Good move - project.


To deal with the problems of global warming as if you didn't know.


Thanks for bringing me up to speed. It wasn't about global warming. It was about creating a bunch of laws and taxes to control the world. Do you have any insight into who the REAL manipulators behind the curtain are who front these evil global warming hoaxes to pull off their nefarious plans to control the world. I want the real dope on the conspiracy. And why please tell me do most of the climate scientists bow to this cabal or have they been bought off?


Probably enough energy to run the entire planet for 6 months. Am I getting close?


I see, if Al Gore stopped flying around to his various venues you might take GW seriously? I'll see if I can get in touch with him and convince him to use a row boat. I can see how sensitive you are on these hypocrisy matters.


I have, with some of them-usually though the money goes to anti-global warming organizations but I don't think they are all doing it because of big oil. It might be that some of them honestly differ on AGW just like some scientists honestly differ on evolution and ID.


That must be why he's doing what he's doing. His decades of advocacy on the subject no doubt is how he positioned himself to make the big bucks.


Ted, who told you that global temperature is suppose to go up in a straight line when carbon gas is increased?

Did you ever hear the expression "strawman?"

OK, here is my position on the entire global warming swindle. I think I have made my position pretty clear on the entire hypocrisy point. If this was truly an immanent catastrophic future for us as the Gorelites would like me to believe, why Live Earth? Why not have the Nobel Peace Prize mailed instead of flying there with his entourage to accept it, and instead have a video conference on a big screen where he can continue to spread his gospel. I know the mail would be flown over, but it would go with thousands of other pieces, making the trip more ecologically sound (kind of like car pooling for mail). Why have 10,000 people from all over the world fly into one city to sit around energy draining hotels and conference centers and convention halls to come up with ways the green police can intrude on individual lives?

Which brings me to my second issue. I am a firm believer that industry is much more affective at creating change than government. Look at GE and the light bulb changes. Even before our Congress decided to outlaw certain light bulbs, the light bulb manufacturer struck gold with these new fancy bulbs. Heck, I even put them in my home, and I am not a Gorelite! I just like saving money! Look at Toyota. How many car manufacturers outsold Toyota in 2007? Check out these charts and tell me that industry doesn't create change faster and more efficient. If Toyota and Honda didn't change the way their cars ran, they would be in the same situation as all the other manufacturers that have been declining since 1997. New laws passed by Congress don't take affect until what, 2013? The cars on the road are becoming more efficient today because industry sees a need, and it will fill that demand with a supply. Those manufacturers in the industry that don't fill that demand, will fall behind and be history. This will all take place long before you get our government to get anything done. But the Gorelites only want to run to whatever governmental body that will stand by them and create more laws on top of all the laws that are already in place. Not to mention the yet to be defined amount of taxes that will be forced upon you by governmental officials that you did not elect.

Finally, I don't want to listen to a politician (Al Gore is simply that) tell us that we have doomed ourselves to certain painful death unless we adopt his religious-like doctrine. Even scientists that were on the UN IPCC say that the dooms day message that Gore preaches is exaggerated. I am not saying that things need to be sugar coated, I am just saying that you can predict what the weather is going to be like over the next century is hard to believe since the meteorologists can't even get the weather right for this weekend!

Do I deny that the earth is getting warmer? No. We have been warming for the last 10,000 years since the last little ice age. I just find it interesting that with the ice melting off of Greenland, people are claiming that this is a sign of a warming that has never taken place, but then archaeologists find ancient forests that have been covered by ice . If this warming is beyond the scope of anything ever to happen in earths 4 billion year history, where did those forests come from? Since there is evidence that there has been much less ice in our arctic circle, what is "normal" for earth? How do we know that we aren't going back to a "normal" climate for earth? How do we know that the earth is spiraling toward utter destruction, and not balancing itself out to what we have never seen, but in the 4 billion years of earths existence, is pretty much the way it is supposed to be?


What?


And how do they intend to deal with this problem? Calling everyone and asking them to do better for Mother Earth? No, they took a report to the UN and proposed the new version of the failed Kyoto. We also know that to be proposing new international laws and taxes. Why do you deny this?


Oh, there is that pesky conspiracy theory again! I must be getting my check soon as I also don't believe in your religion. I must be on the payroll of big oil and the auto industry. Tell me that global warming zealots have not run to every politician, every government and demanded government control. Please tell me that.


All in about the span of a few days. Pretty wasteful if you ask me! Hypocrites.


Ever hear of video conference? Not much jet fuel used on those, and man, do they save time!


Again, still waiting to see the evidence.

So the energy industry sends their money to anti-global warming projects (unsubstantiated claim by you), don't you think that would be counterproductive since that is the industry that already has the infastructure to deliver alternative energy? This is why energy companies are investing in alternative energy. Just an example. This must just be a PR stunt.


He's a politician, of course.


If the temperature is going to rise as Nobel Al has predicted, it has a lot of catching up to do to meet his predictions.

Well, this just in,

http://www.adn.com/news/environment/story/253357.html

It seems everyone is right- nature AND man are working together on this one- one guy put it this way "Nature is delivering the punch, and man is kicking him while he is down".

I like these kinds of answers, they tend to be more balanced, and seem to take all things into account.

The one Caveat in the study, the data the "nature's fault" guy used was pre-2001, and there is alot of data available after !

Don't take this too seriously. I wrote the jet stream stuff off the top of my head and, upon reflection, I would state it differently. It would be more proper to describe the jet streams (both subtropical and polar) as being created by the boundary conditions between warm and cold air masses. They do gyrate as described and their gyrations are associated with the movement of cold polar air into temperate area. However, it is improper to consider their gyrations as causing the cold snaps.

No, I am not a climate scientist. However, I do have a technical background and have followed the development of the various scientific fields involved in climate research since the late 70s.

Meanwhile in the real world:


“A recent study, no shocker to real climatologists (but perhaps to climate doomsayers), demonstrates this simple physics. It appears in the latest SciencExpress, and it shows that the vast majority of the Antarctic landmass is rapidly gaining ice and snow cover”.

Like we said, this should shock no climatologist. But consider the “profession” of environmental journalism, which ran these headlines just one teensy month ago:
“Antarctic glaciers shrink” –The Baltimore Sun, April 22, 2005
“Study shows Antarctic glaciers shrinking” –Associated Press, April 22, 2005
“Vanishing glaciers: Antarctica’s big melt” –The Australian, April 23, 2005
“New study points to big melt in Antarctica” – Sci-Tech Today, April 22, 2005

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.ph...rming-snow-job/

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 11, 2007
Antarctica Ice Cap Growth Reaches Record High Levels (Photos)


“The Southern Hemisphere sea ice area narrowly surpassed the previous historic maximum of 16.03 million sq. km to 16.17 million sq. km. The observed sea ice record in the Southern Hemisphere (1979-present) is not as long as the Northern Hemisphere. (meaning it has not been tracked as long as the North Pole) Prior to the satellite era, direct observations of the Southern Hemisphere sea ice edge were sporadic.”

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/10/...th-reaches.html

Headline: A cold spell soon to replace global warming. Consensus. Yep.

Thanks for the link Ted. I didn't know you had hopped on the GW bandwagon. I guess it was inevitable.


A point I and others who support the near consensus of scientists on AGW have made many times. Warmer oceans from global warming create greater evaporation and therefore increase snowfall in the Antarctic. Thanks for reaffirming my point.

Of course he spins it as a positive.


The point is he is not expressing any argument with the IPCC over the FACT of global warming. Oh yes I found the picture of Antartica quite interesting and informative.

In the meantime you might want to save a little sympathy for the poor penguins.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L11693128.htm



And yes there are scientists who have a bone to pick with the IPCC. Some think they have underestimated the consequences of global warming on the Antarctic.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.c...jectid=10421304


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah I get you Scubatim. Gore is a politician and he should have received the Nobel Prize by video conference and unfettered capitalism will take care of any lingering problems and millions of years ago Greenland had forests. So we really don't have anything to worry about. Just have faith that everything is cool and keep the government's cotton picking hands off the GW business and end the conspiracy of tax, spend and grab by the globalists, who are fronted by the vast majority of climate scientists.

I think I touched all the important bases right? You are definitely in the mainstream of the denialists. From what I've seen I don't think there are very many who would find fault with your views. Also I think there are some 911 conspiracy folks who would like to get in touch with you. They've got the facts and figures to expose the COVERUP. It was the CIA and the Mossad don't you know.

Scubatim- the real issue to me here is "follow the money"- who is trying to discredit the majority of climatologists in the world, rather than publish in acredited journals a rebuttal to the majority of these models?

What we have mostly, is a smearing of the messenger, instead of any real rebuttal to the evidence presented. First it was "the jury is out on global warming"- well, it turns out, the jury did return a verdict some time ago. IT has been a full court press by those groups that stand the most to lose from having to change thier behaviors, and most of those poeple reside in the US.

Ya, we need to curb our behavior, show some restraint and self control, and stop emmiting so much global warming polluntants.

So far, the most someone has mentioned here is like 140 billion dollars it will cost.

To put that in perspective, we are talking over 1.6 Trillion dollars on the war in Iraq, over 140 billion for the Savings and loan bailout- in fact, we are still paying for that one. It looks like taking care of returing injured vets will be over a trillion as well, over the course of thier lives.

So what is the big deal?

Thanks for the link Ted. I didn't know you had hopped on the GW bandwagon. I guess it was inevitable.


Very funny. Actually the story above – is a lot more to the point: Hopefully we come to our senses before wasting any real money

MOSCOW. (Oleg Sorokhtin for RIA Novosti) – Stock up on fur coats and felt boots! This is my paradoxical advice to the warm world.
Earth is now at the peak of one of its passing warm spells. It started in the 17th century when there was no industrial influence on the climate to speak of and no such thing as the hothouse effect. The current warming is evidently a natural process and utterly independent of hothouse gases.
The real reasons for climate changes are uneven solar radiation, terrestrial precession (that is, axis gyration), instability of oceanic currents, regular salinity fluctuations of the Arctic Ocean surface waters, etc. There is another, principal reason—solar activity and luminosity. The greater they are the warmer is our climate.
Astrophysics knows two solar activity cycles, of 11 and 200 years. Both are caused by changes in the radius and area of the irradiating solar surface. The latest data, obtained by Habibullah Abdusamatov, head of the Pulkovo Observatory space research laboratory, say that Earth has passed the peak of its warmer period, and a fairly cold spell will set in quite soon, by 2012. Real cold will come when solar activity reaches its minimum, by 2041, and will last for 50-60 years or even longer.
This is my point, which environmentalists hotly dispute as they cling to the hothouse theory. As we know, hothouse gases, in particular, nitrogen peroxide, warm up the atmosphere by keeping heat close to the ground. Advanced in the late 19th century by Svante A. Arrhenius, a Swedish physical chemist and Nobel Prize winner, this theory is taken for granted to this day and has not undergone any serious check.

Yes, I already read the link Ted. The latest cracker jack from Outer Slobovia has his own pet theory about global warming. Ted, if it's such slam dunk material why doesn't he have it vetted by other scientists in the field and then published in a respected scientific journal? It's in the process of give and take that something resembling true science emerges.

In the mean time you might want to check out this brochure on the IPCC and see what real cooperation by folks all over the world means, scientists studying the latest scientific publications and conferencing continuously on the unsure points. It's really a clearinghouse of science is what it is.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/10th-anniversary/an...ry-brochure.pdf

Here's the IPCC forth assessment report sort of broken down. Why don't you get serious and do a run through and tell us what you don't like about its analysis. I'm all eyes and ears. Then you can get back to your cranks in Lower Slobovia who think its all in the wobble.

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm

Still clutching at any piece of garbage you find on the Web? 2005 is not recent in this field. To begin with, until the last few years, the consensus view of climate scientists was that a warming world would initially see more precipitation fall in the ice desert of Antarctica gradually adding to the ice cap while the periphery melted. It was assumed that this would act to slow sea level rise produced by the expansion of a warming ocean and melting glaciers and a melting Greenland ice cap. Satellite measurements of the mass of the ice cap have indicated that this assumption was incorrect. In fact, Antarctica is losing about 36 cubic miles of ice each year. Here is a major media source article summarizing this finding.



Here is a link to the peer reviewed article in Science describing these measurements. You can read the abstract but will need a subscription to read the full article.



The sea ice change is an entirely different matter. It is true that sea ice around Antarctica reached a record extent for at least the last 30 years but even the chart reproduced in your article shows that this anomaly is not seriously outside the normal range and that Antarctic sea ice extend has been fairly stable over time. (Contrast this with the dramatic reduction in Arctic sea ice over time). The influences on the extent of sea ice around Antarctica are not well understood and are being studied. One influence appears to be wind conditions. One study I encountered attributed a substantial influence to the Enso cycle (El Nino versus El Nina) with ice expanding on opposite sides of the continent depending on which part of the cycle we are in.

TedN5- it looks like both sides are right to a degree, now that the MSM is starting to report on this scientific finding:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080103/ap_on_...RQzU_jHQLVxieAA

Overland and scientist Mark Serreze disagree over which effect — man-made or natural — was the big shove that pushed the Arctic over the edge, but they agreed that overall it's a combined effort.

Would you except a "both" answer? I doubt Ted will, because it actually does atribute some of it to man, which he seems to reject science over any crackpot on the web that just happens to agree with him.

I can agree with the "both" answer. I just have a hard time swallowing that man is solely or mainly the cause, especially since the world has been warming and cooling for 4 billion years all by itself. I will admit that man has poluted the environment, and to some extent contributing to global warming. The two issues brought up by the "consenus" group that I can't agree with is that man is the driving force behind global warming and that governmental control is the answer.

Scuba- but we do live in an essentially closed system. I do believe that man has set into action a response by nature, on a global scale.

the really interesting part about this, in terraforming models for mars- what we are doing here with greenhouse gases and such- is exactly what we need to do on mars to heat it up.

I don't believe that we have set into action. I don't think we have helped things, but I don't believe that we are the driving force either.

Here is a question that I can't find an answer to, or even take a stance on. If CO2 isn't the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, how much of a difference would really be made by controlling that particular gas, and not the others?

I went to the Energy Information Administration (I didn't even know such a bureaucracy existed) and found some interesting points.

Let's take water vapor, are we to control the emission of water vapor? If not, why? If so, how?


Then I started to wonder what greenhouse gas had the greatest affect on the climate. I found this interesting:

Link

So, just out of pure ignorance, if water vapor has the most abundent affect on our climate, and carbon dioxide is only about 0.038% of the atmosphere, why the attack on carbon dioxide only?

Well that kicks the Ted-Dingo thesis all to hell. Thanks for the update. I should have been on it.

Here's an interesting article which deals with two issues. First it supplies an explanation for why a major portion of the Antarctic is getting cooler - think ozone hole with associated winds and then it deals with the issue of Antarctic ice loss-gain. Apparently up until recently there was a belief that on balance Antartica was gaining total ice mass but now that has changed. Apparently it's gaining more in the interior and losing more at the periphery. On balance it is losing more. Still the article remains equivocal about the future of the Antarctic ice loss-gain equation.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channe...-change/dn11648



Hmmm, I wonder if this will inspire them to feed CFCs into the Antarctic region to slow down global warming.

----------------------------------------------------

I'm adding an edit because I just caught this.


I'm not going to argue about percentages but water vapor is not a driver. CO2 is. As we add additional CO2 to the environment we increase the temperature which then results in greater water vapor, as water vapor quantity overall is roughly a function of temperature. Water vapor then makes its own greenhouse contribution but basically it's about CO2 causing a double whammy.

I have posted “peer reviewed” science and it matters little. To the fanatics you are either on their side or your “science” – reviewed or not is junk. All you need to do is say “only our reviewers” count. Or they are “deniers”.

Since we cannot see any clear trend that even approaches the Gore nonsense it should not be long before the whole scam collapses into the garbage bin of history.


I will read through it and comment later. I am specifically VERY interested in HOW they plan to dramatically reduce CO2 output? Any idea what that is? The last plan that did not include the worlds largest producer (and fastest growing) of CO2 – China or India.

Now tell me that all theses folks have “signed on”. …………………………….

Where?

Good.



The IPCC Assessment Reports are principally about the science, not the politics. So try and take it serious without prefacing each thought with "China first." Sometimes it helps to get your science right before immediately latching on to the first available political rag doll.

ABOVE.





Ya right – and this is why we had the Tokyo treaty that is as worthless today as it was 5 years ago? Come on – “science” is somehow asking us to blow 500 + billion/year for no possible CO2 reduction – so please spare me.

You want to believe that temperature rise is CO2 driven and “man made” – GREAT. Just don’t ask me to support some stupid 500 billion $$$ scheme that has no chance in hell of working. Even if they are right, without CHINA. OK?

I've refuted this argument from you several times in the past so I don't expect to get though to you this time. However, just on the off chance that someone else might be confused by the spattering of facts you threw out, here is one more explanation.

Water vapor is indeed the most powerful greenhouse gas. However, since the world is 3/4th water, the amount retained in the atmosphere is dependent upon the temperature (and pressure). All other things being equal, the amount of water vapor retained in the atmosphere will go up when temperature goes up. Any amount that causes relative humidity to exceed 100% (the Dew Point) will precipitate out. For this reason climate science has treated water vapor as a feedback phenomena for any temperature forcing (CO2, Methane, aerosols, solar, or another).

There is nothing new or mysterious about the CO2 forcing causing temperature increases which in turn cause increased retention of water vapor and more greenhouse warming. Here is one fairly simple account from a Realclimate translation of a French article refuting an alternative forcing scheme.

(Empahsis mine).

Now it looks like you want to argue with Ted! I am the one that asked that question. You even went back to copy and paste the question, then lambasted me for asking a simple question. I even admited ignorance of the issue. Do you have any stress releiving activities you can take part of, because you jumped on that like stink on, well, you know.

Just curious, how are the facts that I put in the thread "spattering"? Are they not true? Water vapor does not have an affect on the green house affect? I do like how your climate science has found a reason to ignore the most abundant green house gas. Thanks for pointing that out. Good day!

Problem is, as always there is no proof I have seen of “CO2 forcing”. I see lots of theory and your buddies at RC say it both ways but the reality is it has not been shown conclusively that CO2 is forcing temperature rise to the extent we have seen.



And here at the end is the key line:

But no one knows for sure what will happen and the prediction of a net gain of ice in Antarctica could yet turn out to be correct.

Nice little bit of cherry picking my post Ted. I guess it isn't big revelation to those who have read your posts that you will do anything to defend your 2+2=5 world whether on Global Warming or Iraq.

For those interested here is the piece Ted cherry picked off of.



One would never know from your dishonest post that the Antarctic according to the latest evidence was losing ice and that the cooling that is occurring is probably a local phenomena believed to be induced by the ozone hole overhead.

I guess to you this is all just a football game and you're just a cheer leader for one side. Who cares about the evidence.

Yes and you are famous for it – that and ignoring any and all WMD data posted in favor nut jobs and one liners.




Obviously not you and TedN5 who basically say if you don’t “believe” completely you are simply a “denier” regardless of what you say and what “peers” review it.

By the way .2 to .6 meters is still a guess and .2 meters is 7.2 inches. Even if they are right and even if it was on the high side do ya think we could deal with this in 92 years?

In a linear that would be dealing with .07 - .22 inches a YEAR. Or should we spend 400-500 + billion a year? And in doing so FAIL because as you know and refuse to address the biggest producer, and the fastest growing producer of CO2 on the PLANET will not cut back CO2 – that is CHINA of course.

Have events over the last 2 years changed your opinion about global warming?

Nope... Hurricanes are down worldwide despite constant media attention and alarmism.

What kind of evidence would you require now to accept that weather events are being influenced by Global Warming

An unusually long period of violent weather that is unprecedented historically. The problem we have now is every time there's extreme weather someone is blaming global warming.

Is the media properly reporting unusual weather events? Did you know that hurricanes Dean and Felix made landfall as category 5 storms in Mexico and Nicaragua respectively? If so, where did you learn it?

Yes I knew that... I live in Florida, so hurricanes are reported quite throughly. However, the fact that the North Hemisphere is fairly inactive the past two years isn't reported at all.



The problem people fail to recognize is that with the advent of 24/7 cable news coverage the world can now see "extreme weather" every day and it's news! Extreme weather isn't a new phenomenon and the planet has been full of these events for millions of years. The only difference now is there are a determined number of scientists that have passed off a theory as fact.

Few people know that NASA screwed up the average temperatures due to a glitch. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II. I didn't see this on news. As John Tierney wrote in the New York Times a few days ago, the only thing that can accurately be predicted about 2008 is that there's a 100% chance of alarmism.



Scientists who question the theory would rather wait on the sidelines until this hysteria blows over than being labeled as "non believer." It's difficult to find a more politicized issue in the world than the weather.

This is the scraping from the bottom of the barrel crap that seems to characterize AGW denialists. Anybody who read the above I bet assumed nemov was talking world temperatures. His own link shows that isn't true. These are temperatures for the USA and have little relevance to the important world temperature progression. On top of that a slight temperature adjustment was made in the temperatures for 1998 and 1934 that had each one changing their first and second highest positions(Practically a dead heat originally), meaning absolutely nothing but trumpeted as some sort of blow to AGW.

One is only left with really one question about these folks. What's their dog in this desperate hunt to discredit the overwhelming science behind AGW by making mountains out of molehills if they aren't actually dissembling about the facts. What's the payoff? It certainly isn't getting at the truth.

Oh yeah Ted, you can throw out the China strawman until you are blue in the face but it says nothing about the climate science behind AGW. If your announcement is that we should all accept collective suicide in the face of China's escalating contribution of global warming gasses then that belongs on another thread. If you are maintaining the AGW thesis doesn't have good science behind it then the China canard has no relevance. I don't expect you to get this, partisan soul that you are , but truth is truth.

And if these entirely human-induced and calculations errors can occur in the United States, arguably the most advanced country in the world, what convinces us that there cannot be similar problems in other, more remote locations? The world is developing and the urban heat island effect is a real concern not only here, but especially in the developing world.

I have real concerns with the manipulations of data that seem to regularly occur. For example, reconciling the suraface temperature record with the satellite data or "filling in the holes" that was done in Levitus et al. (2000;
2005). .

A rather lengthy document: http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/...final-chap5.pdf

I don't see you presenting any proof of a pattern of manipulation. As far as the correction on the US annual temperatures, it was extremely minor. When measuring the weight of a person who is involved in a program of dieting, correcting a weight measurement from 232 lbs. 2 ounces to 232 lbs. 3 ounces is not meaningful. That's really what we're talking about here.

Also I would assume the accumulation of corrections would tend to cancel each other out unless you think the bulk of the climate science community has their finger on the scale. If that's what you think, let's see your proof.

Yes I don’t happen to buy the "science” of climate change as being “forced” by CO2 produced by us. And lots of others don’t either. And the fact that 1934 was as warm as 1998 IS relevant since the man made CO2 level was much lower. But hell – why worry about the details – just believe! – Ya right.

And my point about China is as relevant as it gets. Please don’t ask me to pay taxes that contribute to 400 billion + per year spent to reduce CO2 while the largest producer is off the hook. To do so would be just plain STUPID.

Finally we see as Amlord has posted, that the technical “science” used often couches its uncertainty carefully. IMO the uncertainty of much of the “data” is suspect and well as the people who, like Mann, report it as “they see and interpret it”.

Alarmists want it both ways... they want to trumpet "extreme" data and then deny it's important later on... The "1998" claim has been used for over ten years as the "tipping point" statistic and then when it's found to be a fraud it means "absolutely nothing." Unlike paid scientest who recieve money for research, there's no money out there to pay people to debunk all the bad science. By the time the science is debunked, new junk takes its place.

Alarmists have done a great job labeling anyone that has a differing viewpoint as a denier (like a holocaust denier). This is pure Klimaphobia. Things change all time, it's the only constant in the universe, but we're supposed to be scared of it. What are are we going to do about Mars? The Red planet is warming at the same rate as the Earth since 1970. All those emissions must be escaping our planet and floating over to Mars.

Is there any possibility the Sun plays a role in the climate fluctuations experience in our universe?

I get two silly nonrelevant responses to my posts(nemov doesn't even acknowledge the obvious USA-World distinction and Ted mindlessly goes along with that avoidance although the difference is like night and day) from the last two posters and it leaves me scratching my head. What's their dog in this hunt? Why this denialist frenzy without a defensible argument to go with it or even an obvious reason to bury their head in the sand? Is the prospect of the consequences so frightening? Hey, go out and have fun, it probably won't hit too hard until the next generation. But why hang around making silly indefensible arguments and try to cripple a solution? Is it a bush loyalist thing, a Limbaugh thing? I'm frankly baffled, but this kind of denialism with the same easily refutable arguments is ubiquitous on forums.

Maybe we need a thread on the psychology behind AGW denial.

How would this be for a good denialist argument?

Can you imagine, there are folks out there who have the insane idea that melting ice is associated with global warming. As any fool can see melting ice only creates more cold water causing the cold water to spread around the earth and cool things off.

Makes about as much sense as other stuff that's being peddled around here.

Hey you can believe what you like – I say the jury is still out. I am an engineer and I get lost in the technical nuances of much of the “data”. The issue is now more “politics” than science imo.

And “cripple a solution” – are you joking – WHAT exactly IS THAT. Please tell me and show me how it would work – can’t wait for your answer. And please don’t babble about what the world “could” do tell me what we CAN do while the biggest producer od CO2 is not playing in the game.

And if you say I am foolish because I am unwilling to blow 400+ BILLION/year to accomplish exactly nothing – I am guilty as charged.

If ignoring my statement is a debate strategy, I have to admit it's a weak one.


The only thing "silly" is your insistence that the 1998 stat has never been cited by alarmists. All that's left in regards to your response to my points are tired rhetorical terms like "denier," "Bush loyalists," and "Limbaugh thing." If you're trying to make a point by partisan name calling, good job. This is precisely why anyone that says that climate change is a "non-political" issue is wrong.

Meanwhile a couple of news items you won't see...

• Since 1978, the satellite record shows that Antarctica's sea ice has expanded by about half a percent a year.

• Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent now greater than last year

There wasn't anything there. You just ignored my pointing out the obvious nit picky irrelevance of the USA data change. Ted as usual turns the topic into his advocacy of a world suicide pact, with China being our roll model.


It's the 1998 temperature for the world that is often pointed to, not the USA. The world 1998 figure remained the highest until 2005. Anybody claiming the 1998 American temperature, which even before was in a virtual tie with 1934, as a tipping point indicator would be laughed out of any serious scientific group.


Earlier TedN5 showed the latest information indicated the opposite was occuring. While ice was accumulating in one region it was decreasing in another, with the balance being on the losing side.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11640662/

Still there is nothing in your link that is inconsistent with global warming. As the sea warms up it evaporates more moisture leading to more Antarctic snow fall. Here are some further comments from your link.



Anyone can look at the chart and see where the general trend is. A gain in a particular month does not an overall trend make.
http://bp2.blogger.com/_0oNRupXJ4-A/R4N8wN.../Picture+50.png

And to provide a longer term perspective here is a picture of arctic summer ice loss from 1979 to 2005.
http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/image...ice-decline.gif

By the way, both your links make the case for global warming. It's hard to believe you can't see that.

(That second line came from the Iran thread tonight.)

I'm not sure where you got your $400 billion figure, but I don't want to get caught up in that. What I want to point out to you is that taking steps against global warming will accomplish something useful, even by your own reckoning. Making the auto industry raise mileage standards and developing alternative energy solutions will each serve to lessen the influence of Middle Eastern oil. Plus, pushed ahead with government funding and plain old profit motive, American technology in that area will undoubtedly move forward - a good thing.

Now, I've long since given up trying to convince you that global warming is real and is man's fault - you don't believe that data. Alternatively, you have used that $400 billion price tag to counter the argument that, even if GW might not be man's fault, we should take steps just in case the global warming crowd is correct. Finally, you have argued that as long as China and India are going to pollute, why should we bother lowering our own emissions? But what can you say against taking steps that lower our dependence on foreign oil? Trouble in the Middle East has cost us far more than $400 billion already, with no end in sight.

Meanwhile, it snowed today in Bagdad for the first time in 100 years.

Of course, that's the fault of global warming as well, according to the article.

Again, allow me to reiterate my position: the globe is warming, but to some degree the cause of it and, more importantly, the effect of it, is still undetermined. Mars warms at the same rate, but the two aren't related. Of course, Mars can warm naturally while the Earth, somehow, cannot.

Skeptics are not going away. The list is growing.

Yeah I understand it is in a lot of areas. For instance these folks aren't taking conventional dogma lying down.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum//

The fight for truth is joined.

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/zetcos08.gif

This relates to global warming how?

By analogy to the debate that's developed, yes. You figure it out.

Let me get this straight, you're using an article from March, 2006 to refute an article from January 10, 2008. That's very convincing...


That's the great thing about Global Warming. Everything is proof that Global Warming exists, ice melting, ice freezing, oceans rising, oceans falling, temperatures falling, temperatures rising, rain increasing, and rain decreasing. No matter what the outcome is the "scientists" have been paid well enough to come up with a theory to protect the theory.

When it snows for the first time in 100 years it's global warming (no, I'm not making this up).

This has been my point all along, but there is nothing that I get in response. Also, I have seen where there is an argument that record cold temperatures are simply individual events, and anomalies like that are bound to happen, but when Katrina hit, it was definite evidence of Global Warming. The fires in California last year is another example of definite evidence of Global Warming. So, what we are saying is that individual events can point towards Global Warming, but can't point away from it. Talk about a swindle!

You're playing games Nemov. Your article doesn't tell you what date they are drawing from. Furthermore as I showed earlier the article is ambiguous on the ice loss matter if you read it through and makes it clear they support global warming. You at least ought to read your own links instead of just conveniently cherry picking.

But you want 2008? I'll give you 2008 although the date doesn't really mean anything special.
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/01/07/18470816.php




You forgot to throw in world government socialist control as part of the conspiracy.

Why it is so hard for you folks to grasp that global warming theory is based on the average temperature for the whole world and not what happens in a particular area at a particular time. There will always be some example of where it has been unusually cold relative to preceding measurements. That goes both ways but the average works in favor of warming.

Perhaps part of it comes from failing to grasp how weather systems work, with the sun, gravity and the spinning earth contributing. Here is a good primer on the subject from pbs. It shouldn't be too hard to plug global warming into the mix.
Some great pictures and links included.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elnino/anatomy/machine.html

If the GW pundits weren't running to every government demanding more taxes and governmental control, I wouldn't take that position. If the "consensus" wasn't a group of scientists working by direction of the UN (if you have forgotten, your group is the UNIPCC) The UN in that stands for United Nations. What else am I supposed to deduce?


With that argument, we have been warming for 10,000 years or since the end of the last little ice age. Wouldn't that point to natural occurances?