "joint attribution" study in which they showed, first, that at the global scale, about 90 percent of observed changes in diverse physical and biological systems are consistent with warming. Other driving forces, such as land use change from forest to agriculture, were ruled out as having significant influence on the observed impacts.

Next, the scientists conducted statistical tests and found that the spatial patterns of observed impacts closely match temperature trends across the globe, to a degree beyond what can be attributed to natural variability. So, the team concluded that observed global-scale impacts are very likely due to human-caused warming.

"Humans are influencing climate through increasing greenhouse gas emissions and the warming is causing impacts on physical and biological systems that are now attributable at the global scale and in North America, Europe, and Asia," said Rosenzweig.

An unexpected consequence of rising temperatures may be its effect on long-dead prehistoric life.

For thousands of years animal waste, and other organic matter left behind on the Arctic tundra, have been sealed off from the environment by permafrost. Now climate change is melting the permafrost and freeing mass quantities of prehistoric ooze from its state of suspended animation.

Russian scientist, Sergei Zimov, has been studying climate change in Russia's Arctic for 30 years now. He is worried that as this organic matter becomes exposed to the air it will drastically accelerate global warming predictions even beyond some of the most pessimistic forecasts.

"This will lead to a type of global warming which will be impossible to stop," he said.

According to Zimov, when the organic matter left behind by mammoths and other wildlife is exposed to the air by the thawing permafrost, microbes that have been dormant for thousands of years will spring back into action. Theyll begin once again to emit carbon dioxide and methane gas as a by-product. Zimov says thought the microbes are tiny, they will start emitting these gases in enormous quantities simply because there will be a lot of them.

Yakutia is a region in the north-eastern corner of Siberia, where a belt of permafrost contains the mammoth-era soil. It covers an area roughly the size of France and Germany combined. There is even more of it elsewhere in Siberia.

"The deposits of organic matter in these soils are so gigantic that they dwarf global oil reserves," Zimov said. U.S. government statistics show mankind emits about 7 billion tons of carbon a year."Permafrost areas hold 500 billion tons of carbon, which can fast turn into greenhouse gases," Zimov added. "If you don't stop emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere ... the Kyoto Protocol (an international pact aimed at reducing greenhouse emissions) will seem like childish prattle." 

On other continents, including Africa, South America, and Australia, documentation of observed changes in physical and biological systems is still sparse despite warming trends attributable to human causes. The authors concluded that environmental systems on these continents need additional research, especially in tropical and subtropical areas where there is a lack of impact data and published studies.

The study, published May 15 in the journal Nature, concludes that human-caused warming is resulting in a broad range of impacts across the globe.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 30, 2008)

So, Kirk, you are unimpressed with NASA data disputing global warming as the cause of melting Arctic ice but cite the Goddard Institute as the only authority?  James Hanson of the Goddard Institute and his hand picked group are the biggest NUTs of all when it comes to global warming alarmism; I could cite dozens of experts who strongly disagree with him and them, but since you don't seem to be interested in anything other than what suits your obsession on this, I won't bother.  Do have a nice day, however.


----------



## Chris (Jun 30, 2008)

Foxfyre said:


> So, Kirk, you are unimpressed with NASA data disputing global warming as the cause of melting Arctic ice but cite the Goddard Institute as the only authority?  James Hanson of the Goddard Institute and his hand picked group are the biggest NUTs of all when it comes to global warming alarmism; I could cite dozens of experts who strongly disagree with him and them, but since you don't seem to be interested in anything other than what suits your obsession on this, I won't bother.  Do have a nice day, however.



What? No Exxon supported scientific studies?

The North Pole is melting. There is no dispute about that. Soon it will be gone completely. I wonder what made it melt so quickly?


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 30, 2008)

OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG
THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING
WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE
IT'S OUR FAULT, WE MUST FEEL BAD NOW! IT'S OUR FAULT, WE MUST FEEL BAD NOW! QUICK SELF-FLAGELLATE!

Fricking spastics.


----------



## editec (Jun 30, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG
> THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING
> WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE
> IT'S OUR FAULT, WE MUST FEEL BAD NOW! IT'S OUR FAULT, WE MUST FEEL BAD NOW! QUICK SELF-FLAGELLATE!
> ...


 
No dipshit.

The sky isn't falling.

The ice cap is melting.

Do try to keep up.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 30, 2008)

I don't have to keep up. This same panicked shit has been circulating since the dawn of time. There's always a group of apologetic, neurotic, self-hating people who believe neither they nor anybody else should be on this planet, and who believe that the planet is going to crash and burn at any second, and it will all be our fault.

I'm not sure the North Pole has even been iced over every year this century. Does anybody bother to actually look into this information before they take it and run shrieking down the street?


----------



## BrianH (Jun 30, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Attacking the hockey stick graph. Here's a graph for you..



How does your  graph explain prolonged snow storms in May?  Ask some posters on this board when their last snowfall was.  Not to mention about 4 years ago it snowed 12 inches on the Texas coast.  All you're saying is that there's more CO2 in the atmosphere, no one is arguing that.  But HUMANS ARE NOT CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING.  Ask your buddy AL Gore why he flew his private jet to get his Nobel Peace prize.  He should have jet-pooled to save the planet.

And you still fail to address the vid I posted.  The IPCC has a fourth report that conveniently leaves out their ever so FAMOUS hockey-stick graph with no mention of where it went.  THey simply abandoned it because it left out KEY information.  Many scientist resigned because of it and asked their names to be taken off the report. Watch the CLIP...

[ame=http://youtube.com/watch?v=zfafW_3oJ3Q&feature=related]YouTube - The IPCC removes the Hockey stick[/ame]


----------



## Charles_Main (Jun 30, 2008)

You people are so retarded


----------



## BrianH (Jun 30, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> You people are so retarded



So since you're now officially apart of this thread, doesn't that include you as well?  (j/k)


----------



## jreeves (Jun 30, 2008)

Kirk said:


> The group you quoted is funded by Exxon....
> 
> On it's website Sherwood B. Idso writes that "our typical response is that we never discuss our funding. Why? Because we believe that ideas about the way the world of nature operates should stand or fall on their own merits, irrespective of the source of support for the person or organization that produces them ... It is self-evident, for example, that one need not know from whence a person's or organization's funding comes in order to evaluate the reasonableness of what they say, if - and this is a very important qualification - one carefully studies the writings of people on both sides of the issue."[2]
> 
> ...



LMAO....LMAO....LMAO....LMAO.....

Wonder who would have more credibility? StopExxon.org(which has a adversial name to begin with) or a leading scientist studying the effects of carbon dioxide? You do realize, humans breathing is also causing global warming correct. Every time you breathe out you expel carbon dioxide from your lungs. 
I guess Dr. Ballings is fine huh, since you didn't try to smear his name. Well he concludes the same thing as Idso. So go to fool*the*fool*so*we*can*line*our*pockets.org and find some attempted smears on him too as well.


----------



## Chris (Jun 30, 2008)

jreeves said:


> LMAO....LMAO....LMAO....LMAO.....
> 
> Wonder who would have more credibility? StopExxon.org(which has a adversial name to begin with) or a leading scientist studying the effects of carbon dioxide? You do realize, humans breathing is also causing global warming correct. Every time you breathe out you expel carbon dioxide from your lungs.
> I guess Dr. Ballings is fine huh, since you didn't try to smear his name. Well he concludes the same thing as Idso. So go to fool*the*fool*so*we*can*line*our*pockets.org and find some attempted smears on him too as well.



Smears? The guy worked for the Western Fuels Association...

"The Center has since tried to distance itself from the Western Fuels Association, however, the Center is run by Keith and Craig Idso, along with their father, Sherwood. Both Idso brothers have been on the Western Fuels payroll at one time or another. Keith Idso, then a doctoral candidate at the University of Arizona, was a paid expert witness for Western Fuels Association at a 1995 Minnesota Public Utilities commission hearing in St. Paul, MN, along with MIT's Richard Lindzen, Patrick Michaels, and Robert Balling (The Heat is On). According to news from Basin Electr ic, a Western Fuels Association member, Craig Idso produced a report, "The Greening of Planet Earth." Its Progression from Hypothesis to Theory," in January 1998 for the Western Fuels Association (Basin Electric Latest News no date given)."


----------



## Chris (Jun 30, 2008)

BrianH said:


> How does your  graph explain prolonged snow storms in May?  Ask some posters on this board when their last snowfall was.  Not to mention about 4 years ago it snowed 12 inches on the Texas coast.  All you're saying is that there's more CO2 in the atmosphere, no one is arguing that.  But HUMANS ARE NOT CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING.  Ask your buddy AL Gore why he flew his private jet to get his Nobel Peace prize.  He should have jet-pooled to save the planet.
> 
> And you still fail to address the vid I posted.  The IPCC has a fourth report that conveniently leaves out their ever so FAMOUS hockey-stick graph with no mention of where it went.  THey simply abandoned it because it left out KEY information.  Many scientist resigned because of it and asked their names to be taken off the report. Watch the CLIP...
> 
> YouTube - The IPCC removes the Hockey stick



That's all you have is that they used a misleading graph? The facts are still the same. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by one third in the last 200 years. We are pumping 8 billion metric tons of CO2 into the air every year. We are using the earth's atmophere as a big lab experiment.


----------



## jreeves (Jun 30, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Smears? The guy worked for the Western Fuels Association...
> 
> "The Center has since tried to distance itself from the Western Fuels Association, however, the Center is run by Keith and Craig Idso, along with their father, Sherwood. Both Idso brothers have been on the Western Fuels payroll at one time or another. Keith Idso, then a doctoral candidate at the University of Arizona, was a paid expert witness for Western Fuels Association at a 1995 Minnesota Public Utilities commission hearing in St. Paul, MN, along with MIT's Richard Lindzen, Patrick Michaels, and Robert Balling (The Heat is On). According to news from Basin Electr ic, a Western Fuels Association member, Craig Idso produced a report, "The Greening of Planet Earth." Its Progression from Hypothesis to Theory," in January 1998 for the Western Fuels Association (Basin Electric Latest News no date given)."



Your pushing the global warming myth is akin to my daughter stating she knows Santa exists. 

First you state that wildfires are on the rise....I proved that one false.

Then you state, droughts are on the rise.....I proved that one false.

Then you state that CO2 is causing detriment to the enviroment....I proved that one false.

*You use information from some StopExxon.org website without actually providing links to your information.* I wonder why?

Lmao...


----------



## BrianH (Jun 30, 2008)

Kirk said:


> That's all you have is that they used a misleading graph? The facts are still the same. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by one third in the last 200 years. We are pumping 8 billion metric tons of CO2 into the air every year. We are using the earth's atmophere as a big lab experiment.



You are saying that CO2 is causing global warming, when even highly qualified scientist aren't even sure.  There are just as many scientist that debate AGW than support it.  What I do have, is a lack of credibility of the IPCC...which is supported by numerous scientist who say that information was manipulated to fit an agenda.  And that many scientists who asked to be taken off of the IPCC 4th report were not, and were included in the supposed 500 top scientist crap.  The report also excluded many key statements by scientists that specifcally say that no information even supports man-made global warming, or supports that green-house gases (notable CO2) is the cause.  These things were conveniently left out.  WATER VAPOR is more of a green house gas than CO2...  And the sun has more to do with global warming than CO2.  CO2 from humans are not causing our other planets to warm also.  No matter how much you would wish to be so.


----------



## politicsezine (Jul 1, 2008)

I saw on the news recently that it was 28 degrees C in Nunavut... meanwhile the temperature in Toronto was only 25. If Canada's arctic is getting so hot... wouldn't it make a good place to vacation?


----------



## politicsezine (Jul 1, 2008)

BrianH said:


> You are saying that CO2 is causing global warming, when even highly qualified scientist aren't even sure.  There are just as many scientist that debate AGW than support it.  What I do have, is a lack of credibility of the IPCC...which is supported by numerous scientist who say that information was manipulated to fit an agenda.  And that many scientists who asked to be taken off of the IPCC 4th report were not, and were included in the supposed 500 top scientist crap.  The report also excluded many key statements by scientists that specifcally say that no information even supports man-made global warming, or supports that green-house gases (notable CO2) is the cause.  These things were conveniently left out.  WATER VAPOR is more of a green house gas than CO2...  And the sun has more to do with global warming than CO2.  CO2 from humans are not causing our other planets to warm also.  No matter how much you would wish to be so.



The only scientists who disagree with the fact that greenhouse
 gases are causing global warming are those paid by the oil and coal industries. Its a very small percentage of scientists who disagree, but they're getting extra press coverage because of who is paying their bills.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 1, 2008)

politicsezine said:


> The only scientists who disagree with the fact that greenhouse
> gases are causing global warming are those paid by the oil and coal industries. Its a very small percentage of scientists who disagree, but they're getting extra press coverage because of who is paying their bills.



Sure like NASA doesn't get donations from oil and coal industries. But since a lot of scientist disagree with the man made global warming myth, it's their funding from oil and coal industries that gets questioned.....I see


----------



## BrianH (Jul 1, 2008)

politicsezine said:


> The only scientists who disagree with the fact that greenhouse
> gases are causing global warming are those paid by the oil and coal industries. Its a very small percentage of scientists who disagree, but they're getting extra press coverage because of who is paying their bills.



These scientists include former members of the IPCC as well as the chairman of the National Academy of Sciences as well as numerous other scientists.  These are not simply scientists from po-dunk that are uncredited.  Go back and watch the vid I posted earlier.


----------



## TopGunna (Jul 1, 2008)

One of my favorite topics, glad to know some familiar USMB personalities are still fighting the good fight.  I'll offer my take.

Anthroprogenic Global Warming theory is just that, a theory.  Scientific _facts_, on the other hand, come from testing hypotheses, not by convincing enough people to accept your theory.

Kirk, you are right that mankind has been pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere - no one will dispute that.  But it is by no means a pollutant.  It's plant food.  It's what we and other mammals expel from our lungs when we exhale.  It is not carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, or CFCs.

Can CO2 act as a greenhouse gas?  Absolutely.  But Brian is correct - it is a relatively weak GHG.  In fact, there is a diminishing return relationship between increased atmospheric CO2 and temperature increase, that levels off logarithmically around 1.2 degrees C.  That is the maximum warming possible from CO2 alone, and you can find that equation in the IPCC reports.

In An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore's "really big charts" actually demonstrate an opposite relationship - temperature increases precede CO2 increases by about 800 years.  This is because increased temperatures heat the oceans and cause CO2 to evaporate and enter the atmosphere.  Don't believe me?  Open 2 cans of soda, put one in the fridge, and leave one outside.  See which one goes flat quicker.

So where do the doomsday scenarios come from?  _Assumptions_ that the Earth's climate is dominated by positive feedbacks (reduced ice albedo, more water evaporation, which is the key greenhouse gas, etc) that amplify the initial warming cause by CO2.  AGW alarmists build climate models with assumptions that strong positive feedbacks dominate any negative feedbacks, or they ignore the negative feedbacks altogether (due to a lack of understanding... shocker).  That's rather sloppy for supposedly "settled science."

Almost any natural process you can think of is kept in balance by negative feedbacks, and I believe the Earth's climate is as well.  The Earth has warmed and cooled countless times, alternating between Ice Ages and Warm Periods like the Medieval Warm Period and the Roman Warming.  Climate is constantly changing.  Greenland has been farmed before.  The Thames has frozen over in England.  Thousands migrated to North America over the Bering Strait Land Bridge.  If you can point to anecdotal evidence about the North Pole melting as proof of AGW theory, I would assume that I can point to similar anecdotal evidence to refute the claim.  Climate is changing, absolutely, but there's no empirical evidence that CO2 is driving the change, or that it will lead to runaway warming.

As a last note, below is a chart that James Hansen presented to Congress 20 years ago, with his predictions for future temperatures based on his climate models.  The red, orange, and yellow lines are his predictions based on differing CO2 production forecasts (our actual production would put his forecast somewhere between the red and orange lines).  







And though actual temperatures are far below his projections, he sticks to his original theory instead of rethinking his hypothesis.  Who's the real denier?


----------



## Zoomie1980 (Jul 1, 2008)

Kirk said:


> That's all you have is that they used a misleading graph? The facts are still the same. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by one third in the last 200 years. We are pumping 8 billion metric tons of CO2 into the air every year. We are using the earth's atmophere as a big lab experiment.



CO2 is a TRACE component of our atmosphere.  Even a DOUBLING of CO2 still makes it a TRACE component.

We have endured the coldest two winters, back to back in 30 years in the US and in 42 years in China.  2005 saw the coldest winter in recorded history in eastern Europe and Russia, even colder than the famous winter of 1941-1942 that stopped Hitler in his tracks.

Global warming is a myth.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 1, 2008)

hey lets ban carbon Dioxide, or shit wait if we do that the Plants will all die. 

Do you global warming alarmist know that nearly every climate model ran to date, ASSUMES carbon dioxide amounts will double? 

Charles


----------



## BrianH (Jul 1, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> hey lets ban carbon Dioxide, or shit wait if we do that the Plants will all die.
> 
> Do you global warming alarmist know that nearly every climate model ran to date, ASSUMES carbon dioxide amounts will double?
> 
> Charles



Carlos Mencia claims vegetarians are responsible for global warming....they eat the plant-life that converts CO2 into oxygen for humans to breath.


----------



## Chris (Jul 2, 2008)

Zoomie1980 said:


> CO2 is a TRACE component of our atmosphere.  Even a DOUBLING of CO2 still makes it a TRACE component.
> 
> We have endured the coldest two winters, back to back in 30 years in the US and in 42 years in China.  2005 saw the coldest winter in recorded history in eastern Europe and Russia, even colder than the famous winter of 1941-1942 that stopped Hitler in his tracks.
> 
> Global warming is a myth.




The poles are melting because the earth is getting warmer. This is indisputable.


----------



## Chris (Jul 2, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Your pushing the global warming myth is akin to my daughter stating she knows Santa exists.
> 
> First you state that wildfires are on the rise....I proved that one false.
> 
> ...



You really haven't proven anything.


----------



## Chris (Jul 2, 2008)

BrianH said:


> These scientists include former members of the IPCC as well as the chairman of the National Academy of Sciences as well as numerous other scientists.  These are not simply scientists from po-dunk that are uncredited.  Go back and watch the vid I posted earlier.





Global warming 'is three times faster than worst predictions'

By Geoffrey Lean
Sunday, 3 June 2007 

Global warming is accelerating three times more quickly than feared, a series of startling, authoritative studies has revealed. 


They have found that emissions of carbon dioxide have been rising at thrice the rate in the 1990s. The Arctic ice cap is melting three times as fast - and the seas are rising twice as rapidly - as had been predicted.

News of the studies - which are bound to lead to calls for even tougher anti-pollution measures than have yet been contemplated - comes as the leaders of the world's most powerful nations prepare for the most crucial meeting yet on tackling climate change.

The issue will be top of the agenda of the G8 summit which opens in the German Baltic resort of Heiligendamm on Wednesday, placing unprecedented pressure on President George Bush finally to agree to international measures.

Tony Blair flies to Berlin today to prepare for the summit with its host, Angela Merkel, the German chancellor. They will discuss how to tackle President Bush, who last week called for action to deal with climate change, which his critics suggested was instead a way of delaying international agreements.

Yesterday, there were violent clashes in the city harbour of Rostock between police and demonstrators, during a largely peaceful march of tens of thousands of people protesting against the summit.

The study, published by the US National Academy of Sciences, shows that carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing by about 3 per cent a year during this decade, compared with 1.1 per cent a year in the 1990s.

The significance is that this is much faster than even the highest scenario outlined in this year's massive reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - and suggests that their dire forecasts of devastating harvests, dwindling water supplies, melting ice and loss of species are likely to be understating the threat facing the world.

The study found that nearly three-quarters of the growth in emissions came from developing countries, with a particularly rapid rise in China. The country, however, will resist being blamed for the problem, pointing out that its people on average still contribute only about a sixth of the carbon dioxide emitted by each American. And, the study shows, developed countries, with less than a sixth of the world's people, still contribute more than two-thirds of total emissions of the greenhouse gas.

On the ground, a study by the University of California's National Snow and Ice Data Center shows that Arctic ice has declined by 7.8 per cent a decade over the past 50 years, compared with an average estimate by IPCC computer models of 2.5 per cent.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 2, 2008)

Kirk said:


> You really haven't proven anything.



Well, I showed you where droughts aren't on the rise, in response you post a 5 day drought forecast claiming its more up to date. When my post takes the last 100 years...


You state that wildfires are on the rise due to global warming....myth busted by the fact that 4 out of 5 wildfires are caused by human carelessness..

Then you claim that CO2 is causing global warming which was disproven by the world's leading CO2 researcher. 

What else do I have to prove to you?
Btw I understand, my daughter still believes in Santa as well.


----------



## Chris (Jul 2, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Well, I showed you where droughts aren't on the rise, in response you post a 5 day drought forecast claiming its more up to date. When my post takes the last 100 years...
> 
> 
> You state that wildfires are on the rise due to global warming....myth busted by the fact that 4 out of 5 wildfires are caused by human carelessness..
> ...



Your article was from 2 years ago. A lot has changed in the last two years. California is now experiencing the driest fire season on record, and we haven't even hit late July and August.

The North Pole will soon melt, and then what will you say? 

"I am sorry, Santa has no place to stay, my daughter?"


----------



## jreeves (Jul 2, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Your article was from 2 years ago. A lot has changed in the last two years. California is now experiencing the driest fire season on record, and we haven't even hit late July and August.
> 
> The North Pole will soon melt, and then what will you say?



It would seem since enviromentalist claim that droughts are a result of global warming, we should have seen an increase before 2 years ago. Btw when did the industrial revolution take place? 

Here we go with the wildfires again, 4 out of 5 wildfires are caused by human carelessness.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 2, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Your article was from 2 years ago. A lot has changed in the last two years. California is now experiencing the driest fire season on record, and we haven't even hit late July and August.
> 
> The North Pole will soon melt, and then what will you say?
> 
> "I am sorry, Santa has no place to stay, my daughter?"



Good article about yourself and the enviromental wackos.
Sure, the North Pole is Melting. So What?: Newsroom: The Independent Institute
It is fashionable these days to blame almost everything on man-made global warming. So it comes as no great surprise to read in a recent New York Times story that leads of open water in ice fields near the North Pole filled cruise passengers on a Russian icebreaker with a sense of alarm about impending climate disasters. Two scientists-lecturers aboard, a Harvard zoologist and an American Museum paleontologist (experts on animals and fossils, but not on meteorology) were shocked, as ABC News reported, to find Santas workshop underwater.

I am a veteran of two Arctic expeditions with the US Navy, and I can testify that icebreakers always search for leads to make their way through the ice. After a long summer of 24-hour days it is not unusual to find open leads all over the place, especially after strong winds break up the winter ice.

Nor is this a recent phenomenon. In a 1969 Dutch atlas the following passage appears: The Northern Ice Sea is never completely frozen; 3- to 30-meter thick ice floes continue moving slowly around the pole. At the North Pole the winter temperature is never lower than -35 degrees Celsius. Summer temperatures can rise to 10 to 12 degrees Celsius. Those last temperatures are well above freezing.

But all this proves little about climate change or about enhanced greenhouse warming. For this purpose we use instruments: thermometers at weather stations, radiosondes carried into the atmosphere by weather balloons twice daily and, of course, Earth-circling weather satellites, that sense atmospheric temperatures remotely. And all of these agree that the polar regions have not warmed appreciably in recent decades.

Climate models do call for a warming trend as levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide rise because of the burning of fossil fuels. Hence the dilemma: Do we believe theoretical models of the atmosphere or the atmosphere itself? *I prefer to believe in the atmosphere and the actual observations that show no current warming. *If this clashes with the accepted popular wisdom and media hype, so be it. I go with published data.

The Earth did warm between about 1900 and 1940, with the climate recovering from a previous cold period that climate experts refer to as the Little Ice Age. As a result of these changes, which have nothing to do with human influences, it is warmer now than it was 100 years ago. This has had an influence on polar ice, which has been slowly thinning, as it melts from beneath. And the ice will continue to thin for some time to come even though the climate is no longer warming. Moral: It takes a lot of time to melt ice.

Weather satellites tell us that polar ice cover is shrinkinglikely a delayed effect of the pre-1940 warming. The Northeast Passage has opened up, allowing ships to sail from London to Japan along the coast of Siberia. Its all part of a natural climate cycle and need not cause concern. Recall that 1000 years ago the climate was so warm that Vikings settled Greenland and grew crops there for a few centuries. Just imagine: Santas reindeers would have had to swim to get here from the North Pole.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 2, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Your article was from 2 years ago. A lot has changed in the last two years. California is now experiencing the driest fire season on record, and we haven't even hit late July and August.
> 
> The North Pole will soon melt, and then what will you say?
> 
> "I am sorry, Santa has no place to stay, my daughter?"



Really alot has changed in two years can you point out on the graphs exactly what has changed in drought conditions in the last two years?

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/orders/CDODiv7659511442236.txt


----------



## editec (Jul 2, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Not everything is as it seems editec. I agree that global warming is happening, but it's not because of humans. The IPCCs credibility is being questioned, as well as the information in its reports....
> 
> YouTube - The IPCC removes the Hockey stick


 
Yes, I understand that the CAUSE of global wierding is still something that is debatable.

What is NOT debatable, however, is the FACT of global wierding.

It takes a serious case of magical thinking for us to deny that the preponderance of evidence is wrong about this.

And the preponderance of evidence we are given from the worlds experts is that the Northern ice cap is melting.

And you know...it is either is or it isn't.

You can't really debate that point, you know?  Yet we have people on this very board telling us this is NOT happening.

How the hell do _they know?_ 

The experts tell me it is melting.

I have no reason to think they're lieing to me.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 2, 2008)

editec said:


> Yes, I understand that the CAUSE of global wierding is still something that is debatable.
> 
> What is NOT debatable, however, is the FACT of global wierding.
> 
> ...



But it seems to me that it is reasonable to explore whether such melting is something that is 'normal' or 'reoccuring' within large scale climate cycles or whether the current melt is being used by unscrupulous 'experts' to maintain a crisis to a) protect their reputations and/or b) keep their funding intact.


----------



## BrianH (Jul 2, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Global warming 'is three times faster than worst predictions'
> 
> By Geoffrey Lean
> Sunday, 3 June 2007
> ...



All you're doing is repeating findings and theory.  LIke I've said a million times on these threads.  I would believe that the earth may be warming, but I do not believe that it's man-made or caused by CO2.  Like I said, Wator-vapor makes up 60 times more of the atmosphere than CO2.  CO2 is like a a drop in the bucket.  If you wish to pump all your money into carbon credits, go ahead.  I think that the earth should GO GREEN and find better and cleaner ways to use energy, but AGW alarmists are not going to get me to quit driving my truck....high gas prices will.


----------



## BrianH (Jul 2, 2008)

editec said:


> Yes, I understand that the CAUSE of global wierding is still something that is debatable.
> 
> What is NOT debatable, however, is the FACT of global wierding.
> 
> ...



LOL, I know the North Pole is Melting, I'm not debating that.  Do I think humans are the cause??? No.  I believe humans contribute, but are not even remotely the cause.  What we've learned in our life is that humans cannot control the weather, what makes us think we can control the climate?


----------



## Angel Heart (Jul 2, 2008)

Oh I don't know maybe this might effect the ice a bit:

Fire Under Arctic Ice: Volcanoes Have Been Blowing Their Tops In The Deep Ocean



> Fire Under Arctic Ice: Volcanoes Have Been Blowing Their Tops In The Deep Ocean
> 
> ScienceDaily (June 26, 2008)  A research team led by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) has uncovered evidence of explosive volcanic eruptions deep beneath the ice-covered surface of the Arctic Ocean. Such violent eruptions of splintered, fragmented rock--known as pyroclastic deposits -- were not thought possible at great ocean depths because of the intense weight and pressure of water and because of the composition of seafloor magma and rock.
> 
> ...


----------



## editec (Jul 2, 2008)

Zoomie1980 said:


> CO2 is a TRACE component of our atmosphere. Even a DOUBLING of CO2 still makes it a TRACE component.
> 
> We have endured the coldest two winters, back to back in 30 years in the US and in 42 years in China. 2005 saw the coldest winter in recorded history in eastern Europe and Russia, even colder than the famous winter of 1941-1942 that stopped Hitler in his tracks.


 
C02 is about 4% of the atmosphere.  



> Global warming is a myth.


 
Let's hope you're right as it pertains to _right now_

But since we know that the climate has changed many times, sometimes getting warmer, sometimes getting colder, suggesting that *global warming is a myth* is simply incorrect

As to what is causing the warming trend that is being reported now?

The case is still out on that one, I think.


----------



## Chris (Jul 2, 2008)

Delayed effect of pre-1940 warming? You really live in a fantasy world. 8 of the 10 hottest years on record have occurred in the last 12 years. The amount of CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere has accelerated in the last 20 years as China and India become industrialized. 

It takes a lot of time to melt the ice? Thanks for proving my point. We will have melted the North Pole in a few short years, and the North Pole has been frozen for thousands of years.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 2, 2008)

Kirk said:


> North Pole could be ice-free this summer, scientists say
> 
> gop said the economy was strong I jan 08.  why do we listen to them?
> 
> they said iraq was going great too until it was too late to change course.  see the pattern?


----------



## Chris (Jul 2, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> Kirk said:
> 
> 
> > North Pole could be ice-free this summer, scientists say
> ...


----------



## Chris (Jul 2, 2008)

Global Warming's Twin Evil: Wildfires and Drought

By Dr. Reese Halter, AlterNet. Posted June 30, 2008.



The 850 fires burning in California alone should be a wake up call that we're unprepared for rapid climate change. 

The hundreds of fires hitting California right now are a wake-up call to both government and California residents: we're unprepared for a rapid climate change crackling at our doorstep.

The facts are unequivocal, and point to a troubling future ahead. Over 850 fires, scorching some 200,000 acres, have set a new 2008 record for early-season wildfires in California. And from March to May precipitation has been the lowest since the inception of record keeping in 1894. In California as well as throughout the West, mountain snowmelts are occurring earlier, and winter storms are arriving later, extending the fire season by at least several weeks.

On June 5, 2008 Governor Schwarzenegger declared a state-wide drought. Droughts fuel wildfires. Across western North America global warming has caused prolonged droughts -- some areas are now entering their 13th year -- and warmer temperatures. These are the same kind of conditions that led to the mega fires of 2003 and 2007.

What's more, in California and throughout the West, millions of acres of drought have created tinder-dry kindling through weakened forests that have been ravaged by billions of indigenous bark beetles and disease. Currently, there is no serious policy being implemented to clear out these dead trees, fireproof communities and inform residents of a plan of action.

Why is this happening?

A mismanaged forest policy has suppressed the natural occurrence of fire, and as a result, many of our California forests are overstocked, and now tinder dry. When lightning strikes occur in combination with drought, mega-fires can't be far away.

Meanwhile, global warming is known to fuel mega-wildfires, particularly in the northern Rocky Mountains. In addition, over the past two decades mountain ecosystems across the West ranging from 5,300 to more than 8,000 feet above sea level have had the largest increase in big fires. It is these mountain ecosystems that are important for retaining snowfall and releasing it slowly into reservoirs. There are at least 350,000 homes in California that are on the urban/wildland interface and they remain at high risk to ever-increasing threat of wildfires.

Global warming is also significantly impacting our security by impinging upon our water supply. Even though average snowfalls in California from December to February of 2008 were recorded, by May state-wide water reservoirs that feed, drive and grow the state's economy -- the eighth mightiest on the planet -- were only slightly above 53 percent of their respective capacities.

The drought from March to May along with warmer temperatures evaporated at least 30 percent of the Sierra Nevada snowpack -- which accounts for the brunt of California's annual water supply -- directly into the air by-passing the solid (ice) to liquid (water) phase.

While the California House and Senate continue to debate where the state will secure more water for our future, we are running out of time.

Across the state the moisture content of grasses and brush are near or at 5 percent (usually at this time of year they should be around 20 percent) -- conditions mimicking tinder-dryness usually found in October -- at the end of the fire season.

What can Californians do at the state and local level? The state needs to mobilize its massive prison population to help thin out the overstocked forests and fire-proof the communities most at risk. The state needs to significantly beef-up its fire protection and emergency system because, like it or not, wildfires burning with greater ferocity and higher intensities and more prolonged droughts are on their way. At the local level, every home-owner can help removing dead trees, excessive brush, overhanging vegetation on roofs and keeping fuel cans at least 100 feet from homes. There's no room for carelessness, whether it's making an illegal campfire, lighting firecrackers this 4th of July or tossing lit cigarettes out a car window. We need to come together to solve this problem before anyone else loses a home, or even a life.


----------



## politicsezine (Jul 2, 2008)

CO2 has a very dramatic effect on temperatures in the atmosphere.

If you go into the upper atmosphere there is different levels of gases based on their atomic weight. There are basically three stages of greenhouse gas layers: CO2, methane and nitrous oxide. At each greenhouse gas layer the temperature in the atmosphere drops dramatically compared to the layer below it. This is how scientists know greenhouse gases are trapping heat inside (plus other experiments proving it).

The more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the THICKER the layer becomes, kind of like having thicker insulation in your home.

CO2, which makes up 72% of the greenhouse gases is the biggest culprit and its presence in the atmosphere has doubled over the last 50+ years, and thus the CO2 layer in the atmosphere has doubled in size.

Twice the insulation means that the Earth is getting progressively warmer each year, and increasing CO2 levels means it will only get hotter faster.

The fastest way to cut our CO2 emissions? Put a stop to burning coal in coal electricity plants and factories. Invest in nuclear and green alternatives. That alone would cut CO2 by 30%.

Sources of Greenhouse Gases by Sector


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 2, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Well, I showed you where droughts aren't on the rise,
> 
> do you believe your own BS or are you a corporation that knows it is doing wrong but doesn't want to admit it because then it will dip into your profits?
> 
> ...


----------



## Chris (Jul 2, 2008)

politicsezine said:


> CO2 has a very dramatic effect on temperatures in the atmosphere.
> 
> If you go into the upper atmosphere there is different levels of gases based on their atomic weight. There are basically three stages of greenhouse gas layers: CO2, methane and nitrous oxide. At each greenhouse gas layer the temperature in the atmosphere drops dramatically compared to the layer below it. This is how scientists know greenhouse gases are trapping heat inside (plus other experiments proving it).
> 
> ...



You are right. Coal is the issue not cars. 

But a bigger problem is that when the permafrost in the arctic melts, methane will be released, and methane is 20 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than CO2. The effects we are seeing now will be accelerated at that point.


----------



## TopGunna (Jul 2, 2008)

editec said:


> C02 is about 4% of the atmosphere.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



CO2 is measured in parts per million, and atmospheric CO2 makes up 384 parts per million.

That's .038%, not 4%.


----------



## TopGunna (Jul 2, 2008)

politicsezine said:


> CO2 has a very dramatic effect on temperatures in the atmosphere.
> 
> If you go into the upper atmosphere there is different levels of gases based on their atomic weight. There are basically three stages of greenhouse gas layers: CO2, methane and nitrous oxide. At each greenhouse gas layer the temperature in the atmosphere drops dramatically compared to the layer below it. This is how scientists know greenhouse gases are trapping heat inside (plus other experiments proving it).
> 
> ...



CO2 only absorbs select frequencies of infrared radation.  As you increase atmospheric concentrations of CO2, each increment traps less and less heat until it levels off logarithmically.

It's akin to painting a red room with white paint.  The first coat of paint is effective, but the room will appear pinkish.  A second coat of paint has a whitening effect as well, but at some point an extra coat of paint won't affect the color of the room whatsoever.  Such is the case with CO2 - each additional increment has a diminishing return.


----------



## BrianH (Jul 2, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I showed you where droughts aren't on the rise,
> ...


----------



## TopGunna (Jul 2, 2008)

politicsezine said:


> CO2 has a very dramatic effect on temperatures in the atmosphere.
> 
> If you go into the upper atmosphere there is different levels of gases based on their atomic weight. There are basically three stages of greenhouse gas layers: CO2, methane and nitrous oxide. At each greenhouse gas layer the temperature in the atmosphere drops dramatically compared to the layer below it. This is how scientists know greenhouse gases are trapping heat inside (plus other experiments proving it).
> 
> ...



Wow, in my rush to post between meetings, I overlooked a wealth of errors!

There has been no doubling of atmospheric CO2.  It has increased from a pre-industrial level of 280 PPM to 384 PPM in the present.

Increasing CO2 levels means it will only get hotter faster?  Then why, praytell, have temperatures dropped since 1998 as CO2 production has continued to increase?  Is another forcing masking the warming effect of CO2 such that man's impact is undetectable from the regular noise of climate fluctuation?


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 2, 2008)

TopGunna said:


> Wow, in my rush to post between meetings, I overlooked a wealth of errors!
> 
> There has been no doubling of atmospheric CO2.  It has increased from a pre-industrial level of 280 PPM to 384 PPM in the present.
> 
> Increasing CO2 levels means it will only get hotter faster?  Then why, praytell, have temperatures dropped since 1998 as CO2 production has continued to increase?  Is another forcing masking the warming effect of CO2 such that man's impact is undetectable from the regular noise of climate fluctuation?



It's the same theory that has Harry Reid opposing new oil and gas exploration because using these things put pollutants into our soil, water, and air that 'make people sick'--asthma, allergies, other maladies, etc.  He blows it off when it is pointed out that such pollutants have been dramatically reduced everywhere to almost non-existant in some areas while cases of asthma, allergies, other maladies have continued to significantly increase.

Now most people would say that there is no correlation to make to support that oil and gas pollution is 'making people sick', but the true religionist seem to have highly resistant blinders to such logic.  And so do the AGW religionists who seem to be able to simply not see any evidence suggesting that CO2 isn't the driving force behind global warming and what miniscule amount we produce is probably having negligible effect on climate change.


----------



## Chris (Jul 2, 2008)

Foxfyre said:


> It's the same theory that has Harry Reid opposing new oil and gas exploration because using these things put pollutants into our soil, water, and air that 'make people sick'--asthma, allergies, other maladies, etc.  He blows it off when it is pointed out that such pollutants have been dramatically reduced everywhere to almost non-existant in some areas while cases of asthma, allergies, other maladies have continued to significantly increase.
> 
> Now most people would say that there is no correlation to make to support that oil and gas pollution is 'making people sick', but the true religionist seem to have highly resistant blinders to such logic.  And so do the AGW religionists who seem to be able to simply not see any evidence suggesting that CO2 isn't the driving force behind global warming and what miniscule amount we produce is probably having negligible effect on climate change.



Miniscule amount? We have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by one third in the last 200 years. We are adding 8 billion metric tons of CO2 each year, and the rate of production is increasing.


----------



## BrianH (Jul 2, 2008)

Kirk, I think you need to debate with TopGunna since he's been pounding you with evidence and fact that support our opinions and you've continued to avoid even acknowledging his posts....And you repeating the 800 billion bit is not helping your case...


----------



## BrianH (Jul 2, 2008)

politicsezine said:


> CO2 has a very dramatic effect on temperatures in the atmosphere.
> 
> If you go into the upper atmosphere there is different levels of gases based on their atomic weight. There are basically three stages of greenhouse gas layers: CO2, methane and nitrous oxide. At each greenhouse gas layer the temperature in the atmosphere drops dramatically compared to the layer below it. This is how scientists know greenhouse gases are trapping heat inside (plus other experiments proving it).
> 
> ...



And we should also stop mammals from breathing, farting, talking, etc......

CO2 makes up 72% of the green house gases that are in the atmostphere, this does not mean that CO2 makes up 72% of the atmosphere.  WATOR VAPOR makes up way more of the atmostphere than CO2 does and has a worse effect when it comes to abosorbing and trapping heat from the sun.   I will agree that humans need to quit polluting the air and to do more to stop this, but the politicized, money-making CO2 scare is exactly that...a scare designed to SELL.  Al Gore flew in his private fuel buring jet to pick up his Nobel Peace Prize for talking about CO2 emissions and Global Warming....he's really taking steps to help...

This is the same reason why you can experience 90 degrees in Kansas and 90 degrees on the Texas Coast, and the Texas Coast will feel like 100 degrees because of the humidity.  The moisture in the air is soaking up more heat.  It works the opposite as well.  You experience 40 degrees on the Texas Coast and 40 degrees in Colorado, the 40 degrees at the Texas Coast feels colder because of the humidity.  I've experienced this personally.  At 40 degrees in CO, I could walk around in shorts and a t-shirt all day long without a problem, but at home, don't even think about it...you'll freeze your balls off.  Wator vapor has a bigger effect.


----------



## Chris (Jul 2, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Kirk, I think you need to debate with TopGunna since he's been pounding you with evidence and fact that support our opinions and you've continued to avoid even acknowledging his posts....And you repeating the 800 billion bit is not helping your case...



Evidence? The North Pole has almost melted in a scant 50 years. That is evidence. CO2 has risen by one third in the last 200 years. That is evidence. CO2 is at its highest level in 600,000 years. That is evidence. We are putting 8 billion metric tons of CO2 in the atmosphere every year and that figure is rising. That is evidence.


----------



## Chris (Jul 2, 2008)

BrianH said:


> And we should also stop mammals from breathing, farting, talking, etc......
> 
> CO2 makes up 72% of the green house gases that are in the atmostphere, this does not mean that CO2 makes up 72% of the atmosphere.  WATOR VAPOR makes up way more of the atmostphere than CO2 does and has a worse effect when it comes to abosorbing and trapping heat from the sun.   I will agree that humans need to quit polluting the air and to do more to stop this, but the politicized, money-making CO2 scare is exactly that...a scare designed to SELL.  Al Gore flew in his private fuel buring jet to pick up his Nobel Peace Prize for talking about CO2 emissions and Global Warming....he's really taking steps to help...
> 
> This is the same reason why you can experience 90 degrees in Kansas and 90 degrees on the Texas Coast, and the Texas Coast will feel like 100 degrees because of the humidity.  The moisture in the air is soaking up more heat.  It works the opposite as well.  You experience 40 degrees on the Texas Coast and 40 degrees in Colorado, the 40 degrees at the Texas Coast feels colder because of the humidity.  I've experienced this personally.  At 40 degrees in CO, I could walk around in shorts and a t-shirt all day long without a problem, but at home, don't even think about it...you'll freeze your balls off.  Wator vapor has a bigger effect.



Why is the North Pole melting so quickly?


----------



## Shogun (Jul 2, 2008)

So, did we ever end up saving the whales?


----------



## TopGunna (Jul 2, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Evidence? The North Pole has almost melted in a scant 50 years. That is evidence. CO2 has risen by one third in the last 200 years. That is evidence. CO2 is at its highest level in 600,000 years. That is evidence. We are putting 8 billion metric tons of CO2 in the atmosphere every year and that figure is rising. That is evidence.



Evidence... of what?  Yes there is a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere, what in the world does that prove?


----------



## Chris (Jul 2, 2008)

TopGunna said:


> Evidence... of what?  Yes there is a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere, what in the world does that prove?





GLOBAL WARMING: The Rise of CO2 & Warming

The time series shows the combined global land and marine surface temperature record from 1856 to 2001. Data from Jones et al., 1998; and from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/www.cru.uea.ac.uk; compilation by Phil Jones). 
The Earth has been warming since 1910, with a temperature maximum reached in the 1990&#8217;s. (The year 2001 is now the second warmest year on record, according to the World Meteorological Organization.) 

The scientific conclusion reached is that warming is real. 

But is this warming man-made? Carbon dioxide has been rising since the time of James Watt (1736 &#8211; 1819), inventor of the auto-controlled steam engine that helped jump-start the industrial revolution. Since then, coal, oil and natural gas have powered our economies. Hydro-power and nuclear power are comparatively minor contributors to energy needs (excepting certain countries such as Norway and France). 

Today the amount of carbon dumped globally into the atmosphere corresponds, on average, to one ton per person on the planet, each year. In the United States, carbon-based energy is especially important. The average American per capita emission is 5 tons of carbon annually. In Sweden (with a similar standard of living as the US) the carbon output is less than two tons of carbon per person per year. 

James Tyndall (Courtesy: NASA) 
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas &#8211; it traps heat radiation that is attempting to escape from Earth. The physics of this process was established by the Irish physicist John Tyndall (1820 &#8211; 1891) and the effect was calculated by Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius (1859 &#8211; 1927). 

The basic argument (that is, that greenhouse gases keep the Earth comfortably warm) has never been challenged, and it follows that an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere undoubtedly produces a rise in temperature at ground level. 

More information on the greenhouse effect. 

Given this background, we next need to ask: 

How much of the observed warming in this last century can be ascribed to the observed loading of the atmosphere with greenhouse gases by human activities? 



Svante Arrhenius (Courtesy: Nobelprize.org) 
First, we turn to the reconstruction of the rise of carbon dioxide since the time of James Watt. The early part of the series is derived from extracting air in polar ice, and measuring its carbon dioxide content. The later part is based on the measurements of Charles D. Keeling, since 1957, on Mauna Loa. 

The overall rise is from just below 280 ppm (the &#8220;pre-industrial&#8221; value) to the present values above 360 ppm, an increase of a factor of 1.3. The logarithm of 1.3 is 0.11, that of 2 is 0.30. Thus, we are a little more than one third of the way to a doubling of carbon dioxide, on a log scale. If doubling of carbon dioxide produces a temperature rise of between 1.5 and 5 degrees Celsius (as found in numerical experiments using climate models), we should see a warming of between 0.5 and 1.7 degrees Celsius. We do see the lower number of this range, but this does not prove that the rise upon doubling of carbon dioxide is in fact 1.5 degrees. The reason is that we are in a &#8220;transient&#8221;, that is, the change is too fast to allow equilibrium to establish itself. 

Graph showing rise of CO2, from measurements in ice cores (Siple, Antarctica) and measurements from Mauna Loa, Hawaii (Keeling curve) since James Watt, inventor of the steam engine. (Pre-1990 data in: B. Moore & D. Schimel, 1992. Trace Gases and the Biosphere. UCAR, Boulder CO) 
In fact, the answer is not known with a high degree of certainty, not only because of the lack-of-equlibrium problem (which involves uptake of heat by the ocean), but also because of additional complexities arising from air pollution, trace gases other than carbon dioxide, possible changes in the brightness of the Sun, and effects from volcanic activity. 

Thus, in answer to the above question: Estimates vary from &#8220;little&#8221; to &#8220;much&#8221; to &#8220;most&#8221;, with the latter answer being the more credible one. 

One way to obtain a quick estimate answer is by doing some simple calculations, based on the work of Svante Arrhenius, assuming a 2 degree Celsius rise in temperature per doubling of carbon dioxide (Arrhenius proposed a somewhat greater effect, neglecting compensating factors). The result is the graph below, showing that CO2 forcing can explain the temperature rise. That said, there may also be a role for the Sun in modifying the temperature rise driven by greenhouse gases. The minor drops in temperature right after 1900 and after 1960 coincide with reduced solar activity. To be sure, while this simple calculation may be enough to explain the observations, it is not a mathematical proof that the warming that has occurred since the days of James Watt is entirely due to human activity. It merely represents the simplest possible explanation. 

Another way of stating the situation is this: 

There is no compelling evidence that the observed overall warming in the 20th Century is anything but man-made. 

The burden of proof is on those who would have us think that natural causes are solely or mainly responsible for this trend. 

Graph showing that the observed temperature rise can easily result from the observed rise of CO2 , based on simple numerical experiment. (Smoothed temperature data in Jones et al., 1998; CO2 forcing data from CO2 history, and calculated expected rise in temperature assuming 2 degree Celsius rise for CO2 doubling; sunspot abundance from J.Lean, NASA) 
Of course, showing that the observed warming entirely agrees with reasonable expectations for the rise in carbon dioxide does not exclude the possibility that some of this warming would have occurred anyway, without human help. But the warming of the past 30 years, from 1970 to the present, is unexplainable by any known natural cause. In any case, considerable further warming is very likely if emissions continue as in the past.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 2, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Miniscule amount? We have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by one third in the last 200 years. We are adding 8 billion metric tons of CO2 each year, and the rate of production is increasing.



Yes, compared to the massive amounts of CO2 released into the atmosphere from volcanic activity, the oceans, soil, vegetation, that produced by humankind is relatively small.  Further the average mean temperatures on Earth and ocean temperatures have stabilized and even decreased since the late 1990's though CO2 levels continue to increase.  If there is a significant correlation between human generated CO2 and global warming, this can only be demonstrated through manipulation of data fed into computer models and it cannot be replicated by the actual observable and verifiable climate trends.  Further there have been periods on Earth in which the CO2 levels were significantly higher while the average mean temperatures were much lower.

All this has to be factored into any conclusions that we humans simply living our lives are causing any lasting harm to Planet Earth.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/OceansandCO2EngrsAustapr08.pdf


----------



## Chris (Jul 2, 2008)

Foxfyre said:


> Yes, compared to the massive amounts of CO2 released into the atmosphere from volcanic activity, the oceans, soil, vegetation, that produced by humankind is relatively small.  Further the average mean temperatures on Earth and ocean temperatures have stabilized and even decreased since the late 1990's though CO2 levels continue to increase.  If there is a significant correlation between human generated CO2 and global warming, this can only be demonstrated through manipulation of data fed into computer models and it cannot be replicated by the actual observable and verifiable climate trends.  Further there have been periods on Earth in which the CO2 levels were significantly higher while the average mean temperatures were much lower.
> 
> All this has to be factored into any conclusions that we humans simply living our lives are causing any lasting harm to Planet Earth.
> 
> http://icecap.us/images/uploads/OceansandCO2EngrsAustapr08.pdf



Almost everything is your post is false. The temperature of the earth has continued to rise in this decade, and that is why the pole is melting. Mankind has caused the CO2 level to rise by one third which is a very significant amount. We are releasing 1 ton of CO2 for every person on earth per year. CO2 in the atmosphere is at the highest level ever recorded, and the ice core record goes back 600,000 years.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 2, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I showed you where droughts aren't on the rise,
> ...


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 2, 2008)

Actually scientists have recently announced we are entering a period of short term cooling.

See unlike some of you kids, I was around when these same "experts" were telling us all we were heading for another Ice age. I think the only thing that is certain in this whole debate is that we do not really know what is going to happen.

Stop looking at the Climate models so much. as I already pointed out, NEARLY ALL of them operate on the premise that CO2 levels will double. If they do not double, then all the models to date are wholly inaccurate.

I do not doubt the earth is warming myself, I simply doubt how much we as humans contribute to it, and how much we can really do to stop it.

Charles


----------



## Chris (Jul 2, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> Actually scientists have recently announced we are entering a period of short term cooling.
> 
> See unlike some of you kids, I was around when these same "experts" were telling us all we were heading for another Ice age. I think the only thing that is certain in this whole debate is that we do not really know what is going to happen.
> 
> ...



CO2 in the atmosphere has already gone up by one third and the amount we are releasing is accelerating because of the industrialization of China and India. Plus, when the permafrost melts, which will be soon, it will release methane which is a greenhouse gas that is 20 times more powerful than CO2.


----------



## btopping (Jul 2, 2008)

Well What IS?  I cannot believe that we don't believe that we are not having a significant impact on the environment. 

Geologists are only one small part of the equation.  I also have friends that are PHD's in various sciences.  To say that we are not having an impact is suicide.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 2, 2008)

global warming is a topic the gop loves to debate because it distracts us from talking about pollution.  corporate pollution, styrophome,plastics,nuke waste, the pacific ocean is a toilet bowl.  more plastic in it than wildlife, by weight.  

chinas pollution comes to los angeles.  

bush deregulated policing corporations on pollution.


----------



## BrianH (Jul 2, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Why is the North Pole melting so quickly?



Volcanic eruptions beneath the North Pole...

Volcanoes Erupt Beneath Arctic Ice | LiveScience


----------



## BrianH (Jul 2, 2008)

btopping said:


> Well What IS?  I cannot believe that we don't believe that we are not having a significant impact on the environment.
> 
> Geologists are only one small part of the equation.  I also have friends that are PHD's in various sciences.  To say that we are not having an impact is suicide.



I believe humans do have an impact on the environment...but I do not believe they are causing global warming.  Humans burning fossil fuels on earth are not causing the warming of every planet in our solar system.


----------



## BrianH (Jul 2, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> global warming is a topic the gop loves to debate because it distracts us from talking about pollution.  corporate pollution, styrophome,plastics,nuke waste, the pacific ocean is a toilet bowl.  more plastic in it than wildlife, by weight.
> 
> chinas pollution comes to los angeles.
> 
> bush deregulated policing corporations on pollution.



So your brain came out of the Pacific Ocean?...It all makes sense now.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 2, 2008)

newt gingrich already conceded that corportion know they are causing global warming.  they just don't want regulations and taxes and going green will cost money.  

I say its worth it.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 2, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> newt gingrich already conceded that corportion know they are causing global warming.  they just don't want regulations and taxes and going green will cost money.
> 
> I say its worth it.



Who gives a rat's ass what Gingrich says, facts are facts. Until you can show me that man made CO2 is causing climate changes your scurrying around proves nothing.


----------



## editec (Jul 2, 2008)

TopGunna said:


> CO2 is measured in parts per million, and atmospheric CO2 makes up 384 parts per million.
> 
> That's .038%, not 4%.


 
You are correct.

My error. 


*Composition of
dry atmosphere, by volume*[5]_ppmv: parts per million by volume_GasVolumeNitrogen (N2)780,840 ppmv (78.084%)Oxygen (O2)209,460 ppmv (20.946%)Argon (Ar)9,340 ppmv (0.9340%)Carbon dioxide (CO2)383 ppmv (0.0383%)Neon (Ne)18.18 ppmv (0.001818%)Helium (He)5.24 ppmv (0.000524%)Methane (CH4)1.745 ppmv (0.0001745%)Krypton (Kr)1.14 ppmv (0.000114%)Hydrogen (H2)0.55 ppmv (0.000055%)*Not included in above dry atmosphere:*Water vapor (H2O)~0.40% over full atmosphere, typically 1% to 4% near surface*Minor components of air not listed above include*[_citation needed_]GasVolumenitrous oxide0.3 ppmv (0.00005%)xenon0.09 ppmv (9x10-6%)ozone0.0 to 0.07 ppmv (0%-7x10-6%)nitrogen dioxide0.02 ppmv (2x10-6%)iodine0.01 ppmv (1x10-6%)carbon monoxidetraceammoniatrace


----------



## Chris (Jul 2, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Volcanic eruptions beneath the North Pole...
> 
> Volcanoes Erupt Beneath Arctic Ice | LiveScience



Volcanoes under the ice?

Bwha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha!!!!!

Yes, I guess they are causing all the glaciers in the world to recede as well.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 2, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Volcanoes under the ice?
> 
> Bwha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha!!!!!
> 
> ...


----------



## Angel Heart (Jul 2, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Volcanoes under the ice?
> 
> Bwha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha!!!!!
> 
> Yes, I guess they are causing all the glaciers in the world to recede as well.



Amazingly a new glacier has grown right next to a growing lava dome.

Against odds, glacier grows in cauldron of Mt. St. Helens | KATU.com - Portland, Oregon | Outdoors


----------



## dread (Jul 3, 2008)

Maybe if Kirk stopped breathing the north pole will remain intact.


----------



## TopGunna (Jul 3, 2008)

The above chart depicts global temperature anomaly.  As of April 2008, temperatures were below the 1979-2008 average.






The above chart shows measured temperature (the blue and red lines) and CO2 levels in the atmosphere.  But while CO2 concentrations increase at a fairly constant rate, temperatures have fluctuated a lot.  It would seem that CO2 levels have very little explanatory power when it comes to predicting temperature changes - the two trends are loosely correlated at best.

Correlation (and a weak one at that) is not causation.  Just because you plug in a nightlight every evening, and the boogeyman hasn't shown up - IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOUR NIGHTLIGHT IS KEEPING HIM AWAY.

Maybe I'm a foolish denier, but I will believe empirical data over untested and unprovable theory 100% of the time.



> Another way of stating the situation is this: There is no compelling evidence that the observed overall warming in the 20th Century is anything but man-made.



In other words, "it must be man, because we don't understand what else might be causing the warming."  There's also no compelling evidence that anything but the nightlight is keeping the boogeyman away.  You call that "science?"  HA!


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 3, 2008)

arguing with these Global Warming Alarmist is like clapping with one hand. They are fully brainwashed by Al Gore. They could care less about facts


----------



## T-Bor (Jul 3, 2008)

Right, so let's just wait to things go to shit before we do something. Kind of like the levees. Let's just wait till they break before we do anything. Thank god YOU aren't in charge. 




nomdeplume said:


> I'm not even reading whatever you posted because I know it's not true. Sure, some parts of antarctica are melting, but others are thickening. When it's all melting, then there is some ground for concern. The north pole's ice melting is nothing. And its bullshit to claim that it has never happened before. We know the north pole, in the past, has existed without ice. Sorry that we didn't have a historian sitting on the north pole to "record it in the historical record". Nothing but a bunch of intellectual dishonesty.


----------



## BrianH (Jul 3, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Volcanoes under the ice?
> 
> Bwha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha!!!!!
> 
> Yes, I guess they are causing all the glaciers in the world to recede as well.



It's a proven fact there is a ridge underneath the Arctic...READ THE ARTICLE DUMBASS.  Well, you claim that Volcanic activity on the equator caused the little ice age............Is it really so hard to believe?   And by the way, GLACIERS have been melting for hundreds of years.  Quick, think of something else that DOESN'T prove global warming is caused by man.


----------



## Chris (Jul 3, 2008)

BrianH said:


> It's a proven fact there is a ridge underneath the Arctic...READ THE ARTICLE DUMBASS.  Well, you claim that Volcanic activity on the equator caused the little ice age............Is it really so hard to believe?   And by the way, GLACIERS have been melting for hundreds of years.  Quick, think of something else that DOESN'T prove global warming is caused by man.



The glaciers are melting....

Shrinking glaciers evidence of global warming / Differences seen by looking at photos from 100 years ago


----------



## Chris (Jul 3, 2008)

Great article about the global warming deniers....

New Statesman - The global warming deniers


----------



## TopGunna (Jul 3, 2008)

Kirk said:


> The glaciers are melting....
> 
> Shrinking glaciers evidence of global warming / Differences seen by looking at photos from 100 years ago



The glaciers have been melting since we've emerged from the little ice age.  Glaciers melt every summer, refreeze every winter.  Sorry, but that doesn't validate AGW theory.

Got any other anecdotal proof of AGW theory?
We had a lot of flooding in the Midwest this year!
There were a lot of tornadoes this year!
Hurricane Katrina was really bad!
The Northwest Passage was navigable last year!
An ice shelf collapsed in Antarctica!
We set a record high today in such-and-such city!

Unfortunately, this proves nothing.  All of these stories share a common problem - they typically are used by the writer to make a statement about the pace and direction of change (and even the acceleration of this change), something that is absolutely scientifically impossible to do from a single data point.  As it turns out, we often have flooding in the Midwest.  Neither tornadoes nor hurricanes have shown any increasing trend over the past decades.  The Northwest Passage has been navigable a number of years in the last century.  During the time of the ice shelf collapse panic, Antarctica was actually setting 30-year record highs for sea ice extent.  And, by simple math, every city on average should set a new 100-year high temperature every 100 days, and this is even before considering the urban heat island effect's upward bias on city temperature measurement.


----------



## Chris (Jul 3, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Kirk, what warmed the earth at the end of the Ice Age as well as the Little Ice Age that peaked in the 1700s?  What caused the ice?  There is no doubt that we are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere and we should clean up our act.  But do not jump on the first GW wagon you see and claim that the earth is warming because of humans.  Sure, we pollute and we put CO2 in the air, but it's not even close to being the main cause.



Excellent question, Brian. The Little Ice Age was caused by volcanic eruptions near the equator and by lower solar activity. But the sun is not the main cause of the current warming according to the Stanford solar scientists. I posted their study in this thread.

The acceleration in the melting of the ice cap is the canary in the coal mine(ironic statement). The ice cap has been there for thousands of years, and we have melted it in less than a century. 

What is worst is that we are increasing greatly the amount of CO2 we are putting in the atmosphere with the industrialization of China and India. 

This topic has been politicized by right wing thing tanks like the Heritage Foundation and others. I personally have never seen Al Gore's movie, and I don't think the Kyoto Accord will do much good. I think we are screwed.


----------



## TopGunna (Jul 3, 2008)

I got an email saying Kirk had replied to one on my posts at 3:22 - but can't find it in this thread.  Has it been deleted?


----------



## Chris (Jul 3, 2008)

TopGunna said:


> I got an email saying Kirk had replied to one on my posts at 3:22 - but can't find it in this thread.  Has it been deleted?



Satellite photos don't lie. Only people lie....


----------



## TopGunna (Jul 3, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Satellite photos don't lie. Only people lie....



Hahaha!  Of course, it would be nice if someone has been intelligent enough to label those "photos" - apparently it's white in outer space?


----------



## Chris (Jul 3, 2008)

TopGunna said:


> Hahaha!  Of course, it would be nice if someone has been intelligent enough to label those "photos" - apparently it's white in outer space?



These photos show the melting of the pole from 1979 to now.


----------



## Chris (Jul 3, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Good article about yourself and the enviromental wackos.
> Sure, the North Pole is Melting. So What?: Newsroom: The Independent Institute
> It is fashionable these days to blame almost everything on man-made global warming. So it comes as no great surprise to read in a recent New York Times story that leads of open water in ice fields near the North Pole filled cruise passengers on a Russian icebreaker with a sense of alarm about impending climate disasters. Two scientists-lecturers aboard, a Harvard zoologist and an American Museum paleontologist (experts on animals and fossils, but not on meteorology) were shocked, as ABC News reported, to find Santas workshop underwater.
> 
> ...



jreeves, the author of the article quoted above works for the tobacco industry and the oil industry. Check out this profile......

Singer was born September 27, 1924, in Vienna, Austria. Singer received a B.E.E. from Ohio State University in 1943 and a Ph.D. from Princeton University in 1948.

In the early 1990s, Singer's wife, Candace Carolyn Crandall, was Executive Vice President of SEPP and is currently a Research Associate of SEPP. [1]

The Competitive Enterprise Institute lists Singer as "expert" on their website. [2]

[edit]Affiliations
1989- Director and President, Science and Environmental Policy Project, a foundation-funded, independent research group, incorporated in 1992, to advance environment and health policies through sound science. SEPP is a non-profit, education organization. 
1993- Member of the board of the International Center for a Scientific Ecology. 
1994- Distinguished Research Professor, Institute for Humane Studies at George Mason University, Fairfax, VA. 
2002 Advisory Board Member, American Council on Science and Health 
Editorial Advisory Board, The Cato Institute 
Adjunct Scholar, National Center for Policy Analysis 
Adjunct Fellow, Frontiers of Freedom 
2006- Member of the Science Advisory Committee for the Natural Resources Stewardship Project. 
It should be noted that, according to Environmental Defense, October 26, 2005: [3]

The Cato Institute received $55,000 from ExxonMobil in 2002-2003. 
The National Center for Policy Analysis received $105,000 from ExxonMobil in 2002-2003. 
The Frontiers of Freedom organizations received $282,000 from ExxonMobil in 2002-2003. 
The American Council on Science and Health received $35,000 from ExxonMobil in 2002-2003. 
[edit]Climate Change "Expert"
The National Center for Public Policy Research [4] lists Singer as someone that journalists can interview on climate change policy.[5]

[edit]Tobacco Industry Contractor
In 1993, Singer collaborated with Tom Hockaday of Apco Associates to draft an article on "junk science" intended for publication. Apco Associates was the PR firm hired to organize and direct The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition for Philip Morris. Hockaday reported on his work with Singer to Ellen Merlo, Senior Vice President of Corporate Affairs at Philip Morris.[1]

In 1994, Singer was Chief Reviewer of the report Science, economics, and environmental policy: a critical examination published by the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution (AdTI). This was all part of an attack on EPA regulation on environmental tobacco smoke funded by the Tobacco Institute. [6] At that time, Mr. Singer was a Senior Fellow with AdTI. [7]

"The report's principal reviewer, Dr Fred Singer, was involved with the International Center for a Scientific Ecology, a group that was considered important in Philip Morris' plans to create a group in Europe similar to The Advancement for Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), as discussed by Ong and Glantz. He was also on a tobacco industry list of people who could write op-ed pieces on "junk science," defending the industry's views.39" [8]

In 1995, as President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (a think tank based in Fairfax, Virginia) S. Fred Singer was involved in launching a publicity campaign about "The Top 5 Environmental Myths of 1995," a list that included the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's conclusion that secondhand tobacco smoke is a human carcinogen. Shandwick, a public relations agency working for British American Tobacco, pitched the "Top 5 Myths" list idea to Singer to minimize the appearance of tobacco industry involvement in orchestrating criticism of the EPA. The "Top 5 Environmental Myths" list packaged EPA's secondhand smoke ruling with other topics like global warming and radon gas, to help minimize the appearance of tobacco industry involvement in the effort. According to a 1996 BAT memo describing the arrangement, Singer agreed to an "aggressive media interview schedule" organized by Shandwick to help publicize his criticism of EPA's conclusions.[9]

[edit]Oil Industry Contractor
In a September 24, 1993, sworn affidavit, Dr. Singer admitted to doing climate change research on behalf of oil companies, such as Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell and the American Gas Association. [10]


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 3, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Satellite photos don't lie. Only people lie....



LOL that could be a pic from summer and one from winter 

our climates has always gone trough cycles man, only lately have we tried to place all the blame on ourselves.

Charles


----------



## BrianH (Jul 3, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Excellent question, Brian. The Little Ice Age was caused by volcanic eruptions near the equator and by lower solar activity. But the sun is not the main cause of the current warming according to the Stanford solar scientists. I posted their study in this thread.
> 
> The acceleration in the melting of the ice cap is the canary in the coal mine(ironic statement). The ice cap has been there for thousands of years, and we have melted it in less than a century.
> 
> ...




LOLOLOL. You're a piece of work dude.  You simply throw everyone elses evidence out of the window despite it's validity and truthfulness.  It is a proven FACT that there is a ridge underneath arctic ice on the ocean floor that has definately spewed lava and hot gases into the arctic ocean.  THe first such occurance occurred in 1998-2001.  It is also being studied right now to be a very plausible reason for the melting ice-cap.  I just talked to a lady personally and her parents up North had snow this June.


----------



## Chris (Jul 3, 2008)

BrianH said:


> LOLOLOL. You're a piece of work dude.  You simply throw everyone elses evidence out of the window despite it's validity and truthfulness.  It is a proven FACT that there is a ridge underneath arctic ice on the ocean floor that has definately spewed lava and hot gases into the arctic ocean.  THe first such occurance occurred in 1998-2001.  It is also being studied right now to be a very plausible reason for the melting ice-cap.  I just talked to a lady personally and her parents up North had snow this June.



You just don't get it. Ice is melting all over the world. Volcanoes under the arctic are not melting the glaciers in Glacier State Park or Switzerland or Chile or at the South Pole. Keep trying though. You and your Exxon butt buddies are doing a great job.


----------



## BrianH (Jul 3, 2008)

Kirk said:


> You just don't get it. Ice is melting all over the world. Volcanoes under the arctic are not melting the glaciers in Glacier State Park or Switzerland or Chile or at the South Pole. Keep trying though. You and your Exxon butt buddies are doing a great job.



Ice is also melting on Mars, and other planets are getting warmer as well...it's not just Earth.  Glaciers have been melting for YEARS. There are large cut-outs in the mountains from glaciers that completed melting thousands of years ago...was it Humans.  There were glaciers thousands of years ago that were melted before we started burning fossil fuels.  As far as my "butt buddies" ...  If they were "butt buddies" of mine, they'd be alot better than your butt buddy.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 3, 2008)

Kirk said:


> jreeves, the author of the article quoted above works for the tobacco industry and the oil industry. Check out this profile......
> 
> Singer was born September 27, 1924, in Vienna, Austria. Singer received a B.E.E. from Ohio State University in 1943 and a Ph.D. from Princeton University in 1948.
> 
> ...



Why is it you never cite the source for your information, isn't that against board rules?


----------



## jreeves (Jul 3, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Ice is also melting on Mars, and other planets are getting warmer as well...it's not just Earth.  Glaciers have been melting for YEARS. There are large cut-outs in the mountains from glaciers that completed melting thousands of years ago...was it Humans.  There were glaciers thousands of years ago that were melted before we started burning fossil fuels.  As far as my "butt buddies" ...  If they were "butt buddies" of mine, they'd be alot better than your butt buddy.



Omg....Lmfao!!!


----------



## editec (Jul 3, 2008)

BrianH said:


> LOLOLOL. You're a piece of work dude. You simply throw everyone elses evidence out of the window despite it's validity and truthfulness. It is a proven FACT that there is a ridge underneath arctic ice on the ocean floor that has definately spewed lava and hot gases into the arctic ocean. THe first such occurance occurred in 1998-2001. It is also being studied right now to be a very plausible reason for the melting ice-cap. I just talked to a lady personally and her parents up North had snow this June.


 
Odd. 

I can't find any evidence of volcanic activity under the polar ice cap in any reputable scientific journal.

I see a LOT about it in right wing blogs, though.


----------



## Chris (Jul 3, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Why is it you never cite the source for your information, isn't that against board rules?



I guess you don't know how to use google. No wonder you don't know anything. Check out sourcewatch.org. It shows who is pulling your strings.


----------



## Chris (Jul 3, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Ice is also melting on Mars, and other planets are getting warmer as well...it's not just Earth.  Glaciers have been melting for YEARS. There are large cut-outs in the mountains from glaciers that completed melting thousands of years ago...was it Humans.  There were glaciers thousands of years ago that were melted before we started burning fossil fuels.  As far as my "butt buddies" ...  If they were "butt buddies" of mine, they'd be alot better than your butt buddy.



Yes, the North Pole has melted in less than 100 years, and it is all Al Gore's fault. How stupid. I posted the link from the Stanford University solar scientists where they explain that a small percentage(25%) of global warming may be solar related. But the problem is that when solar activity has gone down,which it does every few years,the earth's temperature and the melting has continued to go up. Did you ever wonder why all the "experts" you guys quote work for Exxon?


----------



## Chris (Jul 3, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Ice is also melting on Mars, and other planets are getting warmer as well...it's not just Earth.  Glaciers have been melting for YEARS. There are large cut-outs in the mountains from glaciers that completed melting thousands of years ago...was it Humans.  There were glaciers thousands of years ago that were melted before we started burning fossil fuels.  As far as my "butt buddies" ...  If they were "butt buddies" of mine, they'd be alot better than your butt buddy.



You misunderstood. I did not say they were your butt buddies. I said they were your Exxon butt buddies.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 3, 2008)

Personally I think were all fucked anyways.

lol


----------



## BrianH (Jul 3, 2008)

editec said:


> Odd.
> 
> I can't find any evidence of volcanic activity under the polar ice cap in any reputable scientific journal.
> 
> I see a LOT about it in right wing blogs, though.



Volcanoes Erupt Beneath Arctic Ice | LiveScience

I posted this earlier....


----------



## jreeves (Jul 4, 2008)

Kirk said:


> I guess you don't know how to use google. No wonder you don't know anything. Check out sourcewatch.org. It shows who is pulling your strings.



That's not the point, it is against copyright laws to post someone else's work without citing it in your post.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 4, 2008)

Kirk said:


> jreeves, the author of the article quoted above works for the tobacco industry and the oil industry. Check out this profile......
> 
> Singer was born September 27, 1924, in Vienna, Austria. Singer received a B.E.E. from Ohio State University in 1943 and a Ph.D. from Princeton University in 1948.
> 
> ...



I hope your Exxon donor list, isn't coming from Greenpeace because Greenpeace isn't exactly a non partisan source. So until you start citing your post, you can't be taken seriously. I am sure that Greenpeace thinks that *all * anti-global warming studies are funded by Exxon.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 4, 2008)

jreeves said:


> I hope your Exxon donor list, isn't coming from Greenpeace because Greenpeace isn't exactly a non partisan source. So until you start citing your post, you can't be taken seriously. I am sure that Greenpeace thinks that *all * anti-global warming studies are funded by Exxon.



Nevermind....

ExxonSecrets Factsheet: S. Fred Singer


----------



## jreeves (Jul 4, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Nevermind....
> 
> ExxonSecrets Factsheet: S. Fred Singer



Greenpeace funded....

Enviromental wacko... of course greenpeace is going to say they're funded by Exxon.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 4, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Greenpeace funded....
> 
> Enviromental wacko... of course greenpeace is going to say they're funded by Exxon.


Your beloved greenpeace...
 Blockading a naval base in protest of the war in Iraq; * Boarding an oil tanker for a "banner hang"; * Breaking into the central control building of a nuclear power station; and * Padlocking the gates of a government research facility.
"The law says that tax-exempt contributions must be spent on tax-exempt programs. Greenpeace is spending tax-exempt contributions on non-exempt -- and oftentimes illegal -- programs," Hardiman said. "This is a clear violation of the law."
Because Greenpeace receives significant donations from large entities, such as the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Turner Foundation, the report also calls into question the accountability of these donors.
"The state of California has a series of statutes designed to protect the public from impropriety on the part of non-profits," Hardiman, said." And in the case of Greenpeace, it's clear violations of the law mean that the state's Attorney General should take action. And if the state's Attorney General proves unwilling, we would encourage him to grant PIW 'relator status' so that we can."

Nonprofit Watchdog Files IRS Complaint Against Greenpeace, Seeks Federal Probe

Public Interest Watch (PIW) was established in 2002 in response to the growing misuse of charitable funds by nonprofit organizations and the lack of effort by government agencies to deal with the problem. PIW works to fight charitable trust abuse by exposing individual cases of abuse and advocating for stronger governmental oversight, including requirements for greater financial disclosure by charitable organizations.


PIW is a Washington, DC-based nonprofit corporation, with additional offices in California. PIW is a 501(c)(4) tax-exempt organization, which means contributions to PIW are not tax-deductible. To learn more, visit Public Interest Watch.

Now I know why you don't cite sources.....


----------



## Chris (Jul 4, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Your beloved greenpeace...
> Blockading a naval base in protest of the war in Iraq; * Boarding an oil tanker for a "banner hang"; * Breaking into the central control building of a nuclear power station; and * Padlocking the gates of a government research facility.
> "The law says that tax-exempt contributions must be spent on tax-exempt programs. Greenpeace is spending tax-exempt contributions on non-exempt -- and oftentimes illegal -- programs," Hardiman said. "This is a clear violation of the law."
> Because Greenpeace receives significant donations from large entities, such as the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Turner Foundation, the report also calls into question the accountability of these donors.
> ...



Greenpeace? I use sourcewatch.org Why do you make up stuff?


----------



## Chris (Jul 4, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Greenpeace funded....
> 
> Enviromental wacko... of course greenpeace is going to say they're funded by Exxon.



From Wiki....


A 2007 Newsweek cover story on climate change denial reported that: "In April 1998 a dozen people from the denial machine  including the Marshall Institute, Fred Singer's group and Exxon  met at the American Petroleum Institute's Washington headquarters. They proposed a $5 million campaign, according to a leaked eight-page memo, to convince the public that the science of global warming is riddled with controversy and uncertainty." The plan was reportedly aimed at "raising questions about and undercutting the 'prevailing scientific wisdom'" on climate change. According to Newsweek, the plan was leaked to the press and therefore was never implemented.[40]

In 2007, the nonprofit advocacy group Union of Concerned Scientists called Singer a "climate contrarian." [41] ABC News has reported that Singer insists he is not on the payroll of the energy industry, but admits he once received an unsolicited $10,000 from Exxon.[42].


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 4, 2008)

Sourcewatch.org is a highly partisan group dedicated to casting doubt on anything positive on the conservative/GOP side of the ledger.  Their reports are frequently misleading at best; downright dishonest at worst.  Doubt that?  Just follow the money.

The fact is that philanthropists, foundations, and corporations do give charitable contributions to numerous organization.  Exxon has given large contributions to the Boy Scouts of America and also the Girl Scouts for instance.  Should we presume that these youth organizations are in the pocket of the oil companies?

It is normal and natural for corporations to fund groups or research that a) they appreciate and/or b) wish to encourage.  This is true of ALL corporations who give to all manner of causes and programs and projects.  I haven't done detailed research, but many of those scientific research projects that have received funding from the oil companies have also received funding from groups doing wind, solar, and hydro energy stuff.  Of course those attempting to discredit those scientists don't mention that.  How do I know this?  Because a scientists who has received funding from all those industries for a research project has told me so.

One cannot automatically assume that independent scientists will slant or distort their findings to accommodate a contributor.  If one is wholly or mostly funded by the oil companies, then he would be suspect.  If all or most of his funding comes from other sources, a contribution from an oil company is not damning.

Those who point aghast at a scientific group that received a $10,000 (or whatever) contribution from Exxon rarely look to see where the funding for the pro-AGW groups is coming from, and how that could be in serious jeopardy if they in any way suggested that AGW is grossly exaggerated or isn't happening at all.

Some people only want to hear what they want to believe.  And some of us want to be right about this and think it is prudent to look at ALL of the science instead of just that which supports our adopted point of view.


----------



## BrianH (Jul 4, 2008)

Exactly, these scientists are getting "desired" results.  They do just as you do, they ignore any evidence pointing the other way and claim that it's not credible.  Kirk uses volcano activity on the equator to explain the little ice age and the cooling of the world, but thinks it completely inconceivable that volcanic activity underneath the arctic ice could melt the ice.  Very biased IMO and a lack of understanding in logical argument.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 4, 2008)

Kirk said:


> From Wiki....
> 
> 
> A 2007 Newsweek cover story on climate change denial reported that: "In April 1998 a dozen people from the denial machine  including the Marshall Institute, Fred Singer's group and Exxon  met at the American Petroleum Institute's Washington headquarters. They proposed a $5 million campaign, according to a leaked eight-page memo, to convince the public that the science of global warming is riddled with controversy and uncertainty." The plan was reportedly aimed at "raising questions about and undercutting the 'prevailing scientific wisdom'" on climate change. According to Newsweek, the plan was leaked to the press and therefore was never implemented.[40]
> ...




This scientist is paid off too I guess? 



*Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre*, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has
authored more than 100 scientific articles and written 11 books and received numerous
scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the
United States, converted from climate alarmist to skeptic in 2006. *Allegre, who was one
of the first scientists to sound global warming fears 20 years ago, now says the cause of
climate change is "unknown" and accused the prophets of doom of global warming of
being motivated by money, noting that "the ecology of helpless protesting has become a
very lucrative business for some people!" Glaciers chronicles or historical archives
point to the fact that climate is a capricious phenomena.* This fact is confirmed by
mathematical meteorological theories. So, let us be cautious, Allegre explained in a
September 21, 2006 article in the French newspaper L'EXPRESS. The National Post inCanada also profiled Allegre on March 2, 2007, noting Allegre has the highest
environmental credentials. The author of early environmental books, he fought successful
battles to protect the ozone layer from CFCs and public health from lead pollution.
Allegre now calls fears of a climate disaster "simplistic and obscuring the true dangers
mocks "the greenhouse-gas fanatics whose proclamations consist in denouncing man's
role on the climate without doing anything about it except organizing conferences and
preparing protocols that become dead letters." Allegre, a member of both the French and
U.S. Academy of Sciences, had previously expressed concern about manmade global
warming. "By burning fossil fuels, man enhanced the concentration of carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere which has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in the last
century," Allegre wrote 20 years ago. In addition, Allegre was one of 1500 scientists who
signed a November 18, 1992 letter titled World Scientists' Warning to Humanity in
which the scientists warned that global warmings potential risks are very great.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....Store_id=c5e16731-3c64-481c-9a36-d702baea2a42


----------



## jreeves (Jul 4, 2008)

jreeves said:


> This scientist is paid off too I guess?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



We'll go through all 300 of them if necessary....


----------



## jreeves (Jul 4, 2008)

Kirk said:


> From Wiki....
> 
> 
> A 2007 Newsweek cover story on climate change denial reported that: "In April 1998 a dozen people from the denial machine  including the Marshall Institute, Fred Singer's group and Exxon  met at the American Petroleum Institute's Washington headquarters. They proposed a $5 million campaign, according to a leaked eight-page memo, to convince the public that the science of global warming is riddled with controversy and uncertainty." The plan was reportedly aimed at "raising questions about and undercutting the 'prevailing scientific wisdom'" on climate change. According to Newsweek, the plan was leaked to the press and therefore was never implemented.[40]
> ...





Lmao....$10,000 is enough for Singer to sell out his reputation.....Lmao....


----------



## Chris (Jul 4, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Lmao....$10,000 is enough for Singer to sell out his reputation.....Lmao....




LMAO!!! What reputation?

The guy works for the Petroleum Institute and the tobacco companies.

He will burn in Hell.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 4, 2008)

Kirk said:


> LMAO!!! What reputation?
> 
> The guy works for the Petroleum Institute and the tobacco companies.
> 
> He will burn in Hell.



Sure he does, proof please? So do the other 300 scientist in the report I posted right? You do realize global warming hysteria is big business right?


----------



## Chris (Jul 4, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Sure he does, proof please? So do the other 300 scientist in the report I posted right? You do realize global warming hysteria is big business right?



Newsweek article on you and your friends.....


Global Warming Deniers Well Funded | Newsweek Project Green | Newsweek.com


----------



## jreeves (Jul 4, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Newsweek article on you and your friends.....
> 
> 
> Global Warming Deniers Well Funded | Newsweek Project Green | Newsweek.com



You do realize that Nobel peace winners don't take 10,000 dollars to sell out their reputation right?


----------



## Chris (Jul 4, 2008)

jreeves said:


> You do realize that Nobel peace winners don't take 10,000 dollars to sell out their reputation right?



You have adopted the three rules of lying...deny, deny, deny.

Great article. Everyone should read it.


Global Warming Deniers Well Funded | Newsweek Project Green | Newsweek.com


----------



## Chris (Jul 4, 2008)

jreeves said:


> You do realize that Nobel peace winners don't take 10,000 dollars to sell out their reputation right?



Here's a quote from the Newsweek article...


"Still, like a great beast that has been wounded, the denial machine is not what it once was. In the NEWSWEEK Poll, 38 percent of those surveyed identified climate change as the nation's gravest environmental threat, three times the number in 2000. After ExxonMobil was chastised by senators for giving $19 million over the years to the Competitive Enterprise Institute and others who are "producing very questionable data" on climate change, as Sen. Jay Rockefeller said, the company has cut back its support for such groups. In June, a spokesman said ExxonMobil did not doubt the risks posed by climate change, telling reporters, "We're very much not a denier." In yet another shock, Bush announced at the weekend that he would convene a global-warming summit next month, with a 2008 goal of cutting greenhouse emissions. That astonished the remaining naysayers. "I just can't imagine the administration would look to mandatory [emissions caps] after what we had with Kyoto," said a GOP Senate staffer, who did not want to be named criticizing the president. "I mean, what a disaster!"


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 4, 2008)

Yeah, I started reading the article and gave up after the first few paragraphs filled with such obvious unsupported prejudice and exaggerated bias that would have earned a solid F minus when I was in journalism school and probably gotten a first year reporter fired in my day.  I have read some excellent reasoned articles on the pro AGW side that really have sent me back to review my homework and do further study.  This wasn't one of them.


----------



## Chris (Jul 4, 2008)

Foxfyre said:


> Yeah, I started reading the article and gave up after the first few paragraphs filled with such obvious unsupported prejudice and exaggerated bias that would have earned a solid F minus when I was in journalism school and probably gotten a first year reporter fired in my day.  I have read some excellent reasoned articles on the pro AGW side that really have sent me back to review my homework and do further study.  This wasn't one of them.



You stopped reading. That is your problem.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 4, 2008)

Kirk said:


> You stopped reading. That is your problem.



No, I haven't stopped reading at all.  I just stopped reading an article that didn't support a single prejudiced assertion made in the first several paragraphs.  I choose to devote my time allocated for reading for something that actually provides useful information.


----------



## Chris (Jul 4, 2008)

Foxfyre said:


> Yeah, I started reading the article and gave up after the first few paragraphs filled with such obvious unsupported prejudice and exaggerated bias that would have earned a solid F minus when I was in journalism school and probably gotten a first year reporter fired in my day.  I have read some excellent reasoned articles on the pro AGW side that really have sent me back to review my homework and do further study.  This wasn't one of them.



The truth hurts doesn't it....

Exxon cuts ties to global warming skeptics
Oil giant also in talks to look at curbing greenhouse gases

MSNBC staff and news service reports
updated Jan. 12, 2007
NEW YORK - Oil major Exxon Mobil Corp. is engaging in industry talks on possible U.S. greenhouse gas emissions regulations and has stopped funding groups skeptical of global warming claims   moves that some say could indicate a change in stance from the long-time foe of limits on heat-trapping gases.

Exxon, along with representatives from about 20 other companies, is participating in talks sponsored by Resources for the Future, a Washington, D.C., nonprofit. The think tank said it expected the talks would generate a report in the fall with recommendations to legislators on how to regulate greenhouse emissions.

Mark Boudreaux, a spokesman for Exxon, the worlds biggest publicly traded company, said its position on climate change has been widely misunderstood and as a result of that, we have been clarifying and talking more about what our position is.

Boudreux said Exxon in 2006 stopped funding the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a nonprofit advocating limited government regulation, and other groups that have downplayed the risks of greenhouse emissions. 

Warming war
May 19: View a TV ad produced for the Competitive Enterprise Institute that argues against regulating manmade carbon dioxide emissions as pollutants.
MSNBC.com


CEI acknowledged the change. I would make an argument that were a useful ally, but its up to them whether thats in the priority system that they have, right or wrong, director Fred Smith said on CNBCs On the Money.

Last year, CEI ran advertisements, featuring a little girl playing with a dandelion, that downplayed the risks of carbon dioxide emissions.

Since Democrats won control of Congress in November, heavy industries have been nervously watching which route the United States may take on future regulations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases scientists link to global warming. Several lawmakers on Friday introduced a bill to curb emissions.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 4, 2008)

Kirk said:


> The truth hurts doesn't it....
> 
> Exxon cuts ties to global warming skeptics
> Oil giant also in talks to look at curbing greenhouse gases
> ...



So did it ever occur to you that what you are saying here is proof positive that the oil companies are NOT bribing scientists to deny global warming?  Did it ever occur to you that oil companies are as eagerl to make a buck off global warming as much as anybody else?  Oil companies are not in the business of providing oil.  Oil as it comes from the ground has little use to anybody.  Oil companies are in the business of _providing energy _in a usable form.  So the oil companies are no more tied to oil than anybody else if they can figure out other ways to make money.

All the oil companies have been on the cutting edge of renewable energy sources including wind, solar, and bio.  Recently ConocoPhillips invested mega millions to construct a new facility in Texas that converts beef fat for use as auto fuel and for other purposes.  And don't think the oil companies aren't investing in mandated ethanol production even as they object to the principle of ethanol.  (Ethanol is more expensive to refine for each unit of useful energy produced when compared to gasoline and diesel, it requires different storage tanks, pumps, and trucks, and must be transported by truck rather than piped.) But once oil companies are foced into making such investments, they don't want to see them go down the tubes.

A little common sense and following the money goes a long way to avoid making foolish errors in assessing the situation that currently exists.

So yes, if mega bucks are to be made--even when those paying bigger bills at the gas pump or whatever are us--the oil companies are not likely to refuse to jump on that bandwagon.


----------



## Chris (Jul 4, 2008)

Foxfyre said:


> So did it ever occur to you that what you are saying here is proof positive that the oil companies are NOT bribing scientists to deny global warming?  Did it ever occur to you that oil companies are as eagerl to make a buck off global warming as much as anybody else?  Oil companies are not in the business of providing oil.  Oil as it comes from the ground has little use to anybody.  Oil companies are in the business of _providing energy _in a usable form.  So the oil companies are no more tied to oil than anybody else if they can figure out other ways to make money.
> 
> All the oil companies have been on the cutting edge of renewable energy sources including wind, solar, and bio.  Recently ConocoPhillips invested mega millions to construct a new facility in Texas that converts beef fat for use as auto fuel and for other purposes.  And don't think the oil companies aren't investing in mandated ethanol production even as they object to the principle of ethanol.  (Ethanol is more expensive to refine for each unit of useful energy produced when compared to gasoline and diesel, it requires different storage tanks, pumps, and trucks, and must be transported by truck rather than piped.) But once oil companies are foced into making such investments, they don't want to see them go down the tubes.
> 
> ...



No, it's proof positive that the oil companies have stopped bribing scientists because the science is so irrefutable.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 4, 2008)

Kirk said:


> You have adopted the three rules of lying...deny, deny, deny.
> 
> Great article. Everyone should read it.
> 
> ...



Science means nothing to you, only hit and run pieces down by liberal news organizations. One of the original scientist to claim global warming existed backtracked from his original statement. 

You claim Exxon has bought off scientist, while you fail to realize that there is tons more money in it for these scientist to promote man made global warming. There is large government grants that these scientist line there pockets with everytime they promote this hysteria. Deny all you want, here is one more article just for you though......

ABC News: The Global Warming Myth?
The heavy breathing over global warming is enough to terrify anyone. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

This has to be broken into four pieces. 

MYTH No. 1: The Earth is warming! 

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

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

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

*Our climate has always undergone changes. Greenland was named Greenland because its coasts used to be very green. It's presumptuous to think humans' impact matters so much in comparison to the frightening geologic history of the earth. And who is to say that last year's temperature is the perfect optimum? Warmer may be better! More people die in cold waves than heat waves. *
MYTH No. 3: There will be storms, flooded coasts and huge disruptions in climate! 

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

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

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

Wow. 

But many scientists laugh at the panic. 

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

The media, of course, like the exaggerated claims. Most are based on computer models that purport to predict future climates. But computer models are lousy at predicting climate because water vapor and cloud effects cause changes that computers fail to predict. *In the mid-1970s, computer models told us we should prepare for global cooling. *
Scientists tell reporters that computer models should "be viewed with great skepticism." Well, why aren't they? 

The fundamentalist doom mongers also ignore scientists who say the effects of global warming may be benign. *Harvard astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas said added CO2 in the atmosphere may actually benefit the world because more CO2 helps plants grow. Warmer winters would give farmers a longer harvest season, and might end the droughts in the Sahara Desert. *
*Why don't we hear about this part of the global warming argument? "It's the money!" said Dr. Baliunas. "Twenty-five billion dollars in government funding has been spent since 1990 to research global warming.* If scientists and researchers were coming out releasing reports that global warming has little to do with man, and most to do with just how the planet works, there wouldn't be as much money to study it." 

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

TRUTH: Hardly. 

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

And even advocates of Kyoto admit that if all the nations signed the Kyoto agreement and obeyed it, global temperatures would still increase. The difference by 2050 would be less than a tenth of a degree. The fuss over Kyoto is absurd. Even if Kyoto would have an impact, do you think all the signers are going to honor what they signed? China is predicted to out-emit us in five to 10 years. India will soon follow. What incentive do they have to stop burning fossil fuels? Get the shovel. 

The fundamentalist greens imply if we just conserved energy, and switched from fossil fuels to wind and solar power (they rarely mention nuclear power -- the most practical alternative), we would live in a nonglobal-warming fairyland of happiness. But their proposals are hopelessly impractical. Building solar panels burns energy, as does trucking them and installing them. Not to mention taking them down again to repair them. 

To think that solar energy could stop the predicted temperature increase is nonsensical. EPCOT, a theme park with a solar energy ride, consumes about 395,000 kilowatt-hours per day. The Department of Energy says you'd need around a thousand acres of solar panels to generate that much electricity. EPCOT itself only sits on 300 acres, so you'd have to triple the size of the park just to operate it. (Windmills are no panacea either. They are giant bird-killing Cuisinarts, and we'd have to build lots of them to produce significant energy.)


Take a deep breath droughts aren't unusually high, as a matter of fact in the last 100 years there hasn't been as many. Careless humans are for the most part responsible for the wildfires in CA......You don't need to get your panties in bunch, everything is just fine. Just remember in the 70's a lot of scientists, (probably the same ones claiming man made global warming) were calling for global cooling.


----------



## Chris (Jul 5, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Science means nothing to you, only hit and run pieces down by liberal news organizations. One of the original scientist to claim global warming existed backtracked from his original statement.
> 
> You claim Exxon has bought off scientist, while you fail to realize that there is tons more money in it for these scientist to promote man made global warming. There is large government grants that these scientist line there pockets with everytime they promote this hysteria. Deny all you want, here is one more article just for you though......
> 
> ...



Exxon has given up buying off scientists, since they now realize they were wrong. Even Bush now admits that global warming is a problem. You may be the only denier left.

As far as drought goes, I posted a link explaining that California's brush is drier than it has ever been this early in the fire season. Here's a quote from today's paper....

"Since a series of dry lightning strikes ignited more than 1,500 wildfires across central and Northern California on June 21, more than 520,000 acres, or 814 square miles, of range and forest land has gone up in flames."


----------



## editec (Jul 5, 2008)

Re: 



> _BrianHQuote:_
> _Originally Posted by *editec*
> 
> _
> ...


 
Thank you, BrianH. I must have missed your link. 

My apologies.

Fascinating. 

Whether it is a significant cause of polar icecap melting, I cannot say.

Apparently scientific consensus seems to think its impact on the icecap is minimal. 



> With news this week that polar ice is melting dramatically, underwater Arctic pyrotechnics might seem like a logical smoking gun. *Scientists don't see any significant connection, however. *
> *"We don't believe the volcanoes had much effect on the overlying ice," Reeves-Sohn told LiveScience, "but they seem to have had a major impact on the overlying water column." *
> The eruptions discharge large amounts of carbon dioxide, helium, trace metals and heat into the water over long distances, he said.
> The research, detailed in the June 26 issue of the journal _Nature_, was funded by NASA, the National Science Foundation and WHOI.


 
source


----------



## jreeves (Jul 5, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Exxon has given up buying off scientists, since they now realize they were wrong. Even Bush now admits that global warming is a problem. You may be the only denier left.
> 
> As far as drought goes, I posted a link explaining that California's brush is drier than it has ever been this early in the fire season. Here's a quote from today's paper....
> 
> "Since a series of dry lightning strikes ignited more than 1,500 wildfires across central and Northern California on June 21, more than 520,000 acres, or 814 square miles, of range and forest land has gone up in flames."



Sure so the government hands out grants like thet are candy and you wonder why GW hysteria has spread throughout the scientific community. Please repost your drought link cause all I seen was a 5 day forecast, while I posted a 100 year history. I still haven't heard back regarding the differences in the drought chart that I posted over the last 2 years. Remember, 4 out of 5 wildfires are caused by human carelessness. A link would be nice for articles that you so easily pull out of your ass.


----------



## editec (Jul 6, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Sure so the government hands out grants like thet are candy and you wonder why GW hysteria has spread throughout the scientific community. Please repost your drought link cause all I seen was a 5 day forecast, while I posted a 100 year history. I still haven't heard back regarding the differences in the drought chart that I posted over the last 2 years. Remember, 4 out of 5 wildfires are caused by human carelessness. A link would be nice for articles that you so easily pull out of your ass.


 
I get notification every day about what government grants are forthcoming, and I can assure you that the government does NOT hand out global warming grants like candy.

I have seen see  VERY few grants aimed at global warming research in the last three years or so I have been getting these daily GovGrants updates.


----------



## Chris (Jul 6, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Sure so the government hands out grants like thet are candy and you wonder why GW hysteria has spread throughout the scientific community. Please repost your drought link cause all I seen was a 5 day forecast, while I posted a 100 year history. I still haven't heard back regarding the differences in the drought chart that I posted over the last 2 years. Remember, 4 out of 5 wildfires are caused by human carelessness. A link would be nice for articles that you so easily pull out of your ass.



When people have no facts to back up what they are saying, they fall back on insults. Be sure to read the entire article twice.

California Fire Season Likely to Get Worse


----------



## BrianH (Jul 6, 2008)

editec said:


> Re:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Well sure, I'm not saying it has an impact, but it certainly is plausible.  It cannot be something simply written off because someone disagrees with it. As kirk does.  IMO, Kirk uses volcanic activity on the equator to explain the Little Ice Age....COoling of the Earth.  It is not inconceivable that increased volcanic activity in arctic waters could warm the water and cause ice to melt, especially during the summer in the Northern Hemisphere.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 6, 2008)

Kirk said:


> When people have no facts to back up what they are saying, they fall back on insults. Be sure to read the entire article twice.
> 
> California Fire Season Likely to Get Worse



I haven't used insults, quite to the contrary, I have used facts to dispute your man made gw hysteria. I see there is nothing you can point out on the drought charts that have changed in the last two years.


BTW you do realize the title, *California Fire Season likely to get worse*, doesn't in fact mean it is worse? Secondly when did California, constitute the whole globe, we are talking about *global warming*, correct? I have clearly showed you that *droughts aren't on the rise in the last 100 years*.


----------



## TopGunna (Jul 6, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Satellite photos don't lie.



Yes.  As we know, satellite photos don't lie, so here is one from the University of Illinois comparing Arctic sea ice content today and 20 years ago.






There's one million fewer square kilometers of sea ice in the Arctic, but one million more square kilometers in the Antarctic.



Kirk said:


> Only people lie....



YOUR photo, on the other hand, is a drawing.  You linked it from a website called worldwithoutwinter.com, which is part of a gay science fiction webring.  I'm serious:


> Check out the webrings above and below for more. You&#8217;ll also find other gay author sites covering all types of gay fiction, including gay science fiction.



Not that there's anything wrong with that...


----------



## Chris (Jul 6, 2008)

TopGunna said:


> Yes.  As we know, satellite photos don't lie, so here is one from the University of Illinois comparing Arctic sea ice content today and 20 years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The three rules of lying, deny, deny, deny...


Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis


----------



## BrianH (Jul 6, 2008)

Kirk said:


> The three rules of lying, deny, deny, deny...
> 
> 
> Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis



Which is something you've obviously mastered....


----------



## Chris (Jul 6, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Which is something you've obviously mastered....



These photos are from NASA....


NASA - Top Story - RECENT WARMING OF ARCTIC MAY AFFECT WORLDWIDE CLIMATE - October 23, 2003


----------



## Chris (Jul 6, 2008)

TopGunna, thanks for bringing up the University of Illinois, they have some good researchers....

Regardless of global warming, rising CO2 levels threaten marine life


----------



## BrianH (Jul 6, 2008)

Kirk said:


> These photos are from NASA....
> 
> 
> NASA - Top Story - RECENT WARMING OF ARCTIC MAY AFFECT WORLDWIDE CLIMATE - October 23, 2003



"Morison cautioned that while the recent decadal-scale changes in the circulation of the Arctic Ocean may not appear to be directly tied to global warming, most climate models predict the Arctic Oscillation will become even more strongly counterclockwise in the future. "The events of the 1990s may well be a preview of how the Arctic will respond over longer periods of time in a warming world," he said. "

JPL.NASA.GOV: News Releases

(THIS IS NASA AS WELL)

"A NASA-funded study found some climate models might be overestimating the amount of water vapor entering the atmosphere as the Earth warms. Since water vapor is the most important heat-trapping greenhouse gas in our atmosphere, some climate forecasts may be overestimating future temperature increases."

NASA - Top Story - SATELLITE FINDS WARMING "RELATIVE" TO HUMIDITY - March 15, 2004

(AND THIS ONE AS WELL)--Granted, it does loosley tie it to CO2, but by no means says it's the cause and most important greenhouse gas...


----------



## Chris (Jul 6, 2008)

TopGunna, here's more good info from the University of Illinois...

Global warming may halt ocean circulation - UPI.com

Thanks for telling me about them!


----------



## Chris (Jul 6, 2008)

BrianH said:


> "Morison cautioned that while the recent decadal-scale changes in the circulation of the Arctic Ocean may not appear to be directly tied to global warming, most climate models predict the Arctic Oscillation will become even more strongly counterclockwise in the future. "The events of the 1990s may well be a preview of how the Arctic will respond over longer periods of time in a warming world," he said. "
> 
> JPL.NASA.GOV: News Releases
> 
> ...



Those quotes are 4 years old....

Let's review shall we.....

California is experiencing its driest year on record. Over 800 square miles of California forests have burned so far, and the real fire season doesn't even start until late July. Most of the North Pole has melted. The level of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen by one third in the last 200 years. CO2 is now at the highest level ever recorded, and the Antarctic ice core record goes back 600,000 years. Every year we pump 8 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, and that number is rising as China and India industrialize.
Most of the "scientists" who were global warming deniers turned out to be paid by Exxon and the Petroleum Institute. Two years ago Exxon realized they were wrong and stopped funding those scientists. Still, some people continue to parrot them. Even Bush the Lesser now believes in global warming.


----------



## Chris (Jul 6, 2008)

NASA temperature data.....

Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Graphs


----------



## jreeves (Jul 6, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Those quotes are 4 years old....
> 
> Let's review shall we.....
> 
> ...




Sure anyone who dispels your myth is funded by Exxon.
While man made global warming cultist enjoy huge paychecks from the government through grants.

A government agency says that droughts aren't on the rise. Your reply to this, citing data from CA. LMFAO 

CA makes up what less than .001 % of the worlds total area.

When shown wildfires are caused 4 out of 5 times by human carelessness. Your reply, you point out a statistical anomaly. Something that hasn't ever happened in CA. Which if your thoughts were supported by evidence then wildfires wouldn't just start popping up out of nowhere due to global warming. They would have been occuring at least the last 20 or so years.



------->Kirk


----------



## Chris (Jul 6, 2008)

jreeves, thank you for making it so easy....

Global Warming Fuels U.S. Forest Fires | LiveScience


----------



## jreeves (Jul 6, 2008)

Kirk said:


> jreeves, thank you for making it so easy....
> 
> Global Warming Fuels U.S. Forest Fires | LiveScience



Lmfao....
Center for Science and Public Policy - Southern California Wildfires and Global Warming: No Connection
Any sort of weather-related event that grows large enough to find its way into the national news is seemingly tagged with being a result of, or at least made worse by, anthropogenic global warming. The wildfires burning in southern California are no exception. National television news programs, major newspapers, and even some politicians have gotten in on the act and linked the ongoing wildfires in southern California to human-induced climate changes.
But, as is the case nearly every time, global warming probably has little is anything to do with the wildfires ablaze in southern California.

The major reason that global warming in being fingered in the southern California wildfires, besides the general all-bad-things-weather-related-are-caused-by-global-warming sentiment, is a paper by Anthony Westerling and colleagues that was published last summer in Science magazine. In that paper, Westerling et al. concluded that there was a big jump in wildfire frequency, size, intensity, and duration across the American West that was related to increasing spring and summer temperatures and earlier spring snowmelts. And for good measure, they pointed out that these were the types of changes that are expected and projected to occur with ever-increasing greenhouse gas concentrations (thanks to us humans).

But, the results and implications of that paper (for a critical review of that paper, see, The Fire This Time: More Perspective Needed) are not well-applied to fires in southern California. In fact, Westerling has authored several other papers that deal more directly with southern California fires, past, present and future.

Westerling describes the history of southern California wildfires, as well as the background conditions, both ecological and climatological, that lead to their occurrence in his 2004 paper, Climate, Santa Ana Winds and Autumn Wildfires in Southern California. The paper begins:


Wildfires periodically burn large areas of chaparral and adjacent woodlands in autumn and winter in southern California. These fires often occur in conjunction with Santa Ana weather events, which combine high winds and low humidity, and tend to follow a wet winter rainy season. Because conditions fostering large fall and winter wildfires in California are the result of large-scale patterns in atmospheric circulation, the same dangerous conditions are likely to occur over a wide area at the same time.

Furthermore, over a century of watershed reserve management and fire suppression have promoted fuel accumulations, helping to shape one of the most conflagration-prone environments in the world. Combined with a complex topography and a large human population, southern Californian ecology and climate pose a considerable physical and societal challenge to fire management.


In reviewing the history of wildfires there, Westerling notes:


*Large wildfires in chaparral in the autumn and winter months are also not extraordinary events in southern California. They have occurred frequently during the last century. Moreover, charcoal records from Santa Barbara Channel sediments indicate the frequency of wildfires in the region has not changed significantly in the last 500 years.*

As to the causes of the bad wildfire season of 2003 Westerling explains:


The severity of the immediate human impact of the October 2003 wildfires was exacerbated by the rapid growth of an extensive wildland-urban interface proximate to a population of nearly 20 million in southern California, where the population has more than doubled since 1950. The intensity of the fires and the severity of their ecological impact on the regions forests were exacerbated by the long-term accumulation of fuels such as snags, logs, and heavy brush due to 20th-century fire suppression policies and watershed preservation efforts since the late 1800s.

Oh wait ....Lmao another Exxon employee right.....


----------



## Chris (Jul 6, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Lmfao....
> Center for Science and Public Policy - Southern California Wildfires and Global Warming: No Connection
> Any sort of weather-related event that grows large enough to find its way into the national news is seemingly tagged with being a result of, or at least made worse by, anthropogenic global warming. The wildfires burning in southern California are no exception. National television news programs, major newspapers, and even some politicians have gotten in on the act and linked the ongoing wildfires in southern California to human-induced climate changes.
> But, as is the case nearly every time, global warming probably has little is anything to do with the wildfires ablaze in southern California.
> ...



You love those Exxon butt boys. You just can't stay away from them.

2002: Center for Science and Public Policy Started with Funds from ExxonMobil


----------



## Chris (Jul 6, 2008)

jreeves, are you being paid by the Petroleum Institute?


----------



## Chris (Jul 6, 2008)

From the link you quoted....

"The increase in large wildfires appears to be another part of a chain of reactions to climate warming," said study co-author Dan Cayan, director of Scripps Institution of Oceanography's Climate Research Division. "The recent ramp-up is likely, in part, caused by natural fluctuations, but evidence is mounting that anthropogenic effects have been contributing to warmer winters and springs in recent decades."


----------



## jreeves (Jul 7, 2008)

Kirk said:


> From the link you quoted....
> 
> "The increase in large wildfires appears to be another part of a chain of reactions to climate warming," said study co-author Dan Cayan, director of Scripps Institution of Oceanography's Climate Research Division. "The recent ramp-up is likely, in part, caused by natural fluctuations, but evidence is mounting that anthropogenic effects have been contributing to warmer winters and springs in recent decades."



These are your boys, I set your ass up. These are statements made by Westerling. Which is....
Anthony (Tony) Westerling Personal Home Page


In his research, he stated.....

Both antecedent climate and meteorology
played important roles in the recent extreme
wildfires in southern California.After a multiyear
drought contributed to extensive mortality
in western forests and chaparral, late winter
precipitation and a cool spring and early summer
fostered the growth of grasses that were
cured out during a hot summer and autumn
in 2003, producing an extensive fine fuel coverage.
Fanned by moderate Santa Ana winds, during the last century.
Moreover, charcoal
records from Santa Barbara Channel sediments
indicate the frequency of wildfires in the
region has not changed significantly in the
last 500 years [Mensing et al.,1999].

http://ulmo.ucmerced.edu/~westerling/pdffiles/04EOS_Westerling.pdf


That's straight from an enviromental wacko like yourself....


----------



## Chris (Jul 7, 2008)

Insults are not convincing arguments. 



July 2, 2008 
Melt onset earlier than normal 


Sign up for the  Arctic Sea Ice News RSS feed for automatic notification of analysis updates.

Arctic sea ice extent for June 2008 is close to that for 2007, which went on to reach the lowest minimum since at least 1979. More notably, however, satellite data indicate that melt began significantly earlier than last year over most of the Arctic Ocean. The large area of the Arctic Ocean covered by first-year ice (described in our June analysis) coupled with the early onset of melting may mean more rapid and more severe summer ice retreat than last year. 



Figure 1. Arctic sea ice extent for June 2008 was 11.44 million square kilometers (4.42 million square miles). The magenta line shows the median ice extent for June from 1979 to 2000. Data information 
Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

See High Resolution ImageOverview of conditions

Arctic sea ice extent averaged for June stood at 11.44 million square kilometers (4.42 million square miles), 0.72 million square kilometers (0.25 million square miles) less than the 1979 to 2000 average for the month. This is very slightly (0.05 million square kilometers; 0.02 million square miles) lower than the average extent for June 2007, but not the lowest on record, which occurred in June 2006 (see Figure 3).

Figure 2 indicates that on a daily basis, sea ice extent appears slightly higher than 2007 for most of the month. This apparent contradiction arises because of the monthly averaging calculation and because some days may have areas of missing data. To be included as an ice-covered region in the monthly average, the average concentration for that region must exceed 15 percent. So if the concentration is 15 percent for 29 days, but less than 15 percent for 1 day, it will not be included in the average ice extent for the month. Also, since ice extent decreases during June, if there is slightly more missing data in the early part of the month the monthly average could slightly underestimate the sea ice extent. 

June sea ice extents in 2008 and 2007 are essentially identical, and near the lowest values for June ever recorded by satellite for the Arctic.


Figure 2. Daily sea ice extent; the blue line indicates 2008; the gray line indicates extent from 1979 to 2000; the dotted green line shows extent for 2007. Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

See High Resolution Image


Conditions in context

While sea ice extent averaged for June 2008 was similar to last year, there were pronounced differences in the spatial pattern of the retreat through the month. Last year, open water quickly developed along the coasts of the Chukchi and Laptev seas. This year, an unusually large polynya has opened in the Beaufort Sea, and there is significantly less sea ice in Hudson's Bay and Baffin Bay. 



Figure 3. Average June ice extent for 1979 through 2008 
Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

See High Resolution Image 


June 2008 compared to past Junes

June sea ice extent is very similar to last year and is now the third lowest on record. It lies very close to the linear trend line for all average June sea ice extents since 1979, which indicates that the Arctic is losing an average of 41,000 square kilometers (15,800 square miles) of ice per year in June. Last year, the rapid melt leading to the record-breaking minimum extent began in July.



Figure 4. The colors in the above image indicate date of onset of melt over the Arctic Ocean. Light gray indicates areas that have not yet begun to melt this year, or areas for which data is not available. Data from the SSM/I sensor; algorithm used to process the data came from Thorsten Markus at Goddard Space Flight Center. 

Credit: Natonal Snow and Ice Data Center

See High Resolution ImageEarly onset of melt

Preliminary satellite data shows us that surface melt began earlier than
usual over the western and central Arctic Ocean and Baffin Bay (see Figure 4). Last year was fairly typical except for significant early melt in the Laptev and Barents seas. This year, sea ice in the Beaufort Sea began to melt on average 15 days earlier than normal, and 15 days earlier than last year. Surface melt in the Chukchi and East Siberian seas was 6 days earlier than normal, and 14 days earlier than in 2007. In the central Arctic Ocean, melt began around June 9th, which was 12 days earlier than normal and 9 days earlier than the year before. In Baffin Bay, surface melt began 14 days earlier than last year and was 16 days earlier than normal. Areas where melt occurred later, compared to last year, are confined to the margins of the ice cover. These results are considered preliminary and will be updated as more data become available.

Figure 4 was updated on July 3, 2008, with data through July 1. A previous version, posted on July 2, used data from June 10, 2008.



Figure 5. This image shows the percent anomaly of ocean absorption of solar heat from January 1 to September 21, 2007, compared to the 1979 to 2005 average. Dark red and orange indicate areas with especially low albedo. Data from SSM/I sensor. 
Credit: From the National Snow and Ice Data Center courtesy Don Perovich, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory 

See High Resolution Image Why earlier melt matters

What are the implications of this year's earlier-than-normal melt onset? As melting begins, the layer of snow on top of the ice becomes wet and then disappears, leaving bare ice and ponded water. Each of these changes reduce the reflectance of the surfaceincreasing absorption of solar energy, further reducing reflectance, and promoting even stronger melt. This is known as the ice-albedo feedback. 

Early melt onset exposes the snow and ice to more days with low reflectance. It also increases the exposure during the critical early summer season, when solar energy is at its peak. As colleague Don Perovich of the Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory notes, this combination enhances ice-albedo feedback (see Figure 5). Perovich calculated that in 2007, some areas of the Arctic absorbed eight times as much heat because of the ice-albedo feedback, contributing heavily to last years record-breaking melt. 

The combination of ice-albedo feedback and early melt onset in 2008 sets the stage for significant ice losses this summer. Three of the most important factors in sea ice losses are melt onset, cloud conditions throughout the melt season, and atmospheric circulation throughout the melt season. With melt onset having occurred earlier than usual, cloud and atmospheric conditions over the next two months come to the forefront. To learn more about cloud conditions and atmospheric circulation, read More on the sea ice-atmosphere connection in our June analysis.



A community sea ice outlook

The Study of Environmental Arctic Change program has released a Sea Ice Outlook for 2008. Their May report has predictions from a number of different scientific groups (including NSIDC) of how much sea ice will be left in the Arctic at the end of the melt season. The predictions range widely above and below last years record minimum of 4.13 million square kilometres (1.59 million square miles). 

References

Perovich, D. K., J. A. Richter-Menge, K. F. Jones, and B. Light (2008), Sunlight, water, and ice: Extreme Arctic sea ice melt during the summer of 2007, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L11501, doi:10.1029/2008GL034007. 



For previous analysis, please see the drop-down menu under Archives in the right navigation at the top of this page.

NSIDC scientists provide Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis, with partial support from NASA.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 7, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Insults are not convincing arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Lmao....so we change the subject?? It's quite funny, when disproven that the wildfires in CA are not extraordinary you change the subject......


----------



## Chris (Jul 7, 2008)

jreeves said:


> lmao....so We Change The Subject?? It's Quite Funny, When Disproven That The Wildfires In Ca Are Not Extraordinary You Change The Subject......



Lmfao!!!!


----------



## Chris (Jul 7, 2008)

"The increase in large wildfires appears to be another part of a chain of reactions to climate warming," said study co-author Dan Cayan, director of Scripps Institution of Oceanography's Climate Research Division. "The recent ramp-up is likely, in part, caused by natural fluctuations, but evidence is mounting that anthropogenic effects have been contributing to warmer winters and springs in recent decades."


----------



## Chris (Jul 7, 2008)

Just in case you missed it...

"The increase in large wildfires appears to be another part of a chain of reactions to climate warming," said study co-author Dan Cayan, director of Scripps Institution of Oceanography's Climate Research Division. "The recent ramp-up is likely, in part, caused by natural fluctuations, but evidence is mounting that anthropogenic effects have been contributing to warmer winters and springs in recent decades."


----------



## jreeves (Jul 7, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Just in case you missed it...
> 
> "The increase in large wildfires appears to be another part of a chain of reactions to climate warming," said study co-author Dan Cayan, director of Scripps Institution of Oceanography's Climate Research Division. "The recent ramp-up is likely, in part, caused by natural fluctuations, but evidence is mounting that anthropogenic effects have been contributing to warmer winters and springs in recent decades."




It's nothing extraordinary compared to the last 100 years, or using data collected over the last 500 years.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 7, 2008)

Kirk said:


> North Pole could be ice-free this summer, scientists say
> 
> By Alan Duke
> CNN
> ...



Just last Monday, NASA was quietly issuing a press release explaining why Arctic sea ice loss was so great this year. (h/t Douglas Hoyt).

From the release: A team led by Son Nghiem of NASA&#8217;s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., studied trends in Arctic perennial ice cover by combining data from NASA&#8217;s Quick Scatterometer (QuikScat) satellite with a computing model based on observations of sea ice drift from the International Arctic Buoy Programme. QuikScat can identify and map different classes of sea ice, including older, thicker perennial ice and younger, thinner seasonal ice. 

&#8220;Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic,&#8221; said Son Nghiem of NASA&#8217;s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and leader of the study. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters.

In simpler terms, polar wind patterns changed and blew sea ice further south to warmer waters than it normally would. Sea ice can easily be wind driven.

I wonder if that&#8217;s the same mechanism that caused loss of Arctic sea ice in the 1920-30&#8217;s?

The Arctic is almost as warm now as it was seventy years ago. Unsurprisingly, Arctic ice has diminished. But, as Polyakov et al.show, the long-term changes are &#8220;generally statistically insignificant&#8221;. But there&#8217;s more ice in Antarctica now. It seems that points more to a natural, cyclical variation on a global scale when one pole diminishes while another gains.

According to Cryosphere Today, normal North Pole ice area at this time is about 5 million km^2, with current amounts amounting to a negative anomaly of about 2 million km^2, for a current total of about 3 million km^2. On the other hand, the South Pole normal area is about 15 million km^2, with current amounts amounting to a positive anomaly of 1 million km^2, for a current total of about 16 million km^2.

Now, it is easy to get alarmed about the North Pole numbers, because they have gotten so close to zero. But the truth is about 2/3rd of total North Pole ice always melts by the end of the northern summer. This summer it got down to about 1/4 of the winter amount.

It is much less alarming if you consider the total between the 2 poles. Using the Cryosphere Today normals and current ice areas, there is normally about 20 million km^2, and currently there is only 19 million km^2. When you realize that the total taken together only represents about a 5% reduction from normal, then it does not seem nearly as alarming.

*Arctic = 3 million square kilometers - shrinking, new record low
Antarctic = 16 million square kilometers - growing, new record high*It appears that there is precedence for what we are observing today, and a strong suggestion of a cyclical nature that points to a natural variability mechanism. Plus, the most important thing to note is that we only have satellite measured sea ice data from about 1979.  A 30 year trend isn&#8217;t enough to conclude much upon, especially when there is clear evidence of a larger period cycle.

Arctic Sea ice loss - &#8220;it&#8217;s the wind&#8221; says NASA  Watts Up With That?


----------



## jreeves (Jul 7, 2008)

Kirk said:


> jreeves, the author of the article quoted above works for the tobacco industry and the oil industry. Check out this profile......
> 
> Singer was born September 27, 1924, in Vienna, Austria. Singer received a B.E.E. from Ohio State University in 1943 and a Ph.D. from Princeton University in 1948.
> 
> ...



Lmao...

Global Warming is a business here's a list of EPA grants for global warming research.

Cashing in on Global Warming | cooler heads


Here's a list of 31,000 american scientist saying man made gw is a myth.

Home - Global Warming Petition Project


----------



## Chris (Jul 7, 2008)

When questioned in 1998, OISM's Arthur Robinson admitted that only 2,100 signers of the Oregon Petition had identified themselves as physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, or meteorologists, "and of those the greatest number are physicists." This grouping of fields concealed the fact that only a few dozen, at most, of the signatories were drawn from the core disciplines of climate science - such as meteorology, oceanography, and glaciology - and almost none were climate specialists. The names of the signers are available on the OISM's website, but without listing any institutional affiliations or even city of residence, making it very difficult to determine their credentials or even whether they exist at all. When the Oregon Petition first circulated, in fact, environmental activists successfully added the names of several fictional characters and celebrities to the list, including John Grisham, Michael J. Fox, Drs. Frank Burns, B. J. Honeycutt, and Benjamin Pierce (from the TV show M*A*S*H), an individual by the name of "Dr. Red Wine," and Geraldine Halliwell, formerly known as pop singer Ginger Spice of the Spice Girls. Halliwell's field of scientific specialization was listed as "biology." Even in 2003, the list was loaded with misspellings, duplications, name and title fragments, and names of non-persons, such as company names.

OISM has refused to release info on the number of mailings it made. From comments in Nature:

"Virtually every scientist in every field got it," says Robert Park, a professor of physics at the University of Maryland at College Park and spokesman for the American Physical Society. "That's a big mailing." According to the National Science Foundation, there are more than half a million science or engineering PhDs in the United States, and ten million individuals with first degrees in science or engineering.


----------



## BrianH (Jul 7, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Those quotes are 4 years old....
> 
> Let's review shall we.....
> 
> ...



Kirk, you have your facts completely mixed up.  Global warming is not causing forest fires.  Firt off I'll start by saying that about 80% of forest fires are started by carelessness.  Second, there is a pesticide resilient pine beetle in the Rockies and west to California.  In the last couple of years, these pine beetles have killed millions of square miles of forests, leaving them more vulnerable to fire.  Not to mention, forests are responsible for trapping and holding carbon in the earth.  Many scientists fear that the pine-beetle, killing the trees, is causing the release of abnormal amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.  Not that I agree that CO2 is causing global warming, but this comes from YOUR side of the argument...you need to get your facts straight.  According to you, everyone who disagrees with you is in cahoots with Exxon or Halliburton.  If we use your logic, everything is attributed to global warming.


----------



## BrianH (Jul 7, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Those quotes are 4 years old....
> 
> Let's review shall we.....
> 
> ...



LOL, If I didn't know any better, I'd say that you're The Good Shephard with a different screen-name....You enjoy using his retarded tactics.  Anyone who disagrees with you is just plain wrong or a liar   And funded by Exxon.    Anyone who post sources are posting sources that aren't credible or too old...   Typical bull crap from AGW alarmist.  If I didn't enjoy watching the stupidity level rise with every post of yours, I'd quit posting...


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 7, 2008)

BrianH said:


> LOL, If I didn't know any better, I'd say that you're The Good Shephard with a different screen-name....You enjoy using his retarded tactics.  Anyone who disagrees with you is just plain wrong or a liar   And funded by Exxon.    Anyone who post sources are posting sources that aren't credible or too old...   Typical bull crap from AGW alarmist.  If I didn't enjoy watching the stupidity level rise with every post of yours, I'd quit posting...



Recently there was a guy saying that global warming was increasing seismic activity which would result in worldwide catastrophe.  We've seen global warming blamed for everything from increased bug infestations to hurricanes to tornados in Kansas.  I suppose all those locust plagues and Krakatoa and the reoccurring northwest passage in the Arctic were due to methane emissions from all those chariot horses or Viking SUVs?

The lengths that the AGW advocates--why don't the kool-ade drinkers ever check THEIR funding?--go to tie every natural phenomenon to global warming would be amusing if we weren't in danger of losing our freedoms, choices, and at least some of our prosperity to national and international policies that very well may be based on junk science.


----------



## Chris (Jul 7, 2008)

BrianH said:


> LOL, If I didn't know any better, I'd say that you're The Good Shephard with a different screen-name....You enjoy using his retarded tactics.  Anyone who disagrees with you is just plain wrong or a liar   And funded by Exxon.    Anyone who post sources are posting sources that aren't credible or too old...   Typical bull crap from AGW alarmist.  If I didn't enjoy watching the stupidity level rise with every post of yours, I'd quit posting...



Everything posted below is a fact. Your post is just insults.


California is experiencing its driest year on record. Over 800 square miles of California forests have burned so far, and the real fire season doesn't even start until late July. Most of the North Pole has melted. The level of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen by one third in the last 200 years. CO2 is now at the highest level ever recorded, and the Antarctic ice core record goes back 600,000 years. Every year we pump 8 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, and that number is rising as China and India industrialize.
Most of the "scientists" who were global warming deniers turned out to be paid by Exxon and the Petroleum Institute. Two years ago Exxon realized they were wrong and stopped funding those scientists. Still, some people continue to parrot them. Even Bush the Lesser now believes in global warming.


----------



## Chris (Jul 7, 2008)

jreeves said:


> It's nothing extraordinary compared to the last 100 years, or using data collected over the last 500 years.



Here's an excellent article on the subject of global warming and drought in the Western U.S.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/21/magazine/21water-t.html


----------



## BrianH (Jul 7, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Everything posted below is a fact. Your post is just insults.
> 
> 
> California is experiencing its driest year on record. Over 800 square miles of California forests have burned so far, and the real fire season doesn't even start until late July. Most of the North Pole has melted. The level of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen by one third in the last 200 years. CO2 is now at the highest level ever recorded, and the Antarctic ice core record goes back 600,000 years. Every year we pump 8 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, and that number is rising as China and India industrialize.
> Most of the "scientists" who were global warming deniers turned out to be paid by Exxon and the Petroleum Institute. Two years ago Exxon realized they were wrong and stopped funding those scientists. Still, some people continue to parrot them. Even Bush the Lesser now believes in global warming.




Fair enough...all above may be fact...but the one thing that is not a fact posted above is AGW....That my friend, is a theory.  You know it, as well as every other AGW alarmist.  It has not been proven.  And your assumption that most scientists who disagree with global warming are paid by Exxon is also not a fact.  Do you have any idea how many scientists their are in this world...what kind of projection would it be to assume that the ones that disagree with AGW are funded by Exxon?  AGW has not been proven.  You are posting statistics and assuming that it correlates, while continually ignored FACT that all the planets in the solar system are warming, as well as projections that circulation in the arctic could be the cause for its melting.  You are just like TGS, you assume all you have to say is %100 fact, and anyone who disagrees is a liar who's paid by oil companies.


----------



## Chris (Jul 7, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Fair enough...all above may be fact...but the one thing that is not a fact posted above is AGW....That my friend, is a theory.  You know it, as well as every other AGW alarmist.  It has not been proven.  And your assumption that most scientists who disagree with global warming are paid by Exxon is also not a fact.  Do you have any idea how many scientists their are in this world...what kind of projection would it be to assume that the ones that disagree with AGW are funded by Exxon?  AGW has not been proven.  You are posting statistics and assuming that it correlates, while continually ignored FACT that all the planets in the solar system are warming, as well as projections that circulation in the arctic could be the cause for its melting.  You are just like TGS, you assume all you have to say is %100 fact, and anyone who disagrees is a liar who's paid by oil companies.



AGW is not a theory. CO2 in the atmosphere is a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gases cause the earth to retain heat. NO ONE disputes that. We have increased the amount of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere by one third in the last 200 years. NO ONE disputes that. We are pumping 8 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. NO ONE disputes that. The question is, how much does this massive increase in CO2 warm the earth? You say it doesn't at all. The vast majority of climatologists say it does. Who should I believe?


----------



## BrianH (Jul 7, 2008)

Kirk said:


> AGW is not a theory. CO2 in the atmosphere is a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gases cause the earth to retain heat. NO ONE disputes that. We have increased the amount of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere by one third in the last 200 years. NO ONE disputes that. We are pumping 8 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. NO ONE disputes that. The question is, how much does this massive increase in CO2 warm the earth? You say it doesn't at all. The vast majority of climatologists say it does. Who should I believe?



No Kirk, I have never said that CO2 does not cause any warming of the earth.  You claim that humans are causing global warming by the amount of CO2 they've put in the atmosphere.  Considering the earth has warmed numerous times before (whether CO2 initiated or not), that doesn't mean that it's caused by humans. Look up pine-beetles.  LIke I've said a million times before on these boards, I do believe the earth may be warming, and I do believe that humans do contribute to green-house gases, but they are not the main source or the main cause of the warming of the earth.   You are attributing way too much to humans when the earth's climate has changed dozens of times without human help.  You cannot PROVE that humans are causing global warming.


----------



## editec (Jul 7, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Those quotes are 4 years old....
> 
> Let's review shall we.....
> 
> ...


 
How refreshingly devoid of malice and rancor that post is.

Yes, Bush II finally admitted that Global warming was real.
He sage advise?

_"I guess we'll all just have to get used to global warming"_ 

That man has a mind like a steel trap, folks.

He's not just _the decider_, he's one hell of a problem solver, too.


----------



## BrianH (Jul 7, 2008)

editec said:


> How refreshingly devoid of malice and rancor that post is.
> 
> Yes, Bush II finally admitted that Global warming was real.
> He sage advise?
> ...



I'm glad we finally have Dr. George W. Bush weighing in on his take of Global Warming.  I'd really like to see his research...


----------



## Chris (Jul 7, 2008)

BrianH said:


> No Kirk, I have never said that CO2 does not cause any warming of the earth.  You claim that humans are causing global warming by the amount of CO2 they've put in the atmosphere.  Considering the earth has warmed numerous times before (whether CO2 initiated or not), that doesn't mean that it's caused by humans. Look up pine-beetles.  LIke I've said a million times before on these boards, I do believe the earth may be warming, and I do believe that humans do contribute to green-house gases, but they are not the main source or the main cause of the warming of the earth.   You are attributing way too much to humans when the earth's climate has changed dozens of times without human help.  You cannot PROVE that humans are causing global warming.



You cannot prove that CO2 is not the source of global warming either. The only other thing that could cause the earth to heat so quickly is the sun, and the Stanford University solar scientists report that the sun has not increased its radiation enough to cause the degree of warming we are seeing. 

The scientists who study climate are convinced that this warming is man-made. There are a few who disagree, but the vast majority are in agreement. They can use computers to build climate models that can tell them what a one third increase in CO2 will do. And don't be fooled. This is just the beginning. We are actually increasing our output of CO2.

We melted the North Pole in 50 short years for Christ's sake!


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 7, 2008)

BrianH said:


> No Kirk, I have never said that CO2 does not cause any warming of the earth.  You claim that humans are causing global warming by the amount of CO2 they've put in the atmosphere.  Considering the earth has warmed numerous times before (whether CO2 initiated or not), that doesn't mean that it's caused by humans. Look up pine-beetles.  LIke I've said a million times before on these boards, I do believe the earth may be warming, and I do believe that humans do contribute to green-house gases, but they are not the main source or the main cause of the warming of the earth.   You are attributing way too much to humans when the earth's climate has changed dozens of times without human help.  You cannot PROVE that humans are causing global warming.



look at you arguing for global warming.  sorta reminds me of when the gop made dems argue against guns.  you'll never win this argument.  the "scientific community" as a whole agree we are ruining the planet.  one way is with co2/global warming.  

your party doesn't even believe in science.  ie evolution.

so what do your "scientists" say about evolution?  

I bet your scientists work for big corporations.  

but keep arguing.  this is a wedge issue we don't mind because it makes you seem brainwashed.  

is there anything the gop says that you don't agree with?

silly little man.


----------



## BrianH (Jul 7, 2008)

Kirk said:


> You cannot prove that CO2 is not the source of global warming either. The only other thing that could cause the earth to heat so quickly is the sun, and the Stanford University solar scientists report that the sun has not increased its radiation enough to cause the degree of warming we are seeing.
> 
> The scientists who study climate are convinced that this warming is man-made. There are a few who disagree, but the vast majority are in agreement. They can use computers to build climate models that can tell them what a one third increase in CO2 will do. And don't be fooled. This is just the beginning. We are actually increasing our output of CO2.
> 
> We melted the North Pole in 50 short years for Christ's sake!



All I have done, was refuse to believe something that you can't prove.  

And as far as the sun goes...

"In what could be the simplest explanation for one component of global warming, a new study shows the Sun's radiation has increased by .05 percent per decade since the late 1970s"

SPACE.com -- Sun's Output Increasing in Possible Trend Fueling Global Warming

National Policy Analysis #203: Sun to Blame for Global Warming - June 1998

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says


----------



## BrianH (Jul 7, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> look at you arguing for global warming.  sorta reminds me of when the gop made dems argue against guns.  you'll never win this argument.  the "scientific community" as a whole agree we are ruining the planet.  one way is with co2/global warming.
> 
> your party doesn't even believe in science.  ie evolution.
> 
> ...



LOL...first off.  You have absolutely NO proof what-so-ever in which party I'm affiliated with.  If you really knew, you'd eat your words.

Second, The Supreme Court ruled in favor of MY OPINION on guns, thereby, strengthening my arguement and making it MORE RIGHT than yours.  So if this argument reminds you of that one, good...

Third, you have no more proof of human caused global warming than Kirk does...  Go get an education before you try to spew any knowledge.




You have, by far, the crappiest arguments and opinions on these boards followed up by absolutely NO FACT and more biased opinion.  You my friend, have more loyalty to the Democratic party than any loyalty I may or may not have for the GOP or any party for that matter.


----------



## Chris (Jul 7, 2008)

BrianH said:


> All I have done, was refuse to believe something that you can't prove.
> 
> And as far as the sun goes...
> 
> ...



The Stanford scientists said that the sun was a factor in global warming, but only 25%. We know CO2 causes the earth to retain heat. Climate models can predict how much increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere by one third will warm the earth, and we are going to double the amount of CO2 in this century, so CO2 is definitely warming the earth. The only question is, how much?


----------



## jreeves (Jul 8, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Here's an excellent article on the subject of global warming and drought in the Western U.S.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/21/magazine/21water-t.html



Do you realize how this article shows your weak support for man made global warming? I have showed you where, droughts haven't increased, a study done over the last 100 years. To point out individual cases is silly, of course there are droughts in the world but its not due to global warming. We have had droughts in the last 100 years but nothing you have shown is out of the ordinary for the last 100 years.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 8, 2008)

Kirk said:


> When questioned in 1998, OISM's Arthur Robinson admitted that only 2,100 signers of the Oregon Petition had identified themselves as physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, or meteorologists, "and of those the greatest number are physicists." This grouping of fields concealed the fact that only a few dozen, at most, of the signatories were drawn from the core disciplines of climate science - such as meteorology, oceanography, and glaciology - and almost none were climate specialists. The names of the signers are available on the OISM's website, but without listing any institutional affiliations or even city of residence, making it very difficult to determine their credentials or even whether they exist at all. When the Oregon Petition first circulated, in fact, environmental activists successfully added the names of several fictional characters and celebrities to the list, including John Grisham, Michael J. Fox, Drs. Frank Burns, B. J. Honeycutt, and Benjamin Pierce (from the TV show M*A*S*H), an individual by the name of "Dr. Red Wine," and Geraldine Halliwell, formerly known as pop singer Ginger Spice of the Spice Girls. Halliwell's field of scientific specialization was listed as "biology." Even in 2003, the list was loaded with misspellings, duplications, name and title fragments, and names of non-persons, such as company names.
> 
> OISM has refused to release info on the number of mailings it made. From comments in Nature:
> 
> "Virtually every scientist in every field got it," says Robert Park, a professor of physics at the University of Maryland at College Park and spokesman for the American Physical Society. "That's a big mailing." According to the National Science Foundation, there are more than half a million science or engineering PhDs in the United States, and ten million individuals with first degrees in science or engineering.



Lmao...does this come from one of those scientist benefiting from my tax dollars(grants)?


----------



## jreeves (Jul 8, 2008)

Kirk said:


> When questioned in 1998, OISM's Arthur Robinson admitted that only 2,100 signers of the Oregon Petition had identified themselves as physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, or meteorologists, "and of those the greatest number are physicists." This grouping of fields concealed the fact that only a few dozen, at most, of the signatories were drawn from the core disciplines of climate science - such as meteorology, oceanography, and glaciology - and almost none were climate specialists. The names of the signers are available on the OISM's website, but without listing any institutional affiliations or even city of residence, making it very difficult to determine their credentials or even whether they exist at all. When the Oregon Petition first circulated, in fact, environmental activists successfully added the names of several fictional characters and celebrities to the list, including John Grisham, *Michael J. Fox*, Drs. Frank Burns, B. J. Honeycutt, and Benjamin Pierce (from the TV show M*A*S*H), an individual by the name of "Dr. Red Wine," and Geraldine Halliwell, formerly known as pop singer Ginger Spice of the Spice Girls. Halliwell's field of scientific specialization was listed as "biology." Even in 2003, the list was loaded with misspellings, duplications, name and title fragments, and names of non-persons, such as company names.
> 
> OISM has refused to release info on the number of mailings it made. From comments in Nature:
> 
> "Virtually every scientist in every field got it," says Robert Park, a professor of physics at the University of Maryland at College Park and spokesman for the American Physical Society. "That's a big mailing." According to the National Science Foundation, there are more than half a million science or engineering PhDs in the United States, and ten million individuals with first degrees in science or engineering.



Where is his name then?

Dwaine Fowlkes, David William Fox, PhD, Neil Stewart Fox, PhD, Russell Elwell Fox, PhD, Michael R. Fox, PhD, Brian D. Fox, G. Sidney Fox, Gerald Fox, James M. Fox, Irving H. Fox, MD, Harry James Fox, Forrest L. Fox, Corri A. Fox, Norman A. Fox, Timothy J. Fox, Bennett R. Fox, J. Fox, Donald W. Fox, Eugene K. Fox, Earl Fox, Vaughn M. Foxwell Jr., Wade Hampton Foy, PhD, James Foy, PhD, Stephen Joseph Fraenkel, PhD,

Signers F - Global Warming Petition Project


----------



## jreeves (Jul 8, 2008)

Kirk said:


> *You cannot prove that CO2 is not the source of global warming either.* The only other thing that could cause the earth to heat so quickly is the sun, and the Stanford University solar scientists report that the sun has not increased its radiation enough to cause the degree of warming we are seeing.
> 
> The scientists who study climate are convinced that this warming is man-made. There are a few who disagree, but the vast majority are in agreement. They can use computers to build climate models that can tell them what a one third increase in CO2 will do. And don't be fooled. This is just the beginning. We are actually increasing our output of CO2.
> 
> *We melted the North Pole in 50 short years for Christ's sake*!



So we should build public policy on something that can't be proven or disproven. 


Well....

The average temperature of the Earth has varied within a range of
about 3°C during the past 3,000 years. It is currently increasing as the
Earth recovers from a period that is known as the Little Ice Age, as
shown in Figure 1. George Washington and his army were at Valley
Forge during the coldest era in 1,500 years, but even then the temperature
was only about 1° Centigrade below the 3,000-year average.
The most recent part of this warming period is reflected by shortening
of world glaciers, as shown in Figure 2. Glaciers regularly
lengthen and shorten in delayed correlation with cooling and warming
trends. Shortening lags temperature by about 20 years, so the cur -
rent warming trend began in about 1800.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM600.pdf


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 8, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Why is it you never cite the source for your information, isn't that against board rules?



The Money Masters

WHO OWNS THE FEDERAL RESERVE?

But the Fed Reserve will tell you:

The Fed is a little defensive about the question of ownership. In its Frequently Asked Questions section, the Federal Reserve Board says: "The Federal Reserve System is not 'owned' by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution. Instead, it is an independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects." It continues: 

Nearly 200 years ago Thomas Jefferson wrote:


"If the American people ever allowed the banks to control the issuance of their currency, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers occupied."


----------



## Chris (Jul 8, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Do you realize how this article shows your weak support for man made global warming? I have showed you where, droughts haven't increased, a study done over the last 100 years. To point out individual cases is silly, of course there are droughts in the world but its not due to global warming. We have had droughts in the last 100 years but nothing you have shown is out of the ordinary for the last 100 years.



Do you realize you are lying about what the article said? Of course you do.


----------



## Chris (Jul 8, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Lmao...does this come from one of those scientist benefiting from my tax dollars(grants)?



LMAO! You do realize that CO2 causes the earth to warm? You do realize that we have increased the amount of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere by one third in the last 200 years? You do realize that we are pumping 8 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year? We are warming the earth. The only question is, how much?


----------



## editec (Jul 8, 2008)

I can get used to global warming, habitate destruction, famines, floods and hurricanes.

But this incessant bitching about whether or not mankind is responsible for it is as unbearable as it is pointless.

It's happening, so let's deal with that.

We're about ready to get off the carbon based energy economy  anyway.

We need to find the quickest transition to sustainable energy sources we can, that don't destroy our economy at the same time. Some pain is unavoidable.

Surely this is something everyone can agree on who isn't on the payroll of the hydrocarbon cabal, yes?


----------



## BrianH (Jul 8, 2008)

Oh yeah, we're really experiencing the worst drout conditions ever seen....


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 8, 2008)

jreeves said:


> I hope your Exxon donor list, isn't coming from Greenpeace because Greenpeace isn't exactly a non partisan source. So until you start citing your post, you can't be taken seriously. I am sure that Greenpeace thinks that *all * anti-global warming studies are funded by Exxon.




Hey, didn't you say that Iraq wants the US to stay in Iraq?  

Did you see today?  

BAGHDAD (AP) -- Iraq's national security adviser said Tuesday his country will not accept any security deal with the United States unless it contains specific dates for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces. 

I'm sure Chaney is going to make them an offer they can't refuse, but stop acting like you know the truth.  You are oblivious to the truth.  On every issue.  YOu use tainted sources.  You call our sources tainted.  You are gullable and call the media liberal when it so clearly has been taken over.  What do you have to say to that stupid?


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 8, 2008)

Kirk said:


> LMAO! You do realize that CO2 causes the earth to warm? You do realize that we have increased the amount of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere by one third in the last 200 years? You do realize that we are pumping 8 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year? We are warming the earth. The only question is, how much?



Doesn't it embarrass you to write stuff like this?  CO2 is maybe 1/3 higher now than it was 100 to 200 years ago, but any competent scientist or student of science knows that the vast majority of CO2 in the atmosphere is emitted by the oceans, vegetation, decaying matter in the soil, the soil itself, and seismic activity.  It is blatantly FALSE to say that WE have increased the amount of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere by one third.

Further the present levels of CO2 in the atmosphere now are lower than they have been in some previous eras when the average Earth temperatures were lower and there have also been very warm periods on Earth when the concentration of CO2 was up to 20% more than now.  Humankind wasn't driving too many SUVs then.  Dinosaur farts maybe?


----------



## Chris (Jul 8, 2008)

Foxfyre said:


> Doesn't it embarrass you to write stuff like this?  CO2 is maybe 1/3 higher now than it was 100 to 200 years ago, but any competent scientist or student of science knows that the vast majority of CO2 in the atmosphere is emitted by the oceans, vegetation, decaying matter in the soil, the soil itself, and seismic activity.  It is blatantly FALSE to say that WE have increased the amount of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere by one third.
> 
> Further the present levels of CO2 in the atmosphere now are lower than they have been in some previous eras when the average Earth temperatures were lower and there have also been very warm periods on Earth when the concentration of CO2 was up to 20% more than now.  Humankind wasn't driving too many SUVs then.  Dinosaur farts maybe?



CO2 in the atmosphere at the highest level ever recorded, and the Antarctic ice core record goes back 600,000 years. What in nature caused the increase? I am sure it had nothing to do with the 8 billion metric tons of CO2 we are pumping into the air each year. 

And keep in mind the level of CO2 is still rising and will probably double in this century.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 8, 2008)

editec said:


> I can get used to global warming, habitate destruction, famines, floods and hurricanes.
> 
> But this incessant bitching about whether or not mankind is responsible for it is as unbearable as it is pointless.
> 
> ...



HOW CAN THEY ARGUE WITH THAT?


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 8, 2008)

Kirk, I have only one.....okay two words for your point of view.  CHICKEN LITTLE.  But according to some modern endings of the tale, C.L. accepted that he was wrong so that his foolishness did not lead him into a perilous predicament.  I suspect, however, that you would stubbornly defend your initial thoughts even when Foxy Loxy is basting you for dinner.


----------



## Chris (Jul 8, 2008)

Foxfyre said:


> Kirk, I have only one.....okay two words for your point of view.  CHICKEN LITTLE.  But according to some modern endings of the tale, C.L. accepted that he was wrong so that his foolishness did not lead him into a perilous predicament.  I suspect, however, that you would stubbornly defend your initial thoughts even when Foxy Loxy is basting you for dinner.



Insults are not convincing arguments.

One thing is certain. We are going to pump billions and billions of tons more CO2 into the atmosphere in the next 20 years, and this will warm the earth. That is indisputable. The only question is, how much?


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 8, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Insults are not convincing arguments.
> 
> One thing is certain. We are going to pump billions and billions of tons more CO2 into the atmosphere in the next 20 years, and this will warm the earth. That is indisputable. The only question is, how much?



Well I suppose comparing your tenacity to believe erroneous information to that demonstrated by Chicken Little does approximate an insult.  It was intended more as an illustration than an insult, but I do apologize if you took it as an insult.

But as you summarily dismiss any documented information provided to you by others while continuing to parrot the environmental religionist doctrine is tedious and quickly becomes boring.  I probably will not continue in this discussion with you.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 8, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Insults are not convincing arguments.
> 
> One thing is certain. We are going to pump billions and billions of tons more CO2 into the atmosphere in the next 20 years, and this will warm the earth. That is indisputable. The only question is, how much?



It is disputable, as nobody has actually proved that the earth has warmed any because of man.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 8, 2008)

what are reputation comments?  i'm new so I don't know.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 8, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> Hey, didn't you say that Iraq wants the US to stay in Iraq?
> 
> Did you see today?
> 
> ...



Umm....this is about the north pole melting and your post is about Iraq. Hmm...it doesn't take a genius to figure out who is lacking upstairs.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 8, 2008)

Kirk said:


> LMAO! You do realize that CO2 causes the earth to warm? You do realize that we have increased the amount of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere by one third in the last 200 years? You do realize that we are pumping 8 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year? We are warming the earth. The only question is, how much?



Can you show me a reputable scientist who claims that the 1/3 increase is due to carbon emmissions? No, so therefore your claim is moot.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 8, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> what are reputation comments?  i'm new so I don't know.



Find a post you do or don't like and click on the scales at the top. A box will come up giving you the opportunity to give rep points or take rep points.

It's like Drew Carey's comedy show Whose Line Is It Anyway......you get points but they mean nothing.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 8, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Do you realize you are lying about what the article said? Of course you do.



Oh sorry I did get it wrong CA's wildfires aren't extraordinary compared to the last 500 years, not the last 100 years.....sorry my bad

Moreover, charcoal
records from Santa Barbara Channel sediments
indicate the frequency of wildfires in the
region has not changed significantly in the
last 500 years [Mensing et al.,1999].

http://ulmo.ucmerced.edu/~westerling/pdffiles/04EOS_Westerling.pdf


----------



## Chris (Jul 8, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Oh sorry I did get it wrong CA's wildfires aren't extraordinary compared to the last 500 years, not the last 100 years.....sorry my bad
> 
> Moreover, charcoal
> records from Santa Barbara Channel sediments
> ...



The wildfire season has changed significantly in the last 20 years. That's the point. Please read this article again.

Global Warming Fuels U.S. Forest Fires | LiveScience


----------



## Chris (Jul 8, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Can you show me a reputable scientist who claims that the 1/3 increase is due to carbon emmissions? No, so therefore your claim is moot.



You have to be joking on this one. Have you ever heard of NOAA? Here's a quote from their website...

"Global combustion of fossil fuels and other materials places almost 7 billion tons of carbon, in the form of CO2, into the atmosphere each year. On average, Earth's oceans, trees, plants and soils absorb about one-half of this carbon. The balance remains in the air and is responsible for the annual increase.

Most of the variability in the year-to-year CO2 uptake is related to natural processes, including droughts and fires as well as such factors as global temperatures, rainfall amounts and volcanic eruptions.

Understanding these processes is key to forecasting annual CO2 increases, thus providing important information for future CO2 management. NOAA's Carbon Cycle Research Program, which includes surface-, ocean- and space-based measurements of CO2 and other important atmospheric gases, is aimed at developing a comprehensive picture of how CO2 is stored and released. The carbon-cycle studies are a part of NOAA's Climate Program, an integral part of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program.

"Reducing scientific uncertainties of carbon sources and sinks is a priority for the Climate Change Science Program, as carbon dioxide is the single largest forcing agent of climate change," said James R. Mahoney, NOAA deputy administrator and CCSP director.

NOAA scientists have been tracking CO2 levels around the world for more than 25 years. The oldest record comes from the Mauna Loa Observatory, which is located atop a Hawaiian volcano. There, Charles Keeling began CO2 measurements in 1958. Following NOAA's formation in 1970, measurements continued at Mauna Loa and began at other places around the world. There are now more than 60 monitoring sites worldwide.

Mahoney adds, "The measurement capabilities established at NOAA's Mauna Loa and other sites around the world demonstrates the importance of observational networks as a contribution to understanding the complexities of the carbon cycle."

Each year since global measurements of CO2 began, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased.

Scientific measurements of levels of CO2 contained in cylinders of ice, called ice cores, indicate that the pre-industrial carbon dioxide level was 278 ppm. That level did not vary more than 7 ppm during the 800 years between 1000 and 1800 A.D.

Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased from about 315 ppm in 1958 to 378 ppm at the end of 2004, which means human activities have increased the concentration of atmospheric CO2 by 100 ppm or 36 percent."


----------



## jreeves (Jul 8, 2008)

Kirk said:


> You have to be joking on this one. Have you ever heard of NOAA? Here's a quote from their website...
> 
> "Global combustion of fossil fuels and other materials places almost 7 billion tons of carbon, in the form of CO2, into the atmosphere each year. On average, Earth's oceans, trees, plants and soils absorb about one-half of this carbon. The balance remains in the air and is responsible for the annual increase.
> 
> ...



Got a link?


----------



## Chris (Jul 8, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Got a link?





NOAA News Online (Story 2412)


----------



## jreeves (Jul 8, 2008)

Kirk said:


> The wildfire season has changed significantly in the last 20 years. That's the point. Please read this article again.
> 
> Global Warming Fuels U.S. Forest Fires | LiveScience



So CA only seen an increase in wildfires in the last 20 years, while CO2 levels have an increased at a rate of 30% since 1880. Like I said there hasn't been extraordinary increase in CA wildfires in the last 500 years. If the wildfires since 1980 were caused by GW the increase would have started way before 1980.


----------



## Chris (Jul 8, 2008)

jreeves said:


> So CA only seen an increase in wildfires in the last 20 years, while CO2 levels have an increased at a rate of 30% since 1880. Like I said there hasn't been extraordinary increase in CA wildfires in the last 500 years. If the wildfires since 1980 were caused by GW the increase would have started way before 1980.



The greatest rate of increase in CO2 has been since 1958 and that rate of increase has doubled between 1958 and 2007. It will increase even more as China and India industrialize.


----------



## Chris (Jul 8, 2008)

Here are the raw numbers on CO2 increases. It's pretty convincing...

ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_annmean_mlo.txt


----------



## jreeves (Jul 8, 2008)

Kirk said:


> The greatest rate of increase in CO2 has been since 1958 and that rate of increase has doubled between 1958 and 2007. It will increase even more as China and India industrialize.



Atomspheric CO2 has increased at a rate of 22% since 1958 and 30% since 1880. If the wildfires in CA were caused by GW then we would have seen an increase before the 1980's, isn't that correct?


----------



## jreeves (Jul 8, 2008)

Kirk said:


> You have to be joking on this one. Have you ever heard of NOAA? Here's a quote from their website...
> 
> "Global combustion of fossil fuels and other materials places almost 7 billion tons of carbon, in the form of CO2, into the atmosphere each year. On average, Earth's oceans, trees, plants and soils absorb about one-half of this carbon. The balance remains in the air and is responsible for the annual increase.
> 
> ...




Now why wouldn't you have posted this part of the article?
However, according to David Hofmann, director of the NOAA Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics Laboratory in Boulder, Colo., the rate of carbon-dioxide increase returned to the long-term average level of about 1.5 ppm per year in 2004, *indicating that the temporary fluctuation was probably due to changes in the natural processes that remove CO2 from the atmosphere.*


----------



## Chris (Jul 8, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Atomspheric CO2 has increased at a rate of 22% since 1958 and 30% since 1880. If the wildfires in CA were caused by GW then we would have seen an increase before the 1980's, is that correct?



Who knows? The increases are cumulative. They will keep going up forever until we stop burning fossil fuels. This is from CNN's website right now....

"Temperatures in some parts of California's Central Valley were forecast to climb close to 110 degrees Tuesday. The agency that monitors the state's power grid said peak energy demand could approach the record set in July 2006, and it asked customers to reduce their late-afternoon power consumption.

The expected heat wave raised not only the fire danger, but also concerns about heat illness among firefighters worn down by the long fight against blazes that have consumed more than 985 square miles in California since late June."

Almost 1,000 square miles of California have burned so far, and IT IS NOT EVEN FIRE SEASON YET.


----------



## Chris (Jul 8, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Now why wouldn't you have posted this part of the article?
> However, according to David Hofmann, director of the NOAA Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics Laboratory in Boulder, Colo., the rate of carbon-dioxide increase returned to the long-term average level of about 1.5 ppm per year in 2004, *indicating that the temporary fluctuation was probably due to changes in the natural processes that remove CO2 from the atmosphere.*



Because that was a reference to a one year fluctuation in a 50 year march upward. Look at the raw numbers from Mauna Loa. They tell the real story.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 8, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Who knows? The increases are cumulative. They will keep going up forever until we stop burning fossil fuels. This is from CNN's website right now....
> 
> "Temperatures in some parts of California's Central Valley were forecast to climb close to 110 degrees Tuesday. The agency that monitors the state's power grid said peak energy demand could approach the record set in July 2006, and it asked customers to reduce their late-afternoon power consumption.
> 
> ...



I'm sorry that still doesn't show a link between GW and these wildfires. We would have seen an increase in CA well before 20 years ago.


----------



## Chris (Jul 8, 2008)

jreeves said:


> I'm sorry that still doesn't show a link between GW and these wildfires. We would have seen an increase in CA well before 20 years ago.



1,000 square miles burned so far, and the fire season doesn't start until late July. God bless those fire fighters. Here are the raw CO2 numbers for people who don't click on links....

# year     mean      unc
  1959   315.98     0.12
  1960   316.91     0.12
  1961   317.65     0.12
  1962   318.45     0.12
  1963   318.99     0.12
  1964   319.61     0.12
  1965   320.03     0.12
  1966   321.37     0.12
  1967   322.18     0.12
  1968   323.05     0.12
  1969   324.62     0.12
  1970   325.68     0.12
  1971   326.32     0.12
  1972   327.46     0.12
  1973   329.68     0.12
  1974   330.17     0.12
  1975   331.09     0.12
  1976   332.06     0.12
  1977   333.78     0.12
  1978   335.40     0.12
  1979   336.78     0.12
  1980   338.70     0.12
  1981   340.11     0.12
  1982   341.21     0.12
  1983   342.84     0.12
  1984   344.40     0.12
  1985   345.87     0.12
  1986   347.19     0.12
  1987   348.98     0.12
  1988   351.45     0.12
  1989   352.89     0.12
  1990   354.16     0.12
  1991   355.49     0.12
  1992   356.27     0.12
  1993   356.96     0.12
  1994   358.63     0.12
  1995   360.62     0.12
  1996   362.37     0.12
  1997   363.47     0.12
  1998   366.50     0.12
  1999   368.14     0.12
  2000   369.41     0.12
  2001   371.07     0.12
  2002   373.16     0.12
  2003   375.80     0.12
  2004   377.55     0.12
  2005   379.75     0.12
  2006   381.85     0.12
  2007   383.72     0.12


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 8, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Now why wouldn't you have posted this part of the article?
> However, according to David Hofmann, director of the NOAA Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics Laboratory in Boulder, Colo., the rate of carbon-dioxide increase returned to the long-term average level of about 1.5 ppm per year in 2004, *indicating that the temporary fluctuation was probably due to changes in the natural processes that remove CO2 from the atmosphere.*



25 years of measurements isn't even a blink on a global scale.  The other problem that occurs is that the instruments used to measure temperatures and CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been in the same places for those 25 years despite a population explosion and rapid rate of urbanization around some of those locations.  Many measuring devices that were once in a hayfield or pasture are now surrounded by buildings, concrete and asphalt so of course the measurements now are different than they were 25 years ago.  Those devices mounted on buoys on the oceans, however, have fairly consistently recorded minor changes or even a drop over the last 20+ years.

This was illustrated in my city when some became curious at the wide discrepancy among various weather reporting stations in the Weatherunderground system here.  So a reporter went out on an impromptu information gathering mission to find out why there were such broad discrepancies.  He found station mounted next to air conditioning compressors, hung near dryer vents, placed in the sun much of the day, placed between buildings in a sheltered area.  Needless to say, none of those were giving competent readings.  And the same kind of problems exist with those measuring devices used for much scientific analysis of mean temperatures and CO2 levels too.

Of course we should continue to study all aspects of our environment, climate etc.  But there simply is still insuficient evidence that AGW is occurring to any significant degree and, even if it is, insufficient evidence that it will be harmful in any way.

I think we need a great deal more certainty than now exists before making global policy, taking away choices and freedoms, and perhaps dooming hundreds of millions of people to more generations of crushing poverty.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 8, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Because that was a reference to a one year fluctuation in a 50 year march upward. Look at the raw numbers from Mauna Loa. They tell the real story.


This I believe tells the whole story about the increase of CO2.
The concentration of CO2 in Earths atmosphere has increased
during the past century, as shown in Figure 17. The magnitude of
this atmospheric increase is currently about 4 gigatons (Gt C) of carbon
per year. Total hu man industrial CO2 production, primarily from
use of coal, oil, and natural gas and the production of cement, is currently
about 8 Gt C per year (7,56,57). Humans also exhale about 0.6
Gt C per year, which has been sequestered by plants from atmospheric
CO2. Office air concentrations often exceed 1,000 ppm CO2.
To put these figures in perspective, it is estimated that the atmosphere
contains 780 Gt C; the surface ocean contains 1,000 Gt C;
vegetation, soils, and detritus contain 2,000 Gt C; and the intermediate
and deep oceans contain 38,000 Gt C, as CO2 or CO2 hydration
products. Each year, the surface ocean and atmosphere exchange an
estimated 90 Gt C; vegetation and the atmosphere, 100 Gt C; marine
biota and the surface ocean, 50 Gt C; and the surface ocean and the
intermediate and deep oceans, 40 Gt C (56,57).
So great are the magnitudes of these reservoirs, the rates of ex -
change between them, and the uncertainties of these estimated num -
bers that the sources of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 have not
been determined with certainty (58,59). Atmospheric concentrations
of CO2 are reported to have varied widely over ge logical time, with
peaks, according to some estimates, some 20-fold higher than at
present and lows at approximately 200 ppm (60-62).
Ice-core records are reported to show seven extended periods dur -
ing 650,000 years in which CO2, methane (CH4), and temperature
increased and then decreased (63-65). Ice-core records contain sub -
stantial uncertainties (58), so these correlations are imprecise.
In all seven glacial and inter glacial cycles, the reported changes in
CO2 and CH4 lagged the temperature changes and could not, therefore,
have caused them (66). These fluctuations probably involved
temperature-caused changes in oceanic and terrestrial CO2 and CH4
content. More recent CO2 fluctuations also lag temperature (67,68).
In 1957, Revelle and Seuss (69) estimated that temperature-
caused out-gassing of ocean CO2 would increase atmospheric
CO2 by about 7% per °C temperature rise. The reported change dur -
ing the seven interglacials of the 650,000-year ice core record is
about 5% per °C (63), which agrees with the out-gassing calculation.
Between 1900 and 2006, Antarctic CO2 increased 30% per 0.1 °C
temperature change (72), and world CO2 increased 30% per 0.5 °C.
In addition to ocean out-gassing, CO2 from human use of hydrocarbons
is a new source. Neither this new source nor the older natural
CO2 sources are caus ing atmospheric temperature to change.
The hypothesis that the CO2 rise during the interglacials caused
the temperature to rise requires an increase of about 6 °C per 30%
rise in CO2 as seen in the ice core record. If this hypothesis were correct,
Earth temperatures would have risen about 6 °C between 1900
and 2006, rather than the rise of between 0.1 °C and 0.5 °C, which
actually occurred. This difference is illustrated in Figure 16.
The 650,000-year ice-core record does not, therefore, agree with
the hypothesis of human-caused global warming, and, in fact, pro -
vides empirical evidence that invalidates this hypothesis.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM600.pdf


----------



## Chris (Jul 8, 2008)

Foxfyre said:


> 25 years of measurements isn't even a blink on a global scale.  The other problem that occurs is that the instruments used to measure temperatures and CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been in the same places for those 25 years despite a population explosion and rapid rate of urbanization around some of those locations.  Many measuring devices that were once in a hayfield or pasture are now surrounded by buildings, concrete and asphalt so of course the measurements now are different than they were 25 years ago.  Those devices mounted on buoys on the oceans, however, have fairly consistently recorded minor changes or even a drop over the last 20+ years.
> 
> This was illustrated in my city when some became curious at the wide discrepancy among various weather reporting stations in the Weatherunderground system here.  So a reporter went out on an impromptu information gathering mission to find out why there were such broad discrepancies.  He found station mounted next to air conditioning compressors, hung near dryer vents, placed in the sun much of the day, placed between buildings in a sheltered area.  Needless to say, none of those were giving competent readings.  And the same kind of problems exist with those measuring devices used for much scientific analysis of mean temperatures and CO2 levels too.
> 
> ...



Now you are being silly. The Danes already get 20% of their energy from wind power. Are the Danes in poverty? The Israelis are building ONE solar power plant that will supply 5% of their energy needs. Algae farms can produce 10,000 gallons of ethanol per acre and algae LOVE CO2. T. Boone Pickens is building the largest wind farm in the world in the good old USA, and he's a hard core Republican. The solutions are there. All we need is the leadership and the political will to move in that direction.


----------



## Chris (Jul 8, 2008)

jreeves, the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine knows more about the global warming than NOAA? 

CO2 is not the only contributor to global warming. The Stanford solar scientists estimate that the sun has contributed about 25%, but the increase in CO2 is continuous and cumulative. It keeps going up every day, every month, every year. At what point does it melt the North Pole? At what point does it cause wildfires? At what point does it melt Antarctica?


----------



## jreeves (Jul 8, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Now you are being silly. The Danes already get 20% of their energy from wind power. Are the Danes in poverty? The Israelis are building ONE solar power plant that will supply 5% of their energy needs. Algae farms can produce 10,000 gallons of ethanol per acre and algae LOVE CO2. T. Boone Pickens is building the largest wind farm in the world in the good old USA, and he's a hard core Republican. The solutions are there. All we need is the leadership and the political will to move in that direction.



I still haven't seen one link between AGW and enviromental changes.....

You cite the wildfires in CA as evidence;
1. CA is only a small part of the planet
2. There is no link between AGW and wildfires, since CO2 increased 30% from 1880 while there was no increase in wildfires until the 1980's
3. CA's population has grown tremendously and 4 out of 5 wildfires are caused by human carelessness


----------



## jreeves (Jul 9, 2008)

Kirk said:


> jreeves, the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine knows more about the global warming than NOAA?
> 
> CO2 is not the only contributor to global warming. The Stanford solar scientists estimate that the sun has contributed about 25%, but the increase in CO2 is continuous and cumulative. It keeps going up every day, every month, every year. At what point does it melt the North Pole? At what point does it cause wildfires? At what point does it melt Antarctica?



Your article states that the increases in CO2 levels were due to natural processes.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 9, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Your article states that the increases in CO2 levels were due to natural processes.



Also if there is a flaw in their logic please point it out....


----------



## Chris (Jul 9, 2008)

jreeves said:


> I still haven't seen one link between AGW and enviromental changes.....
> 
> You cite the wildfires in CA as evidence;
> 1. CA is only a small part of the planet
> ...



California is experiencing the driest year on record, and the wildfires were started by lightening strikes.

But nevermind, if the melting of the North Pole can't convince you that the earth is warming, nothing will.


----------



## Chris (Jul 9, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Your article states that the increases in CO2 levels were due to natural processes.



Now you are just lying. How sad for you.


----------



## Chris (Jul 9, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Your article states that the increases in CO2 levels were due to natural processes.




"Scientific measurements of levels of CO2 contained in cylinders of ice, called ice cores, indicate that the pre-industrial carbon dioxide level was 278 ppm. That level did not vary more than 7 ppm during the 800 years between 1000 and 1800 A.D.

Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased from about 315 ppm in 1958 to 378 ppm at the end of 2004, which means human activities have increased the concentration of atmospheric CO2 by 100 ppm or 36 percent."


----------



## jreeves (Jul 9, 2008)

Kirk said:


> California is experiencing the driest year on record, and the wildfires were started by lightening strikes.
> 
> But nevermind, if the melting of the North Pole can't convince you that the earth is warming, nothing will.



Is it your contention, that *all of the wildfires *in CA were caused by lightning?
http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM600.pdf
As shown in Fig ures 2, 11, and 12, the trends in gla cier short ening
and sea level rise be gan a century before the 60-year 6-fold increase
in hy drocarbon use, and have not changed dur ing that
increase. Hydrocarbon use could not have caused these trends.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 9, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Now you are just lying. How sad for you.



However, according to David Hofmann, director of the NOAA Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics Laboratory in Boulder, Colo., the rate of carbon-dioxide increase returned to the long-term average level of about 1.5 ppm per year in 2004, *indicating that the temporary fluctuation was probably due to changes in the natural processes that remove CO2 from the atmosphere.*
How is that lying again, straight from your article.

BTW....the article title
*AFTER TWO LARGE ANNUAL GAINS, RATE OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 INCREASE
RETURNS TO AVERAGE, NOAA REPORTS*


----------



## Chris (Jul 9, 2008)

No.


----------



## Chris (Jul 9, 2008)

jreeves said:


> However, according to David Hofmann, director of the NOAA Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics Laboratory in Boulder, Colo., the rate of carbon-dioxide increase returned to the long-term average level of about 1.5 ppm per year in 2004, *indicating that the temporary fluctuation was probably due to changes in the natural processes that remove CO2 from the atmosphere.*
> How is that lying again, straight from your article.
> 
> BTW....the article title
> ...



Like I said, lying. "Temporary fluctuation" is the key phrase.  The CO2 increase has been continuous and the NOAA article says it is caused by man. Nice try though, but you are not really serious, you are just playing.


----------



## Chris (Jul 9, 2008)

Scientific measurements of levels of CO2 contained in cylinders of ice, called ice cores, indicate that the pre-industrial carbon dioxide level was 278 ppm. That level did not vary more than 7 ppm during the 800 years between 1000 and 1800 A.D.

Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased from about 315 ppm in 1958 to 378 ppm at the end of 2004, which means human activities have increased the concentration of atmospheric CO2 by 100 ppm or 36 percent.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 9, 2008)

Kirk said:


> *California is experiencing the driest year on record, and the wildfires were started by lightening strikes.*
> But nevermind, if the melting of the North Pole can't convince you that the earth is warming, nothing will.



Looking at the estimated burned acreage, researchers found that wildfires spewed an average 1.3 million tons a year of tiny smoke particles in prehistoric California compared with about 78,000 tons in 2006, the most recent year for which the data in available.

California Wildfires: not global warming, but &#8220;business as usual&#8221; for nature  Watts Up With That?


----------



## jreeves (Jul 9, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Scientific measurements of levels of CO2 contained in cylinders of ice, called ice cores, indicate that the pre-industrial carbon dioxide level was 278 ppm. That level did not vary more than 7 ppm during the 800 years between 1000 and 1800 A.D.
> 
> Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased from about 315 ppm in 1958 to 378 ppm at the end of 2004, which means human activities have increased the concentration of atmospheric CO2 by 100 ppm or 36 percent.



I refer you back to post 272....


----------



## editec (Jul 9, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Looking at the estimated burned acreage, researchers found that wildfires spewed an average 1.3 million tons a year of tiny smoke particles in prehistoric California compared with about 78,000 tons in 2006, the most recent year for which the data in available.
> 
> California Wildfires: not global warming, but business as usual for nature Watts Up With That?


 
Which proves what, exactly?

That wild fires, unchecked burn more acreage than wildfires which mankind fights?

I don't doubt _that_ for a moment.

I do NOT think one can pin the wild fires in CA on Global warming except in the sense that everything is the result of the state of the glaobal climate.

One can easily pin EVERYTHING that happens regarding the weather on every inch of the earth on Gobal warming or _global NOT warming if you believe that's the true state of affairs._

Because it is impossible for _anything_ to happen locally, which is not caused by what is happening _globally._

So what that means is that if CA had had the wettest year in history and NO wild fires, that ALSO would have been the result of the overall state of the world's climate.

Make sense?

One cannot pick and choose events and say they are the result of the global climate, but something else is not.

*All weather events on the global are the result of the global climate, be they good or bad*


----------



## Chris (Jul 9, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Looking at the estimated burned acreage, researchers found that wildfires spewed an average 1.3 million tons a year of tiny smoke particles in prehistoric California compared with about 78,000 tons in 2006, the most recent year for which the data in available.
> 
> California Wildfires: not global warming, but business as usual for nature  Watts Up With That?



About 30 lightning-sparked wildfires in Butte County, where Paradise and Concow are located, have charred 47,000 acres in recent weeks and was about 40 percent contained, officials said.

Fire crews across the state have been trying to cover hundreds of active California wildfires, many of which were ignited by a lightning storm more than two weeks ago. Some 1,450 fires had been contained late Tuesday, but more than 320 were still active, authorities said.

At a fire east of Bakersfield on Tuesday, wind gusts caused flames to jump fire lines and destroy or damage five residences and four more outbuildings in the Sequoia National Forest.

A blaze threatening the small coastal community of Big Sur let up just enough to allow hundreds of people to check on their homes Tuesday. Authorities announced that more residents would be allowed to return Wednesday morning.

At least 23 homes and 25 other structures have been destroyed in Big Sur as flames marched over more than 125 square miles of land since June 21.

Although that fire is far from controlled - the rugged terrain has kept containment at 23 percent into the fire's third week - authorities lifted the mandatory evacuation order issued for 25 miles of the 31-mile stretch along the Pacific Coast Highway that had been closed.

Many of the 1,500 evacuated residents of Big Sur headed home Tuesday morning through smoke and ash, anxious to gauge the damage. Officials, however, cautioned that the lifted evacuation orders did not mean conditions had drastically improved.

A wildfire in the Los Padres National Forest near Santa Barbara grew slightly to 9,785 acres, or about 15 square miles, but the number of homes threatened dropped sharply Tuesday as crews secured fire lines near populated areas.

The blaze continues to threaten about 250 homes, down from a peak of more than 3,000. The fire is 55 percent contained, said U.S. Forest Service spokeswoman Debbie Becker.

"It's going according to plan," Becker said "They've really got a good hold on this fire but there's still a lot of potential to get worse."

The expected heat wave raised not only the fire danger, but also concerns about heat illness among firefighters worn down by the long fight against blazes that have consumed more than 985 square miles in California since late June.

"We do have a lot of fatigue because of the low numbers of resources in the state," said Thom Walsh, a Forest Service resource unit leader.

Crews took rest breaks in refrigerated trailers with bunk beds before returning to the field, but heat stroke was a worry, Walsh said.

Highs are likely to be in the triple digits across much of the northern half of the state until at least Friday, National Weather Service forecaster Christine Riley said.

Temperature records for the date were broken in five cities Tuesday. Among them were Sacramento, where the temperature reached 108, breaking the previous high of 104 degrees set in 1997. Stockton recorded 105 and Modesto 107, both breaking records for July 8 set in 2006.


----------



## editec (Jul 9, 2008)

I read posts like the above, and realize I made the best choice available to me when I elected to move to and raise my family in Maine.

Of course, _nobody knows_ what the future will bring us, but _DAMN FOLKS_, some of you are seriously getting screwed over by the climate and resulting wealther patterns of late.

You have my sympathy, and of course I will continue to support the Federal government coming to the aid of disaster areas whereever and whenever they happen. (this aid is NOT strictly constiutional of course, but then so little that we need from a modern Federal govermnet really is)


----------



## jreeves (Jul 10, 2008)

Kirk said:


> About 30 lightning-sparked wildfires in Butte County, where Paradise and Concow are located, have charred 47,000 acres in recent weeks and was about 40 percent contained, officials said.
> 
> Fire crews across the state have been trying to cover hundreds of active California wildfires, many of which were ignited by a lightning storm more than two weeks ago. Some 1,450 fires had been contained late Tuesday, but more than 320 were still active, authorities said.
> 
> ...



Droughts, Wildfires have not increased globally that is myth. Wildfires in Ca remain for the most part unchanged in the last 500 years....

Global Warming is happening but it started well before the huge influx of carbon emmissions.


----------



## Chris (Jul 10, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Droughts, Wildfires have not increased globally that is myth. Wildfires in Ca remain for the most part unchanged in the last 500 years....
> 
> Global Warming is happening but it started well before the huge influx of carbon emmissions.



CO2 is accelerating the warming. 

We melted the North Pole in 50 short years. 

The wildfire season is now longer than it was. I posted a scientific study about that which you chose to ignore. 1,000 square miles of California have burned, and it isn't even fire season yet.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 10, 2008)

Kirk said:


> *CO2 is accelerating the warming. *We melted the North Pole in 50 short years.
> 
> The wildfire season is now longer than it was. I posted a scientific study about that which you chose to ignore. 1,000 square miles of California have burned, and it isn't even fire season yet.


As I have said, nothing in the wildfires has changed in the last 500 years. You state there has been an uptick since the 80's, fine. But CO2 emmissions were growing by a clip of 30% since 1880 with no dramatic change in wildfires. Also as I have said, CA is a small part of the planet. It's like seeing one deer and saying that the deer population is exploding.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM600.pdf
Surface temperatures in the United States during the past century
reflect this natural warming trend and its correlation with solar activity,
as shown in Figures 4 and 5. Compiled U.S. surface temperatures
have increased about 0.5 °C per century, which is consistent with
other historical values of 0.4 to 0.5 °C per century during the recovery
from the Little Ice Age (13-17). This temperature change is slight
as compared with other natural variations, as shown in Figure 6.
Three intermediate trends are evident, including the decreasing trend
used to justify fears of global cooling in the 1970s.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 11, 2008)

Kirk said:


> About 30 lightning-sparked wildfires in Butte County, where Paradise and Concow are located, have charred 47,000 acres in recent weeks and was about 40 percent contained, officials said.
> 
> Fire crews across the state have been trying to cover hundreds of active California wildfires, many of which were ignited by a lightning storm more than two weeks ago. Some 1,450 fires had been contained late Tuesday, but more than 320 were still active, authorities said.
> 
> ...



I thought you might enjoy this article but wait don't tell me the newspaper is funded by Exxon.

Our leaders are in carbon-cloud cuckoo land - Telegraph
The second reason why this infatuation with cutting carbon emissions is beginning to look extraordinarily reckless is that the whole scientific theory on which it is based now appears distinctly questionable.

The orthodox global-warming thesis, accepted by pretty well every politician in the Western world, but not by a growing number of scientists, is that, as CO2 levels in the atmosphere continue to rise, so too should global temperatures. Unless we can drastically reduce those CO2 levels, the world is thus threatened with catastrophe.

In the past year or two, however, evidence has been piling up to suggest that there may be a fundamental flaw in this theory. Even though atmospheric CO2 has continued to rise to levels not seen since the distant geological past, temperatures have not been following suit.

After 2000 the global temperature curve flattened out at a level significantly lower than the freak year 1998, and in recent months temperatures have dropped to levels not seen since the early 1980s.

Despite the best efforts of the global-warming lobby to keep the scare going, the northern hemisphere enjoyed its coldest winter for decades, and this summer has shown the curve sinking even lower.

Even the warmists are having to find excuses for the fact that their theory doesn't exactly seem to be holding up, conceding that the next 10 years may see a period of global cooling, before the "underlying warming trend" returns worse than ever.

Other scientists point out that, rather than look to CO2 for an explanation of global temperatures, a much more convincing link can be seen in the activity of the sun, with current sunspot levels having dramatically fallen to levels associated with historic periods of global cooling recorded in the past.

Yet just when such huge question marks are being raised over the "CO2 equals warming" theory, our politicians have swallowed it whole, as an act of blind faith - using it to justify such massive costs to our economy that our whole way of life seems destined to change significantly for the worse.


----------



## TopGunna (Jul 11, 2008)

Look at all the excess sea ice in the Antarctic.  Surely, this is proof positive of global cooling, right?


----------



## Wow (Jul 12, 2008)

This is great news!
When do we start drilling for oil and fishing?


----------



## Chris (Jul 12, 2008)

TopGunna, sorry to spoil your Exxon slumber party, but things are changing....

Antarctic ice breaking up even in winter - Climate Change - MSNBC.com


----------



## TopGunna (Jul 12, 2008)

Kirk said:


> TopGunna, sorry to spoil your Exxon slumber party, but things are changing....
> 
> Antarctic ice breaking up even in winter - Climate Change - MSNBC.com



The Antarctic Peninsula is a very small area that has very clearly been warming substantially over the last few decades, but it represents only 2% of Antarctica.   Its local climate is not indicative of the rest of Antarctica or the rest of the Southern Hemisphere, much less of the globe.

Antarctic sea ice extent is actually at the highest levels observed since we started watching it via satellite around 1979.  Ice may be shrinking around the Peninsula, but is net growing over the whole continent.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 12, 2008)

I am still waiting for a response to the fact that Water Vapor is the single biggest contributing factor as a green house gas, and the fact that CO2 is only a tiny part of the total make up of our atmosphere.


----------



## BrianH (Jul 12, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> I am still waiting for a response to the fact that Water Vapor is the single biggest contributing factor as a green house gas, and the fact that CO2 is only a tiny part of the total make up of our atmosphere.



Unfortunately, it's a fact that the AGW activists choose to ignore.  I've seen more ingored posts by AGW artards then anyone else.  There's a guy that hasn't posted here in a while (The Good Shephard) that always did that.  He said there's proof GW is caused by humans and that CO2 is the culprit, yet, when he couldn't prove it, he's simply call you a liar and claim your sources were bad--which seems to be the cause with other alarmist here.


----------



## editec (Jul 12, 2008)

Water vapor, eh?

Another good reason not to go with hyrdogen cars.

For every two hydrogen atoms used, one molecule of H2O (spewed as vapor) exits the exhaust.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 12, 2008)

editec said:


> Water vapor, eh?
> 
> Another good reason not to go with hyrdogen cars.
> 
> For every two hydrogen atoms used, one molecule of H2O (spewed as vapor) exits the exhaust.



Yep to bad the GW alarmists will never admit it. They want us to all believe the gas we all breath out, and Plants need to live is the culprit, and Water vapor is harmless.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 12, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> Yep to bad the GW alarmists will never admit it. They want us to all believe the gas we all breath out, and Plants need to live is the culprit, and Water vapor is harmless.



Yea, its us that won't admit.....


You are a piece of work.  Your parents must be so proud.  Chances are you are a chip off the old block.

Im watching Superman.  You remind me of Lex Luthor.  Only he stands to benefit when he ruins the planet.  What will you get out of it.

This proves you'll swallow anything the GOP tells you.  8otice you side with them on everything?

Do you love America or just the gop?  Do you respect the presidency or just the president?


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 12, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> Yea, its us that won't admit.....
> 
> 
> You are a piece of work.  Your parents must be so proud.  Chances are you are a chip off the old block.
> ...



Yes, throw some insults and do nothing to dispute the FACT that WATER VAPOR is the single biggest green house gas.

here are some sources about Water Vapor as a green house gas.

http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watervapour.html
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11652

I know it is hard, but please actually read it before you respond with yet more Democrat talking points and insults.

Do you love AMerica or just Liberals?

Prove my points wrong or walk away big guy.

My parents? they have both been dead for some time, the fact you bring up parents tells me you just a kid. Grow up and think for yourself.

I hardly support everything the GOP says, only the parts that I find to be true, of course all you would need to do is read all my posts to know that.

Just another brainwashed liberal insult artist with no substance at all.


----------



## BrianH (Jul 12, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> Yea, its us that won't admit.....
> 
> 
> You are a piece of work.  Your parents must be so proud.  Chances are you are a chip off the old block.
> ...



You remind me of this.....







WATOR VAPOR is more of a green-house gas than CO2, and it is MORE present in the atmosphere than CO2.  Wator Vapor makes up way more of the atmosphere than CO2.  I, as well as others, have already posted numerous articles showing this FACT


----------



## Chris (Jul 12, 2008)

Glad you admit that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. 

Perhaps pumping 8 billion metric tons of it into the atmosphere each year is warming the earth?


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 12, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> Yes, throw some insults and do nothing to dispute the FACT that WATER VAPOR is the single biggest green house gas.
> 
> here are some sources about Water Vapor as a green house gas.
> 
> ...



all the pollution coming out of cars and and companies isn't  the problem?  its water vapors?

your sources are conservative sources.  sorry.

( I )  this is me walking away.

I'm no expert on this and neither are you.  I just follow what 90 percent of the scientists say.

But in your defense, the guys who went to the moon brought back some green glass like stuff, each the size if a period.  after all these yrs the found h2o in them, which cals into question the theory  that something the size of mars hit the earth and created the moon, because no water would be on the moon if that happened.  

then again, these green things could have come from meteors.

that's the difference between theory and fact.

are humans contributing to GW?  As of right now, the theory is yes.  I'll go with what the majority thinks.  

your theory is not accepted by the majority, which makes it weak.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 12, 2008)

BrianH said:


> You remind me of this.....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



what you guys are saying might be right, but you are still wrong if you think all the companies and cars in the world aren't  hurting the planet.

one day we will wipe ourselves out but the planet will live on.  

or it might be a mega volcano or meteor.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 12, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> all the pollution coming out of cars and and companies isn't  the problem?  its water vapors?
> 
> your sources are conservative sources.  sorry.
> 
> ...



In other words, you don't know what the hell you are talking about, but you will continue to speak from your ass. That really isn't suprising, considering that's what you do 100% of the time.


----------



## BrianH (Jul 12, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> all the pollution coming out of cars and and companies isn't  the problem?  its water vapors?
> 
> *your sources are conservative sources*.  sorry.
> 
> ...



TES - Tropospheric Emission Spectrometer - Science: Greenhouse Gases

"Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas"

I guess NASA is a biased conservative source huh????  

Yale Climate Media Forum - COMMON CLIMATE MISCONCEPTIONS: The Water Vapor Feedback

You should really do some research before spouting off about uncredible and conservative sources....


----------



## BrianH (Jul 12, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> what you guys are saying might be right, but you are still wrong if you think all the companies and cars in the world aren't  hurting the planet.
> 
> one day we will wipe ourselves out but the planet will live on.
> 
> or it might be a mega volcano or meteor.



And how would you suggest a meteor has anything to do with global climate change? Or even a volcano for that matter.  

You are too confusing to even understand.  YOu sit there and argue that humans are causing global warming, then say you're not an expert on the subject and don't know much, then turn around and say, or maybe a volcano or meteor.  You have no clue what you are talking about %95 of the time, and it shows pretty clear.


----------



## editec (Jul 13, 2008)

Does anyone here believe that the overall global temperature is NOT rising?

I think that is not in dispute, right?

So the question is, what is causing the rise in temperature, yes?

And if we can answer that question, then the next logical question is,_ is there anything humankind can actually do about it?_

Therein is the debte, I think, yes?

Now we know that C02 and water vapor are both greenhouse gases, yes?

Can we do anything about naturally occurring water vapor?

No?

Can we do anything about the CO2 we pout into the air?

Yes?

Then, if we're agreed that CO2 is at least _part of the problem_, does it make sense to consider doing SOMETHING about the greenhouse gas which we can, _to some extent_ control?

If your answer to that is _no_, then please explain why you think we should not be at least _attempting _to cut down on a known greenhouse gas which we spew into our atmosphere.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 13, 2008)

editec said:


> Does anyone here believe that the overall global temperature is NOT rising?
> 
> I think that is not in dispute, right?
> 
> ...



I don't believe that the increase of CO2 and the increase in temperature are directly correlated. 

http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM600.pdf
Solar activity and U.S. surface temperature are closely correlated,
as shown in Figure 5, but U.S. surface temperature and world hydrocarbon
use are not correlated, as shown in Figure 13.
The U.S. temperature trend is so slight that, were the temperature change which has taken place during the 20th and 21st centuries to
occur in an ordinary room, most of the people in the room would be
unaware of it.


----------



## Chris (Jul 13, 2008)

jreeves said:


> I don't believe that the increase of CO2 and the increase in temperature are directly correlated.
> 
> http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM600.pdf
> Solar activity and U.S. surface temperature are closely correlated,
> ...



More bogus crap from the "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine."

Read more about it here....

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine - SourceWatch


----------



## jreeves (Jul 13, 2008)

Kirk said:


> More bogus crap from the "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine."
> 
> Read more about it here....
> 
> Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine - SourceWatch



Oh I see you can't dispute the facts that they use. So therefore, if they don't agree with your viewpoint the collaberation of 31,000 scientist is flawed. What is bogus about there conclusions, that they don't agree with the GW alarmist?


----------



## Chris (Jul 13, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Oh I see you can't dispute the facts that they use. So therefore, if they don't agree with your viewpoint the collaberation of 31,000 scientist is flawed. What is bogus about there conclusions, that they don't agree with the GW alarmist?





Robinson established the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine in 1980. In its early years, the OISM focused much of its attention on a new theory that Robinson had developed regarding "molecular clocks" that he thought might influence aging. It also became involved in issues related to nuclear war and civil defense. It published two books, Nuclear War Survival Skills (foreword by H-bomb inventor Edward Teller), which argues that "the dangers from nuclear weapons have been distorted and exaggerated" into "demoralizing myths." Robinson also co-authored another civil defense book titled Fighting Chance: Ten Feet to Survival, in collaboration with Gary North, who like Robinson is a conservative Christian. North is also a prolific author of doomsday books with titles such as None Dare Call It Witchcraft; Conspiracy: A Biblical View; Rapture Fever; and How You Can Profit From the Coming Price Controls. Following his collaboration with Robinson, North built a web-based marketing empire built around apocalyptic predictions that the Y2K bug would make the dawn of the 21st century "the year the earth stands still." North predicted that computer failures would cause "cascading cross defaults, where banks cannot settle accounts with each other, and the banking system goes into gridlock, worldwide," in addition to disruptions of oil supplies, electricity, manufacturing and public utility systems. "We are facing a breakdown of civilization if the power grid goes down," North predicted in late 1999, boasting, "I was the only person saying this on a Web site in early 1998, although a few sites do today." (After his Y2K predictions fizzled, North retooled his website to offer internet marketing products and services.) [Note from Gary North: Dr. Robinson did not believe my Y2K predictions, and in any case is no way responsible for my writings, which should be obvious to any fair-minded reader of this article on Dr. Robinson.]

In 1988, Robinson's wife died suddenly and he took over the home-schooling of their six children, leading to a profitable side business. He assembled a set of 22 CD-ROM disks containing public-domain versions of various books and educational materials such as the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica, Robinson Crusoe and McGuffey's Readers, which the family now markets as a home-schooling kit. The kits sell for $200 each, and Robinson says the curriculum has been purchased by more than 32,000 families. The OISM website markets the cirriculum as a way to "teach your children to teach themselves and to acquire superior knowledge as did many of America's most outstanding citizens in the days before socialism in education." The OISM website also offers educational links to a creationist website and an online discussion group called RobinsonUsers4Christ, "for Bible & Trinity-believing, God-fearing, 'Jesus-Plus-Nothing-Else' Christian families who use the Robinson Curriculum to share ideas and to get and give support."

At the request of its founder, the late Petr Beckmann, Robinson has continued publication of Access to Energy [1], a "pro-science, pro-technology, pro-free enterprise monthly newsletter packed with information and comment on science, technology and energy and on those who would restrict your access to it." In collaboration with his children, he continues his research into the molecular biology of aging, which he says "has the potential to improve human nutrition and preventive medicine, increase the human lifespan, and decrease the tragic suffering and loss of early deaths."

[edit]Funding
In its IRS Form 990 form 1999, OISM reported revenues totalling $355,224, most of in the form of contributions from unspecified sources. As president, Arthur Robinson received $16,691 in salary and benefits. OISM listed $945,427 in total assets, $735,888 of which was in the form of land, buildings and equipment. By 2005, OISM reported $1.0M in revenue and $2.8M in assets. [2]

[edit]Case Study: The Oregon Petition
The Oregon Petition, sponsored by the OISM, was circulated in April 1998 in a bulk mailing to tens of thousands of U.S. scientists. In addition to the petition, the mailing included what appeared to be a reprint of a scientific paper. Authored by OISM's Arthur B. Robinson, Sallie L. Baliunas, Willie Soon, and Zachary W. Robinson, the paper was titled "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" and was printed in the same typeface and format as the official Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Also included was a reprint of a December 1997, Wall Street Journal editorial, "Science Has Spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth, by Arthur and Zachary Robinson. A cover note signed "Frederick Seitz/Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A./President Emeritus, Rockefeller University", may have given some persons the impression that Robinson's paper was an official publication of the academy's peer-reviewed journal. The blatant editorializing in the pseudopaper, however, was uncharacteristic of scientific papers.

Robinson's paper claimed to show that pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is actually a good thing. "As atmospheric CO2 increases," it stated, "plant growth rates increase. Also, leaves lose less water as CO2 increases, so that plants are able to grow under drier conditions. Animal life, which depends upon plant life for food, increases proportionally." As a result, Robinson concluded, industrial activities can be counted on to encourage greater species biodiversity and a greener planet:

As coal, oil, and natural gas are used to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe, more CO2 will be released into the atmosphere. This will help to maintain and improve the health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people. 
Human activities are believed to be responsible for the rise in CO2 level of the atmosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas from below ground to the atmosphere and surface, where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the CO2 increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life as [sic] that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution. 
In reality, neither Robinson's paper nor OISM's petition drive had anything to do with the National Academy of Sciences, which first heard about the petition when its members began calling to ask if the NAS had taken a stand against the Kyoto treaty. Robinson was not even a climate scientist. He was a biochemist with no published research in the field of climatology, and his paper had never been subjected to peer review by anyone with training in the field. In fact, the paper had never been accepted for publication anywhere, let alone in the NAS Proceedings. It was self-published by Robinson, who did the typesetting himself on his own computer. (It was subsequently published as a "review" in Climate Research, which contributed to an editorial scandal at that publication.)

None of the coauthors of "Environmental Effects of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" had any more standing than Robinson himself as a climate change researcher. They included Robinson's 22-year-old son, Zachary, along with astrophysicists Sallie L. Baliunas and Willie Soon. Both Baliunas and Soon worked with Frederick Seitz at the George C. Marshall Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank where Seitz served as executive director. Funded by a number of right-wing foundations, including Scaife and Bradley, the George C. Marshall Institute does not conduct any original research. It is a conservative think tank that was initially founded during the years of the Reagan administration to advocate funding for Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative--the "Star Wars" weapons program. Today, the Marshall Institute is still a big fan of high-tech weapons. In 1999, its website gave prominent placement to an essay by Col. Simon P. Worden titled "Why We Need the Air-Borne Laser," along with an essay titled "Missile Defense for Populations--What Does It Take? Why Are We Not Doing It?" Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, the Marshall Institute has adapted to the times by devoting much of its firepower to the war against environmentalism, and in particular against the "scaremongers" who raise warnings about global warming.

"The mailing is clearly designed to be deceptive by giving people the impression that the article, which is full of half-truths, is a reprint and has passed peer review," complained Raymond Pierrehumbert, a meteorlogist at the University of Chicago. NAS foreign secretary F. Sherwood Rowland, an atmospheric chemist, said researchers "are wondering if someone is trying to hoodwink them." NAS council member Ralph J. Cicerone, dean of the School of Physical Sciences at the University of California at Irvine, was particularly offended that Seitz described himself in the cover letter as a "past president" of the NAS. Although Seitz had indeed held that title in the 1960s, Cicerone hoped that scientists who received the petition mailing would not be misled into believing that he "still has a role in governing the organization."

The NAS issued an unusually blunt formal response to the petition drive. "The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal," it stated in a news release. "The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy." In fact, it pointed out, its own prior published study had shown that "even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises."

Notwithstanding this rebuke, the Oregon Petition managed to garner 15,000 signatures within a month's time. S. Fred Singer called the petition "the latest and largest effort by rank-and-file scientists to express their opposition to schemes that subvert science for the sake of a political agenda."

Nebraska senator Chuck Hagel called it an "extraordinary response" and cited it as his basis for continuing to oppose a global warming treaty. "Nearly all of these 15,000 scientists have technical training suitable for evaluating climate research data," Hagel said. Columns citing the Seitz petition and the Robinson paper as credible sources of scientific expertise on the global warming issue have appeared in publications ranging from Newsday', the Los Angeles Times and Washington Post to the Austin-American Statesman, Denver Post, and Wyoming Tribune-Eagle.

In addition to the bulk mailing, OISM's website enables people to add their names to the petition over the Internet, and by June 2000 it claimed to have recruited more than 19,000 scientists. The institute is so lax about screening names, however, that virtually anyone can sign, including for example Al Caruba, a pesticide-industry PR man and conservative ideologue who runs his own website called the "National Anxiety Center." Caruba has no scientific credentials whatsoever, but in addition to signing the Oregon Petition he has editorialized on his own website against the science of global warming, calling it the "biggest hoax of the decade," a "genocidal" campaign by environmentalists who believe that "humanity must be destroyed to 'Save the Earth.' . . . There is no global warming, but there is a global political agenda, comparable to the failed Soviet Union experiment with Communism, being orchestrated by the United Nations, supported by its many Green NGOs, to impose international treaties of every description that would turn the institution into a global government, superceding the sovereignty of every nation in the world."

When questioned in 1998, OISM's Arthur Robinson admitted that only 2,100 signers of the Oregon Petition had identified themselves as physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, or meteorologists, "and of those the greatest number are physicists." This grouping of fields concealed the fact that only a few dozen, at most, of the signatories were drawn from the core disciplines of climate science - such as meteorology, oceanography, and glaciology - and almost none were climate specialists. The names of the signers are available on the OISM's website, but without listing any institutional affiliations or even city of residence, making it very difficult to determine their credentials or even whether they exist at all. When the Oregon Petition first circulated, in fact, environmental activists successfully added the names of several fictional characters and celebrities to the list, including John Grisham, Michael J. Fox, Drs. Frank Burns, B. J. Honeycutt, and Benjamin Pierce (from the TV show M*A*S*H), an individual by the name of "Dr. Red Wine," and Geraldine Halliwell, formerly known as pop singer Ginger Spice of the Spice Girls. Halliwell's field of scientific specialization was listed as "biology." Even in 2003, the list was loaded with misspellings, duplications, name and title fragments, and names of non-persons, such as company names.

OISM has refused to release info on the number of mailings it made. From comments in Nature:

"Virtually every scientist in every field got it," says Robert Park, a professor of physics at the University of Maryland at College Park and spokesman for the American Physical Society. "That's a big mailing." According to the National Science Foundation, there are more than half a million science or engineering PhDs in the United States, and ten million individuals with first degrees in science or engineering. 
Arthur Robinson, president of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, the small, privately funded institute that circulated the petition, declines to say how many copies were sent out. "We're not willing to have our opponents attack us with that number, and say that the rest of the recipients are against us," he says, adding that the response was "outstanding" for a direct mail shot. [3] 
Is there a scientific basis for Robinson's claim that increased carbon dioxide levels will contribute to increased growth of some plants? Some research has gone into investigating this possibility, but the evidence does not point to the type of reassurance that the OISM is peddling. Fakhri Bazzaz, a plant physiologist at Harvard, has found that carbon dioxide-enriched air accelerates short-term plant growth, but his studies were carried out under controlled greenhouse conditions and are difficult to translate to a larger scale. Plant growth in natural systems may be constrained by a shortage of soil nutrients despite the greater availability of carbon dioxide. Moreover, Bazzaz's experiments involved carbon dioxide concentrations at levels 100% greater than those now existing in our atmosphere, whereas the greenhouse warming we are experiencing right now results from only a 20% increase in world carbon dioxide levels. Clearly, it is irresponsible to predict "benefits" from increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere when such "benefits" may only appear after we suffer the consequences of a five-fold increase over current anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. Finally, Bazzaz found that different plant species vary dramatically in their response to increased carbon dioxide. Plants such as sugar cane and corn were not improved, but weeds were stimulated. There is not much real benefit in warming the planet by several degrees just so we can maybe make it easier for weeds to grow.

Notwithstanding the shortcomings in Robinson's theory, the oil and coal industries have sponsored several organizations to promote the idea that increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is "good for earth" because it will encourage greater plant growth. The Greening Earth Society, a front group of the Western Fuels Association, has produced a video, titled "The Greening of the Planet Earth Continues," publishes a newsletter called the World Climate Report, and works closely with a group called the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 13, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Robinson established the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine in 1980. In its early years, the OISM focused much of its attention on a new theory that Robinson had developed regarding "molecular clocks" that he thought might influence aging. It also became involved in issues related to nuclear war and civil defense. It published two books, Nuclear War Survival Skills (foreword by H-bomb inventor Edward Teller), which argues that "the dangers from nuclear weapons have been distorted and exaggerated" into "demoralizing myths." Robinson also co-authored another civil defense book titled Fighting Chance: Ten Feet to Survival, in collaboration with Gary North, who like Robinson is a conservative Christian. North is also a prolific author of doomsday books with titles such as None Dare Call It Witchcraft; Conspiracy: A Biblical View; Rapture Fever; and How You Can Profit From the Coming Price Controls. Following his collaboration with Robinson, North built a web-based marketing empire built around apocalyptic predictions that the Y2K bug would make the dawn of the 21st century "the year the earth stands still." North predicted that computer failures would cause "cascading cross defaults, where banks cannot settle accounts with each other, and the banking system goes into gridlock, worldwide," in addition to disruptions of oil supplies, electricity, manufacturing and public utility systems. "We are facing a breakdown of civilization if the power grid goes down," North predicted in late 1999, boasting, "I was the only person saying this on a Web site in early 1998, although a few sites do today." (After his Y2K predictions fizzled, North retooled his website to offer internet marketing products and services.) [Note from Gary North: Dr. Robinson did not believe my Y2K predictions, and in any case is no way responsible for my writings, which should be obvious to any fair-minded reader of this article on Dr. Robinson.]
> 
> In 1988, Robinson's wife died suddenly and he took over the home-schooling of their six children, leading to a profitable side business. He assembled a set of 22 CD-ROM disks containing public-domain versions of various books and educational materials such as the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica, Robinson Crusoe and McGuffey's Readers, which the family now markets as a home-schooling kit. The kits sell for $200 each, and Robinson says the curriculum has been purchased by more than 32,000 families. The OISM website markets the cirriculum as a way to "teach your children to teach themselves and to acquire superior knowledge as did many of America's most outstanding citizens in the days before socialism in education." The OISM website also offers educational links to a creationist website and an online discussion group called RobinsonUsers4Christ, "for Bible & Trinity-believing, God-fearing, 'Jesus-Plus-Nothing-Else' Christian families who use the Robinson Curriculum to share ideas and to get and give support."
> 
> ...



How again are they scientifically flawed in their conclusion?


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 13, 2008)

BrianH said:


> And how would you suggest a meteor has anything to do with global climate change? Or even a volcano for that matter.
> 
> You are too confusing to even understand.  YOu sit there and argue that humans are causing global warming, then say you're not an expert on the subject and don't know much, then turn around and say, or maybe a volcano or meteor.  You have no clue what you are talking about %95 of the time, and it shows pretty clear.



I was trying to say that we could be arguing for nothing because a volcano or meteor might wipe us out.  but you might get hit by a car  but you still save for retirement, right?  lighten up pussy.


----------



## Chris (Jul 13, 2008)

jreeves said:


> How again are they scientifically flawed in their conclusion?



I notice in Figure 5 solar activity is down while the temperature continues to rise. Why is that?


----------



## BrianH (Jul 13, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> I was trying to say that we could be arguing for nothing because a volcano or meteor might wipe us out.  but you might get hit by a car  but you still save for retirement, right?  lighten up pussy.



 

I lighten-up whenever I damn well please....


----------



## jreeves (Jul 13, 2008)

Kirk said:


> I notice in Figure 5 solar activity is down while the temperature continues to rise. Why is that?



While there isn't 100% correlation between rises and falls(temperature and solar activity), it is pretty damn close. While, CO2 emmissions and temperature are almost completely devoid of any relation at all.


----------



## Chris (Jul 13, 2008)

jreeves said:


> While there isn't 100% correlation between rises and falls(temperature and solar activity), it is pretty damn close. While, CO2 emmissions and temperature are almost completely devoid of any relation at all.



Solar activity is going down, but the North Pole is melting. Hmmm......


----------



## jreeves (Jul 13, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Solar activity is going down, but the North Pole is melting. Hmmm......



Solar activity was down in the 1880's too was the North Pole melting then? There is no scientific facts behind man made global warming, only a flawed hypothesis.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 13, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> all the pollution coming out of cars and and companies isn't  the problem?  its water vapors?
> 
> your sources are conservative sources.  sorry.
> 
> ...



Why are you guys always so all or nothing. Just because we say Water Vapor is the biggest green House gas, does not mean we are saying CO2 is not also a factor.

Where did I ever say Humans are not contributing to GW? All I am saying is we are not the root cause. I have never disputed that the earth is warming. Where I dispute is how much Humans are contributing to it, and how much we can actually do to stop it. 

Just because someone does not buy the Alarmist ideas hook line a sinker, does not mean they do not believe GW is happening, or even that it is a problem. I challenge you to find where I ever said it was not happening, or for that matter where I ever said CO2 is not a factor.

I pointed out a FACT, an indisputable Fact that Water Vapor is the biggest green house gas. It keeps the earth 30 to 40 degrees warmer than it would be with out it. I bring this up because I think it would be wise of us to consider this before we make millions of cars that emit water vapor, that and because I think it would be wise to know all the facts before we jump headlong into policies that could destroy our economy and might not actually help stop GW.


----------



## Chris (Jul 13, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Solar activity was down in the 1880's too was the North Pole melting then? There is no scientific facts behind man made global warming, only a flawed hypothesis.



Maybe if you say it enough times it will be true.

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/globalchange/images/fig07.html


----------



## Chris (Jul 13, 2008)

Figure 11


----------



## BrianH (Jul 13, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Solar activity is going down, but the North Pole is melting. Hmmm......



NASA - Top Story - NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE - March 20, 2003

SPACE.com -- Sun's Activity Increased in Past Century, Study Confirms

but solar radiation is up...


----------



## Chris (Jul 13, 2008)

BrianH said:


> NASA - Top Story - NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE - March 20, 2003
> 
> SPACE.com -- Sun's Activity Increased in Past Century, Study Confirms
> 
> but solar radiation is up...



The Stanford Solar Center says that increased solar activity only represents 25% of global warming at the most. 

Global Warming -- Research Issues


----------



## Chris (Jul 13, 2008)




----------



## Chris (Jul 13, 2008)

Last Updated: Tuesday, 10 July 2007, 23:00 GMT 00:00 UK  

 E-mail this to a friend   Printable version  

'No Sun link' to climate change  
By Richard Black 
BBC Environment Correspondent  



Scientists have been measuring the frequency of solar flares 
A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change. 

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

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

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

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

  This paper re-enforces the fact that the warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity 

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

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

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

Warming trend 

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


Temperatures have continued rising irrespective of cosmic ray flux 
The Sun varies on a cycle of about 11 years between periods of high and low activity. 

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

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

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

"This paper reinforces the fact that the warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment of climate science. 

Cosmic relief 

The IPCC's February summary report concluded that greenhouse gases were about 13 times more responsible than solar changes for rising global temperatures. 

But the organisation was criticised in some quarters for not taking into account the cosmic ray hypothesis, developed by, among others, Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen of the Danish National Space Center. 

 FEELING THE HEAT
Three theories on how the Sun could be causing climate change


In graphics


Their theory holds that cosmic rays help clouds to form by providing tiny particles around which water vapour can condense. Overall, clouds cool the Earth. 

During periods of active solar activity, cosmic rays are partially blocked by the Sun's more intense magnetic field. Cloud formation diminishes, and the Earth warms. 

Mike Lockwood's analysis appears to have put a large, probably fatal nail in this intriguing and elegant hypothesis. 

He said: "I do think there is a cosmic ray effect on cloud cover. It works in clean maritime air where there isn't much else for water vapour to condense around. 

"It might even have had a significant effect on pre-industrial climate; but you cannot apply it to what we're seeing now, because we're in a completely different ball game." 

Drs Svensmark and Friis-Christensen could not be reached for comment.


----------



## BrianH (Jul 13, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Last Updated: Tuesday, 10 July 2007, 23:00 GMT 00:00 UK
> 
> E-mail this to a friend   Printable version
> 
> ...



First off, you assume that since solar activity has recently decreased, the Earth should immediately cool down????  But....what about the greenhouse effect.  It's pretty much common knowledge that even though solar activity decreases, the earth still has trapped heat and radiation....not to mention, the heat from the sun (during increases) evaporates more water (water vapor) and causes a more absorbtion of heat.  Do you really think the earth will cool down as soon as the sun's activity decreases for a little bit?  ALso, even though solar activity decreases, radiation is up....


----------



## jreeves (Jul 13, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Maybe if you say it enough times it will be true.
> 
> Figure 07



I tend to use logic rather than AGW rhetoric...


----------



## jreeves (Jul 13, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Glad you admit that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
> 
> Perhaps pumping 8 billion metric tons of it into the atmosphere each year is warming the earth?



Perhaps not...

As United Nations negotiations for the Global Climate Convention convene this month, scientists on the UN's panel of expert advisers are under fire for altering a scientific report. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) made headlines with its claim that "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate." Now there is evidence suggesting that this assessment was driven by politics, and not science. 

The IPCC's 1995 report, the final version of which was published in June, is supposed to represent the consensus of world scientific experts regarding the highly controversial issue of global warming. The panel's work is relied upon by Global Climate Convention negotiators who are considering possible curbs on the use of fossil fuels, such as energy taxes. The IPCC's reputation for objectivity rests upon its commitment to balanced scientific opinion arrived at through the process of peer review. 

Potential misconduct at the IPCC was recently uncovered by the Global Climate Coalition, an association of oil, coal, and utility companies. In a memorandum to Congress and the White House, the business coalition alerted U.S. officials that the IPCC's final published report had been altered before final publication. Substantial portions of Chapter 8, which discusses the impact of human activities on the earth's climate, had been re-written by one of its authors after contributing scientists had already given their approval. Cautionary references to scientific uncertainty were removed or modified, changes not approved by the reviewers. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, former president of the National Academy of Sciences, Frederick Seitz called the last-minute editing a "disturbing corruption of the peer review process" which could "deceive policymakers and the public into believing that the scientific evidence shows human activities are causing global warming." 

Seitz's remarks set off tremors throughout the scientific community. Several articles about the controversy appeared in the New York Times and Energy Daily, as well as the prestigious journals Science and Nature. The IPCC's Sir John Houghton labeled the charges "appalling," and maintained that the re-write "improved the science." Lead author Ben Santer, an atmospheric scientist at the Lawrence Livermore National Lab, denied wrongdoing and claimed that IPCC rules allow modifications "to improve the report's scientific clarity." However, the deletions were more than minor clarifications. Key portions accepted by contributing scientists were later removed or altered without their knowledge. The changes functioned to suppress doubts and to downplay uncertainties about forecasting a human influence on climate. For example, Santer told Science that in a discussion of when scientists will be able attribute climate change to human causes, he removed the phrase "we do not know" because it overstated doubts that human activity can be blamed. 

United Nations' experts doctor evidence


----------



## BrianH (Jul 13, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Perhaps not...
> 
> As United Nations negotiations for the Global Climate Convention convene this month, scientists on the UN's panel of expert advisers are under fire for altering a scientific report. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) made headlines with its claim that "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate." Now there is evidence suggesting that this assessment was driven by politics, and not science.
> 
> ...


----------



## jreeves (Jul 13, 2008)

BrianH said:


>



opps...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jac4mx48ITo&feature=related]YouTube - Defective data at NASA[/ame]


----------



## Chris (Jul 13, 2008)

Interesting column from your boy Phillip Atkinson....

STR ? THE FREEDOM BLOG  Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy


----------



## jreeves (Jul 13, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Interesting column from your boy Phillip Atkinson....
> 
> STR ? THE FREEDOM BLOG  Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy



Lmao....this has what to with the AGW myth?


----------



## Chris (Jul 13, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Lmao....this has what to with the AGW myth?



He's one of the contributors to ourcivilization.com.

You are really educating me to all the wing nut websites.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 13, 2008)

Kirk said:


> He's one of the contributors to ourcivilization.com.
> 
> You are really educating me to all the wing nut websites.



Lmao...

Bang, Bang


----------



## jreeves (Jul 13, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Lmao...
> 
> Bang, Bang



Another attempted hit by the infamous Kirk....

Because GD I can't find anything wrong with the facts of the article so we attack the messenger....


----------



## jreeves (Jul 13, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Another attempted hit by the infamous Kirk....
> 
> Because GD I can't find anything wrong with the facts of the article so we attack the messenger....



It's really not suprising though...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io-Tb7vTamY&feature=related]YouTube - Global Warming Hoax[/ame]


----------



## Chris (Jul 14, 2008)

jreeves said:


> It's really not suprising though...
> 
> YouTube - Global Warming Hoax






http://royalsociety.org/downloaddoc.asp?id=1630


----------



## Chris (Jul 14, 2008)

From the Royal Society report.....

In 2001, the United States National Academy of Sciences was commissioned by the Bush administration
to assess the current understanding of global climate change. Its report, published in June 2001, stated:
&#8220;The IPCC&#8217;s conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been
due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the
scientific community on this issue.&#8221;


----------



## editec (Jul 14, 2008)

jreeves said:


> While there isn't 100% correlation between rises and falls(temperature and solar activity), it is pretty damn close. While, CO2 emmissions and temperature are almost completely devoid of any relation at all.


 
_Huh?!_

I'd like to see your math on that correleation.  

There is, according to the experts I've read on the subject, a very strong correlation, one with a high confidence level.


----------



## DeeJ1971 (Jul 17, 2008)

jreeves said:


> LMAO....LMAO....LMAO....LMAO.....
> 
> Wonder who would have more credibility? StopExxon.org(which has a adversial name to begin with) or a leading scientist studying the effects of carbon dioxide? You do realize, humans breathing is also causing global warming correct. Every time you breathe out you expel carbon dioxide from your lungs.
> I guess Dr. Ballings is fine huh, since you didn't try to smear his name. Well he concludes the same thing as Idso. So go to fool*the*fool*so*we*can*line*our*pockets.org and find some attempted smears on him too as well.



I'd be interested in knowing what the percentage is of Carbon dioxide humans are spewing into the atmosphere, come from exhaling it as opposed to other man made causes. I mean, I doubt more than 5% of the people on earth drive cars or even use modern transportation. We are always breathing all the time though. Over 6 billion people exhaling carbon dioxide 24/7 for their entire life on earth. It seems like this would represent a significant percentage of the total amount of Carbon dioxide that is human caused.


----------



## Chris (Jul 17, 2008)

Kirk said:


> From the Royal Society report.....
> 
> In 2001, the United States National Academy of Sciences was commissioned by the Bush administration
> to assess the current understanding of global climate change. Its report, published in June 2001, stated:
> ...


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 17, 2008)

I am always amused by that NOAA graph that has been posted a gazillion times now by global warming religionists.

What they don't every quite get around to mentioning however is how the data was obtained to produce it.

The NOAA has been tracking global temperatures for just under 30 years.  That's 30 years on a planet that has been around for billions of years!!!!  Not even a blink in the overall big picture and there is no effort to consider the changes in urbanization, changes in land use, etc. all that has to be factored into the mix to get a meaningful reading.

I don't expect Kirk to accept that.  But hopefully those just coming on board in the debate will be willing to look at all the scientific studies and opinion out there before you jump on the religionists' band wagon.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 17, 2008)

Foxfyre said:


> I am always amused by that NOAA graph that has been posted a gazillion times now by global warming religionists.
> 
> What they don't every quite get around to mentioning however is how the data was obtained to produce it.
> 
> ...



Yep, and all those temps on the graph past 30 years or so, are what we call estimates. Not to mention even the whole graph only goes back about 200 years. those who do not think would assume it was always low before 1880, but they would be making one hell of an assumption, and we all know what they say about assumptions.


----------



## Chris (Jul 17, 2008)

Foxfyre said:


> I am always amused by that NOAA graph that has been posted a gazillion times now by global warming religionists.
> 
> What they don't every quite get around to mentioning however is how the data was obtained to produce it.
> 
> ...



When was the last time the North Pole was ice free?


----------



## Chris (Jul 17, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> Yep, and all those temps on the graph past 30 years or so, are what we call estimates. Not to mention even the whole graph only goes back about 200 years. those who do not think would assume it was always low before 1880, but they would be making one hell of an assumption, and we all know what they say about assumptions.



When was the last time the North Pole was ice free?


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 17, 2008)

Kirk said:


> When was the last time the North Pole was ice free?



LOL keep asking that question, I could care less, as I said nothing about the north pole or Ice.

Fact is we do not know for sure now do we. Another fact is you just ask that same question when ever you do not want to take on what people have actually said about your other posts. It is called deflection!!


----------



## Chris (Jul 17, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> LOL keep asking that question, I could care less, as I said nothing about the north pole or Ice.
> 
> Fact is we do not know for sure now do we. Another fact is you just ask that same question when ever you do not want to take on what people have actually said about your other posts. It is called deflection!!



When was the last time the North Pole was ice free?


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 17, 2008)

Kirk said:


> When was the last time the North Pole was ice free?



When was the last time you actually debated people instead of deflecting?


----------



## Chris (Jul 17, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> When was the last time you actually debated people instead of deflecting?



It is a perfectly relevant question. You can't answer it. Or you don't want to. I don't blame you. The answer to that question shows just how remarkably global warming has effected the earth.


----------



## Shogun (Jul 17, 2008)

I think a relevant rebuttal would be, in the iota of recorded human observation, how the hell would you know the asnwer otherwise?


----------



## Chris (Jul 17, 2008)

Shogun said:


> I think a relevant rebuttal would be, in the iota of recorded human observation, how the hell would you know the asnwer otherwise?



So the answer is, not within recorded history.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 17, 2008)

Kirk said:


> So the answer is, not within recorded history.



And we know this for sure how? have we been monitoring the north pole for Ice levels since the start of time?


----------



## Chris (Jul 17, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> And we know this for sure how? have we been monitoring the north pole for Ice levels since the start of time?



The start of time? 

I said, not in recorded history, which goes back about 4,000 years or so.


----------



## BrianH (Jul 17, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> Yep, and all those temps on the graph past 30 years or so, are what we call estimates. Not to mention even the whole graph only goes back about 200 years. those who do not think would assume it was always low before 1880, but they would be making one hell of an assumption, and we all know what they say about assumptions.



And I assume many of you have noticed the WIDE margins of error in most of their graphs...It reminds me of the hurricane center when they post the "cone of uncertainty" and then show you about 30 projected paths...


----------



## Chris (Jul 17, 2008)

BrianH said:


> And I assume many of you have noticed the WIDE margins of error in most of their graphs...It reminds me of the hurricane center when they post the "cone of uncertainty" and then show you about 30 projected paths...



No margin of error in the pole melting.

Oh.....wait......that doesn't fit your worldview.


----------



## BrianH (Jul 17, 2008)

Kirk said:


> So the answer is, not within recorded history.



Recorded "climate" history that is...which hasn't been very long Kirk.  There were no scientists during the Paleolithic to tell whether or not the North Pole was Ice Free...

"The climate during the Paleolithic consisted of a set of glacial and interglacial periods in which the climate periodically fluctuated between warm and cool temperatures." 

Thos damn cavement, burning their fossil fuels....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 17, 2008)

Kirk said:


> No margin of error in the pole melting.
> 
> Oh.....wait......that doesn't fit your worldview.



Just like anything that does not fit your tidy little view of this issue doesn't fit your world view?


----------



## Chris (Jul 17, 2008)

BrianH said:


> which is only a 200 some odd years vs. billions



You still can't answer the question.


----------



## BrianH (Jul 17, 2008)

Kirk said:


> You still can't answer the question.



Kirk,

the North Pole has not been ice free since meteorologists and climatologists have been studying it, which is within the last 100 years dumbass. Anything beyond that point you leave into history.  

" There have been at least four major ice ages in the Earth's past. Outside these periods, the Earth seems to have been ice-free even in high latitudes.[citation needed]

The earliest hypothesized ice age, called the Huronian, was around 2.7 to 2.3 billion years ago during the early Proterozoic Eon."

Ice age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These ice ages and warming periods lasted for millions of years at a time....how can you base the current global trend on humans based on the last 100 years of research...lol. You are the dumbest smart person on these boards.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 17, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Kirk,
> 
> the North Pole has not been ice free since meteorologists and climatologists have been studying it, which is within the last 100 years dumbass. Anything beyond that point you leave into history.
> 
> ...



Well said, but don't expect it to deter Kirk in anyway


----------



## BrianH (Jul 17, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> Well said, but don't expect it to deter Kirk in anyway



Oh I know, I don't expect it...I just like seeing the dog turd facts he chooses to dismiss.


----------



## Chris (Jul 17, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Kirk,
> 
> the North Pole has not been ice free since meteorologists and climatologists have been studying it, which is within the last 100 years dumbass. Anything beyond that point you leave into history.
> 
> ...



You crack me up. Ever heard of the Northwest Passage? People have been looking for an ice free pole for millenia.

The truth is it has probably been tens of thousands of years since the pole was ice free. And we have melted it in 50 years. 

We also caused a hole in the ozone, but no one denies that since it does not involve oil and coal companies.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 17, 2008)

Kirk said:


> You crack me up. Ever heard of the Northwest Passage? People have been looking for an ice free pole for millenia.




Holy shit people have been looking for the NW passage for millenia Wow, really. and here I thought we didn't even find north America untill 400 years ago, ok 800 if you count the vikings.

Millenia lol you are totally fucked in the head pal.


----------



## BrianH (Jul 17, 2008)

Kirk said:


> You crack me up. Ever heard of the Northwest Passage? People have been looking for an ice free pole for millenia.
> 
> The truth is it has probably been tens of thousands of years since the pole was ice free. And we have melted it in 50 years.
> 
> We also caused a hole in the ozone, but no one denies that since it does not involve oil and coal companies.



I know more of the Northwest Passage than you do bud....and since you do acknowledge that the North Pole has been ice free before (WITHOUT HUMAN HELP), why is it such as suprise that "MAY" be happening now?I bet you by winter time there's more ice at the pole....  Continue to ignore the facts dude, and continue to be "cracked up" because it really shows...

The search for the Northwest passage started in 1400s genius...which still isn't that long ago compared to the frickin billions of years the earth has been around.    The Vikings first used a form of it to trade with the Inuit tribes.  Then the colonial powers attempted to find a route.  It wasn't successfully navigated until the early 1900s...  This still proves nothing on your side.  Face it, you can't prove GW is caused by humans...and you can't prove it's CO2


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 17, 2008)

BrianH said:


> I know more of the Northwest Passage than you do bud....and since you do acknowledge that the North Pole has been ice free before (WITHOUT HUMAN HELP), why is it such as suprise that "MAY" be happening now?I bet you by winter time there's more ice at the pole....  Continue to ignore the facts dude, and continue to be "cracked up" because it really shows...



Kirk has now been totally discredited lol. He claims we have been searching got the NW passage for "mellinia" lol

That may be the single funniest god damn thing I have ever seen posted here


----------



## Chris (Jul 17, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> Kirk has now been totally discredited lol. He claims we have been searching got the NW passage for "mellinia" lol
> 
> That may be the single funniest god damn thing I have ever seen posted here



Sorry, you still cannot answer the question.


----------



## Chris (Jul 17, 2008)

BrianH said:


> I know more of the Northwest Passage than you do bud....and since you do acknowledge that the North Pole has been ice free before (WITHOUT HUMAN HELP), why is it such as suprise that "MAY" be happening now?I bet you by winter time there's more ice at the pole....  Continue to ignore the facts dude, and continue to be "cracked up" because it really shows...
> 
> The search for the Northwest passage started in 1400s genius...which still isn't that long ago compared to the frickin billions of years the earth has been around.    The Vikings first used a form of it to trade with the Inuit tribes.  Then the colonial powers attempted to find a route.  It wasn't successfully navigated until the early 1900s...  This still proves nothing on your side.  Face it, you can't prove GW is caused by humans...and you can't prove it's CO2



It is proven that CO2 causes the earth to warm. Even you cannot deny that. The question is, How much has increasing the CO2 level by one third caused the earth to warm?


----------



## BrianH (Jul 17, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Sorry, you still cannot answer the question.








DEFLECTION!!!!


----------



## BrianH (Jul 17, 2008)

Kirk said:


> It is proven that CO2 causes the earth to warm. Even you cannot deny that. The question is, How much has increasing the CO2 level by one third caused the earth to warm?



Exactly, and since that has not been answered, and since there are NUMEROUS other factors at work as well...you still can't prove that CO2 is the main culprit, or that it's caused by Humans...


----------



## Chris (Jul 17, 2008)

BrianH said:


> DEFLECTION!!!!



Why is the pole melting?


----------



## Chris (Jul 17, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Exactly, and since that has not been answered, and since there are NUMEROUS other factors at work as well...you still can't prove that CO2 is the main culprit, or that it's caused by Humans...



There are other factors involved. No one denies that. But the science is pretty solid on CO2 being a powerful factor. Is it the only factor? Of course not. 

Like I said it is funny that no one denies that humans caused a hole in the ozone at the South Pole. No powerful lobbyists for CFCs.


----------



## BrianH (Jul 17, 2008)

Kirk said:


> There are other factors involved. No one denies that. But the science is pretty solid on CO2 being a powerful factor. Is it the only factor? Of course not.
> 
> Like I said it is funny that no one denies that humans caused a hole in the ozone at the South Pole. No powerful lobbyists for CFCs.



Ok, the point is....AGW alarmist paint CO2 as the absolute culprit when there is no proof that it is the absolute culprit.  Should we clean up our act and watch what we put into the atmosphere?  Of course, should we go green?  Depends on the method...  But, like I said, because there are many other factors in which scientist don't know their effect on the earth,  one cannot jump on the CO2 bandwagon and claim that it is the sole problem and that humans are causing it.  Like you said before, glacial and interglacial periods were when there were increased or decreased amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere...well, what caused it?  Was it humans?  No.  LIke I said before, I'll agree with you that increasing CO2 is not good, and humans do contribute...but I will not agree that it is the most important factor, nor that GW is caused by humans until it can be absolutely proven that it is.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 17, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Sorry, you still cannot answer the question.



Sorry you can't admit you claimed people have been searching for the NW passage for "mellinia" which is of course completely false. 

Maybe false statements like that effect your credibility on this board?

Just saying.

Feel free to Deflect again by asking your favorite question again.


----------



## Chris (Jul 17, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Ok, the point is....AGW alarmist paint CO2 as the absolute culprit when there is no proof that it is the absolute culprit.  Should we clean up our act and watch what we put into the atmosphere?  Of course, should we go green?  Depends on the method...  But, like I said, because there are many other factors in which scientist don't know their effect on the earth,  one cannot jump on the CO2 bandwagon and claim that it is the sole problem and that humans are causing it.  Like you said before, glacial and interglacial periods were when there were increased or decreased amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere...well, what caused it?  Was it humans?  No.  LIke I said before, I'll agree with you that increasing CO2 is not good, and humans do contribute...but I will not agree that it is the most important factor, nor that GW is caused by humans until it can be absolutely proven that it is.



CO2 was not a factor in every climate change in the past. We know that. But this change has been very rapid and the effects dramatic, and we are pumping out CO2 at a faster and faster rate. CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing twice as fast as it did 40 years ago. In a few years we will have doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.


----------



## Chris (Jul 17, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> Sorry you can't admit you claimed people have been searching for the NW passage for "mellinia" which is of course completely false.
> 
> Maybe false statements like that effect your credibility on this board?
> 
> ...



False statement? Just a misuse of a word. It's been a long day.


----------



## Chris (Jul 17, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> Sorry you can't admit you claimed people have been searching for the NW passage for "mellinia" which is of course completely false.
> 
> Maybe false statements like that effect your credibility on this board?
> 
> ...



You still have not answered the question.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 17, 2008)

Kirk said:


> You still have not answered the question.



Yes I did a few times, but you just keep asking it.

Oh yeah how long have people been searching for the NW passage again?


----------



## Chris (Jul 17, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> Yes I did a few times, but you just keep asking it.
> 
> Oh yeah how long have people been searching for the NW passage again?



Since the Vikings....


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 17, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Since the Vikings....



and thats "mellinia"?


----------



## Chris (Jul 17, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> and thats "mellinia"?



You are an Israeli citizen?


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 17, 2008)

Kirk said:


> You are an Israeli citizen?



Classic deflection, are you unable to read, your answer is right under my name.


----------



## Chris (Jul 17, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> Classic deflection, are you unable to read, your answer is right under my name.



Nice talking with you.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 17, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Nice talking with you.



Can't say the same for you, sorry, you posted a blatant falsehood and instead of bucking up and being a man and admitting it you just deflect and posture.

So are you not talking to me anymore because you don't want to admit you were wrong, or because of my answer your last question


----------



## Chris (Jul 17, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> Can't say the same for you, sorry, you posted a blatant falsehood and instead of bucking up and being a man and admitting it you just deflect and posture.




I misused a word. 

But if you deny CO2 warming. You have to have an answer for why the earth is warming. The scientists say the sun is not the answer. So what is it?


----------



## jreeves (Jul 17, 2008)

Kirk said:


> There are other factors involved. No one denies that. But the science is pretty solid on CO2 being a powerful factor. Is it the only factor? Of course not.
> 
> Like I said it is funny that no one denies that humans caused a hole in the ozone at the South Pole. No powerful lobbyists for CFCs.



BS you don't believe Air Conditioning manufacturers wanted to change refrigerants do you? Do you know much money that caused them to completely change refrigerants?


----------



## jreeves (Jul 17, 2008)

Kirk said:


> I misused a word.
> 
> But if you deny CO2 warming. You have to have an answer for why the earth is warming. The scientists say the sun is not the answer. So what is it?



Natural warming trends...as others have posted over and over and over and over....do you get the point?


----------



## Chris (Jul 17, 2008)

jreeves said:


> BS you don't believe Air Conditioning manufacturers wanted to change refrigerants do you? Do you know much money that caused them to completely change refrigerants?



You are comparing refrigerator manufacturers to Exxon?

You must be joking.

How many ex refrigerator men are there in the White House?


----------



## Chris (Jul 17, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Natural warming trends...as others have posted over and over and over and over....do you get the point?



Natural warming trends caused by what? The sun? The scientists who study the sun say it hasn't changed enough to create the increased temperatures we are seeing.


----------



## Chris (Jul 17, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Natural warming trends...as others have posted over and over and over and over....do you get the point?



The science is pretty clear that it is not...



The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect


----------



## Zoomie1980 (Jul 17, 2008)

Kirk said:


> CO2 was not a factor in every climate change in the past. We know that. But this change has been very rapid and the effects dramatic, and we are pumping out CO2 at a faster and faster rate. CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing twice as fast as it did 40 years ago. In a few years we will have doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.



Actually this "change" has only been about .7 F in 100 years and most of that .7 has been wiped out in the last two near record cold winters in N America and East Asia.

The ice is melting in the Arctic because of a soot accumulation, not CO2.  It darkens the surface of the ice and increases heat absorption.


----------



## Chris (Jul 17, 2008)

Zoomie1980 said:


> Actually this "change" has only been about .7 F in 100 years and most of that .7 has been wiped out in the last two near record cold winters in N America and East Asia.
> 
> The ice is melting in the Arctic because of a soot accumulation, not CO2.  It darkens the surface of the ice and increases heat absorption.



Possible. But that does not explain the increase in the temperature. And the amount of CO2 is increasing so fast. More CO2 than at anytime ever recorded, and the Antarctic ice core records go back 600,000 years. We are using the earth as a giant lab experiment.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 17, 2008)

Kirk said:


> I misused a word.
> 
> But if you deny CO2 warming. You have to have an answer for why the earth is warming. The scientists say the sun is not the answer. So what is it?



I have Never denied CO2 warming my friend. 

I am glad to see you finally admitted to your blunder.

To answer your question it is a combination of factors of which humans and CO2 are but one of.


----------



## Chris (Jul 17, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> I have Never denied CO2 warming my friend.
> 
> I am glad to see you finally admitted to your blunder.
> 
> To answer your question it is a combination of factors of which humans and CO2 are but one of.



What factors?


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 17, 2008)

Kirk said:


> What factors?



Sigh, I am not playing your game anymore, You know full well what factors, and you know we do not even know all the factors involved, but you are totally unbending and unflexable on the issue. Maybe you fancy yourself a GWA warrior or something, Who knows, Suffice to say nothing anyone says, nor any facts they show will change your mind on anything, so it is pointless to try.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 17, 2008)

Kirk said:


> You are comparing refrigerator manufacturers to Exxon?
> 
> You must be joking.
> 
> How many ex refrigerator men are there in the White House?



Btw since we are on the subject of the ozone layer, you don't believe Ozone depletion has played a role in higher temperatures?


The following list provides a snapshot of companies and groups lobbying on climate change according to recent lobbying reports and filings with the U.S. Senate as of May 30, 2008. This is a partial list. *The reporting of climate change on federal lobbying documents is voluntary, and many additional industries and organizations are lobbying Congress on the subject.*

*AirConditioning, Heating & Refrigeration Institute, trade association representing manufacturers of air conditioning and commercial refrigeration *

*Lennox International, manufacturer and servicer of heating, air conditioning and refrigeration equipment *

So much for the A/C and refrigeration companies not sending lobbyist to Capitol Hill huh?


----------



## jreeves (Jul 17, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Natural warming trends caused by what? The sun? The scientists who study the sun say it hasn't changed enough to create the increased temperatures we are seeing.



Warming and cooling trends that have existed since the begining of the Earth.


----------



## Chris (Jul 17, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Btw since we are on the subject of the ozone layer, you don't believe Ozone depletion has played a role in higher temperatures?
> 
> 
> The following list provides a snapshot of companies and groups lobbying on climate change according to recent lobbying reports and filings with the U.S. Senate as of May 30, 2008. This is a partial list. *The reporting of climate change on federal lobbying documents is voluntary, and many additional industries and organizations are lobbying Congress on the subject.*
> ...



Wow, what a powerful lobby. How do they compare to the oil, coal, and automobile companies?


----------



## Chris (Jul 17, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Warming and cooling trends that have existed since the begining of the Earth.



They have. 

When was the last time the North Pole melted in such a short time?


----------



## jreeves (Jul 18, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Wow, what a powerful lobby. How do they compare to the oil, coal, and automobile companies?



United Technologies Corporation 

Type Public (NYSE: UTX) 
Founded 1929 
Headquarters Hartford, Connecticut, USA 
Key people Louis R. Chênevert, CEO George David, Chairman 
Industry Conglomerates 
Products Conglomerates 
Revenue &#9650; $54.759 billion USD (2007) 
Net income &#9650; $4.224 billion USD (2007) 
Employees 222,000 
Website utc.com 
United Technologies Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

UTX is the corporation that includes Carrier 
That's not chump change by any means....


----------



## jreeves (Jul 18, 2008)

Kirk said:


> They have.
> 
> When was the last time the North Pole melted in such a short time?



Well in prehistoric earth....


A treasure trove of scientific data is revealing detailed information about conditions of subtropical warmth at the North Pole about 55 million years ago while also providing a window into the future, when greenhouse gases are expected to reach the same levels that caused Earth's ancient heat wave.


Researchers aboard a fleet of icebreakers collected samples by drilling into the floor of the Arctic Ocean during a 2004 expedition, and scientific findings will be published for the first time in several papers to appear Thursday (June 1) in Nature magazine.

"This project was a technological feat, and all of the findings in these papers are especially new and exciting given the fact that nobody's ever taken core samples like this before from the floor of the Arctic Ocean," said Matthew Huber, an assistant professor of earth and atmospheric sciences in Purdue University's College of Science. "As a climate modeler, gaining access to this data is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity."

The expedition was part of an international research effort called the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program, which explores the Earth's history and structure as recorded in seafloor sediments and rocks.

Huber used new data from the research to compare against results from complex climate-model simulations he performed to study and predict the effects of greenhouse gases. He co-authored two research papers to appear in Nature detailing conditions in the Arctic Ocean 55 to 50 million years ago during a time of unprecedented global warmth.

The cylindrical core samples contained the remains of ancient plant and animal life, which yielded critical new information about the Arctic Ocean during that time. Researchers used a recently developed technique called TEX-86, which enables scientists to measure the temperatures that existed when ancient organisms lived by analyzing the composition of fatty substances called lipids in their cell membranes.* Using this technique, the researchers found that sea surface temperatures at the North Pole had soared to 23 degrees Celsius, or around 73 degrees Fahrenheit, during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, or the PETM, about 55 million years ago. Today's mean annual temperature at the North Pole is around minus 20 degrees Celsius, Huber said.*


So like I told you before there was no human CO2 emmissions at that time, how do you explain the high temperatures at the north pole then?


----------



## Chris (Jul 18, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Well in prehistoric earth....
> 
> 
> A treasure trove of scientific data is revealing detailed information about conditions of subtropical warmth at the North Pole about 55 million years ago while also providing a window into the future, when greenhouse gases are expected to reach the same levels that caused Earth's ancient heat wave.
> ...



Ever heard of plate tectonics? 

Plate tectonics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## jreeves (Jul 18, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Ever heard of plate tectonics?
> 
> Plate tectonics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



What does that have to do with the article?


----------



## jreeves (Jul 18, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Wow, what a powerful lobby. How do they compare to the oil, coal, and automobile companies?



I notice how you failed to acknowledge the fact of ozone depletion's factor in raising earth's temperature...duly noted...


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 18, 2008)

jreeves said:


> I notice how you failed to acknowledge the fact of ozone depletion's factor in raising earth's temperature...duly noted...



I know how Kirk can make his contribution to stopping global warming. He could stop breathing so damn much, it is going to kill us all.


----------



## Chris (Jul 18, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> I know how Kirk can make his contribution to stopping global warming. He could stop breathing so damn much, it is going to kill us all.



The science is there. I have posted it. Personal attacks prove nothing.


----------



## Chris (Jul 18, 2008)

jreeves said:


> I notice how you failed to acknowledge the fact of ozone depletion's factor in raising earth's temperature...duly noted...



From Wiki.....

Although they are often interlinked in the mass media, the connection between global warming and ozone depletion is not strong. There are four areas of linkage:

The same CO2 radiative forcing that produces near-surface global warming is expected to cool the stratosphere.[citation needed] This cooling, in turn, is expected to produce a relative increase in polar ozone (O3) depletion and the frequency of ozone holes. 

Radiative forcing from various greenhouse gases and other sourcesConversely, ozone depletion represents a radiative forcing of the climate system. There are two opposing effects: Reduced ozone causes the stratosphere to absorb less solar radiation, thus cooling the stratosphere while warming the troposphere; the resulting colder stratosphere emits less long-wave radiation downward, thus cooling the troposphere. Overall, the cooling dominates; the IPCC concludes that "observed stratospheric O3 losses over the past two decades have caused a negative forcing of the surface-troposphere system"[42] of about &#8722;0.15 ± 0.10 watts per square meter (W/m²).[43] 
One of the strongest predictions of the greenhouse effect is that the stratosphere will cool.[citation needed] Although this cooling has been observed, it is not trivial to separate the effects of changes in the concentration of greenhouse gases and ozone depletion since both will lead to cooling. However, this can be done by numerical stratospheric modeling. Results from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory show that above 20 km (12.4 miles), the greenhouse gases dominate the cooling.[44] 
Ozone depleting chemicals are also greenhouse gases. The increases in concentrations of these chemicals have produced 0.34 ± 0.03 W/m² of radiative forcing, corresponding to about 14% of the total radiative forcing from increases in the concentrations of well-mixed greenhouse gases.[43] 
The long term modeling of the process, its measurement, study, design of theories and testing take decades to both document, gain wide acceptance, and ultimately become the dominant paradigm. Several theories about the destruction of ozone, were hyphtosized in the 1980s, published in the late 1990s, and are currently being proven. Dr Drew Schindell, and Dr Paul Newman, NASA Goddard, proposed a theory in the late 1990s, using a SGI Origin 2000 supercomputer, that modeled ozone destruction, accounted for 78% of the ozone destroyed. Further refinement of that model, accounted for 89% of the ozone destroyed, but pushed back the estimated recovery of the ozone hole from 75 years to 150 years. (An important part of that model is the lack of staratospheric flight due to depletion of fossil fuels. )


----------



## Chris (Jul 18, 2008)

jreeves said:


> What does that have to do with the article?



What does the discover of ancient tropical fossils on the sea floor in the arctic have to do with plate tectonics?

Everything.

The plates move great distances over millions of years. The part of the plate that is at the pole now was somewhere else millions of years ago.


----------



## Chris (Jul 18, 2008)

In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change -- Oreskes 306 (5702): 1686 -- Science


----------



## DeeJ1971 (Jul 18, 2008)

I've been thinking about this issue a lot lately and was thinking about the whole GW thing while cleaning my pool this morning and I came up with a pretty good analogy I think using the fundamentals of the scientific process. I remember a few concepts from chemistry classes about the process and am simply applying those concepts the best way I know how to. I admit up front that I have much more to learn and might be completely wrong in how I am applying what little I do know about the topic and the scientific process. 

Here is my analogy: In something as simple as my pool, if I were to use different methods to measure temperature, I would have to validate the data because one of the basic rules of the scientific process is that as soon as you change methods, you have to validate the data because there can be significant differences in results. For example, if I decided to take my thermometer out of the filter and throw it into the pool to start measuring temp, there would be all kinds of variables that would come into play. Is the cover on, is it a cloudy day, is the pump on, etc? 

Imagine all the variables in weather over time compared to the variables in something as simple as my pool.  Which got me to thinking about how the methods of measuring temperatures have changed over time.  So I went to the NASA website and there is this quote ...."To get an "average" temperature, scientists take the warmest and the coolest temperatures in a day, and calculate the temperature that is exactly in the middle of those high and low values. This provides an average temperature for a day. These average temperatures are then calculated for spots all over the Earth, over an entire year." 

So methods of measuring have changed over time, they continue to add new locations, and they now take AVERAGES from places all over the world. So think about the method of taking ice core samples. These samples have only been validated for 40 years out of 650,000 years. That would be like me validating my pool temperatures for one second out of a year. 

From what I understand about ice core sampling, the samples do not show what temperatures or what the CO2 levels were in different places around the world.  They take a core from one chunk of ice. That specific core of ice has spots of air pockets on it that they can take CO2 readings and temp readings from. Well, when that particular spot on the ice core froze, was it during night time or daytime? During the winter or summer? I think the technology is amazing and certainly gives us information about ice ages and warming and cooling periods but it can't be precise because of the variables with weather and because it only gives us data about that specific area in time. In other words, the big peaks and valleys shown on the graphs I can buy, showing ice ages and such, but how can it be more precise than that? How can the margin of error between methods be validated?

You cannot show a trend when you move from one method to another unless you can validate the margin of error between the two methods. If I use a scale in my bathroom and all I care about is if I've gained or lost weight, and the margin of error is +2/ -2, I can show a trend. If I am 112 lbs one day and 114 lbs the next, it doesn't matter if I am really 110. I can still see that I've gained 2 lbs. If I go use another scale and the margin of error is +4/-4, and I want to validate the two methods, I must account for the margin of error of both methods if I want to be precise. 

My whole point being that it would seem that an increase in temp of .6 degrees over 100 years would be well within the margin of error of using different methods over time and only having a validation of 40 years out of 650,000.


----------



## Chris (Jul 18, 2008)

DeeJ1971 said:


> I've been thinking about this issue a lot lately and was thinking about the whole GW thing while cleaning my pool this morning and I came up with a pretty good analogy I think using the fundamentals of the scientific process. I remember a few concepts from chemistry classes about the process and am simply applying those concepts the best way I know how to. I admit up front that I have much more to learn and might be completely wrong in how I am applying what little I do know about the topic and the scientific process.
> 
> Here is my analogy: In something as simple as my pool, if I were to use different methods to measure temperature, I would have to validate the data because one of the basic rules of the scientific process is that as soon as you change methods, you have to validate the data because there can be significant differences in results. For example, if I decided to take my thermometer out of the filter and throw it into the pool to start measuring temp, there would be all kinds of variables that would come into play. Is the cover on, is it a cloudy day, is the pump on, etc?
> 
> ...



Why would you need to validate the ice cores when you are testing air from that time period? 

It makes no sense.

There is no validation necessary.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 18, 2008)

Kirk said:


> There is no validation necessary.



Clearly. LOL


----------



## jreeves (Jul 18, 2008)

Kirk said:


> What does the discover of ancient tropical fossils on the sea floor in the arctic have to do with plate tectonics?
> 
> Everything.
> 
> The plates move great distances over millions of years. The part of the plate that is at the pole now was somewhere else millions of years ago.



Sure, these researchers knew nothing about plate tectonics when they wrote this article....

Just another closed minded AGW position...


----------



## jreeves (Jul 18, 2008)

Kirk said:


> From Wiki.....
> 
> Although they are often interlinked in the mass media, the connection between global warming and ozone depletion is not strong. There are four areas of linkage:
> 
> ...



You must have missed that part huh?


----------



## DeeJ1971 (Jul 19, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Why would you need to validate the ice cores when you are testing air from that time period?



Because they are an imperfect measure of temperature, the difference between the ice age and gas age can be off by 1000 years or more, and they only provide records of local temperature and atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. How does a global warming theory show a trend using records of local conditions and a measurement that doesn't show the relationship between temps and gas concentrations for a particular point in time?


----------



## Wow (Jul 19, 2008)

Dee,
I think you made an excellent post!

NASA admits, they do not have enough data to predict anything at the North Pole. Other researchers say it will take years to make any headway.

The sad part about all of this talk is that the heart of it is research funding greed. The scientists that just make up something that fits a political agenda get most of the funding, when the honest scientists looking for reliable data are left with nothing to continue their work.

All of this is about stealing taxpayers money and protecting the environment is not an objective.


----------



## Chris (Jul 19, 2008)

DeeJ1971 said:


> Because they are an imperfect measure of temperature, the difference between the ice age and gas age can be off by 1000 years or more, and they only provide records of local temperature and atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. How does a global warming theory show a trend using records of local conditions and a measurement that doesn't show the relationship between temps and gas concentrations for a particular point in time?



The ice cores are used to measure gas concentrations not temperature. The main point being that none of the ice cores had CO2 as high as it is today, and the record goes back 600,000 years!


----------



## Chris (Jul 19, 2008)

Wow said:


> Dee,
> I think you made an excellent post!
> 
> NASA admits, they do not have enough data to predict anything at the North Pole. Other researchers say it will take years to make any headway.
> ...



Did the North Pole have a "political agenda" when it melted?


----------



## Wow (Jul 19, 2008)

Kirk said:


> The ice cores are used to measure gas concentrations not temperature. The main point being that none of the ice cores had CO2 as high as it is today, and the record goes back 600,000 years!


What?
There are no records that go back 600,000 years.
Your attempt to oppress the American people is admirable but try using something with more credibility. 

Carbon-14 decays with a halflife of about 5730 years by the emission of an electron of energy 0.016 MeV. This changes the atomic number of the nucleus to 7, producing a nucleus of nitrogen-14. At equilibrium with the atmosphere, a gram of carbon shows an activity of about 15 decays per minute.

The low activity of the carbon-14 limits age determinations to the order of 50,000 years by counting techniques. That can be extended to perhaps 100,000 years by accelerator techniques for counting the carbon-14 concentration.
Carbon Dating


----------



## BrianH (Jul 19, 2008)

DAMN!!!  BITCH SLAP!!!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYP_MgWF8hw]YouTube - Dave Chapelle, Rick James - Slap baltimore REMIX[/ame]


----------



## BrianH (Jul 19, 2008)

Kirk said:


> CO2 was not a factor in every climate change in the past. We know that. But this change has been very rapid and the effects dramatic, and we are pumping out CO2 at a faster and faster rate. CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing twice as fast as it did 40 years ago. In a few years we will have doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.



But!!! CO2 is a natural component of the atmosphere.  And even though we're going to double it...it still makes up a minority of the atmosphere.  It is not the death gas you suggest it does.


----------



## BrianH (Jul 19, 2008)

Kirk said:


> I misused a word.
> 
> But if you deny CO2 warming. You have to have an answer for why the earth is warming. The scientists say the sun is not the answer. So what is it?



Scientist also say that CO2 is not the answer... It just depends on which scientist you're listening to Kirk.  Many scientist have resigned from the IPCC because their reports are censored.  The IPCC has left out numerous statements from numerous scientists that studies, in no way, point to man-made global warming...


----------



## BrianH (Jul 19, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Natural warming trends caused by what? The sun? The scientists who study the sun say it hasn't changed enough to create the increased temperatures we are seeing.



Kirk,

If you acknowledge that the earth has NATURALLY warmed before, dozens of times without human help...and at different rates...why is it so hard to believe that it's doing it now???  The only difference now, is that there's  scientist that actually have the technology to attempt to figure out what's going on.  The problem is, is that they've been unable to find any conclusive study that pin-points a direct problem.  They only hint at what it "could" be.  The earth has had natural warming trends before at different rates of heating and cooling.  It's not a hard concept to grab.


----------



## BrianH (Jul 19, 2008)

Kirk said:


> They have.
> 
> When was the last time the North Pole melted in such a short time?



Not even scientists have a clue of that Kirk...Some people believe the Ice Age came about so fast, that many of the Earth's animals had no time to adapts...and many died.  This leads us to believe that RAPID climate change CAN happen....  Why is it so hard to imagine that the earth could heat rapidly as well.  This may be the first time the North Pole wil lbe ice free since recorded climate study---but that's not very long Kirk.  Also, the ice at the North Pole is only about 2-3 meters thick...very fragile and sensitive to slight temperature changes.  And I garauntee you there will be ice there this winter....


----------



## Chris (Jul 19, 2008)

Wow said:


> What?
> There are no records that go back 600,000 years.
> Your attempt to oppress the American people is admirable but try using something with more credibility.
> 
> ...



Sorry to spoil your fantasy, but here is an article about the peer reviewed study in Science magazine...

Greenhouse Gas at 650,000-year High | LiveScience


----------



## Chris (Jul 19, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Kirk,
> 
> If you acknowledge that the earth has NATURALLY warmed before, dozens of times without human help...and at different rates...why is it so hard to believe that it's doing it now???  The only difference now, is that there's  scientist that actually have the technology to attempt to figure out what's going on.  The problem is, is that they've been unable to find any conclusive study that pin-points a direct problem.  They only hint at what it "could" be.  The earth has had natural warming trends before at different rates of heating and cooling.  It's not a hard concept to grab.



Because the scientists who study the sun say it is only a fractional component of global warming.

Since we know that CO2 warms the earth, why is it so hard to admit that increasing CO2 by one third will create a dramatic effect?


----------



## BrianH (Jul 19, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Because the scientists who study the sun say it is only a fractional component of global warming.
> 
> Since we know that CO2 warms the earth, why is it so hard to admit that increasing CO2 by one third will create a dramatic effect?



Kirk, it's no doubt that CO2 is increasing.  Nobody is debating the fact that humans are putting more CO2 into the atmosphere.  THe point is, the earth has done THIS numerous times before without humans pumping anything into the atmosphere.


----------



## Wow (Jul 19, 2008)

BrianH said:


> DAMN!!!  BITCH SLAP!!!
> 
> YouTube - Dave Chapelle, Rick James - Slap baltimore REMIX


These avatars are something Brian Hussein would have in his posts.


----------



## Chris (Jul 19, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Kirk, it's no doubt that CO2 is increasing.  Nobody is debating the fact that humans are putting more CO2 into the atmosphere.  THe point is, the earth has done THIS numerous times before without humans pumping anything into the atmosphere.



We are not debating the cause of past changes, we are debating the cause of this change. CO2 is only one component of the change, but the climatologists feel it is the main component.

And we may have done this before, but the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is higher than at anytime in the last 600,000 years. And it is going higher all the time.

It will be interesting to see where all this leads. Once the North Pole melts, some of the effects will be accelerated.


----------



## Chris (Jul 19, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Not even scientists have a clue of that Kirk...Some people believe the Ice Age came about so fast, that many of the Earth's animals had no time to adapts...and many died.  This leads us to believe that RAPID climate change CAN happen....  Why is it so hard to imagine that the earth could heat rapidly as well.  This may be the first time the North Pole wil lbe ice free since recorded climate study---but that's not very long Kirk.  Also, the ice at the North Pole is only about 2-3 meters thick...very fragile and sensitive to slight temperature changes.  And I garauntee you there will be ice there this winter....



We are not debating past changes, we are debating the cause of the current changes. Climatologists have computer models that can predict the effect of raising CO2 by one third. They feel confident that they understand what is going on. Could Nature trump the effect of the rise in CO2? Of course. Is there any evidence that this is happening? I don't think so. The pole continues to melt, the glaciers continue to melt, and the temperatures continue to rise. At what point does this become a problem for us?


----------



## Wow (Jul 19, 2008)

Kirk said:


> We are not debating the cause of past changes, we are debating the cause of this change. CO2 is only one component of the change, but the climatologists feel it is the main component.
> 
> And we may have done this before, but the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is higher than at anytime in the last 600,000 years. And it is going higher all the time.
> 
> It will be interesting to see where all this leads. Once the North Pole melts, some of the effects will be accelerated.


I thought carbon taxes would lower C02 levels, what happened?

Maybe these carbon taxes have created so called global cooling in Texas and Alaska? 

Why not study 1980 global warming?
That was one of the warmest years on record.

Are you under the impression that high levels of C02 for certain time periods are bad?

Why do C02 levels fluctuate?


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 19, 2008)

Kirk said:


> We are not debating the cause of past changes, we are debating the cause of this change.



now that is an ignorant statement if I ever saw one. How can you debate the current change, but want to exclude the facts of previous changes.

Talk about an unscientific approach.


----------



## DeeJ1971 (Jul 19, 2008)

Kirk said:


> The ice cores are used to measure gas concentrations not temperature. The main point being that none of the ice cores had CO2 as high as it is today, and the record goes back 600,000 years!



You asked why we need to validate ice core sampling as a scientific method, and later stated that they are only used to show CO2 concentration, not to measure temperature. 

1) One of the main points of the now infamous hockey stick graph shown in Al's movie was the direct relation between C02 concentrations and temperatures over the past 650,000 years. In fact, this link is a main "proof" of AGW theory. If you are willing to concede that ice core samples are not/can not be used to measure temperature, then we can assume Al's point on that relation is invalid right away. 

2) If AGW theorists are going to continue to use ice core samples to show that CO2 levels have increased due to human intervention, then they need to be able to prove two things. A) The date of a sample with a reasonable tolerance for time (i.e. a sample advertised as being from a certain date would probably need to be from that actual date +/- ten years in order to show human intervention in climate change). B) The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere at the time of the sample. 

Very few, if any, measurements go back in time as far as ice core samples. Therefore, without any VALIDATION, the time tolerance and CO2 accuracy of very old ice core samples is mere theory, not proof. What if the dating used in ice core samples is off by 10s, 100s, or 1000s of years? (dating inaccuracies have already shown to be off by 200 to over 1000 years). What if the CO2 levels in an air pocket of an ice core sample deteriorate over large spaces of time? 

From my understanding, they have been validated by data actually taken at that time for about the past 40 years. A reasonable person might grant that the same levels of inaccuracy PROVEN over the past 40 years could be EXTRAPOLATED out to 100 years. To assume that those levels of inaccuracy hold steady for 650,000 years is theory. 

Nothing else goes back 650,000 years to validate the level of accuracy of CO2 concentration found in the ice cores. We are making policy decisions that will impoverish millions of people. These decisions are only justified if the apocalyptic predictions based on a stand alone theory are true. How sure do you want to be?


----------



## DeeJ1971 (Jul 19, 2008)

BrianH said:


> But!!! CO2 is a natural component of the atmosphere.  And even though we're going to double it...it still makes up a minority of the atmosphere.  It is not the death gas you suggest it does.



And aren't negative feedbacks in nature PROPORTIONAL? In other words, the more CO2 that gets put into the atmosphere, the more those negative feedbacks counterbalance it.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 19, 2008)

DeeJ1971 said:


> You asked why we need to validate ice core sampling as a scientific method, and later stated that they are only used to show CO2 concentration, not to measure temperature.
> 
> 1) One of the main points of the now infamous hockey stick graph shown in Al's movie was the direct relation between C02 concentrations and temperatures over the past 650,000 years. In fact, this link is a main "proof" of AGW theory. If you are willing to concede that ice core samples are not/can not be used to measure temperature, then we can assume Al's point on that relation is invalid right away.
> 
> ...



Great post, and to answer your question, I want to be very sure


----------



## Chris (Jul 19, 2008)

DeeJ1971 said:


> You asked why we need to validate ice core sampling as a scientific method, and later stated that they are only used to show CO2 concentration, not to measure temperature.
> 
> 1) One of the main points of the now infamous hockey stick graph shown in Al's movie was the direct relation between C02 concentrations and temperatures over the past 650,000 years. In fact, this link is a main "proof" of AGW theory. If you are willing to concede that ice core samples are not/can not be used to measure temperature, then we can assume Al's point on that relation is invalid right away.
> 
> ...



Who said anything about Al Gore's movie? We are talking about the cause of the current global warming, not some movie which I have never seen.

There is no need to test the validity of the ice core samples because they are testing the actual air from ancient eras. 

Nice try though.


----------



## Chris (Jul 19, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> now that is an ignorant statement if I ever saw one. How can you debate the current change, but want to exclude the facts of previous changes.
> 
> Talk about an unscientific approach.



What happened in the past does not effect what is happening now.


----------



## Chris (Jul 19, 2008)

DeeJ1971 said:


> And aren't negative feedbacks in nature PROPORTIONAL? In other words, the more CO2 that gets put into the atmosphere, the more those negative feedbacks counterbalance it.



If the negative feedbacks were working then CO2 would not have increased by one third.


----------



## DeeJ1971 (Jul 19, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> Great post, and to answer your question, I want to be very sure



Thanks.......and I do too. The AGW theorists claim to be so worried about the millions of people that they say will die from rising sea levels and such. What about the millions that will starve to death because they won't economically advance? The industrial revolution is responsible for the advancement of hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. We KNOW that third world poverty kills millions. That is not a stand alone theory.


----------



## Chris (Jul 19, 2008)

DeeJ1971 said:


> Thanks.......and I do too. The AGW theorists claim to be so worried about the millions of people that they say will die from rising sea levels and such. What about the millions that will starve to death because they won't economically advance? The industrial revolution is responsible for the advancement of hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. We KNOW that third world poverty kills millions. That is not a stand alone theory.



I don't think you have to worry. No one is going to do sh*t about global warming until something drastic happens. There are too many moneyed interests that don't want anything done.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 19, 2008)

Kirk said:


> What happened in the past does not effect what is happening now.



Yes, but it can give you insight into what is happening now, the fact that you want to Ignore the past hurts your credibility on the issue if you ask me.


----------



## DeeJ1971 (Jul 19, 2008)

Kirk said:


> There is no need to test the validity of the ice core samples because they are testing the actual air from ancient eras.
> 
> Nice try though.



I guess you're right. There is no need to VALIDATE the theory that you BELIEVE  that the air taken from the ice samples has the same content that it did when it was frozen. That is what religion is all about. That is what this is for you.


----------



## DeeJ1971 (Jul 19, 2008)

Kirk said:


> If the negative feedbacks were working then CO2 would not have increased by one third.



If you have a blood sugar monitor on, and you eat a candy bar, your blood sugar might go up by 1/3. Recognizing this, your pancreas starts to secrete insulin, bringing your blood sugar back down. So does that mean that the negative feedbacks aren't working? Some people have a very high tolerance for low blood sugar. I have an extremely high tolerance for low blood sugar. I've tested myself at work before where I've had a very low reading and completely without symptoms. Others at a higher level were hungry and symptomatic. 

Most everything in nature has a proportional negative feedback. 

Nice try though.


----------



## Chris (Jul 19, 2008)

DeeJ1971 said:


> I guess you're right. There is no need to VALIDATE the theory that you BELIEVE  that the air taken from the ice samples has the same content that it did when it was frozen. That is what religion is all about. That is what this is for you.




No, religion is believing in something you can't see.

The air in the ice core samples was tested, and the study was peer reviewed. You are just grasping at straws.


----------



## DeeJ1971 (Jul 19, 2008)

Kirk said:


> No, religion is believing in something you can't see.
> 
> The air in the ice core samples was tested, and the study was peer reviewed. You are just grasping at straws.



The accuracy of the content has not been validated. You admit this yourself and say there is no reason to. It doesn't matter to you that the content of that air now might not be the same as when the air froze. The scientific process does care however. This is a fundamental concept taught starting in 5th grade science class when the kids start doing science projects. This is a standard they are held to. It has been in every science project I've helped my kids with and it was reinforced to them over and over again.

Sadly, what passes for good science now days are stand alone theories that have not been validated for accuracy. Why might that be? It isn't that the scientists aren't experts in their fields. It probably has a lot to do with the complexity of the issue and the inexact nature of it. It very likely has to do with politics corrupting the standards of the scientific community.


----------



## Chris (Jul 19, 2008)

DeeJ1971 said:


> The accuracy of the content has not been validated. You admit this yourself and say there is no reason to. It doesn't matter to you that the content of that air now might not be the same as when the air froze. The scientific process does care however. This is a fundamental concept taught starting in 5th grade science class when the kids start doing science projects. This is a standard they are held to. It has been in every science project I've helped my kids with and it was reinforced to them over and over again.
> 
> Sadly, what passes for good science now days are stand alone theories that have not been validated for accuracy. Why might that be? It isn't that the scientists aren't experts in their fields. It probably has a lot to do with the complexity of the issue and the inexact nature of it. It very likely has to do with politics corrupting the standards of the scientific community.



The politics that are corrupting standards in the scientific community are coming from the White House.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 19, 2008)

Kirk said:


> The politics that are corrupting standards in the scientific community are coming from the White House.



Yes it is all bushes fault. You guys are just so blinded by hate For Bush, you can not see that the Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans.

Vote 3rd party!!!


----------



## DeeJ1971 (Jul 19, 2008)

Kirk said:


> The politics that are corrupting standards in the scientific community are coming from the White House.



What a cop out of an argument. You haven't addressed why it is that is doesn't matter to you that the content of air in the spaces now might not be the same as it was when the ice froze. That the accuracy of the content has not been validated. That a basic rule of the scientific process doesn't mean anything to you.


----------



## Chris (Jul 19, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> Yes it is all bushes fault. You guys are just so blinded by hate For Bush, you can not see that the Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans.
> 
> Vote 3rd party!!!



I tend to agree. Ralph Nader probably has the best ideas, but he is such a douch.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 19, 2008)

Kirk said:


> I tend to agree. Ralph Nader probably has the best ideas, but he is such a douch.



So what vote for him anyways, I know he cant win this time, but if people vote for him, or for Bob Barr, or for the Green party in enough numbers, Maybe we will break the stranglehold of power the Dems and Republicans currently have on us.


----------



## BrianH (Jul 20, 2008)

Kirk said:


> We are not debating past changes, we are debating the cause of the current changes. Climatologists have computer models that can predict the effect of raising CO2 by one third. They feel confident that they understand what is going on. Could Nature trump the effect of the rise in CO2? Of course. Is there any evidence that this is happening? I don't think so. The pole continues to melt, the glaciers continue to melt, and the temperatures continue to rise. At what point does this become a problem for us?



But Kirk, unless you can fully understand the reasons for past changes, you can't even begin to understand the reason for this change.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 20, 2008)

BrianH said:


> But Kirk, unless you can fully understand the reasons for past changes, you can't even begin to understand the reason for this change.



I told him this already, and he dismissed it.

What I want to know is, being it is the hight of summer right now, How much Ice is there right now, is it gone yet?


----------



## Chris (Jul 20, 2008)

BrianH said:


> But Kirk, unless you can fully understand the reasons for past changes, you can't even begin to understand the reason for this change.



Sorry, talking about past changes is just a deflection.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 20, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Sorry, talking about past changes is just a deflection.



LOL tell that to a scientist.


----------



## Chris (Jul 20, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> LOL tell that to a scientist.



LOL! 

Have you ever talked to a scientist about global warming?


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 20, 2008)

Kirk said:


> LOL!
> 
> Have you ever talked to a scientist about global warming?



I suppose you do all the time right, I do not need to talk to one, to know they do not share your opinion that past changes are not relevant. Scientists look at all the facts, Unlike you who seems to want to only focus on those which support your Ideas.

at the least Scientists look at past changes to see how this current period of change compares to them. I am not sure why you think they would not, or that we should not.

anyways I was not joking when I asked about how much ice is left at the poll right now. Do you have a link that shows the ice coverage as of sometime this month? Is there a view from space we can look at that is in real time? Please do not get mad, and think I am messing with you here, I really want to know, and am having trouble finding it on line.


----------



## Chris (Jul 20, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> I suppose you do all the time right, I do not need to talk to one, to know they do not share your opinion that past changes are not relevant. Scientists look at all the facts, Unlike you who seems to want to only focus on those which support your Ideas.
> 
> at the least Scientists look at past changes to see how this current period of change compares to them. I am not sure why you think they would not, or that we should not.
> 
> anyways I was not joking when I asked about how much ice is left at the poll right now. Do you have a link that shows the ice coverage as of sometime this month? Is there a view from space we can look at that is in real time? Please do not get mad, and think I am messing with you here, I really want to know, and am having trouble finding it on line.



National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC)


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 20, 2008)

kirk said:


> national Snow And Ice Data Center (nsidc)



Ty


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 20, 2008)

So what do you think this says?



> Arctic sea ice extent on July 16 stood at 8.91 million square kilometers (3.44 square miles). While extent was below the 1979 to 2000 average of 9.91 square kilometers (3.83 million square miles), it was 1.05 million square kilometers (0.41 million square miles) above the value for July 16, 2007 (see Figures 1 and 2).



the above was taken from the link you provided.

sounds to me like it says there is more ice there now than this time last year, but less than the average from 1979 to 2000, but only slightly less. 

Do you maybe see why some people find it alarmist when people say it could be totally free of Ice this year. I am not saying it could not be, but it seems to me if it was not totally free of ice last year, and it right now there is more ice than this time last year, that it is unlikely it will be totally free of ice this year.


----------



## DeeJ1971 (Jul 20, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Sorry, talking about past changes is just a deflection.


 

So PAST observations showing that chemical reactions move in the directions of achieving equilibrium, is deflection? PAST observations showing that almost everything in nature has proportionate negative feedbacks that move towards equilibrium is deflection? I thought science was about building on observations and facts already known. So now, everything already known about how the earth's climate has been cyclic, symbiotic, and not at all fragile, are to be discounted in order to believe in your religion? I'd call that blind faith.


----------



## Chris (Jul 20, 2008)

DeeJ1971 said:


> So PAST observations showing that chemical reactions move in the directions of achieving equilibrium, is deflection? PAST observations showing that almost everything in nature has proportionate negative feedbacks that move towards equilibrium is deflection? I thought science was about building on observations and facts already known. So now, everything already known about how the earth's climate has been cyclic, symbiotic, and not at all fragile, are to be discounted in order to believe in your religion? I'd call that blind faith.



Not blind faith, just reality. CO2 warms the earth. No one denies that. We will soon double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. I wonder what the effect of that will be?


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 20, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Now blind faith, just reality. CO2 warms the earth. No one denies that. We will soon double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. I wonder what the effect of that will be?





care to comment on the fact that there was more Ice at the north pole as of July 16 of this year, than there was at the same time last year? or are you planning on just ignoring this?

Or maybe you will just respond with the same old tired question you just deflected DeeJ1971's perfectly valid point with in the above quote?


----------



## Chris (Jul 20, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> So what do you think this says?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Nice post. It may not be ice free this year, but the long term trend is going that direction. Originially, they thought it would be 2050. Then they thought it would be 2030. Now they expect it much sooner. Within the next few years.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 20, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Nice post. It may not be ice free this year, but the long term trend is going that direction. Originially, they thought it would be 2050. Then they thought it would be 2030. Now they expect it much sooner. Within the next few years.



While I do not discount that it is possible, I would say that the fact that there is more there now than this time last year, sheds some doubt on that idea, and adds to the Idea that they really do not know for sure what is going to happen. Which is why some people think you are being some what alarmist, at least with the title of this thread.


----------



## DeeJ1971 (Jul 20, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Not blind faith, just reality. CO2 warms the earth. No one denies that. We will soon double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. I wonder what the effect of that will be?



glucose raises blood sugar. No one denies that. We often double our blood sugar levels. I wonder what the effect is?

Oh yeah, we already know what the effect is. Like almost everything else in nature, the human body has negative feedback systems. Recognizing the increased glucose level, the pancreas secretes insulin, thereby bringing the system back to a state of equilibrium. This system is not so sensitive that as soon as blood sugar goes and can barely be detected, a response is triggered. 

I don't pretend to understand the negative feedbacks at work in the atmosphere and related to climate. I can however, understand that just because CO2 has risen by 1/3 (still a miniscule percent of all the components in the atmosphere) does not mean that there are not factors at work that will counterbalance it. This is how things have always worked in nature. That doesn't mean we can do whatever we want and not harm OURSELVES. Smog in the air harms us. Toxins in our water harms us. There are things we need to be doing differently for sure. The earth, however, is far less fragile than we are. The apocalyptic scenarios only hurts the environmental cause because credibility is lost.


----------



## Chris (Jul 20, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> While I do not discount that it is possible, I would say that the fact that there is more there now than this time last year, sheds some doubt on that idea, and adds to the Idea that they really do not know for sure what is going to happen.



I have said that Nature could always counteract what we are doing, but the computer models indicate that doubling CO2 will lead to a 1.5% to 6% increase in global temperatures. I think this effect will be on the high side because of positive feedbacks like ocean absorbtion vs ice and especially permafrost melt which will release large amounts of methane. What we are doing is continuous and relentless, and the effects will grow as time goes on unless Nature somehow intervenes.


----------



## Chris (Jul 20, 2008)

DeeJ1971 said:


> glucose raises blood sugar. No one denies that. We often double our blood sugar levels. I wonder what the effect is?
> 
> Oh yeah, we already know what the effect is. Like almost everything else in nature, the human body has negative feedback systems. Recognizing the increased glucose level, the pancreas secretes insulin, thereby bringing the system back to a state of equilibrium. This system is not so sensitive that as soon as blood sugar goes and can barely be detected, a response is triggered.
> 
> I don't pretend to understand the negative feedbacks at work in the atmosphere and related to climate. I can however, understand that just because CO2 has risen by 1/3 (still a miniscule percent of all the components in the atmosphere) does not mean that there are not factors at work that will counterbalance it. This is how things have always worked in nature. That doesn't mean we can do whatever we want and not harm OURSELVES. Smog in the air harms us. Toxins in our water harms us. There are things we need to be doing differently for sure. The earth, however, is far less fragile than we are. The apocalyptic scenarios only hurts the environmental cause because credibility is lost.



A little bit of yeast will leaven a whole loaf of bread. The climatologists have computer models that they feel confident tell them what the effect of a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will be. This part of the field has developed more and more over the years and the pervading view is that doubling the CO2 will lead to a 1.5% to 6% rise in global temperatures.


----------



## Wow (Jul 20, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Sorry, talking about past changes is just a deflection.


If you consider the actions of humans, you are considering past changes.

Then you would agree, global warming is not created by the actions of humans.

I'm glad that is settled.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 20, 2008)

Kirk said:


> A little bit of yeast will leaven a whole loaf of bread. The climatologists have computer models that they feel confident tell them what the effect of a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will be. This part of the field has developed more and more over the years and the pervading view is that doubling the CO2 will lead to a 1.5% to 6% rise in global temperatures.



Hmmm...the AGW hysterics computer models have always been right??


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 20, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Hmmm...the AGW hysterics computer models have always been right??



The models are just that models, they can not possibly include all the factors involved in the climate, and therefore should be taken with a grain a salt.


----------



## Chris (Jul 21, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> The models are just that models, they can not possibly include all the factors involved in the climate, and therefore should be taken with a grain a salt.



The North Pole and the glaciers are not models, and they are almost gone, and when we double CO2 the effect will be even more pronounced, but people like you will continue to deny it. I have no doubt.


----------



## Chris (Jul 21, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Hmmm...the AGW hysterics computer models have always been right??



Actually the science is quite good. You might want to read this article....

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 21, 2008)

Kirk said:


> The North Pole and the glaciers are not models, and they are almost gone, and when we double CO2 the effect will be even more pronounced, but people like you will continue to deny it. I have no doubt.



almost gone? care to look at that link you showed me again. The north pole has only slightly less ice coverage(in SQ kilometers) today as it did at this time of the year on average from 1979 to 2000. I got that from your own source link that you provided. 

From 1979 to 2000 in July it averaged 9.91 million sq Kilometers of coverage. This year in July it was at 8.91 million Sq kilometers. a difference of 1 million sq kilometers or about 10%.

sounds like more alarmist ranting to me.


----------



## Chris (Jul 21, 2008)

So you would be alarmed if the North Pole melted? I am glad you admit it. Here's a report from a scientist on the scene...

Aalok Mehta aboard the C.C.G.S. Amundsen
National Geographic News
June 20, 2008
Arctic warming has become so dramatic that the North Pole may melt this summer, report scientists studying the effects of climate change in the field. 

"We're actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time [in history]," David Barber, of the University of Manitoba, told National Geographic News aboard the C.C.G.S. Amundsen, a Canadian research icebreaker. 

RELATED 
Shrinking Arctic Sea Ice Thinner, More Vulnerable (March 18, 2008) 
Firsthand observations and satellite images show that the immediate area around the geographic North Pole is now mostly annual, or first-year, ice&#8212;thin new ice that forms each year during the winter freeze. 

Such ice is much more prone to melting during the summer months than perennial, or multiyear, ice, which is thick and dense ice that has lasted through multiple cycles of thawing and refreezing. 

"I would say the ice in the vicinity of the North Pole is primed for melting, and an ice-free North Pole is a good possibility," Sheldon Drobot, a climatologist at the Colorado Center for Astrodynamics Research at the University of Colorado, said by email.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080620-north-pole.html


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 21, 2008)

Kirk said:


> So you would be alarmed if the North Pole melted? I am glad you admit it.




There you go again deflecting with cute jokes.

I see you ignored the facts I provided from your own link, which show that the level of Ice is only 10% lower now than it was on average from 1979 to 2000. 

I tire of your little game of deflection, but I will read your info and visit your link in due time. 

Right now it is time for bed and some well deserved Nookie 

enjoy your night.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 21, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> There you go again deflecting with cute jokes.
> 
> I see you ignored the facts I provided from your own link, which show that the level of Ice is only 10% lower now than it was on average from 1979 to 2000.
> 
> ...



Charles he is hopeless, he ignores that the artic temperature remains unchanged since 1938. He ignores that droughts are on the decrease in the last 100 years....and the denial goes on and on and on....

Some alarmist proclaimed global cooling in the 70's...More Kirk denial

Every single scientist next year could come out tommorow and say that AGW was politically motivated and Kirk would say that they are mistaken....


----------



## Chris (Jul 21, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Charles he is hopeless, he ignores that the artic temperature remains unchanged since 1938. He ignores that droughts are on the decrease in the last 100 years....and the denial goes on and on and on....
> 
> Some alarmist proclaimed global cooling in the 70's...More Kirk denial
> 
> Every single scientist next year could come out tommorow and say that AGW was politically motivated and Kirk would say that they are mistaken....



Melting glaciers and rising CO2 are "politically motivated." 

Right.....

Speaking of politically motivated, Dick Cheney and his oil company buddies are hard at work....

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200807182229DOWJONESDJONLINE000774_FORTUNE5.htm


----------



## Chris (Jul 21, 2008)

WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- Bush administration officials, including the energy secretary, had originally agreed that greenhouse gases posed a danger to the public and should be regulated under existing clean-air laws - but later reversed course amid opposition from Vice President Dick Cheney's office and the oil industry, a new U.S. congressional report says.

The White House rejected the findings of the U.S. House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, chaired by Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass. " Chairman Markey's report is inaccurate to the point of being laughable," said White House spokesman Tony Fratto. "I admire his imagination."

The report offers a look at the breadth of Bush administration support for new regulations before such plans abruptly stopped, although at least one cabinet secretary strongly disputes its findings. It draws heavily on an interview with a former Environmental Protection Agency official who already has told Congress about the role played by Cheney's office. It is also based on confidential interviews with EPA staff and documents subpoenaed from the EPA.

"This is the dysfunctions and motivations of the Bush administration laid bare," said Markey in a statement. "The fact that they can, with near unanimity, completely switch positions on global warming to please the oil industry is shocking, and yet disappointingly predictable."

For months, Congress has been investigating a series of decisions by EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, including stopping California from regulating motor-vehicle greenhouse-gas emissions. But new details have trickled out through previous congressional reports showing that Johnson had originally sided at least in part with EPA staff on several fronts, including that greenhouse-gas emissions pose a danger to the public and should be regulated. As a more complicated picture of interagency discussions emerged, the role played by Cheney's office has come to assume a more central focus.

"I don't accept their premise," said Megan Mitchell, a spokeswoman for Cheney's office. The report said that the oil industry argued against regulatory action, had the support of Cheney's office and that the Bush administration ultimately did the oil industry's bidding. "Frankly, that's ridiculous," she said.

Jason Burnett, a former EPA associate deputy administrator who played a key role in coordinating the agency's climate-change activities, told the House committee that people in Cheney's office and within the Office of Management and Budget, a White House organization that coordinates administration policy, felt regulations would reflect negatively on Bush's legacy.

"The concern was over the president's legacy and not wanting to have an increase in regulation, particularly regulation under the Clean Air Act, to be attributed to this administration and to President Bush's legacy," the report said. Burnett didn't return a phone call.

The report for the first time named F. Chase Hutto III, Cheney's energy adviser, as someone who argued against new regulations, along with individuals from Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM) and the American Petroleum Institute. It didn't identify the individuals from Exxon or API by name. It also says that Bush's deputy chief of staff, Joel Kaplan, along with Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, Transportation Secretary Mary Peters and Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez had originally endorsed an EPA finding that greenhouse-gas emissions endanger public welfare and should be regulated under the Clean Air Act.

Those government officials last week signed a letter saying that the Clean Air Act wasn't an appropriate vehicle for regulating greenhouse-gas emissions. A Commerce Department spokeswoman didn't immediately respond. Brian Turmail, a spokesman for Transportation Secretary Peters, said that she "was involved in an intellectual process to explore whether the Clean Air Act was an appropriate vehicle for regulating fuel-economy standards. The decision was 'no.' You shouldn't confuse engaging in an intellectual exercise with supporting the idea."

The Cheney spokeswoman said that "White House staffers are paid to go into a meeting and offer their advice and thoughts, and that's what Chase was doing." Exxon spokesman Alan Jeffers said he didn't know who from Exxon made the company's case, but that "it's not a secret what our views are." He said that Exxon believes that the Clean Air Act isn't the appropriate way to regulate carbon emissions.

Angela Hill, an Energy spokeswoman, said that Energy Secretary Bodman "has not reversed course," and said that "the Department of Energy believes that the Clean Air Act is fundamentally ill-suited to the effective regulation of greenhouse-gas emissions."

API spokeswoman Karen Matusic said that it isn't unusual for the group to meet with federal agencies "on areas of mutual concern," and that its view that the Clean Air Act isn't appropriate for regulating greenhouse-gas emissions has repeatedly been made public.

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200807182229DOWJONESDJONLINE000774_FORTUNE5.htm


----------



## jreeves (Jul 21, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Melting glaciers and rising CO2 are "politically motivated."
> 
> Right.....
> 
> ...



Now Kirk, what does that have to do with the science of global warming? Absolutely nothing...

I do notice you still deny the facts in my previous post you just further prove my point....Thank you


----------



## Chris (Jul 21, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Now Kirk, what does that have to do with the science of global warming? Absolutely nothing...
> 
> I do notice you still deny the facts in my previous post you just further prove my point....Thank you



Thanks for bringing up things that are "politically motivated." 

White House refuses to open email about regulating greenhouse gases
Posted by Kate Sheppard at 12:46 PM on 25 Jun 2008

The White House has refused to accept the Environmental Protection Agency's conclusion that greenhouse gases are pollutants that must be controlled, and has told EPA officials that the email they sent containing the document of their findings would not be opened, reports The New York Times. Apparently the email in question has been hanging in limbo since December 2007, according to EPA officials.

The document details the EPA's proposed response to the Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA that greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health and the environment, and the EPA has a responsibility to regulate them. Apparently, the White House has decided if they don't open the email, they don't have to abide by the suggestions of experts.

According to those who have accessed early drafts of the EPA's endangerment findings, the original conclusion was that the country could raise automobile fuel efficiency standards to 37.7 miles per gallon by 2018 without significant economic hardship. EPA officials, speaking under the condition of anonymity to the Times, said that over the past week the White House has put pressure on the agency to eliminate large sections of their analysis that support stronger regulation, including their finding that regulation of automobile emissions could actually produce $500 billion to $2 trillion in economic benefits over the next 32 years.

The Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on regulating auto emissions is expected as early as today. As we've reported previously, documents that Congress has secured related to the case suggest that the White House intends to undermine the EPA's recommendations in the ANPR. EPA officials say that the ANPR out of the White House will be a watered-down version of their recommendations that looks at the legal and economic concerns related to declaring carbon dioxide a pollutant.


The original proposal from EPA experts "showed that the Clean Air Act can work for certain sectors of the economy, to reduce greenhouse gases," one senior official told the Times. "That's not what the administration wants to show. They want to show that the Clean Air Act can't work."

As we've seen previously with the smog decision and the California waiver, Johnson has a history of ignoring the recommendations of staff experts in order to appease the White House. The Times notes that one EPA official has already resigned over the apparent politicization in the agency when it comes to regulating emissions. Jason Burnett, the associate deputy administrator, told the Times he resigned because "no more constructive work could be done" there in response to the Supreme Court decision.

As we've reported previously, House Select Committee for Energy Independence and Global Warming Chair Ed Markey sent a letter to Bush yesterday urging him to abide by the recommendations of the EPA. And on Friday, the White House intervened to block the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee's subpoena of documents related to the White House's role in decision-making on related issues at the EPA, claiming executive privilege.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/6/25/10526/4230/


----------



## Chris (Jul 21, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Now Kirk, what does that have to do with the science of global warming? Absolutely nothing...
> 
> I do notice you still deny the facts in my previous post you just further prove my point....Thank you



Once again, thanks for bringing up "politically motivated."

You're the BEST!!!


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 21, 2008)

Kirk said:


> So you would be alarmed if the North Pole melted? I am glad you admit it. Here's a report from a scientist on the scene...



I would be alarmed if it could be proved to me that we would suffer dire repercussions from the North pole melting alone. I do not see that this is the case. There are far to many factors to consider to go screaming into the night that we are all going to die from the North pole melting alone. 

One being that the south pole ice is actually increasing, which I would guess would off set any major increase in sea levels.



Kirk said:


> Aalok Mehta aboard the C.C.G.S. Amundsen
> National Geographic News
> June 20, 2008
> Arctic warming has become so dramatic that the North Pole may melt this summer, report scientists studying the effects of climate change in the field.
> ...




I believe the facts I have shown throw this "prediction" into serious doubt as I have shown there is actually more ice there today then there was this time last year, and the north pole was not free of ice last year.



Kirk said:


> RELATED
> Shrinking Arctic Sea Ice Thinner, More Vulnerable (March 18, 2008)
> Firsthand observations and satellite images show that the immediate area around the geographic North Pole is now mostly annual, or first-year, ice&#8212;thin new ice that forms each year during the winter freeze.
> 
> ...



Well that is all fine and dandy and all, but as it is July and there is more ice there now than there was this time last year, Again I do not see this "prediction" coming true.

Again despite your cute little jokes, I would only be alarmed if it were shown that we are going to suffer dire effects from the North pole alone melting. As I pointed out with Ice actually increasing at the south pole, I would guess the 2 will cancel each other out, and we will not suffer the dire effects you, and Al Gore are trying to scare us all with. 

Again to be clear, It is clear the earth is warming up, and that humans are contributing to it, what is not clear is how much we are contributing to it, How much we can do to stop it, and how bad the effects of this will be. 

All the info I see says we could see some sea level rise, but most of the predictions show that only if the very highest predictions come true would we even see any serious effects from it. 

I Am not sure why I am wasting time with you, other than I find it amusing to use your own links, to throw serious doubt on your dire predictions of doom and gloom.

I am all for getting us off of oil, and lowering our negative impact on our planets climate. What I am not for is taking drastic measures that could cripple our already failing economy, and the worlds, based on "predictions" and what I see as some rather shaky ideas. 

However I hold no illusions about changing your mind on the subject. You are clearly a true believer and will not be moved one inch from your position.


----------



## Chris (Jul 21, 2008)

The Bush administration record on climate change is one of the worst among affluent nations. Years of stonewalling and denial finally gave way to pressure, when the White House released a long overdue report on the impact of global warming in May of this year.

The report includes the statement:

&#8220;It is likely that there has been a substantial human contribution to surface temperature increases in North America.&#8221;

If this indicates a genuine change of heart, Bush's behavior certainly doesn't reflect it.

At a meeting at the Windsor Hotel in Hokkaido, leaders of the world's richest nations got together this week to discuss new targets for cutting carbon emissions.

While Nicolas Sarkozy and Gordon Brown looked on in disbelief, Bush ended the meeting with the words:

"Goodbye from the world's greatest polluter."

The US president then punched the air with his fist while grinning broadly.

Bush's adolescent bravado was the equivalent of giving the finger to critics who have long been holding America's feet to the fire on the environment. But the display just added to the impression of a buffoon who is thankfully heading for the White House exit.


Bush's G8 buffoonery: 'Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter' ~ aidan maconachy


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 21, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Charles he is hopeless, he ignores that the artic temperature remains unchanged since 1938. He ignores that droughts are on the decrease in the last 100 years....and the denial goes on and on and on....
> 
> Some alarmist proclaimed global cooling in the 70's...More Kirk denial
> 
> Every single scientist next year could come out tommorow and say that AGW was politically motivated and Kirk would say that they are mistaken....



I know, I just was taking great pleasure in using his own links to blow holes in his doom and gloom ideas. 

I see several posts below this one that i quoted where he is making fun of you saying AGW could be politically motivated. While I am not even going to bother reading them tonight, I will say that you are not wrong. One only has to read about the carbon credit trading plans to see that it clearly could be politically motivated. Not to mention that AGW could be used as a very clever way to bring government control into nearly every aspect of our lives. From how much we drive, how much power we use, to how much we breath for gods sake.

The fact that he laughs his off only shows his ignorance to the ways of the world, and the politics of the far left.


----------



## Chris (Jul 21, 2008)

Scientists surprised by midwinter collapse of massive ice shelf
Email Print Normal font Large font Andrew Darby Hobart 

July 12, 2008

Advertisement
EVEN the depths of winter are proving unable to halt the climate change-induced collapse of an Antarctic ice shelf.

When the Wilkins shelf began a runaway disintegration at the end of last summer, scientists thought it unlikely the collapse would continue through the pole's coldest months.

But satellite images show losses growing in recent days, so that at last sight, only a thin and fractured ice bridge held the bulk of the giant shelf in place. Its loss would put the rest of the 14,500- square-kilometre ice shelf at risk, the European Space Agency said.

The British Antarctic Survey's David Vaughan said the rate of break-up showed scientists were too conservative in the early 1990s when they predicted Wilkins would be lost in 30 years.

"The truth is it's going more quickly than we guessed," Dr Vaughan said.

The Wilkins is the largest of seven shelves on the Antarctic Peninsula to surrender their ice because of increased temperatures. Across the peninsula air temperature has risen an average of 2.5 degrees in 50 years, the greatest rise in the world.

The best-known ice shelf collapse so far was of Larsen B on the peninsula's east coast. Like all floating ice shelves, its 3250- square-kilometre loss did not raise sea level, but did unleash land-bound glacial ice behind.

A meeting of the international Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research in St Petersburg this week heard that 87% of the glaciers on the Antarctic Peninsula were in retreat.

The Wilkins is also located much further south towards the great West Antarctic ice sheet than Larsen B. The loss of the West sheet would raise global sea level by five metres, and the St Petersburg meeting heard that one key glacier there is moving 40% faster than in the 1970s.

Scientists have been closely watching the unstable Wilkins for the past decade, and the initial loss of 570 square kilometres in a few days last February raised the alarm again.

US National Snow and Ice Data Centre research scientist Walter Meier forecast then that other weakened areas of the Wilkins would go, but said: "Things are freezing up, so that will probably be it for the year."

Commenting on the winter collapse, Australian glaciologist Neil Young said: "I wouldn't have predicted this. But these days I expect to be surprised."

ESA scientists said their images of a further 160 square kilometres breaking off in May were the first ever to document the phenomenon in winter. By this week, the images showed that 1350 square kilometres of the Wilkins had shattered into smaller floating ice pieces.

Dr Young, of the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems CRC in Hobart, said summer melt water trickling down through the ice could be a cause, but also pointed to reduced sea ice and a later onset of ice cover.

"These are subtle differences in temperature," he said, "but the volumes of water are so great there is a large transport of heat."

http://www.theage.com.au/environmen...lapse-of-massive-ice-shelf-20080711-3dsy.html


----------



## Chris (Jul 21, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> I know, I just was taking great pleasure in using his own links to blow holes in his doom and gloom ideas.
> 
> I see several posts below this one that i quoted where he is making fun of you saying AGW could be politically motivated. While I am not even going to bother reading them tonight, I will say that you are not wrong. One only has to read about the carbon credit trading plans to see that it clearly could be politically motivated. Not to mention that AGW could be used as a very clever way to bring government control into nearly every aspect of our lives. From how much we drive, how much power we use, to how much we breath for gods sake.
> 
> The fact that he laughs his off only shows his ignorance to the ways of the world, and the politics of the far left.



Yes, it's politics that are warming the earth.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 21, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Scientists surprised by midwinter collapse of massive ice shelf
> Email Print Normal font Large font Andrew Darby Hobart
> 
> July 12, 2008
> ...



OMG...the sky is falling, the sky is fallling...


Where is the increased droughts predicted, why hasn't artic temperature changed since 1938, why do 31,000 scientists describe AGW as hysteria, why do you deduce yourself to deflection as your main rebuttal?


----------



## jreeves (Jul 21, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Yes, it's politics that are warming the earth.



Politics....

Environmentalists believe that greenhouse emissions will cause global warming. The most important such gas is carbon dioxideproduced by burning oil, coal, and natural gas. The U.S. delegation went to Kyoto pledging to cut these emissions to 1990 levels, but we soon yielded to environmental fanaticism by accepting an even stricter standard. (Al Gore and the U.S. press called this flexibility, showing how important control of the rhetoric really is.) Now we are committed to reducing gases to 7 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2012. *Developing countries wisely did not sign on. If complied with immediately, the treaty would plunge the United States into a depression. Its drastic curbs on energy useperhaps reducing it by as much as one-thirdwould throw millions of people out of work. The real goal of the treaty is to give the federal government an excuse to raise taxes and to set stricter appliance and auto efficiency standards. *
Its said that the Senate wont ratify, so dont worry. Indeed, before the conference the Senate voted unanimously that developing countries must sign on if the treaty is to be acceptable. But 130 countries did not do so, and, together, they are expected to cause over half the global emissions within a few years. In seeking peace with the environmentalists, then, the Clinton administration yielded to extremism, and after Kyoto it was difficult to find any politician on the record as supporting the treaty. It has the beneficial effect of reconstituting the old Reagan anticommunist coalition, including libertarians, labor rank and file, and conservatives of both neo and paleo stripe. Even Dick Gephardt refused to endorse the treaty as it stands. Its a work in progress, he said. 

*In brief, the science shows that most greenhouse gases are the work of nature, not of man; most of the tiny recorded rise in temperature in this century took place before World War II and contradicts current global warming theory. *

Hoover Institution - Hoover Digest - The Politics behind Global Warming


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 21, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Yes, it's politics that are warming the earth.



Sure thats what I said. NOT!! Man your deflections get more and more childish by the second. I think you are just trying to bury my post underneath as many posts as you can so nobody sees them. I also think you do not even read other peoples posts, and when you read your own links you pick and chose what you want to hear. You are really starting to look like a fool bud, Maybe it is past your bed time?


----------



## Chris (Jul 21, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> Sure thats what I said. NOT!! Man your deflections get more and more childish by the second. I think you are just trying to bury my post underneath as many posts as you can so nobody sees them. I also think you do not even read other peoples posts, and when you read your own links you pick and chose what you want to hear. You are really starting to look like a fool bud, Maybe it is past your bed time?



Gasp! 

The "left" wants to control your life. They want you to drive a cleaner, more fuel efficient car.

Bastards!!!


----------



## Chris (Jul 21, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Politics....
> 
> Environmentalists believe that greenhouse emissions will cause global warming. The most important such gas is carbon dioxideproduced by burning oil, coal, and natural gas. The U.S. delegation went to Kyoto pledging to cut these emissions to 1990 levels, but we soon yielded to environmental fanaticism by accepting an even stricter standard. (Al Gore and the U.S. press called this flexibility, showing how important control of the rhetoric really is.) Now we are committed to reducing gases to 7 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2012. *Developing countries wisely did not sign on. If complied with immediately, the treaty would plunge the United States into a depression. Its drastic curbs on energy useperhaps reducing it by as much as one-thirdwould throw millions of people out of work. The real goal of the treaty is to give the federal government an excuse to raise taxes and to set stricter appliance and auto efficiency standards. *
> Its said that the Senate wont ratify, so dont worry. Indeed, before the conference the Senate voted unanimously that developing countries must sign on if the treaty is to be acceptable. But 130 countries did not do so, and, together, they are expected to cause over half the global emissions within a few years. In seeking peace with the environmentalists, then, the Clinton administration yielded to extremism, and after Kyoto it was difficult to find any politician on the record as supporting the treaty. It has the beneficial effect of reconstituting the old Reagan anticommunist coalition, including libertarians, labor rank and file, and conservatives of both neo and paleo stripe. Even Dick Gephardt refused to endorse the treaty as it stands. Its a work in progress, he said.
> ...



Greenhouse gases are the work of nature. Bwha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,haaaa!!!!!

That's why CO2 has gone up by one third in the last 200 years. That is why CO2 is at the highest level ever recorded in 600,000 years. It's nature. Not because we are pumping 8 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 21, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Gasp!
> 
> The "left" wants to control your life. They want you to drive a cleaner, more fuel efficient car.
> 
> Bastards!!!



Ah, I see you still will only deflect and make jokes. Yep a troll indeed. Keep posting BS I am sure you will succeed in burying everyones post but your own.


----------



## Chris (Jul 21, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> Ah, I see you still will only deflect and make jokes. Yep a troll indeed. Keep posting BS I am sure you will succeed in burying everyones post but your own.



You view the attempt to control global warming as an attempt by "the left" to control your life. That tells me pretty much all I need to know.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 21, 2008)

Kirk said:


> You view the attempt to control global warming as an attempt by "the left" to control your life. That tells me pretty much all I need to know.



LOL, you are so good at deciding what I think from things I said, which are not at all what you say I think. I said there could be political reasons for people to support AGW views, I did not say I think that is the only reason, I only allowed for the possibility. 

More pointless deflection from Kirk. Shocker.

You have still done nothing to dispute the Facts I posted about Ice Coverage at the north pole. Don't worry I wont hold my breath waiting for an actually post of substance from you.


----------



## BrianH (Jul 21, 2008)

Kirk said:


> You view the attempt to control global warming as an attempt by "the left" to control your life. That tells me pretty much all I need to know.



Says the one who claims humans are in control and causing global warming....


----------



## Chris (Jul 21, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> LOL, you are so good at deciding what I think from things I said, which are not at all what you say I think. I said there could be political reasons for people to support AGW views, I did not say I think that is the only reason, I only allowed for the possibility.
> 
> More pointless deflection from Kirk. Shocker.
> 
> You have still done nothing to dispute the Facts I posted about Ice Coverage at the north pole. Don't worry I wont hold my breath waiting for an actually post of substance from you.



What's to dispute? The ice at the pole is thinner and wider than it was last year. There are some year to year variations, but we haven't hit the minimum time period yet.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 21, 2008)

Kirk said:


> What's to dispute? The ice at the pole is thinner and wider than it was last year. There are some year to year variations, but we haven't hit the minimum time period yet.



None of that changes the fact that it does not appear their "prediction" will come true this year, or IMO anytime soon for that matter. Care to place a bet right now. 

Here are my terms.

If the North pole indeed ends up totally ice free before sept of this year. I will make a post stating that you are completely right, and I am completely wrong, and then I will leave USMB and never return.

If the North pole does not end up totally free of ice before sept of this year, you will make the same post for me, and then leave USMB and never return?


----------



## Chris (Jul 21, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> None of that changes the fact that it does not appear their "prediction" will come true this year, or IMO anytime soon for that matter. Care to place a bet right now.
> 
> Here are my terms.
> 
> ...



Why would I want you to leave? You are an interesting poster. Besides the scientists are saying that the area around the north pole may be free of ice, not that all the ice will melt. The winds may push the ice that is left away from the north pole in other words.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 21, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Why would I want you to leave? You are an interesting poster. Besides the scientists are saying that the area around the north pole may be free of ice, not that all the ice will melt.


 Why then do we keep being told the results will be rising sea levels?



Kirk said:


> The winds may push the ice that is left away from the north pole in other words.


 Really well that is the first time I heard anything like that.

also why do you always seem to portray it in the worst light.

How many times have you asked people when the last time the NP was free of ice, when you admit right not it is not free of ice, and it may well not be soon?

I do not think your alarmist tactics help the cause of curbing global warming, I think they just make most people think you are wacked. 

I find that the truth usually lies in the middle some where. So in the case the truth would be somewhere between your doom and gloom predictions and those who say we have nothing to worry about. 

I think we just need to take reasonable steps to curb our impact on the earth, and not jump head long into programs that could very well send us into a full fledged depression that will make these current economic troubles seem like the good old days.

as I have said, I am all for getting off of oil, there are many good reasons to do so. GW is only one of them, However I am sure you know, even if you will not admit it, that realistically this is going to take some time, and cost a butt load of money to do. So we can not hope to fix it over night, and trying to do so could have dire results of it's own.

I am not sure why you can not debate on this subject with out constantly claiming people said things they never said, please do not deny it, you do it all the time. Just one page up on this thread you twisted my words to try and make it sound like I was saying GW is caused by politics, Which of course I never said. When you do stuff like that you lose credibility with people.


----------



## Wow (Jul 21, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> None of that changes the fact that it does not appear their "prediction" will come true this year, or IMO anytime soon for that matter. Care to place a bet right now.
> 
> Here are my terms.
> 
> ...


I want some of this bet! LOL


----------



## Chris (Jul 21, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> Why then do we keep being told the results will be rising sea levels?
> 
> Really well that is the first time I heard anything like that.
> 
> ...



You must not have read any of the links I posted. The north pole is a geographic location and the scientists were talking about it being free of ice, because so much ice has melted that the little remaining ice would be blown away from the north pole by the wind. 

I think it is funny that you keep referring to "alarmist tactics." What alarmist tactics? Most of the pole has melted in the last 50 years, and that is the reality. The alarm comes when the South Pole melts because that is the one that can raise sea levels 20 feet. That will be harder to do because most of the ice at the South Pole is on land and less susceptible to warming ocean waters.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 21, 2008)

Kirk said:


> You must not have read any of the links I posted. The north pole is a geographic location and the scientists were talking about it being free of ice, because so much ice has melted that the little remaining ice would be blown away from the north pole by the wind.
> 
> I think it is funny that you keep referring to "alarmist tactics." What alarmist tactics? Most of the pole has melted in the last 50 years, and that is the reality. The alarm comes when the South Pole melts because that is the one that can raise sea levels 20 feet. That will be harder to do because most of the ice at the South Pole is on land and less susceptible to warming ocean waters.



Well then, I am glad you at least agree we are not all going to be killed by massive sea level rising. Al though It seems Al Gore would not agree. The south is only not melting, it actually has more Ice now, than in the past, oh and not all of the ice at the south pole if over land, vast parts of it are in fact sea ice.

Further more, I am looking all over the many links you have provided, and no where have I found them saying the worry is it will "blow away" on the contrary I see them talking about it mostly being new ice from the winter freeze, which they claim is "primed to melt"


----------



## Chris (Jul 21, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> Well then, I am glad you at least agree we are not all going to be killed by massive sea level rising. Al though It seems Al Gore would not agree. The south is only not melting, it actually has more Ice now, than in the past, oh and not all of the ice at the south pole if over land, vast parts of it are in fact sea ice.
> 
> Further more, I am looking all over the many links you have provided, and no where have I found them saying the worry is it will "blow away" on the contrary I see them talking about it mostly being new ice from the winter freeze, which they claim is "primed to melt"



The Antarctic ice is melting, I posted a link about that, and the link below which is post #478 in this thread talks about the ice being blown against the continental shelf of Canada. Like I said, you aren't even reading my posts.

North Pole May Be Ice-Free for First Time This Summer


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 21, 2008)

Kirk said:


> The Antarctic ice is melting, I posted a link about that, and the link below which is post #478 in this thread talks about the ice being blown against the continental shelf of Canada. Like I said, you aren't even reading my posts.
> 
> North Pole May Be Ice-Free for First Time This Summer



I have seen links that say that at this time there is more ice at the south pole, then ever recorded, then I have seen your links too. Seems there are some conflicting reports on the subject.

Ice being blown against the continental shelf of Canada is hardly the same thing as it being "blow away"


----------



## Chris (Jul 21, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> I have seen links that say that at this time there is more ice at the south pole, then ever recorded, then I have seen your links too. Seems there are some conflicting reports on the subject.
> 
> Ice being blown against the continental shelf of Canada is hardly the same thing as it being "blow away"



Sorry, perhaps my wording was not clear. I always seem to be posting in a hurry. I meant that the ice would be blown by the wind away from the north pole against the shelf.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 24, 2008)

Kirk said:


> You must not have read any of the links I posted. The north pole is a geographic location and the scientists were talking about it being free of ice, because so much ice has melted that the little remaining ice would be blown away from the north pole by the wind.
> 
> I think it is funny that you keep referring to "alarmist tactics." What alarmist tactics? Most of the pole has melted in the last 50 years, and that is the reality. The alarm comes when the South Pole melts because that is the one that can raise sea levels 20 feet. That will be harder to do because most of the ice at the South Pole is on land and less susceptible to *warming ocean waters.*



That is just a bold face lie, temperatures haven't changed since 1938....


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 24, 2008)

jreeves said:


> [/B]
> That is just a bold face lie, temperatures haven't changed since 1938....



Not shocking at all that Kirk would do that now is it


----------



## Chris (Jul 24, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> Not shocking at all that Kirk would do that now is it



Personal attacks are not convincing arguments.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 24, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Personal attacks are not convincing arguments.



Neither are lies...


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 24, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Personal attacks are not convincing arguments.



sure, why don't you go make up more shit that Bush never said again. Or maybe you could Imply I said things I never said, Which is something you do ALL the time.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 24, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> sure, why don't you go make up more shit that Bush never said again. Or maybe you could Imply I said things I never said, Which is something you do ALL the time.



Come on Charles, be easy on him, he should be able to lie without being exposed don't you know? It's a personal attack if you expose his lies...


----------



## Chris (Jul 24, 2008)

jreeves said:


> [/B]
> That is just a bold face lie, temperatures haven't changed since 1938....


----------



## jreeves (Jul 24, 2008)

Kirk said:


>



Nice try but you were talking about artic temperatures correct?


http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Arctic1880-2004_2.gif


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 24, 2008)

Kirk said:


>



I wonder if kirk notices how it looks to be leveling off right at the end of this graph, and how that fits into his views on the subject 

Could it be there are factors at work we do not fully understand. In fact I have seem some data which suggests that things have actually cooled a bit in the last 8 to 10 years. Now how could that be, I though it would just get warmer and warmer. Could it be those mitigating factors we don't know about again. Maybe that is why people think the Doom And Gloomers are getting ahead of themselves when they talk about taking drastic measures in the name of global warming.

I favor a reasonable, level headed approach to it. I do not think we must jump out of the frying pan and into the fire(economically) to fix things. I think we have time, and can do it at a pace that will not ruin us, and send us into a depression that will make todays economy look like the good old days. Yet kirk would have you believe I am just a denier who does not even believe global warming is a problem at all.


----------



## Angel Heart (Jul 24, 2008)

I'm sitting her in Portland Oregon and we're braking temperature records....












No not for being hot... We are breaking record low highs. For those that don't understand. We don't just record the highest high and the lowest low but the lowest high and the highest low. Oregon has had several lowest highs fall this year. We peaked at 69 degrees Tuesday and Wednesday this week.


----------



## editec (Jul 24, 2008)

IF the Greenland Glaciers melt AND Antarctic Icecaps melt THEN the rise in oceans levels will be catastrophic BECAUSE THEIR ice is not IN the ocean, already.

_duh!_


----------



## Chris (Jul 24, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> I wonder if kirk notices how it looks to be leveling off right at the end of this graph, and how that fits into his views on the subject
> 
> Could it be there are factors at work we do not fully understand. In fact I have seem some data which suggests that things have actually cooled a bit in the last 8 to 10 years. Now how could that be, I though it would just get warmer and warmer. Could it be those mitigating factors we don't know about again. Maybe that is why people think the Doom And Gloomers are getting ahead of themselves when they talk about taking drastic measures in the name of global warming.
> 
> I favor a reasonable, level headed approach to it. I do not think we must jump out of the frying pan and into the fire(economically) to fix things. I think we have time, and can do it at a pace that will not ruin us, and send us into a depression that will make todays economy look like the good old days. Yet kirk would have you believe I am just a denier who does not even believe global warming is a problem at all.



Nice post.


----------

