Global Warming In Thailand

[bonobo]

Actually, we can tell quite a bit beyond the last 100 years by looking at the effects of various climatic changes.  Looking at growth rings, coral reefs, ice cores, and the like can be a pretty good indication of what was going on weather-wise in the past.

Additionally, many of the things that conservationists like Al Gore are telling us to do have just as big of impact on the environment... Ethenol fuel, for example.  It may burn cleaner, but once you factor in the production of ethenol... the "carbon footprint" is at least as big as regular fuel in the end.  

Here, you are 100% right.  Ethanol, except for in Brazil, uses more oil to produce the ethanol with which it is trying to replace. Even in Brazil, the "oil savings" is minimal and has caused huge tracts of rainforest and the Pantanal to be plowed under. Ethanol is largely a political pork barrel to keep powerful agricultural interest happy.

But just because one so-called solution to oil dependency is faulty does not mean that global warming is a farce.

Furthermore, don't you think that trying to change the course of nature could cause some seriously devastating and unforseen consequences?  No one knows.  Is it a risk we should take?  I don't really care honestly, I'll be dead before the consequences hit I'm sure. LoL  I think we are worrying about things we can't control though.  It's humane nature, but... it's silly too.

I may not see Bangkok under water, but if I have kids, they may see it.  And when faced with huge climatic pattern shifts which would destroy much of the fertile regions of the world, change the availability of water, and put quite a bit of land below sea level, then yes, I might be willing to try drastic actions.  But many of the actions are not drastic.  Do you really think that shifting from SUV's and pick-up trucks for city driving to smaller, fuel-efficient cars will have dramatic unforeseen negative consequences?  That offshore windmills will?  That more efficient, cleaner-burning cola plants will?  

Sorry, as I have written before, I just don't see the downside, global warming or not.

I've never said I have a problem with people trying to do things that they feel are better for the environment.  Unfortunately the bulk of what we see is just the government finding ways to get money out of people polluting, or doing things in ways which they claim is cleaner, but isn't.  Those little hybrid cars everyone is in love with... using up a very rare natural resource... did they ever tell u that in the brochure?  No.  Neither do the liberal hippies that are always telling us how great hybrid cars are.

If someone makes a new type of fuel, that is ACTUALLY cleaner and not just a big scam, I don't think anyone will have a problem using it.  The oil in the planet will run out eventually, so we certainly do need some alternatives at some point whether or not we are trying to save the environment.

One of the downsides, "global warming or not", is that democrats don't care about ruining businesses and the economy of our country with completely random feel-good policies regarding the environment.  Ethanol is just one example, cap and trade is another looming example.  Wind farms?  They're ugly as shit - I drove up to the northern part of Wisconsin a couple weeks ago and I saw one city where all the farm fields had huge white wind mills alllllll over.  God, talk about ruining the environment!  Off-shore... sure, why not.  But I swear to God, they need to keep them off of the countryside... particularlly when they are right off of the country highways... they are a freaking eyesore.

Doesn't it seem like most of the proposals and policies are just things that people feel good about themselves for passing but aren't ever going to have any type of impact?  Let's say humans are causing 1% of the global warming effect... and of that 1%, all these policies are effecting what, 10% or less of that?  We're never going to eliminate all man-made effects into the environment... so, at best, what, we can effect 0.25% of the entire problem someday?  What is that going to accomplish?  Is that worth dramatically changing our lives?  I dunno, I don't see it.

If democrats want to do this, they need to get some politicians in office that actually care about the environment and not just about ways to raise taxes in the name of the environment.

So what is this "natural resource" that hybrid cars are using, and more importantly, how is this bad?  Should we ban the making of jewelry because platinum is rare?  For raw manufacturing materials, it is simple supply and demand.  If this material is rare, it is going to be expensive, and the harder it is to find it, the more expensive it will be until it prices the car out of the market.  Using a rare raw material is not environmentally unsound in and of itself. It is only when the processing, use, or disposal adversely effects the environment that we need to re-look at it from a green point of view.  Merely using a rare material is not "un-green."

So you think windmills are ugly.  So what?  You drove through Wisconsin once and your eyes were offended. Sorry, that has no impact on whether they are environmentally sound or not.  And to throw away a valuable resource because you personally think they are ugly is really, really shortsighted. And I supposed you think all those refining plants in Texas, Louisiana, and California are rather pretty (and smell so nice)?

Your numbers a pure speculation.  I have written that even if man's impact is only 1%, that many of the steps to combat global warming are beneficial in other ways.  I never wrote that man's impact is only 1%.  What if it is 50%?  Still saying that we can't affect it?  My point is that many of these steps are vital if global warming is as its proponents warn, and theya re still beneficial if the anti-global warming crowd is correct.  Think of it as an insurance policy which also invests and pays dividends.  If you don't die, you get the money when you retire.

I will agree that some proposed policies may not be the best ideas from many standpoints.  But isn't it better to get good policies adopted instead?  People say we shouldn't do anything because China won't.  If your doctor tells you you have emphysema and you really need to quit smoking, are you going to refuse because your spouse still smokes?

[teatree]

Nobel Prize-winner Norman Borlaug has died -- 'saved more human lives than any other' -- was a climate skeptic

Renowned agricultural scientist Dr. Norman Borlaug has died at the age of 95. Borlaug, known as the father of the "Green Revolution" for saving over a billion people from starvation by utilizing pioneering high yield farming techniques, is one of only five people in history who has been awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom ,and the Congressional Gold Medal.

For more details on Borlaug's life and accomplishments see CNN's report here. Also here is a Gregg Easterbrook article on Borlaug's life and career.

Borlaug was also a man-made global warming skeptic who was featured in the U.S. Senate Report of more than 700 dissenting scientists. Borlaug is featured on page 116 of March 2009 U.S. Senate Report of More Than 700 Dissenting Scientists on Man-Made Global Warming.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...5d-6e2d71db52d9

Dr. Borlaug's entry in the U.S. Senate report is reproduced below:

Renowned agricultural scientist Dr. Norman Borlaug, known as the father of the "Green Revolution" for saving over a billion people from starvation by utilizing pioneering high yield farming techniques, is one of only five people in history who has been awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom ,and the Congressional Gold Medal. Borlaug also declared himself skeptical of man-made climate fears in 2007. "I do believe we are in a period where, no question, the temperatures are going up. But is this a part of another one of those (natural) cycles that have brought on glaciers and caused melting of glaciers?" Borlaug asked, according to a September 21, 2007 article in Saint Paul Pioneer Press. The article reported that Borlaug is "not sure, and he doesn't think the science is, either." Borlaug added, "How much would we have to cut back to take the increasing carbon dioxide and methane production to a level so that it's not a driving force?" We don't even know how much."

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2885/Nobel-P...climate-skeptic

[bonobo]

Nobel Prize-winner Norman Borlaug has died -- 'saved more human lives than any other' -- was a climate skeptic

Renowned agricultural scientist Dr. Norman Borlaug has died at the age of 95. Borlaug, known as the father of the "Green Revolution" for saving over a billion people from starvation by utilizing pioneering high yield farming techniques, is one of only five people in history who has been awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom ,and the Congressional Gold Medal.

For more details on Borlaug's life and accomplishments see CNN's report here. Also here is a Gregg Easterbrook article on Borlaug's life and career.

Borlaug was also a man-made global warming skeptic who was featured in the U.S. Senate Report of more than 700 dissenting scientists. Borlaug is featured on page 116 of March 2009 U.S. Senate Report of More Than 700 Dissenting Scientists on Man-Made Global Warming.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...5d-6e2d71db52d9

Dr. Borlaug's entry in the U.S. Senate report is reproduced below:

Renowned agricultural scientist Dr. Norman Borlaug, known as the father of the "Green Revolution" for saving over a billion people from starvation by utilizing pioneering high yield farming techniques, is one of only five people in history who has been awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom ,and the Congressional Gold Medal. Borlaug also declared himself skeptical of man-made climate fears in 2007. "I do believe we are in a period where, no question, the temperatures are going up. But is this a part of another one of those (natural) cycles that have brought on glaciers and caused melting of glaciers?" Borlaug asked, according to a September 21, 2007 article in Saint Paul Pioneer Press. The article reported that Borlaug is "not sure, and he doesn't think the science is, either." Borlaug added, "How much would we have to cut back to take the increasing carbon dioxide and methane production to a level so that it's not a driving force?" We don't even know how much."

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2885/Nobel-P...climate-skeptic

All he said was that science is not sure how much of global warming is being caused my purely natural swings and how much by man, and he doesn't know  how much CO2 and  methane production need to be taken back in order to have any effect.

I'll certainly buy that.  How can anyone know with any degree of absolute certainty? But the data certainly indicates that man has at least some impact on global warming.  And as I have posted time and time again, many of the steps we can take to combat global warming will have other positive benefits regardless of any contribution to actually combat global warming itself.   So we can wait for 50 years, study the data, and figure out what steps we should have taken, or we can do our best now and take action when we need to take it. And if our actions don't impact global warming, well, at least they will have spawned new industries, lessened dependence on foreign energy sources, lessened pollution, and pushed back peak oil.

[JR Texas]

Nobel Prize-winner Norman Borlaug has died -- 'saved more human lives than any other' -- was a climate skeptic

Renowned agricultural scientist Dr. Norman Borlaug has died at the age of 95. Borlaug, known as the father of the "Green Revolution" for saving over a billion people from starvation by utilizing pioneering high yield farming techniques, is one of only five people in history who has been awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom ,and the Congressional Gold Medal.

For more details on Borlaug's life and accomplishments see CNN's report here. Also here is a Gregg Easterbrook article on Borlaug's life and career.

Borlaug was also a man-made global warming skeptic who was featured in the U.S. Senate Report of more than 700 dissenting scientists. Borlaug is featured on page 116 of March 2009 U.S. Senate Report of More Than 700 Dissenting Scientists on Man-Made Global Warming.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...5d-6e2d71db52d9

Dr. Borlaug's entry in the U.S. Senate report is reproduced below:

Renowned agricultural scientist Dr. Norman Borlaug, known as the father of the "Green Revolution" for saving over a billion people from starvation by utilizing pioneering high yield farming techniques, is one of only five people in history who has been awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom ,and the Congressional Gold Medal. Borlaug also declared himself skeptical of man-made climate fears in 2007. "I do believe we are in a period where, no question, the temperatures are going up. But is this a part of another one of those (natural) cycles that have brought on glaciers and caused melting of glaciers?" Borlaug asked, according to a September 21, 2007 article in Saint Paul Pioneer Press. The article reported that Borlaug is "not sure, and he doesn't think the science is, either." Borlaug added, "How much would we have to cut back to take the increasing carbon dioxide and methane production to a level so that it's not a driving force?" We don't even know how much."

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2885/Nobel-P...climate-skeptic

You just took what he said out of context..........Dr. Borlaugh was an extremely intelligent (and kind) man. I liked him and was fortunate enough to have had a conversation with him several years ago. He had a "open mind" and was always willing to discuss ideas......he was a true scientist. This is what he said:

"I do believe we are in a period where, no question, the temperatures are going up. ""But is this a part of another one of those (natural) cycles that have brought on glaciers and caused melting of glaciers?"

"How much would we have to cut back to take the increasing carbon dioxide and methane production to a level so that it's not a driving force?" "We don't even know how much."

"What we should have done is to spend much more research on many different sources of energy, and we neglected that,"

Given what he actually said, this begs the question: How many of the so-called science skeptics cited in the Senate Report are not really skeptics? How many have been put in that category based on statements they made that have been taken and posted out of context?

How many of the so-called prominent skeptics in the Senate Report actually went to the Senate, sat down, and said they do not think humans are the cause of climate change? How many?

The Report makes it seem like they all went there and made it clear they were skeptics..........somebody is misleading somebody.

[Rionoir]

So what is this "natural resource" that hybrid cars are using, and more importantly, how is this bad? Should we ban the making of jewelry because platinum is rare? For raw manufacturing materials, it is simple supply and demand. If this material is rare, it is going to be expensive, and the harder it is to find it, the more expensive it will be until it prices the car out of the market. Using a rare raw material is not environmentally unsound in and of itself. It is only when the processing, use, or disposal adversely effects the environment that we need to re-look at it from a green point of view. Merely using a rare material is not "un-green."

So you think windmills are ugly. So what? You drove through Wisconsin once and your eyes were offended. Sorry, that has no impact on whether they are environmentally sound or not. And to throw away a valuable resource because you personally think they are ugly is really, really shortsighted. And I supposed you think all those refining plants in Texas, Louisiana, and California are rather pretty (and smell so nice)?

Your numbers a pure speculation. I have written that even if man's impact is only 1%, that many of the steps to combat global warming are beneficial in other ways. I never wrote that man's impact is only 1%. What if it is 50%? Still saying that we can't affect it? My point is that many of these steps are vital if global warming is as its proponents warn, and theya re still beneficial if the anti-global warming crowd is correct. Think of it as an insurance policy which also invests and pays dividends. If you don't die, you get the money when you retire.

I will agree that some proposed policies may not be the best ideas from many standpoints. But isn't it better to get good policies adopted instead? People say we shouldn't do anything because China won't. If your doctor tells you you have emphysema and you really need to quit smoking, are you going to refuse because your spouse still smokes?

1. I'm just saying, those cars use up a rare mineral... clearly that isn't going to be very sustainable if it's a RARE mineral.

2. I didn't "drive thru" wisconsin... I live in Wisconsin, and that dam_n wind farm isn't that far from me, and it's off a major freeway. If you want that ugly eyesore in your area so you can feel good about yourself, please, help yourself. Part of the environment is its natural beauty... ruining that doesn't seem like a good alternative energy source to me when there are other ways. Nuclear power for example... oh yes, I said the N word... come on, bring on the 2 or 3 anecdotal responses you can copy and paste to that word. The fact is it is the most intelligent power option available to us.

3. Everyone's numbers are pure speculation... but the fact that global warming and cooling is natural isn't speculation. And no, I will never agree with you that just because maybe humans are causing an unknown percentage of the problem that we should do all these foolish things that may or may not do anything to help just because it makes some people feel better about themselves.

4. Your analogy of my spouse smoking would only be relevant if we were siamese twins that shared a single body.

[Rionoir]

If democrats want to do this, they need to get some politicians in office that actually care about the environment and not just about ways to raise taxes in the name of the environment.

They did.........but the Republicans and the conservative Supreme Court stole the election from Al Gore.

By the way, a point that the skeptics keep ignoring.........we are already being taxed big time--directly and indirectly--because of our allegiance to BIG OIL.

Al Gore *giggle* Wow, still holding onto that even though Obama is in office? Welcome to 2009...

And please explain your point... all I heard was blah blah blah BIG OIL... LoL... That seems to be your answers to the worlds problems, just say bad things about BIG OIL, BIG OIL, BIG OIL... but really, I don't see what being taxed on oil has to do with being a skeptic... *chuckle*

[JR Texas]

If democrats want to do this, they need to get some politicians in office that actually care about the environment and not just about ways to raise taxes in the name of the environment.

They did.........but the Republicans and the conservative Supreme Court stole the election from Al Gore.

By the way, a point that the skeptics keep ignoring.........we are already being taxed big time--directly and indirectly--because of our allegiance to BIG OIL.

Al Gore *giggle* Wow, still holding onto that even though Obama is in office? Welcome to 2009...

And please explain your point... all I heard was blah blah blah BIG OIL... LoL... That seems to be your answers to the worlds problems, just say bad things about BIG OIL, BIG OIL, BIG OIL... but really, I don't see what being taxed on oil has to do with being a skeptic... *chuckle*

It is, apparently, a waste of time to explain points made........you don't seem to grasp what is happening. Maybe it is time to post some links about "skeptics" and BIG OIL, which you seem to think does not exists or is not influential:

Here is one that makes interesting reading: http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/gl...y/exxon-secrets

[teatree]

AccuWeather's Joe Bastardi presses case against global warming theory

AccuWeather Expert Senior Forecaster Joe Bastardi caused a stir during an appearance on The O’Reilly Factor in which he presented a case against the manmade climate change theory.

http://www.examiner.com/x-219-Denver-Weath...ng-theory#video

Bastardi not only challenged the theory itself but also its very foundation and he lamented the lack of any real scientific discussion of the issue.

Today Bastardi pressed his argument even further in a video ‘addendum’ to his appearance on the FoxNews show and in a statement released on AccuWeather.com.

http://www.accuweather.com/video-on-demand...deo=34766737001

In the video, Bastardi lays out a case that many in the scientific community have come to press – that solar activity is a primary driver of the earth’s climate. Showing charts of solar activity in relation to historical temperatures, he pointed out that there were periods in the not-so-distant climate history that were much warmer than today. Click here to view Joe Bastardi's video on the AccuWeather.com website.

In addressing the case of Arctic ice, Bastardi displayed a photograph of a U.S. Navy submarine surfaced at the North Pole on March 17, 1954. The vessel is not surrounded by ice but by open water. Bastardi said, “Because earth was warmer before man, it can certainly be warmer with man.”

Bastardi pressed for a more open and honest debate on the climate change theory. He explained that he did not dismiss arguments contrary to his and he in fact welcomed them. He said however, “I don't want to drive all this off the table. I just don't want all this nonsense going on that every single weather event is because of global warming. This is preposterous.”

Acknowledging that the views he expressed have become controversial, Bastardi said, “I am not, nor do I seek, to be a spokesman on the AGW [Anthropogenic Global Warming] issue.” Rather he said he simply wanted people to “be informed and not simply throw stones.”

Bastardi joined a growing line of meteorologists and scientists that are questioning the manmade climate change theory. Dr. William Gray, Professor Emeritus of Colorado State University who is best known for his hurricane forecasts, has long railed against the manmade climate change theory and specifically against the outrageous claims of its advocates like James Hansen. John Coleman, one of the founders of the Weather Channel, has long said that he believed global warming was “the greatest scam in history.”

An open letter to Accuweather.com viewers from Accuweather.com's tropical and long range weather expert Joe Bastardi (from AccuWeather.com)

My appearance on Bill O'Reilly brought up some things that seem to be a shock to people, but to many many people that are looking hard at the weather, are not.

Please remember that I am not, nor do I seek, to be a spokesman on the AGW issue. I will however take a stand when called upon, on what I believe to be true.

I have always had an open mind on man's input into the climate system. However because I have to be acquainted with long term patterns of changing weather, which is what climate is for any one site, I need to know where we stand against the course of history. Because of that, I have to be acquainted with the global warming issue in much more than a casual way. It is to my advantage as the chief long range and hurricane forecaster here to develop a working knowledge of where we are and where we are going in the overall global pattern.

To be sure, the cooling now is happening faster than it should because it got so warm in the first place via the super nino of 97-98. The last warm cycle reached its peak in the late 50s when we actually surfaced submarines at the north pole in 1959... IN MARCH! I often wonder what global temps would have been measured at then if we had the ways of measuring we do now. The fact that there was so much "shock" at some of the revelations that showed up on the O'Reilly Factor is because people are refusing to understand that so far, this has been a case of been there, done that.

One can pull out as many cases of bad weather in the 30s, 40s and 50s as they can now. I still believe the 3 greatest examples of how bad a hurricane can get in relation to latitude are the 1938 hurricane with 186 mph wind gusts at Blue Hill Mass, the 1944 hurricane that destroyed the Atlantic City boardwalk, and Hurricane Donna which gave hurricane force winds to every state from Florida to Maine. The 1944 hurricane had winds 600 miles in diameter and stripped 50% of the screws from a recon plane into it.

Unlike many people, I am well acquainted and respect the co2 warming idea, but in its pure form, which actually allows for the cooling coming now! There in lies the problem. We can't know till after the period that is coming up through 2030 whether co2 is really a player or not. The threat of not only oceanic cycles cooling the earth, but the suns lack of intensity and increased volcanic and seismic activity could mean that as some papers in the early 90s (and dismissed by many) opined we would be as cold as back in the early 1800s. What you see now may just be the beginning. One thing we do know, that we should be skeptical of any future event, no matter what we believe.

I will leave you with this. Common sense dictates that a trace gas needed for life on the planet would not be the cause for destroying life on the planet. Common sense dictates that what has happened before without man can happen again with man. Common sense would dictate that you not believe me, or any one else, but go look for YOURSELF. If its important enough for you to be happy with what I said, or to be mad as all get out at what I said, you owe it to yourself to go read all sides of the argument. To be informed, and not to simply throw stones.

In the end, for me its all about getting the weather right. 1 day, 1 week 1 year or whatever. That is the bottom line.

What I opine about global warming is not because this is my goal...to be in this debate, it's a by product of the work I put in to do what I was made to do..forecast the weather. But I will not run, nor bow down to people who simply wish to destroy the chance to get the right answer in this debate, for IT IS ABOUT THE WEATHER! it's that simple.

I do not seek to be a spokesman, but my company believes in freedom of speech. Please remember my opinion is my own, but perhaps the reason for my successes in this field are because of the countless hours I spend that no one but me and the good lord above sees in preparing to answer the call. That call comes every day in my forecasts, but if it comes in this matter, I will not back down from what I have prepared myself for.

Thanks for your time,

Joe Bastardi

[Rionoir]

JR Texas... your credible non-biased evidence link is GREENPEACE?! ROFLMFAO...

[JR Texas]

JR Texas... your credible non-biased evidence link is GREENPEACE?! ROFLMFAO...

As I thought..........you can't respond to what I posted.

For the record, I have never once said positions that people hold are not biased in some way.........the difference is that some views are based purely on emotion, ignoring science and reason; others are primarily based on science and reason, ignoring emotion.

Science and reason, particularly the peer review process associated with it, is specifically designed to remove both emotion and bias.

For those who might be interested, here is another good link: http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/008132.html

Quote from this page as it is a good one: On climate change, the scientific debate is long over....The "skeptic" position is not an attempt at scientific inquiry, it's a PR scam, funded largely by coal and oil interests and run largely out of American right-wing think tanks. The point of climate skepticism, politically, is not to engage in fruitful discussion. It is to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt about the overwhelmingly clear science on climate change and the moral imperative to act quickly to stave off climate change's worst consequences. By repeatedly posting "skeptical" and confrontational comments about climate science whenever climate solutions are discussed, anti-environmentalists hope to hijack discussion and slow movement toward climate solutions.

[Rionoir]

I didn't even look at the link you posted... I know what Greenpeace is and I don't need to view their website to know what they say or what they are. Greenpeace is a good example of this purely emotional view you talk about. I just wonder why you post the link then if you are already aware of that. Greenpeace is an organization of eco-terrorists that, just like muslim terrorists, do what they do in the name of bettering the planet... I guess you think the form of terrorism they support is different somehow though, right?

I could post about 1500 link to support what I just said, but I expect you already know all this and were hoping no one here knows about Greenpeace already.

[teatree]

Founder of The Weather Channel warns of ‘dramatic turn toward a colder climate’

Meteorologist John Coleman - Global Warming: It is a hoax. It is bad science. It is high-jacking public policy. It is the greatest scam in history.

By John Coleman

January 28, 2009 (Revised and edited February 11, 2009)

The key players are now all in place in Washington and in state governments across America to officially label carbon dioxide as a pollutant and enact laws that tax us citizens for our carbon footprints. Only two details stand in the way: the faltering economic times and a dramatic turn toward a colder climate. The last two bitter winters have led to a rise in public awareness that there is no runaway global warming. A majority of American citizens are now becoming skeptical of the claim that our carbon footprints, resulting from our use of fossil fuels, are going to lead to climatic calamities. But governments are not yet listening to the citizens.

How did we ever get to this point where bad science is driving big government to punish the citizens for living the good life that fossil fuels provide for us?

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

Next Revelle hired a Geochemist named David Keeling to devise a way to measure the atmospheric content of Carbon dioxide. In 1958 Keeling published his first paper showing the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and linking the increase to the burning of fossil fuels. These two research papers became the bedrock of the science of global warming, even though they offered no proof that carbon dioxide was in fact a greenhouse gas. In addition they failed to explain how this trace gas, only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, could have any significant impact on temperatures.

Back in the1950s, when this was going on, our cities were entrapped in a pall of pollution left by the crude internal combustion engines and poorly refined gasoline that powered cars and trucks back then, and from the uncontrolled emissions from power plants and factories. There was a valid and serious concern about the health consequences of this pollution. As a result a strong environmental movement was developing to demand action.

Government heard that outcry and set new environmental standards. Scientists and engineers came to the rescue. New reformulated fuels were developed, as were new high tech, computer controlled, fuel injection engines and catalytic converters. By the mid seventies cars were no longer significant polluters, emitting only some carbon dioxide and water vapor from their tail pipes. New fuel processing and smoke stack scrubbers were added to industrial and power plants and their emissions were greatly reduced as well.

But an environmental movement had been established and its funding and very existence depended on having a continuing crisis issue. Roger Revelle’s research at the Scripps Institute had tricked a wave of scientific inquiry. So the concept of uncontrollable atmospheric warming from the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels became the cornerstone issue of the environmental movement. Automobiles and power planets became the prime targets.

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

The Keeling curve continues to show a steady rise in CO2 in the atmosphere during the period since oil and coal were discovered and used by man. Carbon dioxide has increased from the 1958 reading of 315 to 385 parts per million in 2008. But, despite the increases, it is still only a trace gas in the atmosphere. The percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2 remains tiny, about 3.8 hundredths of one percent by volume and 41 hundredths of one percent by weight. And, by the way, only a fraction of that fraction is from mankind’s use of fossil fuels. The best estimate is that atmospheric CO2 is 75 percent natural and 25 percent the result of civilization.

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

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

Strong developed the concept that the UN could demand payments from the advanced nations for the climatic damage from their burning of fossil fuels to benefit the underdeveloped nations—a sort of CO2 tax that would be the funding for his one-world government. But he needed more scientific evidence to support his primary thesis. So Strong championed the establishment of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC). This was not a pure, “climate study” scientific organization, as we have been led to believe. It was an organization of one-world government UN bureaucrats, environmental activists and environmentalist scientists who craved UN funding so they could produce the science they needed to stop the burning of fossil fuels.

Over the last 25 years the IPCC has been very effective. Hundreds of scientific papers, four major international meetings and reams of news stories about climatic Armageddon later, it has made its points to the satisfaction of most governments and even shared in a Nobel Peace Prize.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did Roger Revelle attend the summer enclave at the Bohemian Grove in Northern California in 1990 while working on that article? Did he deliver a lakeside speech there to the assembled movers and shakers from Washington and Wall Street in which he apologized for sending the UN IPCC and Al Gore on this wild goose chase about global warming? Did he say that the key scientific conjecture of his lifetime had turned out wrong? The answer to those questions is, "Apparently.” People who were there have told me about that afternoon, but I have not located a transcript or a recording. People continue to share their memories with me on an informal basis. More evidence may be forthcoming.

Roger Revelle died of a heart attack three months after the Cosmos story was printed. Oh, how I wish he were still alive today. He might be able to stop this scientific silliness and end the global warming scam. He might well stand beside me as a global warming denier.

Al Gore has dismissed Roger Revelle’s mea culpa as the actions of a senile old man. The next year, while running for Vice President, he said the science behind global warming is settled and there will be no more debate. From 1992 until today, he and most of his cohorts have refused to debate global warming and when asked about us skeptics, they insult us and call us names.

As the science now stands, the global warming alarmist scientists say the climate is sensitive to a “radiative forcing” effect from atmospheric carbon dioxide which greatly magnifies its greenhouse effect on atmospheric warming. The only proof they can provide of this complex hypothesis is by running it in climate computer models. By starting the models in about 1980 they showed how the continuing increase in CO2 was step with a steady increase in average global temperatures in the 1980s and 1990’s and claim cause and effect. But, in fact, those last two decades of the 20th century were at the peak of a strong 24 year solar cycle, and the temperature increases actually may have been a result of the solar cycle together with related warm cycle ocean current patterns during that period.

That warming ended in 1998 and global temperatures (as measured by satellites) leveled off. Starting in 2002, computer models and reality have dramatically parted company. The models predicted temperatures and carbon dioxide would continue to rise in lock step, but in fact while the CO2 continues to rise, temperatures are in decline. Now global temperatures are in such a nose dive there is wide spread talk from climatologists about an impending ice age. In any case, the UN’s computer model “proof” has gone up in a poof.

Nonetheless, today we have the continued claim that carbon dioxide is the culprit of an uncontrollable, runaway man-made global warming. We are told that when we burn fossil fuels we are leaving a dastardly carbon footprint. And, we are told we must pay Al Gore or the environmentalists for this sinful footprint. Our governments on all levels are considering taxing the use of fossil fuels. The Federal Environmental Protection Agency is on the verge of naming CO2 as a pollutant and strictly regulating its use to protect our climate. The new President and the US Congress are on board. Many state governments are moving on the same course.

We are already suffering from this CO2 silliness in many ways. Our energy policy has been strictly hobbled by the prohibiting of new refineries and of drilling for decades. We pay for the shortage this has created every time we buy gas. On top of that, the whole issue of corn based ethanol costs us millions of tax dollars in subsidies, which also has driven up food prices. All of this is a long way from over.

Yet I am totally convinced there is no scientific basis for any of it.

Global Warming: It is a hoax. It is bad science. It is high-jacking public policy. It is the greatest scam in history.

[JR Texas]

Your posts are totally boring and misleading........I said I would not respond again, but discrediting one of the most famous scientists of our age was way beyond appropriate......especially given that he just passed away. I will leave you with this thought (again):

Quote from this page as it is a good one: On climate change, the scientific debate is long over....The "skeptic" position is not an attempt at scientific inquiry, it's a PR scam, funded largely by coal and oil interests and run largely out of American right-wing think tanks. The point of climate skepticism, politically, is not to engage in fruitful discussion. It is to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt about the overwhelmingly clear science on climate change and the moral imperative to act quickly to stave off climate change's worst consequences. By repeatedly posting "skeptical" and confrontational comments about climate science whenever climate solutions are discussed, anti-environmentalists hope to hijack discussion and slow movement toward climate solutions.

[bonobo]

So what is this "natural resource" that hybrid cars are using, and more importantly, how is this bad? Should we ban the making of jewelry because platinum is rare? For raw manufacturing materials, it is simple supply and demand. If this material is rare, it is going to be expensive, and the harder it is to find it, the more expensive it will be until it prices the car out of the market. Using a rare raw material is not environmentally unsound in and of itself. It is only when the processing, use, or disposal adversely effects the environment that we need to re-look at it from a green point of view. Merely using a rare material is not "un-green."

So you think windmills are ugly. So what? You drove through Wisconsin once and your eyes were offended. Sorry, that has no impact on whether they are environmentally sound or not. And to throw away a valuable resource because you personally think they are ugly is really, really shortsighted. And I supposed you think all those refining plants in Texas, Louisiana, and California are rather pretty (and smell so nice)?

Your numbers a pure speculation. I have written that even if man's impact is only 1%, that many of the steps to combat global warming are beneficial in other ways. I never wrote that man's impact is only 1%. What if it is 50%? Still saying that we can't affect it? My point is that many of these steps are vital if global warming is as its proponents warn, and theya re still beneficial if the anti-global warming crowd is correct. Think of it as an insurance policy which also invests and pays dividends. If you don't die, you get the money when you retire.

I will agree that some proposed policies may not be the best ideas from many standpoints. But isn't it better to get good policies adopted instead? People say we shouldn't do anything because China won't. If your doctor tells you you have emphysema and you really need to quit smoking, are you going to refuse because your spouse still smokes?

1. I'm just saying, those cars use up a rare mineral... clearly that isn't going to be very sustainable if it's a RARE mineral.

2. I didn't "drive thru" wisconsin... I live in Wisconsin, and that dam_n wind farm isn't that far from me, and it's off a major freeway. If you want that ugly eyesore in your area so you can feel good about yourself, please, help yourself. Part of the environment is its natural beauty... ruining that doesn't seem like a good alternative energy source to me when there are other ways. Nuclear power for example... oh yes, I said the N word... come on, bring on the 2 or 3 anecdotal responses you can copy and paste to that word. The fact is it is the most intelligent power option available to us.

3. Everyone's numbers are pure speculation... but the fact that global warming and cooling is natural isn't speculation. And no, I will never agree with you that just because maybe humans are causing an unknown percentage of the problem that we should do all these foolish things that may or may not do anything to help just because it makes some people feel better about themselves.

4. Your analogy of my spouse smoking would only be relevant if we were siamese twins that shared a single body.

1.  Once again, who cares if it is sustainable or not?  That is not an issue here.  Even if every iota of this supposed "rare mineral" was used up, then those cars it was able to help make would be using less oil. And then we would have to move on to other partial solutions.  Not every solution is global.  Geothermal power is great, but frankly, there are just not that many places where it can be tapped.

2.  Sorry, mis-read your post. ("I drove up to the northern part of Wisconsin a couple weeks ago and I saw one city where all the farm fields had huge white wind mills alllllll over")

But your subjective opinion on beauty has absolutely no bearing on global warming. Just as the opinion of people who happen to like the look of windmills has no bearing on it.  Just as the people who like or hate the look of a Prius has no bearing on whether hybrid cars are a good idea or not in increasing fuel efficiency. Aesthetics are a valid issue, but they have no bearing on the science of the problem. 

And why would you assume that I have a problem with nuclear power?  I happen to be a proponent of nuclear power as a valid source of energy.  I may not agree that it is the "most intelligent," as you put it, but France certainly has had continued success with it.

3.  I am not sure if you are deliberately being obtuse, but I have gone out of my way to point out that many of the solutions being proposed for combating global warming do in fact have very valid beneficial effects beyond the global warming issue. Your hated windmills, for example, reduce dependency on foreign fossil fuels, provide a growth industry in areas being hit by loss of jobs, reduce pollution, and produce cheaper energy than oil-fired or nuclear plants.  How is that only a "feel good" action?  I am really at a loss as to your thinking here.

4.  No analogy is perfect, but I think you have his one interpreted wrong.  Not stopping smoking because your spouse still smokes is rather analogous to China and Thailand, or China and any other country. Sure, if China (and I am only using China as an example as many people point to them) continues to pollute, then other nations will suffer their "second-hand smoke."  But it would still be better to clean up their own air and contribute what they can to limit global warming.

[Rionoir]

About China... if countries like the US continue to tax the hel_l out of industry, all that will happen is that the jobs are going to move to China and India. Yes, it will reduce the industrial pollution in our own countries, but it isn't going to reduce the amount of pollution on the planet, thus it won't impact global warming at all... actually it will probably make it worse, because China and India probably don't have any regulations on their industrial pollution output... so for every item they make there, I bet they actually produce MORE pollution. Like I said, it's just feel-good policies so we think we're cleaning up our own air (which we are), but fail to realize it's absolutely non-existant impact on the overall condition.

Sorry, I assumed you are anti-nuclear cuz almost all people on your side of the issue in the US are. LoL It's a joke really. They bitch and moan about needing cleaner and renewable energy sources, but yet they won't let us use the best source of power we have right now. Instead we have to turn our countrysides into eyesores... oh, that is SO much better. LoL (sorry, we're never gonna agree on windmills... unless they learn how to put them where we can't see them.)

[bonobo]

About China... if countries like the US continue to tax the hel_l out of industry, all that will happen is that the jobs are going to move to China and India. Yes, it will reduce the industrial pollution in our own countries, but it isn't going to reduce the amount of pollution on the planet, thus it won't impact global warming at all... actually it will probably make it worse, because China and India probably don't have any regulations on their industrial pollution output... so for every item they make there, I bet they actually produce MORE pollution. Like I said, it's just feel-good policies so we think we're cleaning up our own air (which we are), but fail to realize it's absolutely non-existant impact on the overall condition.

Sorry, I assumed you are anti-nuclear cuz almost all people on your side of the issue in the US are. LoL It's a joke really. They bitch and moan about needing cleaner and renewable energy sources, but yet they won't let us use the best source of power we have right now. Instead we have to turn our countrysides into eyesores... oh, that is SO much better. LoL (sorry, we're never gonna agree on windmills... unless they learn how to put them where we can't see them.)

People cannot be shoe-horned into one-size-fits all boxes.  Nuclear power makes sense to me as a clean source of energy, and I think the waste-storage problem can be solved. Many environmentalists are against windmills because raptors occasionally fly into them. "Environmental" actions against tuna setting on dolphins actually increased catastrophic sets and dolphin deaths (113 dolphins the last year US fleets could set on dolphins to over 35,000 dolphin deaths the next year when the industry moved to Mexican boats) and destroyed tuna populations by fishing immature fish.

What I am writing is that just because a person tends to one side or another of an argument that he or she accepts every single thing said or proposed by others on the same side.

I don't happen to be so keen on the taxing system proposals about which I have heard or read so far. But many other proposals make pretty good sense to me.

One point on China, and I am no Sinophile.  The Chinese have been making great strides in combatting pollution.  They have converted entire cities of over a million, in one case, to being "green" cities.  The green revolution offers some tremendous economic opportunities, but if the west dilly-dallies too long, look to China to be the world leader in these industries.  

[Galong]

Founder of The Weather Channel warns of ‘dramatic turn toward a colder climate’

Meteorologist John Coleman - Global Warming: It is a hoax. It is bad science. It is high-jacking public policy. It is the greatest scam in history.

By John Coleman

January 28, 2009 (Revised and edited February 11, 2009)

FYI, from this site",Meteorologists are not required to take a course in climate change, this is not part of the NOAA/NWS [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Weather Service] certification requirements, so university programs don’t require the course (even if they offer it). So we have been educating generations of meteorologists who know nothing at all about climate change."

How did we ever get to this point where bad science is driving big government to punish the citizens for living the good life that fossil fuels provide for us?

The good life? Do you actually believe that there are absolutely no downside to this view? The future of the human race will suffer for OUR lack of anything resembling sacrifice or acceptance that we're the root of the earth's problems. Currently, we pumping an average of 27,000,000,000 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere annually. What natural forces do you or your side claim are causing the climate change?

Putting your faith in this guy is very dangerous and he has no credentials for being the authority on such an important subject. He's claiming that we're heading for another ice age, because a few areas are experiencing cold spells... huh? Well, if he knew anything about climate change, he'd know that it affects different areas differently. The fact is, global warming is real. Only a moron would flat-out deny that. Ice doesn't melt because it's getting colder and glaciers don't disappear because the overall temperature is dropping... geez.

We have been at a point where the government has punished the environment for the sake of growth and profit. Isn't it about time someone else gets a crack at trying to tackle the blatant pollution and potentially-fatal climate changing track we're on?

We've all been punished by past administrations and our general lack of health, the state of the air that we're forced to breathe, the fact that there is nowhere on earth where man's footprint in one way or another isn't present, the fact that there are dangerous levels of mercury (a direct result of burning coal) in almost all seafood, the fact that plastic is more common than plankton in many parts of the sea, the fact that we have altered more than half of the earth's surface, the fact that jungles are still being clear-cut for cattle farming (jungles and forests being the lungs of the earth - along with the oceans) etc, etc... isn't this proof that the status quo isn't working? Sorry, but YOUR good life and mine aren't the same. I value human health and environmental health over convenience, thank you.

Nonetheless, today we have the continued claim that carbon dioxide is the culprit of an uncontrollable, runaway man-made global warming. We are told that when we burn fossil fuels we are leaving a dastardly carbon footprint. And, we are told we must pay Al Gore or the environmentalists for this sinful footprint. Our governments on all levels are considering taxing the use of fossil fuels. The Federal Environmental Protection Agency is on the verge of naming CO2 as a pollutant and strictly regulating its use to protect our climate. The new President and the US Congress are on board. Many state governments are moving on the same course.

We are already suffering from this CO2 silliness in many ways. Our energy policy has been strictly hobbled by the prohibiting of new refineries and of drilling for decades. We pay for the shortage this has created every time we buy gas. On top of that, the whole issue of corn based ethanol costs us millions of tax dollars in subsidies, which also has driven up food prices. All of this is a long way from over.

Yet I am totally convinced there is no scientific basis for any of it.

Wow, where to start... it is not only CO2 that has been scientifically proven to be a greenhouse gas, but also CFCs, methane (24 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2) and others which actually act at a much higher rate in creating the greenhouse effect. Real scientists, not meteorologists who often can't even get short-term weather predictions right, have taken ice core samples and figured out what was in the atmosphere during past heating and cooling phases. During the Eocene Period, for example, the main culprit was methane, not CO2 that caused an average rise in temperate zone temperatures of 8 degrees C and a 5 degree C rise in tropical regions. This hot spell lasted 200,000 years.

Ethanol is NOT the answer to the fuel problems. Very few environmentalists support using corn for fuel. It's an inefficient use of land and the subsides are down-right appauling. Don't try to group all environmentalists in one box. Alternative fuel sources are not such a black and white issue and when big business comes into play, you can bet big money is the ultimate goal instead of the environment.

Corn should be eaten by people, not used for fuel and not fed to cows. It takes 10 Lbs of corn to produce 1 Lb of beef... not a good ROI.

We, especially those of us in the First World, somehow think it's our God-given right to waste energy. We moan about the very concept of sacrifice for the greater good, calling it socialism and other unwanted labels. The fact of the matter is that we need to be more fuel efficient and it's greed and apathy that drives our desire to remain on this obviously dangerous course.

Global Warming: It is a hoax. It is bad science. It is high-jacking public policy. It is the greatest scam in history.

The greatest scam in history! OMG, considering all of the scams in history, this in and of itself should be proof enough that this guy is way out in left field somewhere. Besides not being an actual scientist, he is betting everyone's life on his theory and I for one don't appreciate it. He's Fox New's spokesperson for the global warming hoax. That is interesting as we all know how fair and balanced their views tend to be.

The only logical thing to do is start taking better care of the earth, even if that means you don't get to drive your massive SUV solo whenever you feel like it. We all need to be more responsible.

Edited September 14, 2009 by Galong

[yabaaaa]

quote]

People cannot be shoe-horned into one-size-fits all boxes.  Nuclear power makes sense to me as a clean source of energy, and I think the waste-storage problem can be solved. Many environmentalists are against windmills because raptors occasionally fly into them. "Environmental" actions against tuna setting on dolphins actually increased catastrophic sets and dolphin deaths (113 dolphins the last year US fleets could set on dolphins to over 35,000 dolphin deaths the next year when the industry moved to Mexican boats) and destroyed tuna populations by fishing immature fish.

What I am writing is that just because a person tends to one side or another of an argument that he or she accepts every single thing said or proposed by others on the same side.

I don't happen to be so keen on the taxing system proposals about which I have heard or read so far. But many other proposals make pretty good sense to me.

One point on China, and I am no Sinophile.  The Chinese have been making great strides in combatting pollution.  They have converted entire cities of over a million, in one case, to being "green" cities.  The green revolution offers some tremendous economic opportunities, but if the west dilly-dallies too long, look to China to be the world leader in these industries.  

Theyve had almost 60 years to think about how to dispose of it and so far.....................................

[chuckd]

It is, apparently, a waste of time to explain points made........you don't seem to grasp what is happening. Maybe it is time to post some links about "skeptics" and BIG OIL, which you seem to think does not exists or is not influential:

Here is one that makes interesting reading: http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/gl...y/exxon-secrets

JR:

Did you ever stop to think that you might not have to explain your points if they were concise, well made and thought out?

Many of us grasp what is happening on the climate change discussion. What we can't understand is why all you greenies keep telling us the discussion is closed.

[JR Texas]

It is, apparently, a waste of time to explain points made........you don't seem to grasp what is happening. Maybe it is time to post some links about "skeptics" and BIG OIL, which you seem to think does not exists or is not influential:

Here is one that makes interesting reading: http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/gl...y/exxon-secrets

JR:

Did you ever stop to think that you might not have to explain your points if they were concise, well made and thought out?

Many of us grasp what is happening on the climate change discussion. What we can't understand is why all you greenies keep telling us the discussion is closed.

No.......that never occurred to me..........the reason is because I have responded in a concise and clear fashion........my views are not out of step with mainstream scientific thought on the subject.

The opposition does not present any well-thought out information based on science. They fail to respond in any reasonable fashion to information that is in direct opposition of what BIG OIL wants them to believe. They post, over and over again, pseudo-science nonsense taken off of crackpot websites funded by right wing lunatics who serve BIG OIL.

The reason people are stating the debate is dead is because it is DEAD. It already took place among mainstream scientists. Most nations are using the consensus views from those past debates to implement new policy.

The reason you think the debate is not over is because that is what BIG OIL wants you to think. They want to create as much doubt as possible. You also may not understand how science works..........you never get 100% agreement on anything. So, in one sense, there is always a debate.

But when the overwhelming consensus surfaces among responsible scientists..........the debate is over. This same thing happened when we discovered, to our amazement, that the earth was not flat.

A consensus surfaced........even after that, there were still some people (skeptics) who refused to believe it was round. History now looks at them as misguided. There is a lesson there for current skeptics of the global climate change consensus.

I have posted this twice, but here is goes again:

On climate change, the scientific debate is long over....The "skeptic" position is not an attempt at scientific inquiry, it's a PR scam, funded largely by coal and oil interests and run largely out of American right-wing think tanks. The point of climate skepticism, politically, is not to engage in fruitful discussion. It is to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt about the overwhelmingly clear science on climate change and the moral imperative to act quickly to stave off climate change's worst consequences. By repeatedly posting "skeptical" and confrontational comments about climate science whenever climate solutions are discussed, anti-environmentalists hope to hijack discussion and slow movement toward climate solutions.

[Rionoir]

It's like a parody of a democrat... except he's serious... LoL

[JR Texas]

Global Warming: It is a hoax. It is bad science. It is high-jacking public policy. It is the greatest scam in history.

For those who want to know where this endless stream of nonsense is coming from, check out these two links:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/32482

http://www.newsweek.com/id/40740

I've already given links to real science.........these articles simply point out the obvious truth...........follow the money and you discover where the skeptics are getting their views from...........certainly not from mainstream, respectable scientists.

The old debate about who and what is causing the rapid pattern of climate change we are now witnessing is over...........the skeptics lost. All they can do now is post pseudo-scientific trash (funded by BIG OIL) on the internet, in a vain attempt to create doubt.

There is an actual debate taking place among responsible scientists who work in the field of climate change. The debate is how much damage will take place, where, when, and what to do about it.

You can either be part of the problem or part of the solution..........it is up to you.

[teatree]

A decade or so from now temperatures will have plummeted to levels not experienced in living memory. I can just imagine an old lady trudging through a foot of snow after a May snow storm in order to pay her carbon tax that is going to save the world from global warming. It would be pretty funny if it wasn't so likely to happen.

Incidentally, can anyone point me to the climate model that predicted the current cooling period?

And if there wasn't A SINGLE MODEL that did, how can anyone take the pseudo-scientists who predicted temperatures increasing exponentially seriously?

[cdnvic]

Is there any real Thai relevance left in this topic? Seems like the same arguments being traded back and forth.

[JR Texas]

A decade or so from now temperatures will have plummeted to levels not experienced in living memory. I can just imagine an old lady trudging through a foot of snow after a May snow storm in order to pay her carbon tax that is going to save the world from global warming. It would be pretty funny if it wasn't so likely to happen.

Incidentally, can anyone point me to the climate model that predicted the current cooling period?

And if there wasn't A SINGLE MODEL that did, how can anyone take the pseudo-scientists who predicted temperatures increasing exponentially seriously?

More misleading nonsense from the crackpots at the Univ. of Skeptics......if you think in terms of geological time, for the past 60,000,000 years we have been in a "cooling period."

Remember, the earth has been around for billions of years.........over geological time, there have been extremely long warm and cool cycles.

There was actually a time when sea levels were much higher than they are today.........desert areas in the Middle East were underwater. Tropical trees were growing in northern zones. Why? It was a warm period.

The problem is that temperatures are going up (and changing climate patterns that the modern world has adapted to) in an extraordinarily short period of time due to our environmentally unsound economic activities.

And if we allow this to continue, our way of life..........how we life, where we live, what we do..........will change, causing massive social and economic problems.

[cdnvic]

I didn't think so. Time to put this endless loop to rest.