Here are a bunch of links relating to the global warming controversy.

If you are serious about the issue click on some of the links. If you are merely interested in spouting past held beliefs and parroting the main strem media and Al Gore do not bother.
http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDc0MTY2NmVlOWNiNjc4ODk0NGUzMDE2YTRlMjMxNzc=

http://www.epw.senate.gov/109th/Carter_Testimony.pdf

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21920043-27197,00.html

http://www.thehilltimes.ca/html/cover_index.php?display=story&full_path=/2007/August/13/letter4/&c=1

http://climatepolice.wordpress.com/2007/08/10/global-warming-movement-falling-apart/

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=23&Itemid=32

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC0704/S00023.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070801175711.htm


http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=102&Itemid=38%20

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-09/uosc-cdd092507.php

http://www.uah.edu/News/newsread.php?newsID=875

http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002234.html

http://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/ics2007/pdf/ICS176.pdf

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070801174450.htm

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/consensus.pdf

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V10/N3/C1.jsp

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/03/16/the-coming-global-cooling

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070428170229.htm

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/08/nasa_flacks_for_global_warming.html

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/avery042507.htm


http://www.euractiv.com/en/climate-change/scientists-question-computerised-climate-change-models/article-167086

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=175B568A-802A-23AD-4C69-9BDD978FB3CD


http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Facts&ContentRecord_id=8EA35336-7E9C-9AF9-7025-4B6CD20B983A

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/ipccprocessillusion.html

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927B9303-802A-23AD-494B-DCCB00B51A12

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/sppi_ewire_8_24_2007/the_new_math_on_global_warming_un_climate_change_p anel_natural_climate_cycle.htmlhttp://www.upenn.edu/gazette/0507/gaz01.html

http://www.upenn.edu/gazette/0507/gaz01.html

http://www.penraker.com/archives/007725.html

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=04373015-802a-23ad-4bf9-c3f02278f4cf&Issue_id=

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Facts&ContentRecord_id=E1BEFFF7-802A-23AD-4794-179EB41CF348

Looks like you went to a lot of work, Frogger. Just for the record, I respect YOUR views on the subject, with or without backup.

How's that for a novelty around this joint?

:)
SMW

So are you saying that their is no way that the pollution man is causing can have an affect on our weather?

So are you saying that their is no way that the pollution man is causing can have an affect on our weather?
no, the facts are. why let the facts stand in the way of new taxes and Al Gore making money?

Here are some more links of a similar nature.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8641
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/global_warming/2007/12/10/55974.html
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/968
http://mobile2.wsj.com/beta2/htmlsite/html_article.php?id=1&CALL_URL=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119387567378878423.html?mod=opinion_main_comment aries
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,176495.shtml

Oh puh-lease. I could only stand to read a few sentences of the link about NASA and what they claim.

BULLCRAP.

There's a very prominent scientist who works for NASA who has been demoted for speaking the truth about global warming and was told to keep his mouth shut.

The media is so full of hogwash and is doing a fine job at duping the masses, like right here on this thread.

Wake up, people! This is a very real and very serious issue and yes, humans have much to do with why our planet is warming at an alarming rate.

Wake up, people! This is a very real and very serious issue and yes, humans have much to do with why our planet is warming at an alarming rate.
But the science says otherwise. :@@:

But the science says otherwise. :@@:
Not entirely true. For every article that says global warming is natural, there's another that says it's man made. (I'm assuming here that you're not one of the weirdos who goes so far as to insist that it doesn't exist at all.)

As I understand it, the debate is not whether CO2 affects the climate or not, but to what degree. You guys make it sound like it is all about Al Gore. Maybe it is in the US, but not in the rest of the world.

As I understand it, the debate is not whether CO2 affects the climate or not, but to what degree. You guys make it sound like it is all about Al Gore. Maybe it is in the US, but not in the rest of the world.

I don't remember mentioning Al Gore at all.

:confused:

But the science says otherwise. :@@:


Not true. Did you read what I posted about the NASA scientist BIG WIG and how he was demoted and silenced about what he reported on global warming? They wanted to shut him up because he knows the truth and spoke out about it.

There's a very excellent documentary on LinkTV about that but I don't think there are too many people around here that ever watch, or have even heard of LinkTV.

How sad that is :-(

Not entirely true. For every article that says global warming is natural, there's another that says it's man made. (I'm assuming here that you're not one of the weirdos who goes so far as to insist that it doesn't exist at all.)
Sure the globe is warming but there is no evidence we are the cause.
What has happened is people have taken a theory based on unproven and dubious climate models and ballooned it up into we are a doomed planet unless we start paying for carbon offset scams.
It has become so bad that scientists who speak out against this scam face character assassination and the loss of their positions.
On top of that it turns out there is no scientific consensus we are causing the globe to warm up in the first place.
Yet people believe we are causing it with the same fanatical mindlessness as people who send money to televangelists for fear of burning in hell if they don't.

Not true. Did you read what I posted about the NASA scientist BIG WIG and how he was demoted and silenced about what he reported on global warming? They wanted to shut him up because he knows the truth and spoke out about it.

There's a very excellent documentary on LinkTV about that but I don't think there are too many people around here that ever watch, or have even heard of LinkTV.

How sad that is :-(
I guess I missed your article, where did you post it? As for video links unless they have subtitles then I can't watch them.

Sure the globe is warming but there is no evidence we are the cause.
What has happened is people have taken a theory based on unproven and dubious climate models and ballooned it up into we are a doomed planet unless we start paying for carbon offset scams.
It has become so bad that scientists who speak out against this scam face character assassination and the loss of their positions.
On top of that it turns out there is no scientific consensus we are causing the globe to warm up in the first place.
Yet people believe we are causing it with the same fanatical mindlessness as people who send money to televangelists for fear of burning in hell if they don't.
Actually, there is plenty of evidence. I don't believe that the evidence is conclusive, but to say that there is no evidence at all is dishonest.

I guess I missed your article, where did you post it? As for video links unless they have subtitles then I can't watch them.

I posted no video link. LinkTV is an independent channel on DirecTV and other various cable networks.

They have no commercials and they aren't run by a huge conglomerate, unlike CBS, NBC, CBS, Fox.. .etc.

They unveil the truth while the other networks listed above are NOT ALLOWED TO.

LinkTV = TV Without Borders

It so rocks!

Actually, there is plenty of evidence. I don't believe that the evidence is conclusive, but to say that there is no evidence at all is dishonest.

Hell yes, you are so right. There is PLENTY of evidence and as the days, weeks and months go by, the evidence becomes more concrete that WE are a big cause of global warming. Not the ONLY cause, but a very big and recent cause.

I believe it wolehearetedly because of the documents I have seen thus far and no, I'm not talking abot Al Gore, if anyone is wondering.

:rolleyes:

Where is this evidence? Where is the smoking gun? And in no way are dubious claims becoming more concrete.

Are you talking about the IPCC documents maybe?

Where is this evidence? Where is the smoking gun? And in no way are dubious claims becoming more concrete.

Are you talking about the IPCC documents maybe?

Again, it's all on LinkTV. I can't post a documentary and it isn't on You-Tube so if you don't have LinkTV, I cannot help you.

What is IPCC?

Again, it's all on LinkTV. I can't post a documentary and it isn't on You-Tube so if you don't have LinkTV, I cannot help you.

What is IPCC?

The IPCC is the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change where most of the claims of man made global warming come from along with claims that most of the world's scientists agree on that theory.

As for LinkTV, do the videos they show have captioning?

And in no way are dubious claims becoming more concrete.

HAHAHA!! That's what I'm talking about! You have been duped by the media, obviously.

The IPCC is the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change where most of the claims of man made global warming come from along with claims that most of the world's scientists agree on that theory.

As for LinkTV, do the videos they show have captioning?

I don't know who made the docs right off hand, and they have captioning only if they are not in English, but the ones I'm talking about ARE in English.

HAHAHA!! That's what I'm talking about! You have been duped by the media, obviously.
Or maybe you are being duped by the media since the media more often than not crams such crazy theories in our faces.

I don't know who made the docs right off hand, and they have captioning only if they are not in English, but the ones I'm talking about ARE in English.
The reason why I ask is because I'm deaf and cannot hear the audio no matter what language it is in.

Where is the smoking gun?
Colonel Mustard, in the conservatory.

Scumbelina,

Those who believe in anthropomorphic global warming have been known to threaten those who disagree with them. Here is a copy of an email sent to a skeptic by an anthropomorphic GW advocate.
Marlo –

You are so full of crap.

You have been proven wrong. The entire world has proven you wrong. You are the last guy on Earth to get it. Take this warning from me, Marlo. It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar. If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America. Go ahead, guy. Take me on.

Mike
Michael T. Eckhart
President
American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE)

Frogger, you know very well that not all the man made global warming activists are like that. There is probably stuff like that coming from both sides.

DF,

I know that to the same extent that Scumbalina knows that not all gw skeptics act like the one she mentioned.

As for whether or not Global Warming is even happening, more and more scientsts are beginning to say it isn't and that the Earth will instead be cooling.

The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 and every year since 2001. (David Whitehouse)

Al Gore says global warming is a planetary emergency. It is difficult to see how this can be so when record low temperatures are being set all over the world. In 2007, hundreds of people died, not from global warming, but from cold weather hazards. (David Deming)

Ilulissat, Greenland – The July 27-29 2007 U.S. Senate trip to Greenland to investigate fears of a glacier meltdown revealed an Arctic land where current climatic conditions are neither alarming nor linked to a rise in man-made carbon dioxide emissions, according to many of the latest peer-reviewed scientific findings. Research in 2006 found that Greenland has been warming since the 1880's, but since 1955, temperature averages at Greenland stations have been colder than the period between 1881-1955.
A 2006 study found Greenland has cooled since the 1930's and 1940's, with 1941 being the warmest year on record. Another 2006 study concluded Greenland was as warm or warmer in the 1930's and 40's and the rate of warming from 1920-1930 was about 50% higher than the warming from 1995-2005. (Marc Morano)
the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2.
...lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, show little if any global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent).
...there are strong indications from solar studies that Earth's current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades (Bob Carter)

"Global temperatures have not been rising for eight years. New Zealand temperatures in the last 50 years have gone down with volcanoes and up with El Niños but have no signs of ‘warming'. Christchurch has not warmed since 1917. The sea level in Auckland has been much the same since 1960. (Press Release: New Zealand Climate Science Coalition)

Multi-scale analysis of global temperature changes and trend of a drop in temperature in the next 20 years. (Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics 95: 115-121.)

An article has appeared in a recent issue of Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics with a curious title "Multi-scale analysis of global temperature changes and trend of a drop in temperature in the next 20 years."(World Climate Report)

Frogger the globe has been on a heating trend for 10,000 years since the last ice age. You may have some dips and stalls in that trend but it is still on the way up.
Are we causing it? No.

...the media more often than not crams such crazy theories in our faces.

Right you are but I'm talking about an uncontrolled media, meaning they don't have to follow the rules other networks are forced to follow. LinkTV is an independent media and can get away with extensive whistleblowing while other networks can't.

The reason why I ask is because I'm deaf and cannot hear the audio no matter what language it is in

Wow, that's too bad and I'm sorry to hear that. I now wish the documentary was subtitled but it isn't.

This show called Panaroma is shown on the BBC network in England and that's who first aired the doc. I'm talking about. Some interesting reading here...


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/5005994.stm


LinkTV showed it over here and here's a small portion of it but unfortunately, you can't hear it but you can read what it's about.

http://www.linktv.org/programs/climate

Scumbelina,

Those who believe in anthropomorphic global warming have been known to threaten those who disagree with them. Here is a copy of an email sent to a skeptic by an anthropomorphic GW advocate.
Marlo –

You are so full of crap.

You have been proven wrong. The entire world has proven you wrong. You are the last guy on Earth to get it. Take this warning from me, Marlo. It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar. If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America. Go ahead, guy. Take me on.

Mike
Michael T. Eckhart
President
American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE)


Froggie, I had to look the word "anthropomorphic" up and it isn't in the dictionary I own but I know what yer getting at. Funny thing is, the exact same thing is being done in reverse!

I hope you get a chance to look at the links I just posted. Sure, they may lean to the left in some people's minds, but they lean to the right, meaning correct, in mine. ;)

Frogger, you know very well that not all the man made global warming activists are like that. There is probably stuff like that coming from both sides.

Touché

Scumbelina,

I read the article you posted and I find it to be poorly written and filled with untrue facts. It is basically an anti-Bush diatribe.

The article says thqt hurricane activity will increase because of Global Warming and talks about Hurricane Katrina. It uses Katrina as proof of increased hurricane activity. The problem is, hurricane activity has actually decreased. Despite the dire predictions by Global Warming alarmists recent hurricane seasons have been less active than usual.

Right you are but I'm talking about an uncontrolled media, meaning they don't have to follow the rules other networks are forced to follow. LinkTV is an independent media and can get away with extensive whistleblowing while other networks can't.



Wow, that's too bad and I'm sorry to hear that. I now wish the documentary was subtitled but it isn't.

This show called Panaroma is shown on the BBC network in England and that's who first aired the doc. I'm talking about. Some interesting reading here...


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/5005994.stm


LinkTV showed it over here and here's a small portion of it but unfortunately, you can't hear it but you can read what it's about.

http://www.linktv.org/programs/climate
Funny I found this.
Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears “bite the dust.” (LINK) In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement. (LINK)

This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new “consensus busters” report is poised to redefine the debate.

Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

What was the name of the NASA scientist you said was told to shut up?

FROGGIE!

Comparing the temperature from only a few years ago to today is absurd. You gotta look back further than that but here's sumthin:

The ice in Greenland is melting so fast right now, the scientists who are over there studying it are absolutely astounded by what they are seeing.

A few scientists have been going over there, studying the glaciers for several decades now and what they have concluded might make YOU melt.

It's not good. Not at all. Also, some polar bears that are turning into cannibals because they can't find enuff food due to global warming.

Canabalistic polar bears? That should never happen but it surely is.

Funny I found this.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

Ya, that's real funny. You are looking at a goverment controlled/owned site, you goof. I feel I'm wasting my time talking to a very thick wall that needs to be left alone.

[QUOTE]What was the name of the NASA scientist you said was told to shut up

I don't remember his name but he's the 3rd guy on that video, the badling older man. A promiment scientist who studies meteorology, if that means anything to you, and I have a feeling it doesn't

:@@:

Scumbelina,

I read the article you posted and I find it to be poorly written and filled with untrue facts. It is basically an anti-Bush diatribe.

The article says thqt hurricane activity will increase because of Global Warming and talks about Hurricane Katrina. It uses Katrina as proof of increased hurricane activity. The problem is, hurricane activity has actually decreased. Despite the dire predictions by Global Warming alarmists recent hurricane seasons have been less active than usual.

Well, that's ok that you think that but I think otherwise. Incidentally, I've heard on other news programs (unlike what I posted) that hurricanes are on the rise and are most likely due to climate change.

Filled with untrue facts? Should I even bother to ask you to define the untrue facts and prove how untrue they are ? ? ?

Damn. I'm getting too tired to ask even you that.

Oh wait! I already did ;-)

FROGGIE!

Comparing the temperature from only a few years ago to today is absurd. You gotta look back further than that but here's sumthin:

The ice in Greenland is melting so fast right now, the scientists who are over there studying it are absolutely astounded by what they are seeing.

A few scientists have been going over there, studying the glaciers for several decades now and what they have concluded might make YOU melt.

It's not good. Not at all. Also, some polar bears that are turning into cannibals because they can't find enuff food due to global warming.

Canabalistic polar bears? That should never happen but it surely is.


Sorry, Scumbelina but your facts are wrong.

Global Warming advocates are doing exactly what you are saying should not be done. They are using data from only a few years to formulate an hypothesis. A further problem is that the data they are using is wrong.


Check your information on Greenland ice again. It isn't melting rapidly. In fact, it isn't even melting when all the ice, both interior and on the coast is considered.

Your facts about Polar Bears are also wrong. Remember that famous picture of the Polar Bears stranded on the ice floe. The caption said the picture was taken during the winter. That was simply a lie. n The photo was taken at the height of summer. There is also no large decrease in the number of Polar Bears. The story was just another example of false information given out by the Global Warming advocates.

I don't remember his name but he's the 3rd guy on that video, the badling older man. A promiment scientist who studies meteorology, if that means anything to you, and I have a feeling it doesn't

:@@:
I'm pretty open minded but if your assertion that scientists are intimidated based on a claim of a NASA scientist you cannot even remember the name of...
Why should it mean anything to me?

Sorry, Scumbelina but your facts are wrong.

Global Warming advocates are doing exactly what you are saying should not be done. They are using data from only a few years to formulate an hypothesis. A further problem is that the data they are using is wrong.


Check your information on Greenland ice again. It isn't melting rapidly. In fact, it isn't even melting when all the ice, both interior and on the coast is considered.

Your facts about Polar Bears are also wrong. Remember that famous picture of the Polar Bears stranded on the ice floe. The caption said the picture was taken during the winter. That was simply a lie. n The photo was taken at the height of summer. There is also no large decrease in the number of Polar Bears. The story was just another example of false information given out by the Global Warming advocates.

Oh, contraire. You were the one comparing the temps of today to just a few years ago, did you not? I know you posted those stats, I just know it or I'm more tired than I think.

And a pic of a polar bear on an icefloat is not anything I was even talking about. I was talking about cannabistic polar bears, not one floating around on a hunk of ice! I'm talking about the documentary I saw and how very believable it is. And yes, I'll betcha the ice is too melting very rapidy in Greenland.

IS TO! IS TO! IS TO!

Ok, I'm gettin loopy now but you still have not backed up anything that I asked you to but that's ok. You might just go search the net for some right-winged stuff like what's her name did.

The bottom line is - there is a huge COVER UP and many credible reports were EDITED by our gubment about global warming and if you don't believe that ever happened...I may just faint.

<<< There is also no large decrease in the number of Polar Bears. The story was just another example of false information given out by the Global Warming advocates.>>>

I never said there was a LARGE DECREASE in the number of polar bears but there is SOME decrease in their numbers, albeit small but that'll change, unfortunately.

Ok wait. I think yer quoting what you read on that BBC site I posted, yes? Actually, I just found that site tonight and posted it but have not read much of it yet. I am mainly talking about the DOCUMENTARY they showed in LinkTV.

ANYWAY, how do YOU know that the stuff you call untrue is actually untrue? Have you been over to Greenland for the past 20+ years, studying the ice? Have you been taking a census of the polar bear population over the last 20 years there as well?

Gosh, I had no idea

I'm pretty open minded but if your assertion that scientists are intimidated based on a claim of a NASA scientist you cannot even remember the name of...
Why should it mean anything to me?


Oh, and you remember every damned name that is in a 2 hour documentary that has many, many scientists in it, right?

Go to bed, little girl. Yer startin to bother me.

Oh, and you remember every damned name that is in a 2 hour documentary that has many, many scientists in it, right?

Go to bed, little girl. Yer startin to bother me.
You misunderstand, I just want to know who this person is so I can look him up.

I hate to be the one to break it to you, Scumbelina, but Polar Bears have always been cannibalistic. Female Polar Bears steer clear of males because if the males don't want to mate with them they want to kill and eat them. Male Polar Bears are also notorious for eating cubs.

Check your facts on melting ice again. The North Polar Ice is growing as is the South Polar Ice.

GW advocates compare temperatures for only the last few decades at most and use that to extrapolate what temperatures will be in the future. If you look at temperatures over a long time span, hundreds of years, you will see that the Earth is no warmer today than it was at times in the past.

I guess you are going to have to faint because I don't believe there has been a cover up, huge or otherwise. Global Warming has become a cottage industry with no actual science backing it.

You misunderstand, I just want to know who this person is so I can look him up.

Again, I don't remember his name but after doing a little research, this MAY be him. It sure sound like him...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6341451/

Again, I don't remember his name but after doing a little research, this MAY be him. It sure sound like him...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6341451/

YUP! That's him. I just looked up his pic and it is definitely him.

YUP! That's him. I just looked up his pic and it is definitely him.

http://scicolloq.gsfc.nasa.gov/Hansen.html

I hate to be the one to break it to you, Scumbelina, but Polar Bears have always been cannibalistic. Female Polar Bears steer clear of males because if the males don't want to mate with them they want to kill and eat them. Male Polar Bears are also notorious for eating cubs.

Check your facts on melting ice again. The North Polar Ice is growing as is the South Polar Ice.

GW advocates compare temperatures for only the last few decades at most and use that to extrapolate what temperatures will be in the future. If you look at temperatures over a long time span, hundreds of years, you will see that the Earth is no warmer today than it was at times in the past.

I guess you are going to have to faint because I don't believe there has been a cover up, huge or otherwise. Global Warming has become a cottage industry with no actual science backing it.

I give up. You win. :rolleyes:

I gotta go faint into my bed now.

Buh-bye!

Again, I don't remember his name but after doing a little research, this MAY be him. It sure sound like him...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6341451/

IPCC Member: NASA’s Hansen Moving 'Dangerously Away From Scientific Discourse to Advocacy' (http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/08/27/ipcc-member-nasa-s-hansen-moving-dangerously-away-scientific-discours)

I don't remember mentioning Al Gore at all.
:confused:

Was speaking generally about Americans :)
Al Gore always seem to get pulled out in these debates...

IPCC Member: NASA’s Hansen Moving 'Dangerously Away From Scientific Discourse to Advocacy' (http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/08/27/ipcc-member-nasa-s-hansen-moving-dangerously-away-scientific-discours)

Oh, what a surprise. You found a link that discredits Hansen. Well goody for you! For every anti-Hansen link you find, I can find a 2 pro-Hansen links, and for every pro-Bush link you find, I can find 3 anti-Bush links. For every anti-global warming link you find, I can find 4 pro-global warming links.... and so on.

In other words, SO WHAT? What does that prove, other than you and I are on completely different ends of the spectrum?

Listen, I'm not here to get into a link slinging fest with you or anybody else. My time is more valuable than that but I WILL however, post one more link because I think it sums up what I believe is the truth.

You don't have to agree with any of it (boo hoo hoo) but you really oughta read it.

I'll put in on a fresh post, one not tainted by your silly arrogance.

Was speaking generally about Americans :)
Al Gore always seem to get pulled out in these debates...

That makes more sense :)

http://www.mindfully.org/Air/2006/James-E-Hansen-NASA29jan06.htm


The top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out since he gave a lecture last month calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming.

The scientist, James E. Hansen, longtime director of the agency's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said in an interview that officials at NASA headquarters had ordered the public affairs staff to review his coming lectures, papers, postings on the Goddard Web site and requests for interviews from journalists.

Dr. Hansen said he would ignore the restrictions. "They feel their job is to be this censor of information going out to the public," he said.

Dean Acosta, deputy assistant administrator for public affairs at the space agency, said there was no effort to silence Dr. Hansen. "That's not the way we operate here at NASA," Mr. Acosta said. "We promote openness and we speak with the facts."

He said the restrictions on Dr. Hansen applied to all National Aeronautics and Space Administration personnel. He added that government scientists were free to discuss scientific findings, but that policy statements should be left to policy makers and appointed spokesmen.

Mr. Acosta said other reasons for requiring press officers to review interview requests were to have an orderly flow of information out of a sprawling agency and to avoid surprises. "This is not about any individual or any issue like global warming," he said. "It's about coordination."

Dr. Hansen strongly disagreed with this characterization, saying such procedures had already prevented the public from fully grasping recent findings about climate change that point to risks ahead.

"Communicating with the public seems to be essential," he said, "because public concern is probably the only thing capable of overcoming the special interests that have obfuscated the topic."

Dr. Hansen, 63, a physicist who joined the space agency in 1967, directs efforts to simulate the global climate on computers at the Goddard Institute in Morningside Heights in Manhattan.

Since 1988, he has been issuing public warnings about the long-term threat from heat-trapping emissions, dominated by carbon dioxide, that are an unavoidable byproduct of burning coal, oil and other fossil fuels. He has had run-ins with politicians or their appointees in various administrations, including budget watchers in the first Bush administration and Vice President Al Gore.

In 2001, Dr. Hansen was invited twice to brief Vice President Dick Cheney and other cabinet members on climate change. White House officials were interested in his findings showing that cleaning up soot, which also warms the atmosphere, was an effective and far easier first step than curbing carbon dioxide.

He fell out of favor with the White House in 2004 after giving a speech at the University of Iowa before the presidential election, in which he complained that government climate scientists were being muzzled and said he planned to vote for Senator John Kerry.

But Dr. Hansen said that nothing in 30 years equaled the push made since early December to keep him from publicly discussing what he says are clear-cut dangers from further delay in curbing carbon dioxide.

In several interviews with The New York Times in recent days, Dr. Hansen said it would be irresponsible not to speak out, particularly because NASA's mission statement includes the phrase "to understand and protect our home planet."

He said he was particularly incensed that the directives had come through telephone conversations and not through formal channels, leaving no significant trails of documents.

Dr. Hansen's supervisor, Franco Einaudi, said there had been no official "order or pressure to say shut Jim up." But Dr. Einaudi added, "That doesn't mean I like this kind of pressure being applied."

The fresh efforts to quiet him, Dr. Hansen said, began in a series of calls after a lecture he gave on Dec. 6 at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco. In the talk, he said that significant emission cuts could be achieved with existing technologies, particularly in the case of motor vehicles, and that without leadership by the United States, climate change would eventually leave the earth "a different planet."

The administration's policy is to use voluntary measures to slow, but not reverse, the growth of emissions.

After that speech and the release of data by Dr. Hansen on Dec. 15 showing that 2005 was probably the warmest year in at least a century, officials at the headquarters of the space agency repeatedly phoned public affairs officers, who relayed the warning to Dr. Hansen that there would be "dire consequences" if such statements continued, those officers and Dr. Hansen said in interviews.

Among the restrictions, according to Dr. Hansen and an internal draft memorandum he provided to The Times, was that his supervisors could stand in for him in any news media interviews.

Mr. Acosta said the calls and meetings with Goddard press officers were not to introduce restrictions, but to review existing rules. He said Dr. Hansen had continued to speak frequently with the news media.

But Dr. Hansen and some of his colleagues said interviews were canceled as a result.

In one call, George Deutsch, a recently appointed public affairs officer at NASA headquarters, rejected a request from a producer at National Public Radio to interview Dr. Hansen, said Leslie McCarthy, a public affairs officer responsible for the Goddard Institute.

Citing handwritten notes taken during the conversation, Ms. McCarthy said Mr. Deutsch called N.P.R. "the most liberal" media outlet in the country. She said that in that call and others, Mr. Deutsch said his job was "to make the president look good" and that as a White House appointee that might be Mr. Deutsch's priority.

But she added: "I'm a career civil servant and Jim Hansen is a scientist. That's not our job. That's not our mission. The inference was that Hansen was disloyal."

Normally, Ms. McCarthy would not be free to describe such conversations to the news media, but she agreed to an interview after Mr. Acosta, at NASA headquarters, told The Times that she would not face any retribution for doing so.

Mr. Acosta, Mr. Deutsch's supervisor, said that when Mr. Deutsch was asked about the conversations, he flatly denied saying anything of the sort. Mr. Deutsch referred all interview requests to Mr. Acosta.

Ms. McCarthy, when told of the response, said: "Why am I going to go out of my way to make this up and back up Jim Hansen? I don't have a dog in this race. And what does Hansen have to gain?"

Mr. Acosta said that for the moment he had no way of judging who was telling the truth. Several colleagues of both Ms. McCarthy and Dr. Hansen said Ms. McCarthy's statements were consistent with what she told them when the conversations occurred.

"He's not trying to create a war over this," said Larry D. Travis, an astronomer who is Dr. Hansen's deputy at Goddard, "but really feels very strongly that this is an obligation we have as federal scientists, to inform the public."

Dr. Travis said he walked into Ms. McCarthy's office in mid-December at the end of one of the calls from Mr. Deutsch demanding that Dr. Hansen be better controlled.

In an interview on Friday, Ralph J. Cicerone, an atmospheric chemist and the president of the National Academy of Sciences, the nation's leading independent scientific body, praised Dr. Hansen's scientific contributions and said he had always seemed to describe his public statements clearly as his personal views.

"He really is one of the most productive and creative scientists in the world," Dr. Cicerone said. "I've heard Hansen speak many times and I've read many of his papers, starting in the late 70's. Every single time, in writing or when I've heard him speak, he's always clear that he's speaking for himself, not for NASA or the administration, whichever administration it's been."

The fight between Dr. Hansen and administration officials echoes other recent disputes. At climate laboratories of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, for example, many scientists who routinely took calls from reporters five years ago can now do so only if the interview is approved by administration officials in Washington, and then only if a public affairs officer is present or on the phone.

Where scientists' points of view on climate policy align with those of the administration, however, there are few signs of restrictions on extracurricular lectures or writing.

One example is Indur M. Goklany, assistant director of science and technology policy in the policy office of the Interior Department. For years, Dr. Goklany, an electrical engineer by training, has written in papers and books that it may be better not to force cuts in greenhouse gases because the added prosperity from unfettered economic activity would allow countries to exploit benefits of warming and adapt to problems.

In an e-mail exchange on Friday, Dr. Goklany said that in the Clinton administration he was shifted to nonclimate-related work, but added that he had never had to stop his outside writing, as long as he identified the views as his own.

"One reason why I still continue to do the extracurricular stuff," he wrote, "is because one doesn't have to get clearance for what I plan on saying or writing."

source: http://www.nytimes

More of that same link....



Now that most scientists agree human activity is causing Earth to warm, the central debate has shifted to whether climate change is progressing so rapidly that, within decades, humans may be helpless to slow or reverse the trend.

This "tipping point" scenario has begun to consume many prominent researchers in the United States and abroad, because the answer could determine how drastically countries need to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in the coming years. While scientists remain uncertain when such a point might occur, many say it is urgent that policymakers cut global carbon dioxide emissions in half over the next 50 years or risk the triggering of changes that would be irreversible.

There are three specific events that these scientists describe as especially worrisome and potentially imminent, although the time frames are a matter of dispute: widespread coral bleaching that could damage the world's fisheries within three decades; dramatic sea level rise by the end of the century that would take tens of thousands of years to reverse; and, within 200 years, a shutdown of the ocean current that moderates temperatures in northern Europe.

The debate has been intensifying because Earth is warming much faster than some researchers had predicted. James E. Hansen, who directs NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies, last week confirmed that 2005 was the warmest year on record, surpassing 1998. Earth's average temperature has risen nearly 1 degree Fahrenheit over the past 30 years, he noted, and another increase of about 4 degrees over the next century would "imply changes that constitute practically a different planet."

"It's not something you can adapt to," Hansen said in an interview. "We can't let it go on another 10 years like this. We've got to do something."

Princeton University geosciences and international affairs professor Michael Oppenheimer, who also advises the advocacy group Environmental Defense, said one of the greatest dangers lies in the disintegration of the Greenland or West Antarctic ice sheets, which together hold about 20 percent of the fresh water on the planet. If either of the two sheets disintegrates, sea level could rise nearly 20 feet in the course of a couple of centuries, swamping the southern third of Florida and Manhattan up to the middle of Greenwich Village.

While both the Greenland and the Antarctic ice sheets as a whole are gaining some mass in their cold interiors because of increasing snowfall, they are losing ice along their peripheries. That indicates that scientists may have underestimated the rate of disintegration they face in the future, Oppenheimer said. Greenland's current net ice loss is equivalent to an annual 0.008 inch sea level rise.

The effects of the collapse of either ice sheet would be "huge," Oppenheimer said. "Once you lost one of these ice sheets, there's really no putting it back for thousands of years, if ever."

Last year, the British government sponsored a scientific symposium on "Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change," which examined a number of possible tipping points. A book based on that conference, due to be published Tuesday, suggests that disintegration of the two ice sheets becomes more likely if average temperatures rise by more than 5 degrees Fahrenheit, a prospect "well within the range of climate change projections for this century."

The report concludes that a temperature rise of just 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit "is likely to lead to extensive coral bleaching," destroying critical fish nurseries in the Caribbean and Southeast Asia. Too-warm sea temperatures stress corals, causing them to expel symbiotic micro-algae that live in their tissues and provide them with food, and thus making the reefs appear bleached. Bleaching that lasts longer than a week can kill corals. This fall there was widespread bleaching from Texas to Trinidad that killed broad swaths of corals, in part because ocean temperatures were 2 degrees Fahrenheit above average monthly maximums.

Many scientists are also worried about a possible collapse of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation, a current that brings warm surface water to northern Europe and returns cold, deep-ocean water south. Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, who directs Germany's Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, has run multiple computer models to determine when climate change could disrupt this "conveyor belt," which, according to one study, is already slower than it was 30 years ago. According to these simulations, there is a 50 percent chance the current will collapse within 200 years.

Some scientists, including President Bush's chief science adviser, John H. Marburger III, emphasize there is still much uncertainty about when abrupt global warming might occur.

"There's no agreement on what it is that constitutes a dangerous climate change," said Marburger, adding that the U.S. government spends $2 billion a year on researching this and other climate change questions. "We know things like this are possible, but we don't have enough information to quantify the level of risk."

This tipping point debate has stirred controversy within the administration; Hansen said senior political appointees are trying to block him from sharing his views publicly.

When Hansen posted data on the Internet in the fall suggesting that 2005 could be the warmest year on record, NASA officials ordered Hansen to withdraw the information because he had not had it screened by the administration in advance, according to a Goddard scientist who spoke on the condition of anonymity. More recently, NASA officials tried to discourage a reporter from interviewing Hansen for this article and later insisted he could speak on the record only if an agency spokeswoman listened in on the conversation.

"They're trying to control what's getting out to the public," Hansen said, adding that many of his colleagues are afraid to talk about the issue. "They're not willing to say much, because they've been pressured and they're afraid they'll get into trouble."

But Mary L. Cleave, deputy associate administrator for NASA's Office of Earth Science, said the agency insists on monitoring interviews with scientists to ensure they are not misquoted.

"People could see it as a constraint," Cleave said. "As a manager, I might see it as protection."

John R. Christy, director of the Earth Science System Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, said it is possible increased warming will be offset by other factors, such as increased cloudiness that would reflect more sunlight. "Whatever happens, we will adapt to it," Christy said.

Scientists who read the history of Earth's climate in ancient sediments, ice cores and fossils find clear signs that it has shifted abruptly in the past on a scale that could prove disastrous for modern society. Peter B. deMenocal, an associate professor at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, said that about 8,200 years ago, a very sudden cooling shut down the Atlantic conveyor belt. As a result, the land temperature in Greenland dropped more than 9 degrees Fahrenheit within a decade or two.

"It's not this abstract notion that happens over millions of years," deMenocal said. "The magnitude of what we're talking about greatly, greatly exceeds anything we've withstood in human history."

These kinds of concerns have spurred some governments to make major cuts in the carbon dioxide emissions linked to global warming. Britain has slashed its emissions by 14 percent, compared with 1990 levels, and aims to reduce them by 60 percent by 2050. Some European countries, however, are lagging well behind their targets under the international Kyoto climate treaty.

David Warrilow, who heads science policy on climate change for Britain's Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, said that while the science remains unsettled, his government has decided to take a precautionary approach. He compared consuming massive amounts of fossil fuels to the strategy of the Titanic's crew, who were unable to avoid an iceberg because they were speeding across the Atlantic in hopes of breaking a record.

"We know there are icebergs out there, but at the moment we're accelerating toward the tipping point," Warrilow said in an interview. "This is silly. We should be doing the opposite, slowing down whilst we build up our knowledge base."

The Bush administration espouses a different approach. Marburger said that though everyone agrees carbon dioxide emissions should decline, the United States prefers to promote cleaner technology rather than impose mandatory greenhouse gas limits. "The U.S. is the world leader in doing something on climate change because of its actions on changing technology," he said.

Stanford University climatologist Stephen H. Schneider, who is helping oversee a major international assessment of how climate change could expose humans and the environment to new vulnerabilities, said countries respond differently to the global warming issue in part because they are affected differently by it. The small island nation of Kiribati is made up of 33 small atolls, none of which is more than 6.5 feet above the South Pacific, and it is only a matter of time before the entire country is submerged by the rising sea.

"For Kiribati, the tipping point has already occurred," Schneider said. "As far as they're concerned, it's tipped, but they have no economic clout in the world."

source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/28/AR2006012801021.html 30jan2006

So, I should not send my CV to NASA after my degree then? :D

Let the slams begin but once again, this is what I believe to be true and no one has to agree with it/me.

Commence the Slam Fest.... I'm going elsewhere

:cool:

So, I should not send my CV to NASA after my degree then :D

Heck no, not if you like to speak the truth.

:eek:

Heck no, not if you like to speak the truth.

:eek:

I'll scream it until they throw me out :)

I'll scream it until they throw me out :)

HAHAHAHAA!! They may grab you by the hair and toss you on yer ass!

HAHAHAHAA!! They may grab you by the hair and toss you on yer ass!

Hmm, yeah... Worker rights in the US are not that good :)
I'll try ESA instead then...

Oh, what a surprise. You found a link that discredits Hansen. Well goody for you! For every anti-Hansen link you find, I can find a 2 pro-Hansen links, and for every pro-Bush link you find, I can find 3 anti-Bush links. For every anti-global warming link you find, I can find 4 pro-global warming links.... and so on.

In other words, SO WHAT? What does that prove, other than you and I are on completely different ends of the spectrum?

Listen, I'm not here to get into a link slinging fest with you or anybody else. My time is more valuable than that but I WILL however, post one more link because I think it sums up what I believe is the truth.

You don't have to agree with any of it (boo hoo hoo) but you really oughta read it.

I'll put in on a fresh post, one not tainted by your silly arrogance.



My, my, my, someone is cranky today. Pinky did nothing wrong. You posted a link that supported your view and she posted a link that supported her view. You took umbrage at the fact that she dared post a link that disagreed with yours. You then got personal with the insults.

If you want to post with the grownups perhaps you should act like one. Not everyone is going to agree with you and not everyone is going to accept your links as Gospel truth. Get used to it and get off your high horse.

Pinky did nothing wrong. You did. You got all pissy and nasty because she dared disagree with you.

Grow up!

Jim Hansen is full of crap. The guy has given 1,400, I'll post that number again, 1,400 media interviews and he has the audacity to say he is being muzzled by the Bush White House.

Hansen would also like people to believe he is a lone crusader fighting aqainst the evil Bush establishment. What he fails to mention is that he is being funded by George Soros. He has received a quarter of a million dollars that is known, from Soros and quite possibly more.

Jim Hansen is a lying flack for Soros and the Global Warming alarmsts.

It should be noted that Hansen's data has been found wrong before.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200708/CUL20070816b.html
http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=275267681833290

My, my, my, someone is cranky today. Pinky did nothing wrong. You posted a link that supported your view and she posted a link that supported her view. You took umbrage at the fact that she dared post a link that disagreed with yours. You then got personal with the insults.

If you want to post with the grownups perhaps you should act like one. Not everyone is going to agree with you and not everyone is going to accept your links as Gospel truth. Get used to it and get off your high horse.

Pinky did nothing wrong. You did. You got all pissy and nasty because she dared disagree with you.

Grow up!

Cranky? No, not at all. And you?

Of course not everyone is going to agree with me, that’s a given but you are mistaking my smartassedness with pissiness and nastiness. Whatever. You’ve never heard my nasty side, not even close, but there’s been no need to even go there, thank gawd.

As far as me not acting like a grownup, I’ll let that comment slide while I climb back on my…..



http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/6523/55706437ue7.png


:rolleyes:

Nice horsy :)

Jim Hansen is full of crap. The guy has given 1,400, I'll post that number again, 1,400 media interviews and he has the audacity to say he is being muzzled by the Bush White House.

Hansen would also like people to believe he is a lone crusader fighting aqainst the evil Bush establishment. What he fails to mention is that he is being funded by George Soros. He has received a quarter of a million dollars that is known, from Soros and quite possibly more.

Jim Hansen is a lying flack for Soros and the Global Warming alarmsts.

EXCELLENT!

Nice way to start the what I was waiting for :)

But alas, I must go and enoy (?) a company BBQ right now.

Ta~ta and keep up the good work.

Scumbelina,

Pinkster is a new poster with fewer than fifty posts. She was polite to you even while disagreeing. There was no reason for you to be so harsh in your reply to her. Rather than insulting her you should be welcoming her. We'd like to get new posters to stay rather thaqn driving them away.

That's a cute horse you have but it isn't quite high enough. :D

Enjoy your barbecue but don't pick on the people who are new to the company. Be compassionate and give them a hug instead.

Scumbelina,

Pinkster is a new poster with fewer than fifty posts. She was polite to you even while disagreeing. There was no reason for you to be so harsh in your reply to her. Rather than insulting her you should be welcoming her. We'd like to get new posters to stay rather thaqn driving them away.

That's a cute horse you have but it isn't quite high enough. :D

Enjoy your barbecue but don't pick on the people who are new to the company. Be compassionate and give them a hug instead.

Geez. I don't think I was THAT harsh to her.... was I? :confused:

I think Pinkster is a tuff cookie and won't let anyone drive her away, not even mean-n-nasty ol' me.

And I'm afraid to give her a hug. She might beat me up!

All kidding aside, I apologize for sounding rude but hey, that's why they call me Scummy. ;)

Oh, and I'll be on the lookout for an even higher horse but I found this rather sexy high frog you might like. :thumbs:



http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/825/frogbp6.jpg

She it toadly awesome.

Geez. I don't think I was THAT harsh to her.... was I? :confused:

I think Pinkster is a tuff cookie and won't let anyone drive her away, not even mean-n-nasty ol' me.

And I'm afraid to give her a hug. She might beat me up!

All kidding aside, I apologize for sounding rude but hey, that's why they call me Scummy. ;)

Oh, and I'll be on the lookout for an even higher horse but I found this rather sexy high frog you might like. :thumbs:


Have you ever been beat up by a 4'10" short stack before? :lolhit:

Anyways I wasn't offended or anything. Subjects like this are controversial and people can be passionate about their stance. :)

She it toadly awesome.

I'm glad you like her

:)

Have you ever been beat up by a 4'10" short stack before?

Fortuantely, no. I'd be the laffing stock if that were to happen. No offense but that would tarnish me forever. :@@:

[QUOTE] Subjects like this are controversial and people can be passionate about their stance

That statement is perfect.... and I'm glad I didn't offend you.

Oh what the hell, like it or not, I'm gonna give you a hug. C'mere you lil shit...


:bighug:

Scumbelina,

Pinkster is a new poster with fewer than fifty posts. She was polite to you even while disagreeing. There was no reason for you to be so harsh in your reply to her. Rather than insulting her you should be welcoming her. We'd like to get new posters to stay rather thaqn driving them away.

That's a cute horse you have but it isn't quite high enough. :D

Enjoy your barbecue but don't pick on the people who are new to the company. Be compassionate and give them a hug instead. Frogger did you happen to notice her occupation in her profile?

Oh puh-lease. I could only stand to read a few sentences of the link about NASA and what they claim.

BULLCRAP.

There's a very prominent scientist who works for NASA who has been demoted for speaking the truth about global warming and was told to keep his mouth shut.

The media is so full of hogwash and is doing a fine job at duping the masses, like right here on this thread.

Wake up, people! This is a very real and very serious issue and yes, humans have much to do with why our planet is warming at an alarming rate.

Spoken with true brainwashed fervor - wipe the foam from your mouth.

For every argument there is another argument that says the first argument is BS. For sure - we might have a problem on our hands with man made global warming - but then again maybe not. Whatever - don't trust Al Gore - he's needs to get himself on a diet for one. And don't trust the media - they just cater to whatever is hot right now. One moment its global warming, the next segment is Britney is out on the town without any underwear.

Warming at an alarming rate eh? I haven't noticed a damn thing. Summer is hot - winter is cold. Plus - do you really think that our 50 years of meddling is really significant in the grand scheme of a few billion years - hell 10,000 years ago there was an ice age & even 10,000 years is just a moment. Temperatures will change - we might have an impact, we might not - but in 1 million years - the earth will still be here, the sun will rise, the sun will set, rivers will flow - so move on with your life & quit pretending. When people stop driving cars, move out there houses & into tie-dye tents then we'll know that people are serious about this subject - until then it's just all media crap fit for Oscars, silly Nobel prizes & non commital responses about running for office again.

You first speak like you know what this is about (accusing people for being brainwashed) then you proceed with misleadings or even false arguments.

Firstly, global warming is an increase in temperature that is not noticeable by "hot summers" directly. The current climate on this planet is a fine balance, and it doesn't take much to change it.

Secondly, the world will not end due to global warming, but as you mentioned radical climate change happens often, but you seem to miss the point. The planet go through these changes often and they always have a massive impact on the life on this planet. This is not about the end of the world, but if the last iceage happened again, human civilication would be in great trouble.

Thirdly, CO2 does have a greenhouse effect, we know that. This planet has a carbon cycle that is well balanced. Introducing carbon from fossil fuels puts this out of balance. Fossil carbon is carbon who has been taken out of the regular cycle, but is now reintroduced.

Fourthly, in the grand scheme it is all irrelevant, if humanity dies out, nothing will change really, other species will take our place eventually. You have to be willfully ignorant tho to suggest that our civilization doesn't have an impact on our planet. The consequences are short and insignificant in the billions of years, but is very significant in the short span of generations.

Pretending nothing is wrong will only work for so long, and it is a terribly lazy and selfish attitude.

It seems to me that you Americans are slightly blind to this debate simply because you dislike Al Gore as a person. That and the fear that you may have to stop wasting so much resources over there. You are after all the worst ones in the world by a good head start.

It seems to me that you Americans are slightly blind to this debate simply because you dislike Al Gore as a person. That and the fear that you may have to stop wasting so much resources over there. You are after all the worst ones in the world by a good head start.
No not blind to the debate, some of us just don't take kindly to a hoax designed to steal our money.

Angelina, I don't give a crap about Al Gore. I neither like him nor dislike him. His opinions on global warming have absolutely no effect on my opinions.

It seems to me that you Americans are slightly blind to this debate simply because you dislike Al Gore as a person. That and the fear that you may have to stop wasting so much resources over there.

Hey, don't include me in the Al Gore Haters Club!

In fact, don't include most of us Americans, as we do, as a group, believe there's a big problem to deal with. I'd LOVE it if we stopped wasting our natural resources (and the resources of the rest of the world, in general). Unfortunately, the powers that be over here (read: the Bush administration) are all tied to the oil/gas corporations (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1138009.stm), and would rather set their hair on fire than reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.

:mad:

In fact, don't include most of us Americans, as we do, as a group, believe there's a big problem to deal with. I'd LOVE it if we stopped wasting our natural resources (and the resources of the rest of the world, in general). Unfortunately, the powers that be over here (read: the Bush administration) are all tied to the oil/gas corporations (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1138009.stm), and would rather set their hair on fire than reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.
Yep, there's the problem right there. The government is run by big corporations, including energy companies. Until that changes, all the hybrid car buying and recycling by the little people is only going to go so far - not far enough to fix our environment or our dependency on foreign oil.

Angelina,

Maybe you have said where you are from and I missed it. You keep refering to, 'you Americans'. Are you, 'gasp', Canadian?


It isn't so much that I hate Al Gore as that I find him to be a phony and a lair. His book, An Inconvenient Truth ,is riddled with false statements and hyperbole.

When you actually look at the facts you will see that the Global Warming scare is actually a hoax. There is little, if any global warming and man is not a factor in climate change.

The Polar Bears are not disappearing. The Polar Ice Caps are not disappearing. Sea levels are not rising. Mean temperatures are not rising. In short, there is no discernible global warming.

The scare tactics being used are part of a poltical campaign to cripple Western economies. Notice how it is The West that is asked to bear the brunt of negative economic activity to correct so called global warming while China, India and similar nations are allowed to not only continue pollluting at their present rates but to even sell pollution credits to other countries.

Considering global warming a hoax does not meant that I don't want to see pollution lessened or to see us break our dependence on fossil fuels. It just means I don't want to be forced to take precipitous actions that are not necessary in order to commit economic suicide at the behest of nations that hate The West.

Considering global warming a hoax does not meant that I don't want to see pollution lessened or to see us break our dependence on fossil fuels. It just means I don't want to be forced to take precipitous actions that are not necessary in order to commit economic suicide at the behest of nations that hate The West.
Get ready to start paying more taxes.

A new MIT study concludes that the Sanders-Boxer approach would impose a tax-equivalent of $366 billion annually, or more than $4,500 per family of four, by 2015. And the annual costs will grow after 2015.

The Kyoto Protocol would have imposed an equivalent tax of $300 billion a year, 10 times the size of the Clinton-Gore tax increase of 1993. In addition to the MIT study, a new Congressional Budget Office study released recently, details how a carbon cap-and-trade system would result in massive wealth redistribution from the poor and working class to wealthier Americans.

Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), EPW Ranking Member, said today: "Carbon caps would artificially and needlessly raise the cost of energy the most on the people least able to afford it. It astounds me that any Senator could support such a proposal."


Clinton, Obama Sign Onto to Boxer’s $4500 Climate Tax on American Families (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Facts&ContentRecord_id=71D7EA1F-802A-23AD-47D6-EEB1DABE3D24)

Who says there isn't money to be made from scaring people into believing they are causing the globe to warm up?

You first speak like you know what this is about (accusing people for being brainwashed) then you proceed with misleadings or even false arguments.

Firstly, global warming is an increase in temperature that is not noticeable by "hot summers" directly. The current climate on this planet is a fine balance, and it doesn't take much to change it.

Secondly, the world will not end due to global warming, but as you mentioned radical climate change happens often, but you seem to miss the point. The planet go through these changes often and they always have a massive impact on the life on this planet. This is not about the end of the world, but if the last iceage happened again, human civilication would be in great trouble.

Thirdly, CO2 does have a greenhouse effect, we know that. This planet has a carbon cycle that is well balanced. Introducing carbon from fossil fuels puts this out of balance. Fossil carbon is carbon who has been taken out of the regular cycle, but is now reintroduced.

Fourthly, in the grand scheme it is all irrelevant, if humanity dies out, nothing will change really, other species will take our place eventually. You have to be willfully ignorant tho to suggest that our civilization doesn't have an impact on our planet. The consequences are short and insignificant in the billions of years, but is very significant in the short span of generations.

Pretending nothing is wrong will only work for so long, and it is a terribly lazy and selfish attitude.

It seems to me that you Americans are slightly blind to this debate simply because you dislike Al Gore as a person. That and the fear that you may have to stop wasting so much resources over there. You are after all the worst ones in the world by a good head start.

I'm not American - I'm European

Humanity will die out - it doesn't matter what we do - it'll still die out.

I didn't presume to say nothing is wrong - I said that whatever "changes" are meaured are a blip. Good example - we talk about global warming impacting hurricane seasons - well the last 2 years were pretty much non events - the biggest season on record was in the 1930's. Global warming is a marketing scam - there is enough evidence to the contrary than there is for it. Maybe we should reduce our emissions - makes sense, but the sky is not falling in Chicken Licken style and lets face it Global warming is some kind of flavor of the month. 10 years from now - nothing will have changed & the climate will be whatever it is. To see any change you need to look on the scale of thousands of years - our life span is but a milli-second in the scheme of things & the planets climate changes all on it's own without our help.

I'm not American - I'm European

Humanity will die out - it doesn't matter what we do - it'll still die out.

I didn't presume to say nothing is wrong - I said that whatever "changes" are meaured are a blip. Good example - we talk about global warming impacting hurricane seasons - well the last 2 years were pretty much non events - the biggest season on record was in the 1930's. Global warming is a marketing scam - there is enough evidence to the contrary than there is for it. Maybe we should reduce our emissions - makes sense, but the sky is not falling in Chicken Licken style and lets face it Global warming is some kind of flavor of the month. 10 years from now - nothing will have changed & the climate will be whatever it is. To see any change you need to look on the scale of thousands of years - our life span is but a milli-second in the scheme of things & the planets climate changes all on it's own without our help.

I mostly agree with what you say, but our civilization is very vulnerable to climate changes, even small variatoins can have dramatic consequences. It is documented that the climate can change rapidly as well, it doesn't have to take thousands of years. Global warming has also been documented by many. The denialists will always refute it however.

Angelina,

Maybe you have said where you are from and I missed it. You keep refering to, 'you Americans'. Are you, 'gasp', Canadian?

No, I'm european. This is not america bashing, you lot are the nation in the world who spend most resources per capita, and also seem to be the most reluctant to take action.

It isn't so much that I hate Al Gore as that I find him to be a phony and a lair. His book, An Inconvenient Truth ,is riddled with false statements and hyperbole.

When you actually look at the facts you will see that the Global Warming scare is actually a hoax. There is little, if any global warming and man is not a factor in climate change.

That is not true, if it was that simple, all experts would have agreed, they don't. Al Gore is really irrelevant in this debate as he is not doing this research himself but relying on other sources.

The Polar Bears are not disappearing. The Polar Ice Caps are not disappearing. Sea levels are not rising. Mean temperatures are not rising. In short, there is no discernible global warming.

Polar caps are indeed melting, I have seen the photoes myself, and the data as well, and no, I did not get that from Al Gore :)

The scare tactics being used are part of a poltical campaign to cripple Western economies. Notice how it is The West that is asked to bear the brunt of negative economic activity to correct so called global warming while China, India and similar nations are allowed to not only continue pollluting at their present rates but to even sell pollution credits to other countries.

Everything is used for political gain these days, that doesn't change he facts tho.

Considering global warming a hoax does not meant that I don't want to see pollution lessened or to see us break our dependence on fossil fuels. It just means I don't want to be forced to take precipitous actions that are not necessary in order to commit economic suicide at the behest of nations that hate The West.

Well, that is the other sides scare propaganda :)
It is all a game to some, it is sad and pathetic, and that goes for both sides in this debate.

A satellite survey shows that between 1992 and 2003, the East Antarctic ice sheet gained about 45 billion tonnes of ice



New measurements show the ice in West Antarctica is thickening, reversing some earlier estimates that the sheet was melting.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/cold-science/2002-01-18-wais-thicker.htm

A series of recent studies shows that the polar ice caps, which should be shrinking if dire global warming theories are correct, are maintaining their mass and in fact growing slightly. The studies suggest satellite temperature readings, which indicate no global warming of the lower atmosphere, are more reliable than surface temperature readings, taken by humans under varying conditions, that had indicated a slow, gradual warming.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=851

The demise of the ice caps are greatly exagerrated. The ice cap in Antarctica is growing as are some glaciers in Greenland (others are melting). The record melt this summer has been followed by a return to normal after the winter freeze up.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071213182129AApCtRu

Funny, cause on my coffee table I have an issue of a scientific magazine from august showing satellite images of a melting antarctic icecap with huge reservoirs of inland subterranean melting water.

In addition the glaciers in my own country and on Iceland have dramatically decreased the last decades. But yeah, probably a load of secret Al Gore agents with hairdryers running about...

You have a pretty good sense of humor for a Scandinavian, Angelina.


Have you gone and purchased your shorts, sandals and t-shirt to wear on the beach when your country heats up to the mid-30's?

You have a pretty good sense of humor for a Scandinavian, Angelina.

Have you gone and purchased your shorts, sandals and t-shirt to wear on the beach when your country heats up to the mid-30's?

I wasn't joking. And we have temperatures in the mid 30's anyway in summer, so we can even wear bikinis at times! :)
And the last statement shows how little you know about what global warming actually is.

American denialism ftw!
The "Nothing is wrong, go back to sleep" approach a lot of you seem to have over there, is not doing anyone any good.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report

"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal."
"Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."



Ok, I read your previous links, you obviously didn't

First link talks about the documented melting in ice caps having a short reversal, this article is old, and this reversal according to the recent article i have, didnt last.

Second link is from 2001, same period as the previous, most content there has been refuted since the report the article was based on was released in 99,

Third link is a quote from a forum where that was one of the answers. If you scrolled down a bit you'd see documented answers saying the opposite.

Angelina,

I know at least as much about the anthropogenic global warming hoax as you do. That is why I don't believe all the hype. The Earth is NOT heating up to any great degree and whatever heating is taking place is not caused by people.

Angelina,

I know at least as much about the anthropogenic global warming hoax as you do. That is why I don't believe all the hype. The Earth is NOT heating up to any great degree and whatever heating is taking place is not caused by people.

Gee, well, if denial is your way then so be it...

If blind acceptance is your way then so be it...

There has never been any proof of anthropogenic global warming, never, not once.

When the claims of the GW alarmists are investigated they are found to be either totally false or greatly exagerated. As more time goes by and the subject is better studied more and more reputable scientists are saying it is all hype.

But, hey, if you prefer being a sheep, blindly following the hypers, so be it...

If blind acceptance is your way then so be it...

There has never been any proof of anthropogenic global warming, never, not once.

When the claims of the GW alarmists are investigated they are found to be either totally false or greatly exagerated. As more time goes by and the subject is better studied more and more reputable scientists are saying it is all hype.

But, hey, if you prefer being a sheep, blindly following the hypers, so be it...

There is nothing blind about it, you however seem to be pretty blind to the commonly agreed on facts.

I don't follow the hype, but denying it all just because some make a hype about it is just silly. How can you state there is no proof of global warming when there is plenty proof? How can you say the amount of greenhouse gases have not increased when they have measured that they have? You must be pretty daft to say they made it all up. For what purpose would 600 scientists and 40 nations (including US) make up such a claim?

I'm pretty moderate in my views on this whole climate issue, but denying it out of convenience is just irresponsible. The hype and propaganda is abundant in both camps.

My point on the subject is-the Earth is warming.

I think thats a reasonable position to take-most of us can see warmer summers, milder winters.

Longer dry spells, longer wet spells, subtle changes for most of us, but in some parts it could spell a death knell.

The big question is-'how much is human involvement contributing to the process', and how to reduce that.

In Euroland the powers that be have found this as an excellent way of raising taxes-how paying extra tax reduces global warming-I will never know.

Green Taxes are springing up on anything and everything imaginable.
From buying oranges [which are shipped from Israel and South Africa]
to flying home for xmass [tax the passenger-not the carrier]
Big business can by 'carbon offsets', I need someone to explain that one to me, so they dont get screwed by the tax man.
Green Tax is the next generation of income for Government.


If tax raised was used in a way that the man on the street could see,
then I think it wouldnt be such a bitter pill to swallow.

The Planet goes thru a warming and cooling cycle evey 12,000 years or there abouts-why would it stop doing that because we are around?

I find it impossible to believe that a proper study of human effect can be conducted in less that a 100 year study, by then it may be too late.

Since you seem to feel it is okay to call me daft I hope you don't mind if I call you a fool.

You say I am blind because I don't agree with commonly agreed to facts. There are two problems with that statement. Problem one is that the facts have never been commonly agreed on. Problem two is that more and more scientists who at one time agree with it no longer do so. Are you saying that scientists who have reviewed the data and changed their minds are blind simply because they don't agree with you?

You say you don't follow the hype but that is exactly what you are doing.

You say there is plenty of proof of global warming yet you offer no proof, only hyperbolic drivel.

So now instead of the thousands of scientists Dharmabum claims it is 600 scientists. Six hundred in favor and 400 against and the in favor number is constantly dropping while the against number is constantly growing.

I am not denyilng it out of convenience. I am denying it because it is not true.

Big business can by 'carbon offsets', I need someone to explain that one to me, so they dont get screwed by the tax man.
Green Tax is the next generation of income for Government.

Basically carbon offsets are where you pay somebody to plant trees in Africa to offset the pollution you are causing.

Basically carbon offsets are where you pay somebody to plant trees in Africa to offset the pollution you are causing.
Thanks Pink-yeah its ridiculous to allow Multi Nationals away with this type of bullshit-but tax the small guy.

Who is to say that the trees being planted to cover-say a flight from London to New York,

wont be chopped down in a couple of years.

An area the size of Belgium is lost in the Amazon every year.

Last year they planted 700 million trees in Ethiopia-so what-more goat food.

Its all crazy.

Since you seem to feel it is okay to call me daft I hope you don't mind if I call you a fool.

Actually you were calling me a blind sheep...

You say I am blind because I don't agree with commonly agreed to facts. There are two problems with that statement. Problem one is that the facts have never been commonly agreed on. Problem two is that more and more scientists who at one time agree with it no longer do so. Are you saying that scientists who have reviewed the data and changed their minds are blind simply because they don't agree with you?

The facts you disagreed on, being the statement that the icemasses are declining and the global temperature average is increasing are pretty much agreed on facts. This is what you claimed was a lie, even tho it is based on observations and measured data.

You say you don't follow the hype but that is exactly what you are doing.

No, I don't like the propaganda war, but you seem to subscribe to some conspiracy theory.

You say there is plenty of proof of global warming yet you offer no proof, only hyperbolic drivel.

Well, if you classify everything that doesn't fit your predetermined standpoint as drivel, there isn't much I can do now is there? I have posted a link already...

So now instead of the thousands of scientists Dharmabum claims it is 600 scientists. Six hundred in favor and 400 against and the in favor number is constantly dropping while the against number is constantly growing.

Got any documentation? Or do you just make up stuff as you go?
I was referring to the 2007 climate report by the UN. It has 600 contributors from 40 nations, many US scientists. The report has been reviewed by these nations too.

I am not denyilng it out of convenience. I am denying it because it is not true.

Well, I don't see you provide any evidence it is false, just a loud mouth...

Thanks Pink-yeah its ridiculous to allow Multi Nationals away with this type of bullshit-but tax the small guy.

Who is to say that the trees being planted to cover-say a flight from London to New York,

wont be chopped down in a couple of years.

An area the size of Belgium is lost in the Amazon every year.

Last year they planted 700 million trees in Ethiopia-so what-more goat food.

Its all crazy.

That whole paying your way out is the biggest load of bullshit ever, it solves nothing, green taxes don't help much either.

Exactly-Angie

Whether or not humans are causing global warming isn't the point. The piont is that it is happening and should be stopped bc it is a threat to EVERYONE. I do believe humans are PART of the reason it's happening,with our cars,factories,fossil fuels and all that jazz. All the pollution and killing of important species.

A couple of days ago they had a special on the History channel on the climate. They said the cyclical ice age will come whether we want it or not. The man made global warming might delay it for a few years, but it WILL COME.

Whether or not humans are causing global warming isn't the point. The piont is that it is happening and should be stopped bc it is a threat to EVERYONE. I do believe humans are PART of the reason it's happening,with our cars,factories,fossil fuels and all that jazz. All the pollution and killing of important species.

If global warming is not man made as you admit might be the case how are we supposed to stop it? Should we put up a giant umbrella to shade the Earth from the sun. Should we stop the vast herds of ruminants in Africa from passing gas? What do you propose we do?

Which important species are we killing? Species have been dying out since long before man had the ability to kill them off.

We should stop pollution even if it isn't causing global warming or killing off species of animals. We should stop pollution because doing so will make the world a nicer place to live.

The problem is, the industrialized West is not the major cause of pollution. That honor belongs to the non-industrialized and emerging nations, the same nations the Kyoto Accords do not place any restrictions on.

uh ok i never said at all that humans werent causing it.i actually suggested that we are.i heard on the science channel i think it was (i watch that often:P) that we will lose more species between the years of 1980 and 2045 than weve lost in the last 65 million years.if humans didnt cause that i dont know at could have.i believe humans are the cause of global warming,and im not going to go any further cz i dont want to argue with you.ok?bye.