Global Warming

[BryanS]

My point is that I don't like the idea that the global warming debate can be called "over". How can something as complex, speculative and untested (compared to something that has been proven with experimental and pragmatic confirmation) be closed so quickly? I think there is a common middle that can be found before we all are indoctrinated into the Church of Environmentalism.

Now, lets go into what I do. Whether I am making a dent of difference or it just makes me feel good, I recycle, drive fuel efficient cars, live in a EPA Diamond rated house, buy wind power (at a fixed price of course), etc. And like many other like minded people, I think that global warming is probably a mix of both human and natural activity. (what the ratio is between the two is unclear) So, my main concern is that environmentalism (which like many systems have positive and negative aspects) will become the new socialism with the powers that be (albeit left/right/etc) wielding the power of ration. Personal responsibility and controlled government regulation, not this wild, fanatical doomsday approach where everyone has to carry a carbon card of sorts is going to make a difference. Or companies all of a sudden riding the "green wave" in the name of profit, not accountability.

I'm not keen on carbon cards, or doomsday approaches... but I think the debate is over. Read the IPCC findings. Watch Al Gore's movie, even if you hate him.

I've said it before... admitting you have a problem and doing something about it are two completely different things. Usually, people get offended at the "liberal agenda" of doing something about it (getting rid of SUVs, making everyone ride trains, etc.) I'm not arguing that. But I do think the data is there, the analysis is done to clearly point to the fact that 1.) We have a problem and 2.) Humans are a cause. What we do (or do not do) about it, is a separate issue.

[TheNiche]

Let's say the idiot did that... and normalized it on a scale from 0 to 1. You'd see a big fat 0 for all the years humans have walked the earth... and then a step function straight to 1 over the past 100 years, all the years we've been burning fossil fuels.

I'm glad to see that my suggestion about axis formatting worked out for you.

This is one of those times where I've already said what I want to and am just taking pot shots at silly rhetoric because it amuses me to do so. I have nothing of value to add and do not wish to debate. ...oh, except that Al Gore wasted a lot of energy by using that fork/power lift rather than by tweaking the axis settings. The idiot.

[urban909]

I'm not keen on carbon cards, or doomsday approaches... but I think the debate is over. Read the IPCC findings. Watch Al Gore's movie, even if you hate him.

Let

[lockmat]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html

[ricco67]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html

Dude!

Why are you resurrecting this pointless thread? The horse doesn't have much skin left!

At what point do you jail Global warming disbelievers?

Global warming is a lie.

Figure I'd follow your lead in posting links without a summary of what they're about.

[lockmat]

Dude!

Why are you resurrecting this pointless thread? The horse doesn't have much skin left!

For the same reason the world hasn't stopped discussing it, it's relavent. News, updated info, etc.

Here are some highlights from the wsj article:

It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as "deniers." The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S.

Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted.

The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.)

The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02

[Gary]

For the same reason the world hasn't stopped discussing it, it's relavent. News, updated info, etc.

Here are some highlights from the wsj article:

It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as "deniers." The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S.

Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted.

The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.)

The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02

Ouch!

[lockmat]

I thought it also might be worth discussing in light of the cap and trade deal goin on right now, which the article hits on for a minute.

[Rammer]

I thought it also might be worth discussing in light of the cap and trade deal goin on right now, which the article hits on for a minute.

EVERYBODY needs to read the article in Rolling Stone magazine: 'How Goldman Sachs Runs Washington'

Not only is Goldman Sachs responsible for the tech bubble, the real estate bubble(underwriting), and the oil bubble...they are now prepared to control the CARBON CREDIT market. Goldman has managed to convert pollution into a commodity which they control. Goldman owns a 10% stake in the Chicago Climate Exchange where the carbon credits will be traded. Scumwad Al Gore has started a carbon offset investment company with THREE Goldman Sachs bigshots. READ THE ARTICLE IN ROLLING STONE!!!

[Highway6]

I thought it also might be worth discussing in light of the cap and trade deal goin on right now, which the article hits on for a minute.

Hopefully it doesn't pass the Senate.

[20thStDad]

The bill does more to create a new market than it does good for the environment. Companies and people will survive it, and it might stimulate some economy action. Then again, that's a pretty backwards way to get some economic results.

[RedScare]

Weird, but after setting a record for consecutive 100 degree days, I find myself more willing to listen to global warming theories than in, say, January.

[wxman]

Weird, but after setting a record for consecutive 100 degree days, I find myself more willing to listen to global warming theories than in, say, January.

I don't understand. As somebody who studies this, I don't see how GW is in any way uncommon or un-natural. Why do people believe politician turn "climate expert" Al Gore. The cover of his "documentary," "An Inconvenient Truth" shows a hurricane that is spinning the wrong way! What's your first clue???

Gee, it's over 100 degress in June! Uhhhhh, it's Summer!!! Does that ring a bell? It's hot in the summer time incase you didn't know this already. It it were 100 in January, call me. This has happened multiple times in decades past. Why all of a sudden is it a problem now? Where were all of you in 1980 or 1998? What about the Great Dust Bowl of the mid 30's? It's funny how people catch amnesia when they have power and money to gain by a very blatant lie. The founder of The Weather Channel himself, John Coleman, was quoted as saying that "Global Warming is the greatest scam in history." I agree with Mr. Coleman. Global Warming Alarmists....SHOW ME YOUR PROOF so I can blow holes all in your "research."

First of all, it's not anthropegenic global warming when other planets are warming as well.

Second: There are places on this planet that are not warming but cooling. The globe, as we know it, quite warming in the year 2000. But you don't hear about that do you!

Third: it's funny how, again, amnesia has set in. Why is it when we hit 100 degrees in June it's "GLOBAL WARMING" but in January or February last year (can't remember which) Maine broke it's all time record low of 50 below zero and Illinois tied their all-time record low at 36 below.

Fourth: The tropical Atlantic is in an uptick of tropical activity. It is a multidecadal cycle that happens every 25 years. The current period began in 1995 and will last through approx. 2020. The 2009 season won't produce much either being that El Nino has taken over and the pressure patterns are much more uniform over the ITCZ. Let me guess, it's "just an anomoly?!? Right???" Give me a break.

Fifth: Hurricanes are becoming stronger? Your RIGHT!!! You got me. But you must read the small print. According to Chris Landsea of the National Hurricane Center, hurricanes WILL become stronger...by about 2-3%. So if you have a wind blowing at over 100 mph, is 2% even detectable? Really? People always say "but look at Katrina! First of all, the city is below sea-level...HELLO! Second, they are victims of the government and government cutbacks for the corps of engineers that maintained a Cat. 3 barrier of levees. Katrina, though a Cat. 3 at landfall, carried with it a Cat. 5 surge of 37ft....Ike was a 2 and brought in a Cat. 4 surge. Are hurricanes getting stronger or is their more crap in the way? Was Houston, N.O., Tampa, Miami, or any city for that matter, where they just as big in the 60's as they are today? NO NO NO. Stronger hurricanes or better technology? According to the National Hurricane Center, prior to 1963, an average of 3 storms were missed PER YEAR! Who's to say that they didn't name a storm that produced a 60 mph wind in June? Could have been a cold core system. On the contrary, the National Hurricane Center now names Sub-Tropical storms which they never used to do before which scews the statistics.

Sixth: How can you call it "Global Warming" when most of the accurate temperature data only goes back about 100 years? Most of the ASOS machines are located in the U.S. and Europe. Do we really know what's going on across every square inch of northern Canada, Siberia, Latin America, the jungles of South America and the deserts of Africa or most of Asia? HELL NO. We go by what we see in this country and western europe. NOT TO MENTION that the ASOS station in Houston has been moved no less than 3 times over the past 100 years with each time being further and further inland. First it was at Galveston, then downtown Houston, and finally IAH. Boy, that's accurate!

So before any of you start telling me or anybody else how realistic global warming is, please do your research. What sank the Titanic in 1912??? AN ICEBERG.

[Gary]

I don't understand. As somebody who studies this, I don't see how GW is in any way uncommon or un-natural. Why do people believe politician turn "climate expert" Al Gore. The cover of his "documentary," "An Inconvenient Truth" shows a hurricane that is spinning the wrong way! What's your first clue???

Gee, it's over 100 degress in June! Uhhhhh, it's Summer!!! Does that ring a bell? It's hot in the summer time incase you didn't know this already. It it were 100 in January, call me. This has happened multiple times in decades past. Why all of a sudden is it a problem now? Where were all of you in 1980 or 1998? What about the Great Dust Bowl of the mid 30's? It's funny how people catch amnesia when they have power and money to gain by a very blatant lie. The founder of The Weather Channel himself, John Coleman, was quoted as saying that "Global Warming is the greatest scam in history." I agree with Mr. Coleman. Global Warming Alarmists....SHOW ME YOUR PROOF so I can blow holes all in your "research."

First of all, it's not anthropegenic global warming when other planets are warming as well.

Second: There are places on this planet that are not warming but cooling. The globe, as we know it, quite warming in the year 2000. But you don't hear about that do you!

Third: it's funny how, again, amnesia has set in. Why is it when we hit 100 degrees in June it's "GLOBAL WARMING" but in January or February last year (can't remember which) Maine broke it's all time record low of 50 below zero and Illinois tied their all-time record low at 36 below.

Fourth: The tropical Atlantic is in an uptick of tropical activity. It is a multidecadal cycle that happens every 25 years. The current period began in 1995 and will last through approx. 2020. The 2009 season won't produce much either being that El Nino has taken over and the pressure patterns are much more uniform over the ITCZ. Let me guess, it's "just an anomoly?!? Right???" Give me a break.

Fifth: Hurricanes are becoming stronger? Your RIGHT!!! You got me. But you must read the small print. According to Chris Landsea of the National Hurricane Center, hurricanes WILL become stronger...by about 2-3%. So if you have a wind blowing at over 100 mph, is 2% even detectable? Really? People always say "but look at Katrina! First of all, the city is below sea-level...HELLO! Second, they are victims of the government and government cutbacks for the corps of engineers that maintained a Cat. 3 barrier of levees. Katrina, though a Cat. 3 at landfall, carried with it a Cat. 5 surge of 37ft....Ike was a 2 and brought in a Cat. 4 surge. Are hurricanes getting stronger or is their more crap in the way? Was Houston, N.O., Tampa, Miami, or any city for that matter, where they just as big in the 60's as they are today? NO NO NO. Stronger hurricanes or better technology? According to the National Hurricane Center, prior to 1963, an average of 3 storms were missed PER YEAR! Who's to say that they didn't name a storm that produced a 60 mph wind in June? Could have been a cold core system. On the contrary, the National Hurricane Center now names Sub-Tropical storms which they never used to do before which scews the statistics.

Sixth: How can you call it "Global Warming" when most of the accurate temperature data only goes back about 100 years? Most of the ASOS machines are located in the U.S. and Europe. Do we really know what's going on across every square inch of northern Canada, Siberia, Latin America, the jungles of South America and the deserts of Africa or most of Asia? HELL NO. We go by what we see in this country and western europe. NOT TO MENTION that the ASOS station in Houston has been moved no less than 3 times over the past 100 years with each time being further and further inland. First it was at Galveston, then downtown Houston, and finally IAH. Boy, that's accurate!

So before any of you start telling me or anybody else how realistic global warming is, please do your research. What sank the Titanic in 1912??? AN ICEBERG.

Preach it!

[RedScare]

Whoa! I tell a lame joke, and wxman blows a kingsized gasket. Why don't you blow this same gasket when deniers use weather patterns in their denials?

[barracuda]

Gee, it's over 100 degress in June! Uhhhhh, it's Summer!!! Does that ring a bell? It's hot in the summer time incase you didn't know this already. It it were 100 in January, call me. This has happened multiple times in decades past. Why all of a sudden is it a problem now? Where were all of you in 1980 or 1998? What about the Great Dust Bowl of the mid 30's? It's funny how people catch amnesia when they have power and money to gain by a very blatant lie. The founder of The Weather Channel himself, John Coleman, was quoted as saying that "Global Warming is the greatest scam in history." I agree with Mr. Coleman. Global Warming Alarmists....SHOW ME YOUR PROOF so I can blow holes all in your "research."

Correct, there have and always will be normal temperature variations like the current heat wave.

Second: There are places on this planet that are not warming but cooling. The globe, as we know it, quite warming in the year 2000. But you don't hear about that do you!

You obviously have heard about it. But a slight cooling doesn't have the same ramifications as global warming, which is affecting a much greater percentage of the earth. So, it probably doesn't make the mainstream news like global warming.

Third: it's funny how, again, amnesia has set in. Why is it when we hit 100 degrees in June it's "GLOBAL WARMING" but in January or February last year (can't remember which) Maine broke it's all time record low of 50 below zero and Illinois tied their all-time record low at 36 below.

Again, short-term temperature extremes are not unusual

Sixth: How can you call it "Global Warming" when most of the accurate temperature data only goes back about 100 years? Most of the ASOS machines are located in the U.S. and Europe. Do we really know what's going on across every square inch of northern Canada, Siberia, Latin America, the jungles of South America and the deserts of Africa or most of Asia? HELL NO. We go by what we see in this country and western europe. NOT TO MENTION that the ASOS station in Houston has been moved no less than 3 times over the past 100 years with each time being further and further inland. First it was at Galveston, then downtown Houston, and finally IAH. Boy, that's accurate!

So before any of you start telling me or anybody else how realistic global warming is, please do your research. What sank the Titanic in 1912??? AN ICEBERG.

Historical temperature records are not the only method of tracking this. Scientists look at ancient ice pack and glacial retreat. The Arctic Ocean was not nearly ice-free during any recorded history. Pacific islands inhabited for centuries were never underwater until recently.

As for the article, this is a classic WSJ opinion page. Start with an end-goal in mind, find anyone who will agree with you, and write it up as though there is a "collapse of consensus." Did the author bother to interview opposing scientists, or look at any of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

Average temps have always fluctuated during short time spans. The more important factor is what happens over longer time frames, like the next 50 or 100+ years. And unfortunately, according to the researched non-opinion piece below, climate changes will be worse than expected. I really do hope they're wrong, but I prefer not to bury my head in the sand of conservative spin.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9021401757.html

There are also some graphs from NASA that I'd like to see explained by a skeptic. I'd love to believe you but the facts just don't seem to be in your favor.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

[ricco67]

Preach it!

Ditto!!!Ditto

[Geoff8201]

First of all the term global warming is so 4 years ago... we now call it Climate Change!

Second... the emission of CO2... don't plants breathe that stuff? Plant more trees and we're all saved! Oh yea, we're doing that. I'm looking for air quality more than what the temps are.

Third... If these shifts in climate activity are all natural, then at worst, human activity isn't helping it. Thinking we caused it is quite presumptuous, and to think we're a major factor is also a stretch. We don't help it, especially in concentrated areas. It's like giving someone a gentle kick in the ribs after beating them to a bloody pulp... its not helpful, but not going to really hurt them that much more either. I would like to see the reduction of pollution and all that continue on a slow and steady pace, not so much because I believe its affecting the climate... but cause I like to look out the window and see clear skies, and breathing easy is pretty enjoyable too.

Fourth, one pollutant we don't hear about as much as CO2 emissions is Chlorofluorocarbons, or CFC's. The main damage of CFCs is the Chlorine in it which makes it very stable but very destructive to O3. CFC molecules have the potential to stay in tact and reach stratosphereic Ozone levels without breaking down. Thing is, there has been a massive reduction in use of refrigerant using CFC's like R-11, R-12 and R-22. Being replaced by the now commonly used R-134 and new R-410 Refrigerants. Not to mention the reduction in illegal venting of any refrigerants. If you see anyone venting a refrigerant you can get them in quite a bit of trouble by calling the EPA. It has helped as a deterrent. I really should take that EPA Universal Certification Test eventually.

[wxman]

Correct, there have and always will be normal temperature variations like the current heat wave.

You obviously have heard about it. But a slight cooling doesn't have the same ramifications as global warming, which is affecting a much greater percentage of the earth. So, it probably doesn't make the mainstream news like global warming.

Again, short-term temperature extremes are not unusual

Historical temperature records are not the only method of tracking this. Scientists look at ancient ice pack and glacial retreat. The Arctic Ocean was not nearly ice-free during any recorded history. Pacific islands inhabited for centuries were never underwater until recently.

As for the article, this is a classic WSJ opinion page. Start with an end-goal in mind, find anyone who will agree with you, and write it up as though there is a "collapse of consensus." Did the author bother to interview opposing scientists, or look at any of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

Average temps have always fluctuated during short time spans. The more important factor is what happens over longer time frames, like the next 50 or 100+ years. And unfortunately, according to the researched non-opinion piece below, climate changes will be worse than expected. I really do hope they're wrong, but I prefer not to bury my head in the sand of conservative spin.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9021401757.html

There are also some graphs from NASA that I'd like to see explained by a skeptic. I'd love to believe you but the facts just don't seem to be in your favor.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

Not in my favor? First of all, your "ice cores" show that not only has the planet been warmer, the pole WAS ice free. There were moss groves growing on Antarctica! Not in my favor? There is vast research that shows temperature affects CO2 levels...not the other way around. We've been through a number of ice ages. The last one ending ten thousand years ago. It would only make sense that we are warming. It's funny how people show graphs, they only go back to the late 1800s (for sea level rise, CO2 levels, temperature) and yet if you go back a million plus years, there is a clear pattern of upswings and downswings.

There is also vast research that proves CO2 is not the leading cause of GW. The biggest greenhouse gas we have is water vapor. You want to end global warming, then take the vapor out of the air and we'll all have to learn to live in the desert. Yes, the planet is warming, but not to levels of oblivion like some would have you think.

Do you monitor sun spot activity? There's a strong relation between climate and sunspots as well. Are you aware that there are very little currently? That is also an 11 year cycle. Before I get ramped up again, what are your credentials? I'd love to email you article after article after article after article to back up what i have to say.

BTW, your nasa graphics are moot: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard...-data-last-week

[barracuda]

Not in my favor? First of all, your "ice cores" show that not only has the planet been warmer, the pole WAS ice free. There were moss groves growing on Antarctica! Not in my favor? There is vast research that shows temperature affects CO2 levels...not the other way around. We've been through a number of ice ages. The last one ending ten thousand years ago. It would only make sense that we are warming. It's funny how people show graphs, they only go back to the late 1800s (for sea level rise, CO2 levels, temperature) and yet if you go back a million plus years, there is a clear pattern of upswings and downswings

Of course the poles have been ice free. But the earth was also atmosphere free at one point. We have only been here for several hundred thousand years, so we are left to make educated guesses based on the best evidence. The impact of one hundred thirty years of increasing temperatures correlating with the industrial revolution is still a concern.

There is also vast research that proves CO2 is not the leading cause of GW. The biggest greenhouse gas we have is water vapor. You want to end global warming, then take the vapor out of the air and we'll all have to learn to live in the desert. Yes, the planet is warming, but not to levels of oblivion like some would have you think.

So statics such as those from NASA are incorrect? Or are you saying the predictions based on those statistics are incorrect? If so, which ones and why?

Do you monitor sun spot activity? There's a strong relation between climate and sunspots as well. Are you aware that there are very little currently? That is also an 11 year cycle. Before I get ramped up again, what are your credentials? I'd love to email you article after article after article after article to back up what i have to say.

This doesn't need to be taken personally. I simply disagree with your assertions. Your opinion is in the minority, which doesn't mean it's wrong, but you can't disprove climate change simply by saying we only have 100 years of evidence. Because the fact is, if climate change continues on the trajectory of the last 130 years, which is what the majority of scientists believe, we have something to be concerned about.

[crunchtastic]

OK. So climate change is a hoax, and not man made.

Let's then talk about the ever-increasing cost of mitigating and recovering from severe weather.

Every major weather event now carries more expensive losses. Here, they are mostly property and commerce related but in the less developed world, they cause greater migration and general human suffering on top of that. Funny, that. Poor people around the world have achieved a standard of living good enough to survive in greater numbers, but ultimately make themselves more of a burden on the rest of us when disaster strikes. All those well meaning NGOs aside, many governments, as well as the global finance and insurance industry, find the newfound ability of the third world to hang on to life an expensive impediment, at best.

Assume that those of us in the first world continue to operate as usual, at least in regard to building and living in extreme weather zones. (by that I mean the southwest generally, the coasts, and the midwestern riverways). How do we pay to keep our infrastructure and people safe, with larger numbers of poor migrants (necessary for GDP growth to feed the machine) but increasingly unaffordable, unavailable, or insufficient property insurance? I understand why many believe that measures like cap and trade will be at best ineffective, and at worse will stifle world economies. But I'm willing to bet that continuing to ignor significant, weather-related destruction, disease, and migration will be far worse. I feel that we have allowed politics to corrupt a significant discourse on how to make the planet more bearable, and profitable, for everyone.

[RedScare]

OK. So climate change is a hoax, and not man made.

Let's then talk about the ever-increasing cost of mitigating and recovering from severe weather.

Every major weather event now carries more expensive losses. Here, they are mostly property and commerce related but in the less developed world, they cause greater migration and general human suffering on top of that. Funny, that. Poor people around the world have achieved a standard of living good enough to survive in greater numbers, but ultimately make themselves more of a burden on the rest of us when disaster strikes. All those well meaning NGOs aside, many governments, as well as the global finance and insurance industry, find the newfound ability of the third world to hang on to life an expensive impediment, at best.

Assume that those of us in the first world continue to operate as usual, at least in regard to building and living in extreme weather zones. (by that I mean the southwest generally, the coasts, and the midwestern riverways). How do we pay to keep our infrastructure and people safe, with larger numbers of poor migrants (necessary for GDP growth to feed the machine) but increasingly unaffordable, unavailable, or insufficient property insurance? I understand why many believe that measures like cap and trade will be at best ineffective, and at worse will stifle world economies. But I'm willing to bet that continuing to ignor significant, weather-related destruction, disease, and migration will be far worse. I feel that we have allowed politics to corrupt a significant discourse on how to make the planet more bearable, and profitable, for everyone.

There's bound to be some 'free markets will take care of it' answer to this somewhere. That, and 'poor people are just lazy moochers'.

I'll let that simmer a bit before I comment on your post, crunch.

[barracuda]

I feel that we have allowed politics to corrupt a significant discourse on how to make the planet more bearable, and profitable, for everyone.

^Yes. This should not be a partisan issue. I think some folks just can't stand Al Gore even if his theories are generally accurate.

[Gooch]

Every major weather event now carries more expensive losses.

Of course they do. The price of housing, building materials, and personal property has increased dramatically over the past 50 years. When the media quotes XXX event as the most expensive in history, they aren't adjusting the $'s for inflation. That's an example of using statistical analysis upon a non-static system.

Using statistical methods (especially trending) for non-static sytems like climate is also frought with similar dangers. The stock market's been (mostly) up since March. But we cannot assume it will only continue to rise into the future. Trending is the wrong tool for the wrong job.

A proper dynamical model is required. Dynamical models are extremely sensitive to inputs that always contain the modeler's bias in setting up the inital conditions. Back when I was modeling groundwater contaminant transport I could justify and tweek the initial conditions and a host of assumed but unverifiable parameters to have almost whatever outcome I wanted. Those are the same numeric methods used for climate modeling. I don't have any experience with climate models but I'd be surprised if they could not be influenced similarly.

I do know this. Water vapour can hold, transfer, and transport a lot more heat than CO2. I've never heard a good explaination how the heat transfer effects of single-phase CO2 can overcome the self-dampening effect of two-phase water vapour in our atmosphere. Changing phases moves a looot of heat.

[wxman]

^Yes. This should not be a partisan issue. I think some folks just can't stand Al Gore even if his theories are generally accurate.

That's funny. I stand with Al Gore on most of his political issues. He just has no idea what he's talking about when it comes to Climate Change. That's all.

As humans, yes, we should take care of the planet. But GW isn't caused by us.

[Ross]

I haven't seen too many folks talk about how global warming is way better than having a mile or so of ice covering most of North America and Europe.

The Earth has been warming since the end of the last glacial period. I would much rather deal with the impact of warming than with ice. I also believe we shouldn't risk destroying our economy to to reduce the growth in CO2 levels by some minuscule amount while India and China go full speed ahead with industrialization.

[20thStDad]

This doesn't need to be taken personally. I simply disagree with your assertions. Your opinion is in the minority, which doesn't mean it's wrong, but you can't disprove climate change simply by saying we only have 100 years of evidence. Because the fact is, if climate change continues on the trajectory of the last 130 years, which is what the majority of scientists believe, we have something to be concerned about.

Using a period of only 130 years to "prove" any global phenomenon as fact is statistically irresponsible at best. However, there is no doubt that continuing to pump combusted emissions and other pollutants into our atmosphere is also irresponsible of us. I'm all for humans finding better ways to fuel our society, this bill just isn't going to do ANYTHING to help that, it's just going to create a new market for people to play with.

[Rammer]

I don't think you guys get it....this is a CREATION of Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs runs the show.

Weather Channel founder, Jim Coleman:

"It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the

[Highway6]

All politicians are the same.. say whatever it takes to get elected.

All administrations are the same.. do whatever to push your agenda.

EPA is being encouraged to suppress one of its own Climate Change reports.

This after the Dem led Congress rams through its 2nd 11th hour major piece of legislation before anyone can digest whats in it.

W and O.. one and the same. No change. No transparency.

What goes around, comes around...

[wxman]

I haven't seen too many folks talk about how global warming is way better than having a mile or so of ice covering most of North America and Europe.

The Earth has been warming since the end of the last glacial period. I would much rather deal with the impact of warming than with ice. I also believe we shouldn't risk destroying our economy to to reduce the growth in CO2 levels by some minuscule amount while India and China go full speed ahead with industrialization.

I believe we should take care of the planet and by polluting it as much as possible should be curbed. But to say we are the leading factor in climate change is bogus. There's no factual evidence whatsoever.

As far as China and India steaming along at full speed, America had it's hay day a hundred years ago. The reason our economy is not growing nearly at that pace is because we are already developed. You can't grow exponentially forever. Eventually, China and India will plateau...not surpassing the USA, but perhaps joining. The reason they are growing so fast is because they came from nowhere.