User Comments

1. 

   4/04/08

   riverstyxxx

   It's not a hoax, Manbearpig is real, I'm super-serial!!!
   
   

   [reply]
   1. 

      4/17/08

      rightcommentary

      Damn straight riverstyXXX
      
      I'm super - Super - SUPER Cereal!
      
      rightcommentary.com/index.php?s=super+cereal
2. 

   4/04/08

   daniel23

   Check out "the great global warming swindle". Its a documentary which you can find on YouTube.

   [reply]
   1. 

      4/04/08

      riverstyxxx

      And this, lol:
      
      
   2. 

      4/04/08

      Flimjo

      I certainly will. Thanks for the tip.
   3. 

      4/16/08

      MarkPogue

      I'll check it out.
3. 

   4/04/08

   urikalish

   Yes, Global Warming is a hoax! So happy someone finally agrees with me! As soon as Elvis comes back home from work at area 51 I'll let him see this thread.
   
   p.s. Bigfoot here says hi.

   [reply]
   1. 

      4/04/08

      daniel23

      Just review the scientific facts. Nobody denies the earth is (currently) warming a tad, but the debate rages as to whether this is normal climate fluctuation or whether it's caused by humans.
   2. 

      4/04/08

      techfun

      Daniel, you say "the debate rages as to whether this is normal climate fluctuation or whether it's caused by humans". Do you not see the horrible problem with that?
      
      If warming is occurring, and HUMANS live in locations that will be affected by this change, then dealing with the effects and looking for ways we can mitigate the problems and possibly reverse or at least lessen the warming - whether its "natural" or "man made" should be way more important than the debate over blame.
   3. 

      4/04/08

      daniel23

      I agree.
4. 

   4/04/08

   riverstyxxx

   This from one of my relatives:
   
   The fact the magnetic poles are shifting and there is a lot of sunspot activity has to have some effect.
   And we have historical evidence that there has been a global warming and cooling trend over the millenia.
   The Romans grew grapes in England.
   Castles weren't cold and drafty.
   
   But yet, there's a famous painting from the 16th century that has people ice skating on a SALT WATER canal.

   [reply]
   1. 

      4/04/08

      daniel23

      Yup. Exactly.
   2. 

      4/04/08

      riverstyxxx

      The point my relative was making is that Global warming/cooling does happen, but it's all part of nature. Driving less or using less products won't do a thing to slow it down or stop it.
      
      In the 70's, we all believed we were going through a mini ice-age. Did it happen?
   3. 

      4/04/08

      daniel23

      Its called WEATHER. it changes!
5. 

   4/04/08

   ender

   i do believe the definitive response was written by jeremy:
   
   www.coyotethunder.com/RedMonkey/archives/2005/11/the_wisdom_of_j.html

   [reply]
   1. 

      4/04/08

      techfun

      Having helped a good friend grade papers for his Remedial Comp course he taught at a community college makes me inclined to believe that those could be real papers.
   2. 

      4/05/08

      ender

      sadly i have had to grade a few papers which weren't that amusing, but were just about that bad.
6. 

   4/04/08

   exinco

   
   nature[dot]forummotion[dot]com

   [reply]
7. 

   4/04/08

   timethief

   An overwhelming majority of the world’s climate scientists agree that the globe is warming - the world's climate is changing - and that the indiscriminate burning of fossil fuels is to blame. We know that the risks are incalculable and, increasingly, we understand that the solutions are affordable.
   
   Unfortunately, a well-funded and highly organized public relations campaign is poisoning the climate change debate. Using tricks and stunts that unsavory PR firms invented for the tobacco lobby, energy-industry contrarians are trying to confuse the public, to forestall individual and political actions that might cut into exorbitant coal, oil and gas industry profits. DeSmogBlog is here to cry foul - to shine the light on techniques and tactics that reflect badly on the PR industry and are, ultimately, bad for the planet. www.desmogblog.com/

   [reply]
   1. 

      4/04/08

      daniel23

      An overwhelming majority of the world's climate scientists are supported by public money whose flow depends on friendly media and pressure groups.
   2. 

      4/04/08

      Flimjo

      Unfortunately, your emphasis on some profit-incentivized campaign is false. Way too many scientests have already confirmed that the earth isn't warming and, if it is, it isn't caused by humans. If I remember correctly, 3 decades ago, were were "cooling." Now we're "warming," and we have to engage in conservation (which, by the way, stagnates the economy). What gives?
   3. 

      4/04/08

      Donlewis

      Timethief,
      An overwhelming majority of the same scientists agreed that the Earth was cooling 30 years ago. About 30 years before that, the same types of scientists said warming. etc. etc. Cooling and warming may be cyclic, so are scientist's opinion on the issue.
      
      I'm a geologist. I spent a lot of time and money studying the history of the earth. In a nutshell, it warms and cools, always has, always will. In fact, and I don't mean to scare anyone, its warming right now; or cooling.
      
      If the scientists ever say that the earths climate isn't changing, then panic is definitely called for.
   4. 

      4/04/08

      daniel23

      Don Lewis -- exactly.
   5. 

      4/04/08

      offendedblogger

      Don Lewis, will you marry me?
      
      *snickers*
   6. 

      4/04/08

      Donlewis

      Marriage? At a time like this, with polar bear cannibalism and penguin love sapping the vital juices from our fragile youth?
      
      Never.
      
      But I'm down with meaningless sex. Call me.
   7. 

      4/04/08

      offendedblogger

      Hmmmmm, OK!
      
      Just not under compact fluorescents, they are toxic as hell.
   8. 

      4/04/08

      Donlewis

      Live Dangerously
   9. 

      4/04/08

      kdawg68

      Not to mention the disturbing trend to attempt to silence and discredit anyone that disagrees.
      
      Look, I think it's clear the earth is warming and I've no doubt we play a roll in that. Further, I do think it's worthwhile to do all we can to be good stewards of the planet - but no, I don't buy into all the fear being sold as fact.
      
      If I had to find a culprit, I tend to gravitate (pardon the pun) towards the fiery mass at the center of our solar system. Just a guess. That and shifting magnetic fields.
   10. 

       4/04/08

       offendedblogger

       What about the hole in the ozone layer?
       
       When was the last time you heard them fearmongering over it?
       
       I agree with kdawg, I was taught growing up that the sun was going to go supernova at any moment yet scientists back then were talking of a coming ice age.
       
       Hmmmmmmmmmmm....
8. 

   4/04/08

   Mewie

   It's hard to prove if it's a hoax since scientists have only been studying global warming since we recently developed the tools to measure it.
   
   But if global warming has been happening for thousands of years, who is to say that human cars, cows, farts, and God knows what else contributes to the problem? Do we really make a difference?
   
   Since there is no evidence that delivers 'beyond a reasonable doubt' - I'm not going to change my way of life based on a theory. I'm just afraid our governments are becoming so paranoid that they're willing to hinder the economy with emission credits and the like. I'm all for saving energy and resources but not in a penalizing format.

   [reply]
   1. 

      4/04/08

      Flimjo

      Mewie, love the comment. I, too, am afraid that the U.S. government will unilaterally continue to make all these changes and impose ridiculous standards on companies and auto makers. All based on a hoax, no less.
9. 

   4/04/08

   sooboth

   comment removed by the community.

   [reply]
   1. 

      4/04/08

      riverstyxxx

      Reported.
   2. 

      4/04/08

      riverstyxxx

      Hey sooboth, try this link:
      www.blogcatalog.com/logout.php?r=2
10. 

    4/04/08

    JeanR

    Amen, TimeThief!

    [reply]
11. 

    4/04/08

    thenoodle

    It just said on the news tonight that la nina is causing the earth to drop a fraction of a degree. Apparently it hasn't risen in a decade! Remember in the 1970's when all the scientists were talking about global cooling?

    [reply]
12. 

    4/04/08

    jungl

    Yep, the evil scientists are after you!
    
    *rolls eyes*

    [reply]
    1. 

       4/04/08

       daniel23

       I never liked 'em. Bastards.
13. 

    4/04/08

    daniel23

    

    [reply]
14. 

    4/04/08

    jungl

    To filmjo:
    I'm interested in seeing this new information on global warming being a hoax.
    
    -All hail the SUV-

    [reply]
    1. 

       4/04/08

       daniel23

       As I said above, check out "The Great Global Warming Swindle". It's a documentary which interviews loads of scientists, etc.
    2. 

       4/04/08

       jungl

       That movie is not new and pretty much BS.
    3. 

       4/04/08

       clioandme

       Seriously. Saying there is evidence and producing reliable scientific evidence vouched for by a majority of scientists are two different things. But hey, BlogCatalog is the place where people turn to for the answer to the universe's other big questions, like the existence of God and whether or not one should have sex with someone on the first date. If this place is that good, it must contain the truth about Global Warming, right? The truth will be revealed by whoever agues longest and loudest, right?
    4. 

       4/04/08

       daniel23

       care to post a refutation of the points it made? fluctuation of temperature and CO2 levels, etc.
    5. 

       4/04/08

       clioandme

       I think citing the world's scientific conference on the subject should be enough. It's in an older thread here. I don't feel like banging my head against a wall today, just because someone's got a video that is supposed to count as "evidence".
    6. 

       4/04/08

       jungl

       en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle#Reactions_from_scien...
    7. 

       4/04/08

       daniel23

       remember when they thought the world was flat? or, more recently, that an ice age was around the corner?
15. 

    4/04/08

    clioandme

    Union of Concerned Scientists
    www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

    [reply]
16. 

    4/04/08

    clioandme

    Joint Science Academies Statement
    nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

    [reply]
17. 

    4/04/08

    daniel23

    Unfortunately, having a grand total of 2 years formal education in my whole life I am unqualified to make any assessment of complicated scientific data. "The Great Global Warming Swindle" presented clear-cut facts and drew (what seemed like) logical conclusions.

    [reply]
    1. 

       4/04/08

       clioandme

       So propaganda and conspiracy theory is better than science. Okay.
       
       [edit] Funny you should see through some of big business' tactics on many social and political issues, but not on this one. I mean, if you were to do a calculation of interests, why would it be in anyone's interest to make this stuff up? [/edit]
    2. 

       4/04/08

       daniel23

       No. I was admitting I know next to nothing about science but that that documentary seemed very convincing and clear.
    3. 

       4/04/08

       urikalish

       Bet you're also a fan of Loose Change..
    4. 

       4/04/08

       daniel23

       So global warming being a product of natural weather fluctuations is a wild conspiracy theory?
       
       (My opinion about the 9/11 attacks is irrelevant here).
    5. 

       4/04/08

       daniel23

       And you've got some nerve. Just because I'm self-educated you assume I'm some kind of idiot?
    6. 

       4/04/08

       urikalish

       I know some great people who are self-educated.
       
       I don't really know you, but I'm guessing you're easily misled by propaganda, and the rude comment you left on my blog a few weeks ago (you know which one) is just strengthening my theory.
    7. 

       4/04/08

       daniel23

       Oh, is the Zionist getting upset? If you didn't know who Norman G Finkelstein is, you can't be as well educated as you think.
    8. 

       4/04/08

       urikalish

       We all have much to learn.
       
       Crescat scientia vita excolatur.
    9. 

       4/04/08

       clioandme

       [sarcasm] Global warming is a Zionist conspiracy? Why didn't I get that memo? [/sarcasm]
    10. 

        4/04/08

        urikalish

        
    11. 

        4/05/08

        clioandme

        
18. 

    4/04/08

    urikalish

    

    [reply]
    1. 

       4/04/08

       clioandme

       Nothing more to say, huh?
    2. 

       4/04/08

       urikalish

       I rest my case.
19. 

    4/04/08

    bbrian017

    Global Warming is the natural evolution of our planet. Lets face it soon we will look like the moon!
    
    Pollution just increase green house gasses and heats us up faster and we die faster!

    [reply]
    1. 

       4/04/08

       acousticguitarist

       made of cheese, with a big face on it?
20. 

    4/04/08

    acousticguitarist

    I'll say yes just to stir the pot

    [reply]
21. 

    4/04/08

    jadeflower

    They don't want to tell us but we're moving closer to the sun!

    [reply]
    1. 

       4/05/08

       Donlewis

       See? That's the kind of forward thinking that Blog Catalog needs!
       
       Problem solved.
22. 

    4/04/08

    offendedblogger

    Tropical, lush vegetation once covered the entire planet.
    
    Give me 5 good reasons not to want that to come back.
    
    OK, I'll settle for 3.
    
    
    
    (keep in mind, I live in IDAHO!)

    [reply]
    1. 

       4/05/08

       clioandme

       How about because all of us on the coasts will move to Idaho when we get flooded out. Do you really want all of us ruining that beautiful place?
    2. 

       4/05/08

       offendedblogger

       Hey, survival of the fittest baby.
       
       I am a true Darwinist.
    3. 

       4/05/08

       Donlewis

       What makes you think we'll let you in?
       
       (Be prepared to pull a plow.)
    4. 

       4/05/08

       offendedblogger

       Hehe, Don.
       
       Good one
    5. 

       4/05/08

       Donlewis

       Thanks Sweetie.
       
       I waited for you last night at midnight like you promised, but you never showed up. Must have got stuck in traffic huh?
    6. 

       4/05/08

       offendedblogger

       Yes, there was this stupid herd of moose in the road!!
       
       I tried to scare them off by recanting all this stuff about global warming and how Mark Stoneman and all the city folk will be forced to head over this way and usurp their habitat when the cities flood, but they just laughed at me and wouldn't budge.
       
       We'll try again for tonight.
    7. 

       4/05/08

       Donlewis

       Well...OK
       
       But just a warning. Don't think that you can trifle with my affections forever. I'll wait up till midnight for a year or two, but after that I'm moving on.
23. 

    4/05/08

    footiam

    Hope so.

    [reply]
24. 

    4/05/08

    filmasia

    is real! if we the humans do not take effort to reduce tree cuttings we are heading for disaster

    [reply]
25. 

    4/05/08

    gerryPlanetEarth

    All the respondents who think Global warming is a hoax are confusing the monetization of green products and Global Warming with the actual truth...
    
    The planet we live on is becoming sicker each day...One has to only go outside and see the sick trees all over the planet not to mention the absence of many animal species....
    
    Whether the climate changes we are experiencing are part of a natural cycle or not mankind has polluted the air,water and deforested vital vegetation...
    
    Talk to people between the ages of 50 to 100 years old and most of them will tell you the difference in the health of Planet Earth 40 to 80 years ago versus now...

    [reply]
26. 

    4/05/08

    MadameX

    If it is, I would like someone to explain to me why a tribe of caterpillars spun coccoons in the bush outside my window in the FALL a year and a half ago and never emerged.

    [reply]
27. 

    4/05/08

    earthandeconomy

    Building on gPE's comment above...definitely feel the global warming hoax is a red herring. Are we in a cooling or a warming period and if we are in a warming period, then is it anthropgenic?
    
    Sure these are important questions to answer, but they do not directly address the root of our current and future challenge which is that human activity is seriously degrading everyone's quality of life, from the air we breathe to the water we drink.
    
    Would anyone question what would happen if you sit in a closed garage with the car running, emitting exhaust within a closed space? (Thank you Josh for this analogy.) It doesn't take a scientist to know the answer. So, confused facts aside, why is it so difficult to move beyond circuitous debate towards accepting that our dirty technologies leave deadly by-products which are being trapped under a canopy we call the atmosphere; poisoning our planet we call earth? In the grand scheme of things, we are insignificant and our beautiful planet was once a rock...
    
    If you have studied Greek mythology you might consider our fatal flaw—hubris. If you believe in the creation of Adam and Eve, then we have been in a fallen state since the first bite of the apple. These allegories tell of a struggle, that the chips weren't stacked in our favor from the beginning.
    
    Either we rise up from Boethius' state of anxiety and despair to become proactive towards positive change or complacently sit in the running car and sleep.
    
    Personally, I embrace the challenges I am presented with each day. I look to the horizon in search of new emergents to replace the existing ones which are all too reliant on excessive consumption. I welcome change, it is refreshing.
    
    A little less water here, a little less energy there. Maybe walk or bike or jump on BART instead of drive. These aren't large sacrifices.
    
    Get inspired!
    www.blogcatalog.com/group/inspiration
    
    Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum
    
    Sting on little bees...

    [reply]
28. 

    4/05/08

    urikalish

    Don't worry, everything is under control..
    

    [reply]
29. 

    4/05/08

    urikalish

    Don't worry, everything is under control..
    

    [reply]
30. 

    4/05/08

    urikalish

    Don't worry, everything is under control..
    

    [reply]
31. 

    4/05/08

    urikalish

    Don't worry, everything is under control..
    

    [reply]
32. 

    4/05/08

    earthandeconomy

    Urikalish, those graphs look like BlogCatalog on compete.com (except the glacier one)...
    siteanalytics.compete.com/blogcatalog.com/?metric=uv
    
    One of the "hockey stick" trends is good and the other is not. Don't think it is hard to figure out which is which.

    [reply]
33. 

    4/05/08

    urikalish

    Don't worry, everything is under control..
    

    [reply]
34. 

    4/05/08

    urikalish

    I guess Global Warming means we'll all look like handsome models...?
    
    

    [reply]
    1. 

       4/05/08

       Donlewis

       I already do. And it's damn cold here.
35. 

    4/05/08

    earthandeconomy

    This Wonderful(of it) Global Warming Hoax site is home to the magically disappearing comments. Leave a comment and see if it disappears on you. Well, I guess that is one good way to avoid discussion on the topic.
    
    globalwarminghoax.wordpress.com/2008/04/04/global-temperatures-to-decrease/

    [reply]
36. 

    4/05/08

    kaybday

    I think there's a lack of good debate between scientists who disagree. Media tends to favor the alarmists; an excellent example is the recent summit for scientists who disagree with much of the prevailing theory. Very little coverage was given although those participating had solid credentials.
    
    However, it is also my opinion that we are not good stewards of this incredible planet. As an example I'll offer an observation. I always picked my daughter up at school because she attended a magnet school and the bus system wasn't really well set up for kids in our area (she'd have had to get up at 4 a.m. every day to catch an early bus and she wouldn't return until 5 p.m. Too little time for homework and almost impossible for her outside activities like music and clubs.) Anyway, a few of us carpooled. So I'd get there about 15 minutes before pickup. Almost every parent there ran their car in order to keep the a/c going. Some, according to the front desk, arrived 45 minutes early to get to the front and they ran their a/c the entire time. Amazing. I always parked, took some water and simply got out of the car and stood under the trees since we have a great ocean breeze in the area. People looked at me like I was nuts. Sometimes I think we just really need to think about what we're doing.
    
    The single greatest threat, based on all the work I've done for wildlife groups, is disappearing habitat. Natural areas are targets for developers, and many of those developers have gone belly up right here in Florida. There's actually a housing surplus.
    
    The trick is to balance good stewardship with a free market. So far, I don't see many politicians capable of that.
    
    It's also my opinion you can't base ideas about GW on a single phenomenon you can't explain. We had some really cold weather here recently, unusually cold. My daughter complained, "Where's global warming when you need it?"
    
    I guarantee one thing. The prevailing theory is going to cost you big-time and like everything else it will hit the middle class and working poor harder. Corporations are accepting carbon credits, offsets and other entities--they are afraid to even speak up because of political fallout-- and this is definitely going to affect your energy bills in years to come. In ways I don't think you can imagine. I've talked to some folks in sectors that supply energy materials. They are pretty worried and trying to position for what will be an increasingly difficult marketplace.
    
    What really bothers me about many of the GW theorists is their own use of large planes on a frequent basis, oversized homes often built in what were natural areas and their tendency to refrain from practicing what they preach. Think about the idea of carbon offsets. Pretty silly in my opinion. Don't you think we are bright enough to come up with a means of energy that is more efficient and less offensive environmentally?
    
    best, Kay

    [reply]
37. 

    4/05/08

    clioandme

    When a majority of scientists find it real, a minority of scientists in the pocket of some questionable interests do not deserve equal time in the media. That would be a perversion of the notion of balance..

    [reply]
    1. 

       4/05/08

       Donlewis

       Stoneman, that is the usual argument. Dissenters must be being paid by some one. Who was paying the dissenters to global cooling in 1975?
       
       Mind you, I'm not arguing that the earth isn't warming. Solar activity is increasing. Mars is experiencing global warming (with apparently no increase in volcanic activity, must be those mars explorers we keep sending).
       
       But although 9 years of no world-wide temperature increase coupled with real CO2 increases, isn't a compelling argument against global warming, it isn't an argument at all for global warming. There are many, many cycles of warming and cooling (warmer than the present by many degrees) in the geologic record. The proponents of human induced Global warming seem to simply ignore their existence. Ask yourself why? I know I ask that all the time.
    2. 

       4/05/08

       MadameX

       Don, where did Mark suggest that "dissenters must be paid by someone"? I just keep reading his comment over and over again and I can't find that part...
    3. 

       4/05/08

       clioandme

       "a minority of scientists in the pocket of some questionable interests" --- Admittedly, I was being fast and loose with my rhetoric, but I do recall some questions about where some reports have come from. But I got to hear that because the media was covering the dissent. Go figure.
38. 

    4/05/08

    kaybday

    Well, I'd have to say many of the majority are also in the pocket of some questionable interests. My issue is the sides aren't engaged in a productive dialog with one another. The disagreement is between experts and political policy is being set without the main issue being resolved. Look backwards--many ideas the majority once embraced have been discarded.
    
    Are you saying Dr. Fred Singer at Princeton is in the pocket of questionable interests? Here's a lift from a letter he sent to ABC News and he addresses a proponent of global warming directly:
    
    Dan Harris also referred to unnamed scientists from NASA, Princeton and Stanford, who pronounced what I do as 'fraudulent nonsense.' [The ABC website changed it to 'fabricated' nonsense - perhaps on advice of ABC's lawyers.] They are easily identified as the well-known Global Warming zealots Jim Hansen, Michael Oppenheimer, and Steve Schneider. They should be asked by ABC to put their money where their mouth is and have a scientific debate with me. [I suspect they'll chicken out. They surely know that the facts support my position -- so they resort to anonymous slurs.] Hansen is no longer the careful scientist he was but has turned into an ideologue willing to publish junk 'research'. Oppenheimer, who may still be on the payroll of Environmental Defense, an activist lobbying group, has negligible credentials. Schneider has not published significant research in years. Both Hansen and Oppenheimer could be labeled as ‘Contrarians’ since they disagree with important conclusions of the UN-IPCC.
    
    Here's my problem. We don't know who to trust about this and we are being pressed to take action before leading experts from both sides agree.
    
    And I repeat my beliefs that we can do more to be good stewards of the environment. I just haven't seen enough dialog between the two factions to make a truly informed decision. What I have seen is a massive mobilization of bias by global warming proponents. And like I've said, we have seen that before.

    [reply]
    1. 

       4/05/08

       Donlewis

       kaybday
       
       Trust me. I still can't get either side to send me a check.
39. 

    4/05/08

    offendedblogger

    Sooo...
    
    What kind of car is everyone here driving?
    
    Amish buggies, I hope?
    
    

    [reply]
    1. 

       4/05/08

       Donlewis

       Ha! Like I can afford one of those babies! I mean four legs! Two working eyes! And don't even get me started on real wheels.
       
       The Amish are a bunch of trendy jet setters.
       
       I'll stick to my goat cart.
    2. 

       4/05/08

       clioandme

       I don't drive a car. I use public transportation whenever possible.
    3. 

       4/05/08

       offendedblogger

       @ Don ~ Hehe, I've met a few Amish who secretly wore buttons.
       
       They were rebels!!
       
       @ Mark ~ I figured you for either an electric car driver or a strict "no car in my garage bicyclist", but since you take public transport I am sure you only use it when you absolutely have to go somewhere and not just for frivolous things.
    4. 

       4/05/08

       clioandme

       Well yeah. That's where human nature kicks in. I'm lazy. I would cycle, but pollution in DC blessed me with asthma some years ago. That's one reason I have a hard time with opposition to global warming. Really, even if one doesn't worry about carbon in the air, I should think the high asthma rates in our cities and ports would alarm people. That is from good old-fashioned air pollution, especially particulate matter produced by diesel and coal. Can anyone say this is healthy? Can anyone say that making children sick so we can have cheap energy is worth it? And would producing new jobs while we look for answers be such a bad thing? Apparently, which is why I don't understand anything, I guess.
    5. 

       4/05/08

       Donlewis

       Gosh, I'm just being a stick in the mud all over the place today.
       
       According to most of the recent scientific literature, asthma probably isn't strongly associated with outdoor air quality (which has been steadily improving for the last 40 years).
       
       www.ucsf.edu/daybreak/1997/12/1222_ast.htm
       
       The exact causes are still open to debate, but it appears that living in an urban environment - strongly correlated with the greater amount of time spent in-doors, is a leading indicator.
       
       CO2 levels are not known to be directly associated with asthma.
       
       (I'm not a Doctor, but I'll bill you if you like)
    6. 

       4/05/08

       clioandme

       So when a truck drives by, and my lungs start twitching, I'll chock that up to my imagination. And when I do better with windows closed than open, I'm probably hallucinating. The fact that I walk all over the darn place is probably irrelevant too. Thanks for setting me straight.
       
       Oh, and just to be clear, what says your wisdom about the abnormally high asthma rates in Long Beach? (20% I think.) Those ships burning dirty fuel are probably good for us, if we could only learn to embrace them. Sure.
    7. 

       4/05/08

       Donlewis

       Guess you win this one. After all, all I can bring to the table are those reports from the docs.
       
       Sorry about all the previous, Stoneman, I don't mean to use cheap shots (but I try to write humor, so sometimes it just seeps out.)
       
       Its just that we're seeing a constant improvement in air quality, and an apparent increase in asthma. But we are also, as a society, not meaning you individually, spending less and less time in the outdoors and more and more time indoors. There's a theory out there that I personally like, that by trying to protect ourselves from the environment, we make ourselves more susceptible to things we should have developed tolerances for.
       
       As a example, West Nile Virus isn't particularly harmful to kids. I'm told it's like getting the flu. And once you've had it, you're immune. It's much more dangerous to adults. Do we use our skills to stop it? Do we let it "inoculate" us? Got me.
       
       Long Beach, with its prevailing winds, has got to have on average, better air quality than a lot of major metros. I remember it that way when I lived there in the 70's and I'm sure its only improved now. Why do they have greater asthma incidents? Got me again. I'm sure there's a study going on right now. All I'm saying is that a lot of scientists no longer think that a simple air quality - asthma connection exists. Could they be wrong? Sure.
       
       After all, look how wrong scientists can be on human caused global warming.
    8. 

       4/05/08

       clioandme

       Long Beach can only have gotten worse since the 70s. What makes it different than other metropolitan areas is the exponential increase in international shipping.
    9. 

       4/05/08

       offendedblogger

       Mark, I used to live in Long Beach so I can sympathize. I hate cities with a passion, and only go when I absolutely have to.
       
       I should bottle some of my clean mountain air here and send it your way.
40. 

    4/05/08

    kaybday

    The edit button won't let me edit.
    
    The third para is direct lift from the letter to ABC. Sorry. My italics tags also didn't show.

    [reply]
41. 

    4/05/08

    clioandme

    It's probably time for me to shut up now, but let me run a few more things by you.
    
    First, I do not understand the fear or reasoning or whatever-you-want-to-call-it behind claims that global warming isn't real. Why the resistance? Fear that someone is trying to take something away from you? If so, what?
    
    Second, if you think it's a hoax, in whose interest would such a hoax be?
    
    Third, since when has science become "merely" a matter of opinion because it involves theory? And because it involves theory, why is it therefore ipso facto suspect? Sure seems like there's a strong element of that in some of the arguments here and elsewhere on BC. What gives?

    [reply]
    1. 

       4/05/08

       Donlewis

       Hey Stoneman,
       
       Well, I've tried to answer you questions. Sorry for being so long-winded, but obviously I've had to leave a lot out due to space constraints.
       
       
       -----"I do not understand the fear or reasoning or whatever-you-want-to-call-it behind claims that global warming isn't real. Why the resistance? Fear that someone is trying to take something away from you? If so, what?"-----
       
       I have very little fear of global warming, if it is indeed happening. Past historical instances of naturally increasing temperatures have been on the whole a boon to humans.
       
       It was one of those warming trends in Europe that lead to increased food production, longer and healthier lives and arguably, the freedoms that we now enjoy. My fear is not physical warming, but the political desires of some, now using "human caused" warming for their own agenda.
       
       Were the US to attempt to abide by the Kyoto Accord for example, it would result in about a 30% reduction in fossil fuel consumption. That may sound good, but there's nothing to take its place. Not wind, nor water, nor solar, nor efficiency increases. Those kinds of energy production methods or savings could, at best account for 3 or 4 percent of the total loss.
       
       I could speak in terms of the resulting reduced standard of living, but that's dispassionate. Let's talk instead about the 15 to 20 percent unemployment that such a decrease would lead to. And of course, China, India, and other developing countries are exempt from the Accord, despite producing two-thirds of the worlds CO2. You can say its because they are developing countries, but if you do, that's politics, not science.
       
       
       -----"since when has science become "merely" a matter of opinion because it involves theory? And because it involves theory, why is it therefore ipso facto suspect? Sure seems like there's a strong element of that in some of the arguments here and elsewhere on BC. What gives?"-----
       
       It is a theory that the sun operates by fusion. That's just the scientific method. The evidence for this mechanism is complete, well-tested, and enormous. The evidence for human caused global warming is incomplete, untested, and recent.
       
       The best evidence is the CO2/temperature track. But that's not sufficient. As an example, more people die every year. And carrot consumption increases as well. But carrots obviously don't lead to an increase in death. More people die because there are more people. Beyond the CO2 tracks, there is nothing but computer models. The same kind of models that told us about the past 3 years of horrific and numerous hurricanes. Hurricane seasons that simply didn't happen. (No offense intended to Louisiana and Mississippi.)
       
       Before we start to act in a way that surely will cause millions of people to be forced into poverty here, and many more abroad, it might be better to determine how the 3 to 5 percent of total CO2 that the people put into the air actually effects the temperature.
       
       Now I've a question for you. I asked it earlier, but you may have missed it.
       
       How do you explain the thousands of warming and cooling cycles that appear in the geologic record? Tropical forests in Antarctica and glaciers in the mid-west? Many of glacial and inter-glacial periods had temperature variations far in excess of the computer projections of human-caused global warming.
    2. 

       4/05/08

       clioandme

       I'm not qualified to answer your last question. And I am skeptical when every last thing that happens in the environment is attributed to global warming. But I don't think the scientists are doing that; we normal citizens are.
       
       Long-term historical comparisons are valid only to a point. There are so many more people and so much more consumption of fossil fuels than ever before that we humans are a significant environmental factor.
       
       No one's talking about putting people out of work for the sake of reducing carbon emissions. They're talking about inventing new industries that will provide new jobs. Listen to John McCain on this score, who is also talking about energy independence for national security reasons. (Of course, he's also following the usual line about accessing more fossil fuels here, but that is subsidiary in his rhetoric, last time I checked.)
42. 

    4/05/08

    kaybday

    Stoneman, you're killin' me. I didn't say GW is a hoax. I don't know. What I said a couple times is I wish the two sides would talk to one another in a way we can all comprehend. Maybe there are some physics experts here, I don't know. But I do know I've seen information from both sides and both often make sense, creating a conflict in decision-making for my own opinion.
    
    I'm not saying global warming isn't real. But no one has convinced me whether man has as much to do with it as nature.
    
    And we are predicating very costly decisions about this and those decisions are definitely being used by groups like The World Bank--they want more and more money for developing countries for items like clean power and deforestation.
    
    I don't think science is merely an opinion. But many of us have lived long enough to see science debunk its own positions on everything from the benefits of cocaine to sexual attitudes of women and to many other positions as well. I still remember alarmists swearing we would enter an ice age. I guess when science can cure the common cold and menstrual cramps I'll consider making it God.
    
    On the issue of asthma, I sympathize with you. My mother-in-law suffers from that. Much of what I've read suggests indoor air has a great deal to do with attacks--allergens, even reactions to medication. I read one study that said a virus carried by household roaches was a major cause of it in cities (she doesn't have roaches; you can eat off her floors). Also the amount of moisture in the air is important--if you live in a northern clime and use heat a lot (we rarely use it down here), the air will be overly dry and that may make you more uncomfortable. Our doctor told my m-i-l tension and stress can also impact asthma.
    
    At any rate, what I'd like to see in the GW debate is real debate. Enough bright minds disagree with claims to make me want to know more. And media is only reporting one side of the equation. That's all.

    [reply]
    1. 

       4/05/08

       clioandme

       The real debate took place within the scientific community over the past decade or more. Since then a strong minimum consensus has emerged.
       
       I suppose part of the problem lies in the failure of the scientific community to communicate its debates to the general public in terms it can understand. But there is also a problem with our education system, which fails to impart an adequate understanding and appreciation of the scientific method.
       
       By the way, you're not using the word hoax, but I'm not the one who introduced the term to this thread.
43. 

    4/05/08

    robertstevenson

    I don't know which side of the coin I'm on, but the World Health Organization is behind fixing "the global warming problem". Monday is World Health Day. This year's theme is protecting health from climate change. who.org
    
    May (or may not) be related: I had asthma as a kid. I outgrew it when I was 14. Two years ago it came back hard. When smog builds, low-lying ozone occurs. Even folks without asthma have trouble breething on severe days. I was never bothered, but now I have trouble even on "moderate" days. The problem is these days are coming more frequently. I do believe smog is getting worse, and I live in the country. Whether smog is contributing to global warming is another issue.

    [reply]
    1. 

       4/05/08

       clioandme

       I'm not saying there's a connection between global warming and asthma, but I was suggesting that the same measures we can take to combat global warming can benefit us in other ways.
       
       I'm glad you mentioned these environmental factors. In Washington, DC we have a lot of "code orange" and even "code red" days in the summer where it is not safe for me to go outside for any length of time. When my son was small, I used to have to plan when I could have him outside on such days, which is downright criminal when you think about it. I mean, shouldn't children have a right to be outside in the summer? Yes, smog and ozone are problems where I live in the summer. They do not amount to global warming, but the things that could reduce them would also reduce carbon emissions. Win win.
    2. 

       4/05/08

       robertstevenson

       I completely concur. We owe it to our children to clean up after ourselves.
44. 

    4/05/08

    timethief

    "The mind is like a parachute. It works when it is open." --- the 14th Dalai Lama
    
    So I'm wondering if you have seen these videos wonderingmind42.com/

    [reply]
    1. 

       4/05/08

       clioandme

       Thank you for the link. I hope skeptics take the trouble to listen, perhaps beginning with the question of why there is still debate.
45. 

    4/05/08

    timethief

    You're welcome.:)
    
    Here are some reference links:
    www.aaas.org/climate/
    www7.nationalacademies.org/ocga/testimony/Global_Climate_Change_Policy_and_...
    www.manpollo.org/
    www.us-cap.org/
    www.occ.gov.uk/activities/stern.htm
    IPCC Fourth Assessment Report www.ipcc.ch/
    
    Fri Apr 4, 2008 8:32pm BST -
    A U.N. climate panel agreed last year that the world needs to halve its greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 in order to stave off potentially catastrophic changes to the weather system, that will bring more storms, droughts and higher sea levels.
    
    Negotiators will also have to work out how to deal with the United States -- the only rich nation not to have signed up to Kyoto -- given that President George W. Bush will be leaving the White House after November's election.
    
    Bush pulled the United States out of Kyoto in 2001, saying the pact would hurt the economy and was unfair since it excluded big developing nations from committing to emissions cuts.
    
    The White House has since moderated its stance by saying it would accept emissions targets if all other big emitters do as well based on their individual circumstances.
    uk.reuters.com/article/homepageCrisis/idUKBKK183394._CH_.242020080404

    [reply]
46. 

    4/05/08

    kaybday

    I'm aware the majority endorse acting on GW. And I am a skeptic, just as those who embrace the prevailing ideas are skeptics towards those who disagree.
    
    I am definitely in favor of cleaning up the environment, in part because I believe it's our reponsibility as stewards. I have spent many years working on projects related to the environment, wildlife habitat and special natural areas.
    
    I simply believe that politics impacts much of what we are told. Developing countries see a means of increasing entitlements. Some industries see a means of product development that might not otherwise be possible. Information wars are afoot between countries. Sometimes it is hard to decide what to believe if you are a thinker.
    
    One book that taught me a great deal about the impact on our atmosphere and the earth in general is 'Krakatoa' by Simon Winchester. I'd no idea that sort of volcanic eruption could affect weather--even sunsets in New York--for many many years after. If you're interested in GW, by all means, read that book. It's amazing.
    
    I managed, with a lot of searching, to find the site that held the conference questioning the way GW is being dealt with--here's the agenda; the papers haven't been posted to the site yet. But these are distinguished scientists and professors in their own right: www.heartland.org/NewYork08/proceedings.cfm
    
    And I don't think both sides of the coin have been presented effectively or fairly. We have basically heard one side. Numbers don't mean a lot; some will piggyback on a cause in hopes of bettering their own situation.
    
    Air quality is another matter--we can and should do something about that. I traveled to New York for a conference last year. I have never been so glad to return home. Aside from the claustrophobic feel of the city, I missed the wide open green space we enjoy here in Florida, especially in Northeast Florida. And I love to visit D.C.--it is actually one of my favorite places to visit. But I could never live there because I grew up in a rural area; large Northern cities have too little space too little quiet etc. for me personally.
    
    At any rate, we shall never completely agree on this though I think everyone here really wants us to be more diligent in taking care of what we are given, the natural resources I mean. But I think it's very pleasing that we could talk about it rationally and politely, and I sincerely thank you for the dialog.
    
    best, Kay

    [reply]
47. 

    4/05/08

    MarkPogue

    Far easier to discount climate change and cry 'hoax'. In their eyes, denying it absolves them of any responsibility to affect change and maybe take a step or two towards solving the problem.

    [reply]
48. 

    4/05/08

    earthandeconomy

    Has anyone had a chance to synthesize this article? Elevates the discussion to another level...
    
    www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/weekinreview/06revkin.html?ref=environment

    [reply]
49. 

    4/06/08

    wilbau

    Lord Lawson claims climate change hysteria heralds a 'new age of unreason':
    
    tinyurl.com/52zxfo
    
    "One of the striking features of how concern over global warming has risen to the top of our political agenda is the extraordinary unanimity with which it has been taken up by the political establishment."

    [reply]
    1. 

       4/06/08

       globalgirl

       Great article! I found the last segment of the article compelling enough to post here:
       "
       
       Lord Lawson claims climate change hysteria heralds a 'new age of unreason'
       
       Last Updated: 12:01am BST 06/04/2008
       Page 2 of 2
       
       Lord Lawson closes on a note that others of us have struck in trying to puzzle out the deeper reasons for this great climate panic. He recognises that in many ways the global warming ideology has filled the vacuum left by the collapse of Marxism: "Green is the new red."
       
       He sees parallels with the apocalyptic visions held out by certain religious movements in the past. He is alarmed by the fanatical intolerance shown by many believers in global warming to any heretic who dares question their certainties.
       
       He ends by describing "the new religion of global warming" as "the Da Vinci Code of environmentalism. It is a great story and a best-seller. It contains a grain of truth and a mountain of nonsense.
       
       "We have entered," he says, "a new age of unreason, which threatens to be as economically harmful as it is disquieting. It is from this, above all, that we really do need to save the planet."
50. 

    4/06/08

    globalgirl

    Here's my position: The GW movement does border hysteria and an agenda that is used to "unite" the world. Whether or not GW is true or not,we are still responsible for stewarding the earth and being responsible for creation that has been entrusted to us.
    
    I have 2 businesses that are members of www.coopamerica.org and blog about green issues. I do care about being environmentally responsible (recycling, reusing, reducing, alternative energy, green fuel, etc) because these solutions and choices are better all the way around, for all of creation.

    [reply]
    1. 

       4/06/08

       globalgirl

       Wrong placement. Oops.
51. 

    4/06/08

    A6Dude

    Hey, how about that ozone hole closing up? Did you know it's been getting cooler every year since 1998? Isn't that great?
    
    The earth has often been hotter than it is now, or is predicted to get (by the 'experts'). And these were before the industrial age and its contributions to greenhouse gases. In reality, CO2 makes up less than 2% of the 'green house gases'. And each warming period has been a boon to civilization.
    
    I saw a report recently (sorry that I cannot find it to refernce it) that showed that there were more climate scientists and experts that disagreed that man is affecting global warming than there were climate scientists and experts that do think so. 30 years ago the media claimed that there was 'consensus' about global cooling.
    
    I didn't think science was up for a vote. Isn't consensus really a vote?
    
    But the greens, and the politicians that are in their pockets, have to say that there is a consensus because their "solutions" are so drastic. They would lead to more governmental control and less freedoms for us.
    
    This is why you see that it is only the Greens that seek to censor science and inimidate dissent and debate. It's not about the planet, it's about more government and less liberty. And more government means higher prices.
    
    And who will that affect most? The poor and the seniors...the very people they say they are trying to help.
    
    And the ugly truth is that if every country adopted and stuck to the Kyoto protocols we would only reduce our temperature by 0.7 degrees Centigrade by 2050! And the cost of doing this would be astronomical. And, if the predictions are true, then Kyoto would only be 1/30 of the needed fix.
    
    Renewable fuels cannot meet today's energy demands, let alone the world's growing needs.
    
    The inescapable truth is that the climate has always changed and it always will. The earth, and man, always adapt. Those societies with the most wealth and the most freedoms will adapt the best. But Kyoto will reduce global wealth.
    
    Europe is increasing its emissions, not reducing them. And their elites have been exposed as seeing the treaty as the Trojan horse for "global governance' so that they can redistribute wealth.
    
    What does that sound like to you? I'll give you a hint....it ends with -ism!
    
    All of that said, and certainly not adequate enough to really discuss/debate the issue, we can certainly take care of the planet without resorting to an alarmist/flawed premise. And it is arrogance to think we can control the climate.
    
    But, then, I'm just a heretic. So crucify me!

    [reply]
    1. 

       4/06/08

       clioandme

       No one is trying to "control the climate." We are trying to reduce the human footprint, which has become so large it is putting human societies at risk.
    2. 

       4/06/08

       beinki

       All it takes is a few sun spots or lack of, or a volcano to erupt and bingo climate change. I'm fed up with the libs pushing their political agenda with this global warming crap.
    3. 

       4/06/08

       A6Dude

       Stoneman, talk about the same old tired 'argument'. It is true the Medieval Warming Period was significantly warmer than it is now and they DIDN'T have fossil fuels, as many people or an industrial complex. That's the whole point to that 'argument'.
       
       And, yes, the 'fossil fuel' industry is much larger than the Green movement's industry. The world economy is oil-based. Those ugly oil companies do more for the world than the alarmist greens. How many people do the greens employ? What do they do other than try to control our lives?
       
       I respect that fact that you believe what you believe. I happen to believe that what you believe is wrong.
    4. 

       4/06/08

       clioandme

       I do not respect the fact that you think science is a matter of belief.
    5. 

       4/06/08

       A6Dude

       Stoneman, my beliefs are based on scientific evidence, not consensus.
    6. 

       4/06/08

       globalgirl

       @A6dude:
       
       You are better off providing sources when discussing such a controversial subject. Can you post them? Thanks.
52. 

    4/06/08

    clioandme

    Here's an interesting example of the disconnect between the debate on global warming on BlogCatalog and in the scientific and policy-making community.
    
    www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/weekinreview/06revkin.html
    
    The issue for the latter is not whether global warming is real, but how to combat it. Now people are beginning to realize that combatting emissions is not enough. It might not even be the most effective approach. Instead they're talking about the need for concerted efforts to develop better technologies. Governments need to get involved in the development of energy technologies.
    
    In other words, fighting this problem presents an economic opportunity. I should think that would be attractive to people in Western countries whose more traditional industries are moribund. At the risk of repeating myself, I'm heartened that both the Republican and Democratic candidates for president in the U.S. seem to get this.

    [reply]
    1. 

       4/06/08

       A6Dude

       Stoneman, I agree that global warming is real. So is global cooling. The earth goes through these cycles about every 1500 +/-500 years. That has been documented. It does so with or without man (and since when did we become the evil destroyers of all things good?).
       
       The Medieval Warming period was significantly warmer than temperatures today. And that era was a golden age for agriculture, innovation, standard of living and lifespan.
       
       Combating emissions..how do you stop farm animals from farting? Methane is far more prevalent than CO2. As has been said many times during this post, global temperatures follow solar activity. The earth's wobble and slightly elliptic orbit mean that different parts of the earth will be exposed to varying amounts of heat over different periods. If more snow or land is exposed, more heat will be reflected. If more water is exposed, more heat will be absorbed
       
       Man only accounts for 2% of CO2 production; the rest occurs naturally. That's worth noting....manmade GHGs are only a tiny fraction of ONE factor. And, ice core samples show that CO2 levels rise AFTER warming periods, not before or during.
       
       As for the economic opportunities...this has all been a great opportunity for the greens. The global warming hoax has grown to a $2B industry. You're right, I should invest money in the policies that the greens want to promulgate...everyone will pay for those...I may as well profit, eh?
    2. 

       4/06/08

       clioandme

       I find it tiresome when people repeat arguments made above as if they are new, when they have already been addressed. Comparing medieval weather patterns to now is comparing apples and oranges. There were fewer people, far less use of fossil fuels, etc., etc.
       
       I also find the talk of a $2 billion dollar green industry pathetically funny. How large is the fossil fuel industry? Please! People cannot be that stupid. No need to treat them as such.
53. 

    4/06/08

    earthandeconomy

    Stoneman, UOME for the adjective "stupid"...that is if you are game enough to accept my challenge. PS, good points by the way.
    
    www.blogcatalog.com/group/inspiration/discuss/entry/are-you-game-to-play-uo...

    [reply]
    1. 

       4/06/08

       clioandme

       Bah humbug. Sometimes things need to be called as they are.
    2. 

       4/11/08

       hepp2

       We have put some information that may be useful at www.ccxtrading.net I personally believe that the amount of time humans have been on the planet is statistically meaningless, but intuitively I believe that something is choking the life out of the planet. I'm not sure if it is warmth!
54. 

    4/06/08

    SolReka

    Global Warming is a propoganda drive.
    
    It is part of the drive by the New World Order (NWO) to put in place carbon taxes to pay for the superhighway infrastructure the crooks are already putting in place ref Trans Texas Corrdior TTC and toll roads.
    
    Here is an excellent video detailing the agendas of the NWO. Believe people, the world is not what it seems.
    
    video.abovetopsecret.com/#
    Click on Alex Jones - Endgame

    [reply]
    1. 

       4/06/08

       clioandme

       Yes, we who acknowledge the reality of science take our orders from NWO whose location is so super secret that I would have to kill you if you found out about it. We also have chips implanted in our brains and are controlled by NWO's mainframe computer.
       
       And Alex Jones is of course the best, most reliable source for everything.
       
       (Actually, it still freaks me out that people listen to him. Disturbing indeed. Most people arguing against me here still wouldn't listen to that crap.)
    2. 

       4/14/08

       MarkPogue

       Now, that's funny!!! LOL!
       It's a conspiracy to emplace carbon taxes??
55. 

    4/06/08

    SolReka

    Interesting stoneman.
    
    The NWO agenda is common knowledge for those that wish to read about the subject and delve into the alternative agendas of the NWO.
    
    Chips implanted into our brains certainly is the ideal for the generation of tomorrow. Why do you think they are trying to push RFID technology and biometrics even though these systems are flawed and cannot work.
    
    It is all about control. Simple as that. The more control you have over your people the more tyrannical the regime.

    [reply]
    1. 

       4/06/08

       globalgirl

       Why do you think GW is part of a NWO agenda? What are your sources?
56. 

    4/06/08

    SolReka

    The information is compelling.
    A great starting point is Alex Jones'0 film Endgame.
    
    Just Google GW and follow the information trail globalgirl. The subject of GW and the NWO cannot be surmised in a few paragraphs I'm afraid.
    
    I will write about the subject of GW and the NWO in my blog, including sources and references in due course.
    
    Do you believe in GW globalgirl?, or for that matter the belief there is a New World Order
    
    Here's a good link to get things started. (Video of George Bush Senior)
    The NWO and the pathetic regime they call the UN (world police)
    video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8259800846851144110

    [reply]
    1. 

       4/06/08

       globalgirl

       Other people have quoted Alex Jones regarding the NWO agenda. Certainly there must be other sources?
       
       As I have said before, I think there is a lot of hysteria regarding GW. I believe in climate change & that humans are responsible for stewarding the earth's resources. Although I am an advocate of green living, I don't worship "mother earth". Does this make sense to you?
    2. 

       4/08/08

       Flimjo

       Sol Reka, I have a family member that swears by these NWO, Bilderberg conspiracy theories. When I pressed him, he couldn't come up with one piece of evidence to support any of this stuff, save for a variety of conspiracy theory websites.
57. 

    4/06/08

    SolReka

    There are plenty of sources, did you watch the Bush video?
    
    It's a start, now read about the Bilderberg Group.
    
    Also read up on the TTC - Trans Texas Corridor - this is the beginning for the NWO as well as global warming (put in place so that they can introduce a carbon tax)
    
    Let me know how you get on, I will happily provide more links and information at your request.

    [reply]
    1. 

       4/06/08

       globalgirl

       I am familiar with the Bilderberg, Trilateral, Carlyle Group, yada yada yada.
       
       
58. 

    4/06/08

    SolReka

    I total understand where you're coming from globalgirl regarding being an advocate of green living, yet not being an eco warrior.
    
    I dislike being told to turn off my mobile phone charger as it will boil the oceans away lol. We (the consumer) contribute very little in the way of GW if you believe in GW. I agree we contribute to the atmosphere of the Earth but not to the scale we are led to believe. What about mining, construction, cow farts etc they are much larger contributors to harmful emissions than us - the tiny people.
    
    Anyways let me know how you're research goes.
    
    Kind regards
    R

    [reply]
    1. 

       4/06/08

       globalgirl

       Corporate hypocrites. Do as I say, not as I do.
59. 

    4/06/08

    SolReka

    Couldn't agree more, with free speech losing out to fascist regimes it now more important than ever that we stand up and be counted as one. Solidarity for humanity.
    
    1984 really isn't as fictional as it sounds, even Huxley himself said his book was based on truth not fiction. Ref Eugenics.

    [reply]
    1. 

       4/06/08

       globalgirl

       Of course 1984 is not fictional - to all who have ears.
       
       Have you read "Brave New World"? I need to get it out of storage and read it again.
       
       Have you seen the documentary "From Freedom to Fascism"? I recommend it.
    2. 

       4/06/08

       offendedblogger

       You're right, Freedom to Fascism is an excellent documentary GG.
60. 

    4/06/08

    SolReka

    I have read Brave new world, I too need to re-read it, it's been a while.
    
    I've seen freedom to fascism, again another one to watch again.
    
    Just reading your blog at the mo, watching the video of the car running on water.
    
    My blog is all about free energy, so you have a new fan :-)
    
    Keep the recommendations coming, they are much appreciated

    [reply]
    1. 

       4/06/08

       globalgirl

       I have done my own research and have lots of interesting finds.
       
       Another great book
       Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and Theft of Human Rights
       
       www.thomhartmann.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=196&Itemid=1...
       
       Glad to know there are others who liked the "Freedom to Fascism" documentary.
       
       @Sol: I need to blog more. I have been really busy with work - and this forum!
61. 

    4/06/08

    SolReka

    Dare I mention David Icke :-) He has dome some excellent videos.
    
    Also torrent galactic federation of light.

    [reply]
    1. 

       4/06/08

       globalgirl

       David Icke: The lizard theory is a bit too far out there for me. Granted, he has some VERY interesting factual data - but I just can't get into the intergalactic stuff.
    2. 

       4/08/08

       Flimjo

       David Icke is another lunatic.
62. 

    4/06/08

    RuinousRight

    Did you hear the words "Some people say..." before hearing this report? If so, you must have been watching Fox News. It's their trademark lead-in for spreading misinformation.
    
    We believe it's no fabrication and most any report disputing it seems to come from some person or group with an agenda. It's going to take some sacrifice and a good deal of money to solve the reality of global warming.

    [reply]
63. 

    4/06/08

    offendedblogger

    Hmmm.. wouldn't a global catastrophe help solve the problem of over population which would in turn help solve a myriad of other problems that stem from having too many of us fleas, er I mean humans, on the planet?
    
    I'm just sayin..

    [reply]
    1. 

       4/06/08

       RuinousRight

       True, just as an unjust war can thin out the lower and middle class.
    2. 

       4/06/08

       globalgirl

       @Offended:
       What is the global catastrophe?
       
       @RuinousRight:
       Mortgage crisis, food stamp increase, wheat/corn/sugar shortages, unemployment on the rise... what do you mean?
    3. 

       4/06/08

       offendedblogger

       @GG ~ Well... they say that Yellowstone could erupt at any moment.
       
       Of course, I won't know about it because I'll be turned to ash pretty much instantaneously.
       
       But those of you who survive it can have my share of the earth's resources!
64. 

    4/06/08

    nedekcir

    another supporter of freedom fascism here.

    [reply]
65. 

    4/06/08

    timethief

    So I'm wondering if any you who have posted an opinion here have actually seen these videos wonderingmind42.com/

    [reply]
    1. 

       4/06/08

       globalgirl

       I tried but I found him annoying.
       
       How about this interview betweem Michelle Malkin and Sen. James Inhofe regarding the Global Warming Scam:
       
       www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFjMeFaBS7w&feature=related
       
       Or this interview between Michael Crichton and Charlie Rose:
       www.youtube.com/watch?v=noec6Xkx73k&feature=related
66. 

    4/08/08

    velvethammer

    Al Gore's Inconvenient Loot
    www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2007/03/al_gores_inconv.htm...

    [reply]
67. 

    4/08/08

    velvethammer

    Leftist Watermelons, green on the outside, red on the inside.

    [reply]
68. 

    4/08/08

    globalgirl

    If you live in LA, get ready for the GLOBAL WARMING TAX: www.desertdispatch.com/opinion/global_3006___article.html/warming_tax.html
    To fight global warming, a bill in Sacramento would enable Los Angeles County transit officials to increase taxes on motorists. It's a bad idea that may foreshadow even worse to come.
    
    www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/business/16view.html
    
    We all love paying taxes, especially after watching Freedom to Fascism.

    [reply]
69. 

    4/08/08

    2010

    Global Warming seems to be the Big Craze these days. Funny these warmers never mention the polar Ice caps growing at a record rate. Canada and NE USA having record snow fall winters? Yes we need to take more care of the Planet, but presently global warming is a big money grab. I wonder what the next jump on the band wagon issue is going to be? Maybe save the Gay whales for Jesus?

    [reply]
    1. 

       4/08/08

       clioandme

       "Funny these warmers never mention the polar Ice caps growing at a record rate." -- Probably because they're not.
    2. 

       4/08/08

       daniel23

       They're growing in Greenland (or was it Iceland?).
70. 

    4/08/08

    clioandme

    I'm looking at the last day's worth of comments or so, and I want to say something, but what can one say about a thread that is dominated by such shamefully willful ignorance? I suppose I'll have to join the majority of sensible bloggers on BlogCatalog and not say anything more. After all, beating one's head repeatedly against a brick wall is not healthy, even if it is in a good cause.

    [reply]
    1. 

       4/08/08

       2010

       Some glaciers in South America, including the Pio XI and Moreno Glaciers, are growing.
       Chile's Pio XI Glacier is the largest glacier in the southern hemisphere. The Moreno Glacier is the largest glacier in Argentina. It's curious that news reports do not mention these two huge glaciers.
71. 

    4/08/08

    velvethammer

    Climate Change Hysteria and Al Gore’s “Chicken Little” Scare Tactics
    www.ff.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=373&Itemid=67
    
    "Al Gore and other global warming enthusiasts are fond of reciting that 2,611 scientists have signed a letter stating that global warming poses a serious and real threat. Yet, only about one in ten of the so-called 2611 scientists had scientific expertise. And only 5 out the 2,611 so-called scientists had training in climate, weather or other atmospheric sciences. That is less than 1/2 of one percent. Excuse me, for being underwhelmed."

    [reply]
    1. 

       4/09/08

       techfun

       If the climate "skeptic" side were clean in that area I might worry more about the ff.org post (I read it). Its easy to play with numbers. By their standards, a biologist who has spent her life watching changes in an animals behavior and habitat due to climate shift would not have value. Thats bullshit to me.
       
       The Skeptics were laughed off the front pages after Inhofe's report was released. blog.techfun.org/400-skeptical-scientists
72. 

    4/09/08

    nedekcir

    more ways to control the American people IMO. 2010 @ save gay whales for jesus lol...i know i'm laughing now but yes it would be something to that nature. Another example to get more money from us.

    [reply]
73. 

    4/09/08

    timethief

    Of course climate change and global warming are all a hoax. This mastermind (Al Gore or ?????) and his cabal (the majority of scientists the world over) are obviously telling lies and creating this hoax as "another example to get more money from us ? :roll:
    *rotfmao*

    [reply]
    1. 

       4/09/08

       clioandme

       Having a hard time controlling the impulse to click and comment on the insanity? Me too. Maybe we should form a support group.
    2. 

       4/10/08

       nedekcir
    3. 

       4/10/08

       nedekcir

       And where do you think the government taking all the funding for this organizations? At their own pockets...i think not.
74. 

    4/09/08

    emerson

    You are just creating controversy, you are not even saying where did you read it. Where did you read it anyway? Really appreciate if you can give me a source.

    [reply]
75. 

    4/09/08

    timethief

    @stoneman
    FTW! I'm not having a hard time any more. I've had an overnight attitude adjustment.I don't need to be in a group but thanks so much for asking.
    
    I can become the Loan Fact Arranger and spin the same asininity back to the ignorant and paranoid, until they choke on it. It's bound to be more fun than "grouping with the sane" is, right?

    [reply]
76. 

    4/09/08

    timethief

    @emerson
    Please read the entire thread and you will find references that I posted.
    
    Also please accept my thanks, in advance, for bringing your own references to this thread, lest I conclude that you are nothing but an agitator, and apologist for the dull of wit.

    [reply]
    1. 

       4/09/08

       emerson

       Thanks for the references, so the thinning of ice sheets is a hoax? I just cannot believe because ocean levels are at rise, I can say that because i live 30 meters from the coastline. But I cannot read it in the articles by skim. Cheers.
    2. 

       4/09/08

       clioandme

       @timethief: Go get 'em!
77. 

    4/09/08

    timethief

    @stoneman
    It seems that Emerson did not bother to locate, let alone read the references. FTW! He/she thinks that I'm on the opposite side --- too funny!!! My first post makes it clear that I know that global warming is no hoax. *rotflmao*

    [reply]
    1. 

       4/09/08

       clioandme

       Or sad, but I like funny better.
    2. 

       4/09/08

       emerson

       lol. sorry got misleaded by your title.Thanks God we are on the same side. Opps dont say bad words, makes the thread a little bit dirty to read.
78. 

    4/09/08

    timethief

    @stoneman
    I'm out here before I say something like ---
    Let's hope that the climate change deniers and conspiracy theorists do not contribute to the gene pool because one generation of clowns, who support a moronic President in a state of denial, has been more than enough.
    *rotflmao*
    

    [reply]
    1. 

       4/09/08

       clioandme

       Yeah, it would be bad if you said something like that. You know, really mean or something.
79. 

    4/09/08

    timethief

    @emerson
    Not to worry. I figured that was the case.

    [reply]
80. 

    4/09/08

    myriadlife

    Maybe not a hoax but am getting a bit tired of being made to feel it is our responsibility more than it is world government's.

    [reply]
    1. 

       4/09/08

       clioandme

       Sure, it's not your responsibility, as long as you don't consume any power or buy products that were shipped to your location from other parts of the country and globe.
81. 

    4/09/08

    timethief

    So here’s the reasoning in a nutshell. Activists warn: Upheaval and destruction. Skeptics warn: severe economic harm.
    
    First off, no one’s perfect. So any choice you make brings with it a risk if your choice turns out to be a mistake. Given that understanding, which risk would you rather take:
    
    (1) listen to the activists and take big action now, risking the possible harm to the economy that the skeptics warn us about,
    (2) or listen to the skeptics and don’t take big action now, risking the possible destruction and upheaval that the activists warn us about.
    
    The bottom line is, which is the more acceptable risk: the risk of taking action, or the risk of not taking action?

    [reply]
82. 

    4/09/08

    allgirlsinfo

    that is really true.. its not a hoax.. i have seen it in discover channel documentary of it.. and its pretty scary

    [reply]
    1. 

       4/11/08

       2010

       Yes there is Climate Change happening, possible global shifting
       However I still believe Global warming is being exploited
       
       A lot of the Scientist making the reports are Funded by Environmental Foundations for their research? (Huge Conflict)
       If a scientist wishes to get more funding he might just need to write his report in favor of the Environmentalists and if he's working for Corporate America the same applies too!
       Last but least Don't trust your Governments as 90% of the politicians are lawyers and or guys who say oh yes Iraq has weapons of mass destruction Really!!
       I have read and read on this issue and many reports are superseded by others
       very confusing.
       But it truly sad humans have ventured so far from the soil. The fact is we believe our own lies. (Greed)
       We all know the truth just choose not to listen?
       We create things that kill us in the name of progress and were the smart one on the planet.
       As a Buddhist I wished to come back as a whale but then I had to rethink that though as I might end up swimming in a perfume bottle.
83. 

    4/10/08

    earthandeconomy

    What motivates you to argue that global warming is a hoax? Would knowing it is a hoax make you sleep better at night? Is it the principle? Is it hoax only when humans are blamed as the cause behind it; a hoax because we are really in a cooling period; a hoax because it is more convenient to do nothing than something to change lifestyle; a hoax because it is being handled incorrectly? What percentage of consensus among scientists is needed before it is no longer a hoax? Who does it benefit to "deceive or fraud" people about the truth about global warming?
    
    Take a stance on the following:
    
    Global warming is a hoax because...
    
    - we are in a cooling period
    - it is not anthropogenic
    - it doesn't exist, there are no climate changes
    - we cannot control nature's course
    - it is a hidden agenda
    - because we are going about addressing it the wrong way
    
    What do you actually instinctually (or scientifically) believe?
    
    Go out on a limb...
    
    I am not a scientist but I do believe the planet is warming. I do believe humans are responsible for contributing to a warming planet. I am open to the fact that we may not be able to make a change because nature is much stronger than we are. I am unwilling to sit back and do nothing about making an impact, no matter how trivial it may seem. I do feel that there is a lot of wasteful activity happening around our current approach to the issue because we are in an "R & D" phase where we are rushing to try new ideas before thinking through the consequences. I do think some people will use the issue for their own personal gains. We are already seeing a large amount of greenwashing. Overall, I am optimistic about what we can accomplish individually and collectively. I don't think alarmism is required for motivation for individuals who are cognitively empowered to make a change on their own.
    
    I think you know where I stand...nothing to hide here.

    [reply]
84. 

    4/11/08

    earthandeconomy

    Some interesting polling data:
    
    www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/30410/americans_see_global_warming_as_serious...
    
    Methodology: Telephone interviews with 1,000 American adults, conducted on Apr. 3 and Apr. 4, 2008. Margin of error is 3 per cent.
    
    Not a large sample size.

    [reply]
85. 

    4/11/08

    velvethammer

    Gorbel's Cube
    thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=1854
    
    "A gentleman farmer from Tennessee
    Thought himself better than you and me.
    He would prove it, of course,
    Since he was the source
    Of the carbon relief that would come to be.
    
    "The science is settled" is what he did say,
    And he joyfully started to map out the way
    To reduce the profusion
    Of petrol we're usin'
    And go back to the old ways of yesterday.
    
    Those most glorious times of pre-industry
    Our betters still know we must clearly see;
    So, if we're not all hangin'
    On Al Gore's bandwagon,
    There's guaranteed Earthwide catastrophe.
    
    "By next week! By next year! By tomorrow!" They cry,
    "if we still emit now, then we're all gonna fry!"
    There can be no denyin'
    That Sweet Gaia is cryin'
    For Gore's carbon credits that we'll all have to buy.
    
    Those credits will let him afford a new Gulfstream,
    And add personnel to a new Eco Strike Team.
    Now, our lives may be stark
    We may sit in the dark
    But there's no sacrifice 'could be too extreme
    
    Because then! Then, oh joy! The sea won't have risen!
    Polluters and Rightists will all be in prison,
    There'll be bunnies all cute,
    And an end to dispute
    As we hug and give Al all the credit that's his'n.
    
    A rosier future one just could not portend;
    For our great, sainted Al is the Eart's one true friend.
    If I'm lyin', I'm dyin
    And God knows that I'm tryin'
    To swallow this message I've been told I must send."

    [reply]
86. 

    4/11/08

    kaybday

    Velvet, I gotta' hand it to ya. That is one well-constructed ballad. Rarely do I see that in general discussions. You should send this to conservative pubs. [I'm refraining from commenting on the original subject of this thread because I promised and I'm tryin' hard to keep that promise.]

    [reply]
87. 

    4/11/08

    velvethammer

    kaybay
    
    As much as I would like to take the credit for that ballad. I can not. I linked to the Peoples Cube, where I found it.
    
    No worries just let them simmer and stew. That is what they are best at.
    lol

    [reply]
    1. 

       4/11/08

       MarkPogue

       Who's "they"?
88. 

    4/11/08

    robertstevenson

    Once they're gone, they're gone:
    Have a look when you have a minute: www.stopglobalwarming.org/default.asp

    [reply]
89. 

    4/11/08

    robertstevenson

    Thanks for the heads up: I guess the link has changed.
    
    
    ONCE THEY ARE GONE, THEY'RE GONE
    A chunk of Antarctic ice about the size of Manhattan suddenly collapsed in late March as a result of global warming. The Wilkins Ice Shelf, a 160 square-mile chunk located in western Antarctica, began to show signs of deterioration via satellite images on February 28. Scientists had thought that the Wilkins shelf would collapse about 15 years from now. These occurrences are more "indicative of a tipping point or trigger in the climate system, " said Sarah Das, a scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. "These are things that are not re-forming," Das said. "So once they are gone, they're gone." Read more about the ice collapse at: www.stopglobalwarming.org/sgw_read.asp?id=431273252008
    
    ARCTIC AVERAGE TEMPERATURE HAS RISEN AT ALMOST TWICE THE RATE OF THE REST OF THE WORLD IN THE PAST 30 YEARS!
    
    www.stopglobalwarming.org/default.asp is offering an opportunity for folks to participate in a virtual march.

    [reply]
90. 

    4/14/08

    timethief

    Objection: Global warming is a hoax perpetrated by environmental extremists and liberals who want an excuse for more big government (and/or world government via the U.N.) and more taxes.
    
    IMHO regardless of how unsubstantiated it is, this is a common objection, so it should not go unanswered.
    
    Solving Climate Change Can Save Billions
    Amidst increasingly dire news about the economy and climate change, Architecture 2030 released a seminal study at the Eileen Rockefeller Growald Symposium on Collaborative Philanthropy April 10th, 2008, showing how a small investment of only $21.6 billion in the Building Sector would produce 216,000 permanent jobs and save 86.7 Million Metric Tons (MMT) of CO2 in a single year. This same amount invested each year for five years would net over one million permanent jobs and save 433.5 MMT.
    
    According to Edward Mazria, founder of Architecture 2030, “Although difficult, the economic and global warming crises are the motivation we need as a nation to retool our thinking. If we’re smart enough to jump on this opportunity, we will not only solve global warming, we will set the US up for unprecedented economic success.”
    Read more -> www.architecture2030.org/
    www.enn.com/press_releases/2437

    [reply]
91. 

    4/14/08

    timethief

    Solving Climate Change Can Save Lives April 13, 2008
    "Experts say a third of Bangladesh's coastline could be flooded if the sea rises one meter in the next 50 years, creating an additional 20 million Bangladeshis displaced from their homes and farms. This is about the same as Australia's population.
    Saline water will creep deeper inland, fouling water supplies and crops and livestock will also suffer, experts say.
    Government officials and NGOs estimate about 10 million people are already threatened by annual floods and storms damaging riverine and coastal islands.
    It is unclear how the government could feed, house or find enough clean water for vast numbers of climate refugees in a country of 140 million people crammed into an area of 55,500 sq miles."
    Read more -> www.enn.com/ecosystems/article/34598

    [reply]
92. 

    4/14/08

    johnsblogs42

    Where the hell is the damn warming at??!!??!!??
    
    I've been freeing my a$$ off down here in Southern California!!!
    
    Oh, wait... must be because we've had 8 consecutive years of COOLING that's resulted in the entire planets overall temp. dropping by a whole degree CELCIUS!!
    
    C'mon warming! Hurry the F&$K up!
    
    Oh... and like I've been saying since day1, the "Goracle" is only in this for the money. A F%#King LOT of money!!
    
    www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Gore_Energy_biz/2007/11/21/51303.html?s=al&prom...

    [reply]
    1. 

       4/14/08

       earthandeconomy

       I live in Norcal and I certainly would not take the myopic view that California's day-to-day climate is indicative of the planet as a whole.
       
       Also, when analyzing trends, look beyond a 7 or 30 year cycle (ruling out La Nina and cooling trends).
       
       Al Gore, yes he does stand to make some money from the campaigning, especially since investment in clean technologies is a logical and smart choice. As the price of fuel exceeds alternative sources, why wouldn't you invest in cleaner, smarter alternative energy? If your business could harness the power of the wind or sun as a renewable energy source, why would you continue to pay exorbitant prices in a volatile energy market that depends on antiquated, inefficient technologies that pollute? It doesn't take a "Goracle" to see this.
       
       It is easy for us to paste links to stories. In fact, you may want to check out this article about the legitimacy of Newsmax as a credible news source:
       conwebwatch.tripod.com/letters/letterwhynm.html. For example, I don't trust the tripod domain, nor do I trust newsmax either.
       
       If you want to elevate the level of discussion around here, try bringing scientific facts to the dialogue or at least humor us. Opinion is great, but back it up with substance.
       
       Or keep on dropping bombs, they'll eventually fall on deaf ears.
       
       Thanks for your contribution, so please do continue to share.
93. 

    4/14/08

    timethief

    Thanks so much for sharing your well expressed opinion with us. Your unique mastery of spelling, grammar and use of punctuation is nothing short of astonishing. I expect that the people of Bangladesh and in other coastal areas all over the world where sea level is rising and where violent weather patterns are causing death and destruction, will give your contribution to the propagation of the conspiracy theory, as apposed to the solution, all the attention that it deserves.

    [reply]
94. 

    4/14/08

    timethief

    I acknowledge john'sblog42 right to state his case for doing nothing while the planet continues to heat. However, it's mind boggling that he seems to be indicating that taxpayers the whole world over ought not to address climate change/global warming and save billions of dollars as well as millions of lives, simply because one American man's intelligent investment into green technologies will profit him.

    [reply]
95. 

    4/14/08

    whatever45678

    it's totally real!!
    the democrats are right!!
    glaciers are melting, innocent animals are dying...
    How the heck is it a hoax?!

    [reply]
96. 

    4/14/08

    bjancy

    The scientific community has been in agreement about the global warming and humankinds contribution to it for years now.
    
    www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
    
    It is a theory as established as evolution, gravity, or that the earth goes around the sun.
    
    Science is not well understood in the US, 47% of the population doesn't believe in evolution. So its not surprising that many people can't understand global warming either.
    
    But the debate is only in the uneducated media, and not by real scientists.

    [reply]
    1. 

       4/14/08

       earthandeconomy

       That is an excellent article and to think it was written over three years ago and here we are. I bet if there was a pact we had to sign indicating we accept responsibility for action or inaction with consequences, it would be a different story. I would gladly sign.
       
       We need legislation now, because obviously we can't rise to the cause of our own free volition.
       
       I really wish it was a hoax so I could breathe a sigh of relief and hear the sweet words "I told you so" for many generations to come. I really would welcome that right now. Unfortunately, simply saying I told you so is not enough, from either side.
       
       Those that feel compelled to help with the challenge must now carry the weight for those who are resolved to do nothing, which makes it even more difficult. Reminds me of the mythological story of Sisyphus "rolling the rock eternally up the hill only to have it return each time he reached the summit for him to do it all over again."
       
       Humanity's flaw continues to play out and we are resolved to repeat history without learning the consequences of our actions. Hopefully this cycle, it won't prove fatal.
       
       Sure, let's blame Gore. He is the perfect scapegoat. Only problem is, he is unquestionably doing something actionable with his life...whether we agree or not. I am glad someone is willing to go out on a limb for humankind. At least we know exactly where he stands...and he is not standing still.
       
       Conspiracy, hypocrisy...obviously some have still not received the memo:
       
       gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/2/21/113953/985
97. 

    4/14/08

    timethief

    @bjancy
    Agreed.
    BTW here's the link to the other thread. www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/do-you-think-we-are-partly-to-blame-of-th...
    We have yet to hear a cogent response from those who allege that global warming is a hoax.
    
    Without doubt I believe that human activity is warming the planet. Here is a list of organizations that accept anthropogenic global warming as real and scientifically well-supported:
    * NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS): www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
    * National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
    * Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
    * National Academy of Sciences (NAS): books.nap.edu/collections/global_warming/index.html
    * State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC) - www.socc.ca/permafrost/permafrost_future_e.cfm
    * Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): epa.gov/climatechange/index.html
    * The Royal Society of the UK (RS) - www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=3135
    * American Geophysical Union (AGU): www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html
    * American Meteorological Society (AMS): www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html
    * American Institute of Physics (AIP): www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html
    * National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR): eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1.html
    * American Meteorological Society (AMS): www.ametsoc.org/policy/jointacademies.html
    * Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS): www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.html
    
    Every major scientific institution dealing with climate, ocean, and/or atmosphere agrees that the climate is warming rapidly and the primary cause is human CO2 emissions. In addition to that list, see also this joint statement (PDF) nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf that specifically and unequivocally endorses the work and conclusions of the IPCC Third Assessment report. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: www.ipcc.ch/
    The statement was issued by:
    * Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
    * Royal Society of Canada
    * Chinese Academy of Sciences
    * Academie des Sciences (France)
    * Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
    * Indian National Science Academy
    * Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
    * Science Council of Japan
    * Russian Academy of Sciences
    * Royal Society (United Kingdom)
    * National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
    
    You can also read this statement [PDF], royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13619 which includes all the above signatories plus the following:
    * Australian Academy of Sciences
    * Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
    * Caribbean Academy of Sciences
    * Indonesian Academy of Sciences
    * Royal Irish Academy
    * Academy of Sciences Malaysia
    * Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
    * Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
    
    www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_c...
    But if you believe that scientists are too liberal and politicians too unreliable, perhaps you find the opinion of key industry representatives more convincing:
    
    * BP, the largest oil company in the UK and one of the largest in the world, has this opinion:
    
    There is an increasing consensus that climate change is linked to the consumption of carbon based fuels and that action is required now to avoid further increases in carbon emissions as the global demand for energy increases.
    
    * Shell Oil (yes, as in oil, the fossil fuel) says:
    
    Shell shares the widespread concern that the emission of greenhouse gases from human activities is leading to changes in the global climate.
    
    * Eighteen CEOs of Canada’s largest corporations had this to say in an open letter to the Prime Minister of Canada:
    
    Our organizations accept that a strong response is required to the strengthening evidence in the scientific assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). We accept the IPCC consensus that climate change raises the risk of severe consequences for human health and security and the environment. We note that Canada is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.
    
    Have the environazis seized the reigns of industrial power, in addition to infiltrating the U.N., the science academies of every developed nation, and the top research institutes of North America? That just doesn’t seem very likely.

    [reply]
98. 

    4/14/08

    johnsblogs42

    It would be completely irrelevant to produce said facts and details here anyways since certain minds have already been made up about the hoax that is global warming.
    
    Regardless of the fact that "An Inconvenient Truth" has been dubbed nothing more than a propoganda film with no realist facts in it, it's still being force-fed to kids in schools around the globe.
    
    The complaining of the 17% decline in polar bear populations is the only part that makes the news, and completely ignored the 90% INCREASE in their population the several years prior.
    
    The global warming argument has already been had here, with the same result as being found here; "He who whines the loudest, wins."

    [reply]
    1. 

       4/15/08

       earthandeconomy

       Bravo, spoken like a boilerplate conservative.
       
       I heard there was "whine" at this party, who brought the cheese...smoked preferably? After the party, I think I will relax and read a good book.
       
       
       
       "A stinging indictment of how the Republican Party has not only ignored science, but has used bad science to justify its political agenda."
       
       Sorry, is this the type of whine you had in mind? Let me know if you want me to turn it down a notch. Wouldn't want to have to blame global warming for the heat in here.
99. 

    4/15/08

    timethief

    Stages of Denial
    1. There's nothing happening
    1. Inadequate evidence
    Objection: Despite what the computer models tell us, there is actually no evidence of significant global warming.
    
    Answer: Global warming is not an output of computer models; it is a conclusion based on observations of a great many global indicators. By far the most straightforward evidence is the actual surface temperature record. While there are places -- in England, for example -- that have records going back several centuries, the two major global temperature analyses can only go back around 150 years due to their requirements for both quantity and distribution of temperature recording stations.
    
    These are the two most reputable globally and seasonally averaged temperature trend analyses:
    * NASA GISS direct surface temperature analysis data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
    * CRU direct surface temperature analysis www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/
    
    Both trends are definitely and significantly up. In addition to direct measurements of surface temperature, there are many other measurements and indicators that support the general direction and magnitude of the change the earth is currently undergoing. The following diverse empirical observations lead to the same unequivocal conclusion that the earth is warming:
    * Satellite Data en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements
    * Radiosondes
    cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/temp/angell/angell.html
    * Borehole analysis
    www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/pollack.html
    * Glacial melt observations
    nsidc.org/sotc/glacier_balance.html
    * Sea ice melt
    nsidc.org/news/press/20050928_trendscontinue.html
    * Sea level rise
    sealevel.colorado.edu/
    * Proxy Reconstructions
    www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html
    * Permafrost melt
    www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg18725124.500
    
    There is simply no room for doubt: the Earth is undergoing a rapid and large warming trend.

    [reply]
    1. 

       4/15/08

       gerryPlanetEarth

       @timethief
       
       You seem genuinely concerned about Global Warming and/or Climate Change and the environmental health of Planet Earth...
       
       Your abilities to research issues and provide relevant information is greatly appreciated...
       
       We would appreciate if you joined the Planet Earth Peace Party's Global Warming Group...
       www.blogcatalog.com/group/global-warming
       and provide the relevant information you have provided in recent discussions to the 137 members from all over the world who have consensus regarding that Planet Earth is experiencing Global Warming and/or Climate Change and odd/severe weather including drought and flooding...
       
       Feel free to post in this group regarding Global Warming and what we can actually do to combat it...
100. 

     4/15/08

     earthandeconomy

     This my friends is when it gets really challenging...1.3 Billion people.
     
     news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7347631.stm

     [reply]
101. 

     4/15/08

     earthandeconomy

     Now why would Bush pass a bill on something that doesn't exist? Don't answer that...haha.
     
     www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007125.cfm
     
     gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/4/14/135629/757
     
     www.newsroomamerica.com/politics/story.php?id=414725

     [reply]
102. 

     4/15/08

     earthandeconomy

     Any chance you read the morning news?
     
     www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-romm/the-great-ice-age-of-2008_b_96409.html
     
     climateprogress.org/2008/04/13/breaking-news-the-great-ice-age-of-2008-is-f...
     
     
     
     [Warning -- the following chart is not suitable for children or those who believe in global cooling. Please cover their eyes since the 2008 data, plotted in red below, might give them nightmares.]

     [reply]
103. 

     4/15/08

     timethief

     @gerryPlanetEarth
     Thank you for the invitation. I have now joined the group.

     [reply]
104. 

     4/15/08

     johnsblogs42

     Ah. Personal attacks. Aren't they great for responses? Not only at my intentional, overtly-punctuated remarks (for the benefit of children that may have been in the room as my comment was scrolled,) and use of grammar, but now we've inserted (albiet with no prompting on my part,) the political position.
     
     I was intending to overlook them. But then the mention of "boilerplate conservative" was injected. And after having been scolded about the reliability of tripod and newsmax (of which the linked article was actually self defeating,) only to find Huffpo listed as a supporting site gave me a good chuckle. And wikipedia? A publicly editable site? A site that can't even list the correct origin, of the Cleveland Browns football team name? (Yes, it is named after Coach Brown. Check the NFL Hall of Fame site.) Sheer comedy.
     
     Not to mention one of the above critics inability to count to 2 when listing the steps of denial. Now that was humor at its best.
     
     It also lends more credence to previous comments on other GW discussions. That "GW" should join the ranks of categories, like "Religion," having been moved from "discussions" to "groups." As personal attacks are what they always degenerate to. And to be fair on that note, it often comes from both sides ... usually.
     
     Something that still hasn't been adequately addressed is the warming pundits inability to live what they preach. If Gore is so big on warming, to the point that he has actually scolded the media repeatedly for "not doing enough" to promote it, why is he touring the planet in a private jet? Wouldn't a sail-powered boat of some description be the climate saving thing to do? Must be the carbon credits.
     
     Or perhaps we could simply hit closer to home and ask, if you believe GW is real and you are reading this, how many carbon credits do you have to purchase to offset your energy use to simply power your PC? Just to toss out poor attempts at ridicule? Sounds like an uneccessary expense IMHO.
     
     Unless that is, your living like the Amish and just horse buggying into town to the local I-net cafe to make disparaging remarks about dissenters. But wouldn't that still make ANY GW proponent a .... Hypocrite?
     
     Lemme guess, carbon credits ... again.

     [reply]
     1. 

        4/15/08

        offendedblogger

        I love it when hypocrisy is exposed, this made me smile.
     2. 

        4/15/08

        Donlewis

        Johnsblog, I feel your pain (and everyone else's) That's why I modestly proposed the following solutions:
        
        humorium.blogspot.com/2007/11/carbon-credits-as-we-all-know-global.html
        In which I explain carbon credits in easy to understand terms, and:
        
        humorium.blogspot.com/2007/12/ive-got-sure-fire-new-business-idea.html
        Where, I offer a unique product, the Carbon Footprint credit, for those with footprint-envy.
        
        Hope this helps. It's for the children.
     3. 

        4/15/08

        earthandeconomy

        Somehow, I am not too worried Johnsblog42 about your ability to handle criticism. I don't get the feeling you are swayed that easily from what you belief.
        
        I apologize if the boilerplate comment was too close to home. I do not want to make deliberate personal attacks.
        
        I also admit that I made an assumption when you first joined the discussion, swearing and using rhetoric, that your initial contribution added very little value.
        
        I am more than happy to accept that we agree to disagree...or as you put it "that certain minds have already been made up about the hoax that is global warming." That yes it is not a hoax and that yes both of our minds are made up about this.
        
        We could sit here and deconstruct each of our arguments and provide reasoning behind why they are flawed by citing anecdotal evidence. This is not productive.
        
        As far as living what we preach is concerned, very few can say they are perfect, if any. Living a more sustainable lifestyle is an ongoing challenge. I don't think you need me to cite examples of what I am doing to make real changes to my lifestyle...the fact that we are even conversing on the subject is a very good start, even if you won't be swayed by scientific evidence.
        
        Carbon credits to me are like condolences during the Spanish Inquisition, though they help in a small way they don't address the real root of the problem, technology and accountability. We can't simply pay to make the guilt go away.
        
        I guess what I was really hoping when we engaged you in discussion is that you would provide real scientific examples for why global warming is a hoax?
        
        To quote "It would be completely irrelevant to produce said facts and details here anyways..." I feel that is a cop out.
        
        Please, produce "said facts"—irrefutable, credible scientific research that undeniably proves global warming is a figment of our imagination (whether it is anthropogenic is a completely different discussion which you should not participate in because you don't believe it exists to begin with, correct?)
        
        Sure Wiki and Huffpost can be criticized as "subject matter experts". Do you feel the following resource which was cited is credible? Maybe they repurposed the data for their own personal gain? Please say so. I would want to know for sure that Nasa and Government data is incorrectly being used.
        
        data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
        
        Would you say that this is a credible scientific resource?
        www.realclimate.org
        
        Velvethammer, you are correct that LiveEarth left a significant footprint, as does any major sports game. So yes there is hypocrisy behind the positive message. But, unlike a sports game LiveEarth did make attempts to account for the size of their footprint. Here is a report, and yes we should be careful because it was drafted by the company that organized the event.
        
        www.liveearth.org/docs/Live_Earth_Carbon_Report.pdf
        
        LiveEarth, though not nearly perfect, should be commended for acknowledging and attempting to account for the fact they are impacting the planet. velvethammer, since you cited the size of the LiveEarth footprint are you acknowledging that this is a problem or pointing it out?
        
        Let's construct a sound argument. First, let's start by stating that large events create a footprint (a). Then let's state that the footprints have a negative impact on the planet (b). Therefore large events are negative because of their footprint. If this is the case, then it is safe to say that people who hold large events and are aware of their footprint should be commended more than those who don't. Would you disagree?
        
        Stopping here, we'll resume later...
105. 

     4/15/08

     velvethammer

     Bravo John
     
     Let's not forget the audacity of the "Live Earth" concerts goal of combating global warming. How large of a carbon footprint did they leave...?
     Kinda like throwing out the baby with the bath water.

     [reply]
     1. 

        4/15/08

        daniel23

        That was so stupid I didn't know whether to laugh, cry or shoot my TV.
106. 

     4/15/08

     timethief

     Stages of Denial
     
     * Consensus is collusion
     Objection: More and more, climate models share all the same assumptions -- so of course they all agree! And every year, fewer scientists dare speak out against the findings of the IPCC, thanks to the pressure to conform.
     
     Answer: The growing confluence of model results and the increasingly similar physical representations of the climate system from model to model may well look like sharing code or tweaking 'til things look alike. But it is also perfectly consistent with better and better understanding of the underlying problem, an understanding that is shared via scientific journals and research. This understanding is coming fast as we gather more and more historical and current data, all of which provides more testing material for model refinement.
     
     Viewing the increasing agreement among climate models and climate scientists as collusion instead of consensus is a rather conspiratorial take on the normal course of scientific investigation. I suppose that fewer and fewer scientists disagreeing with the status quo is indeed consistent with some kind of widespread and insidious suppression of ideas, but you know, it is also consistent with having the right answer.
     
     Objection: Climate is complicated and there are lots of competing theories and unsolved mysteries. Until this is all worked out, one can't claim there is consensus on global warming theory. Until there is, we should not take any action.
     
     This is similar to the "global warming is a hoax" article, but at least here we can narrow down just what the consensus is about.
     
     Answer: Sure there are plenty of unsolved problems and active debates in climate science. But if you look at the research papers coming out these days, the debates are about things like why model predictions of outgoing longwave radiation at the top of the atmosphere in tropical latitudes differ from satellite readings, or how the size of ice crystals in cirrus clouds affect the amount of incoming shortwave reflected back into space, or precisely how much stratospheric cooling can be attributed to ozone depletion rather than an enhanced greenhouse effect.
     
     No one in the climate science community is debating whether or not changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations alter the greenhouse effect, or if the current warming trend is outside of the range of natural variability, or if sea levels have risen over the last century.
     
     This is where there is a consensus.
     
     Specifically, the "consensus" about anthropogenic climate change entails the following:
     * the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;
     * the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2;
     * the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels;
     * if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue; and
     * a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.
     
     While theories and viewpoints in conflict with the above do exist, their proponents constitute a very small minority. If we require unanimity before being confident, well, we can't be sure the earth isn't hollow either.
     
     This consensus is represented in the IPCC Third Assessment Report, Working Group 1 (TAR WG1), the most comprehensive compilation and summary of current climate research ever attempted, and arguably the most thoroughly peer reviewed scientific document in history. While this review was sponsored by the UN, the research it compiled and reviewed was not, and the scientists involved were independent and came from all over the world.
     
     The conclusions reached in this document have been explicitly endorsed by ...
     * Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
     * Royal Society of Canada
     * Chinese Academy of Sciences
     * Academié des Sciences (France)
     * Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
     * Indian National Science Academy
     * Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
     * Science Council of Japan
     * Russian Academy of Sciences
     * Royal Society (United Kingdom)
     * National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
     * Australian Academy of Sciences
     * Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
     * Caribbean Academy of Sciences
     * Indonesian Academy of Sciences
     * Royal Irish Academy
     * Academy of Sciences Malaysia
     * Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
     * Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
     
     ... in either one or both of these documents:
     nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
     www.royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13619
     
     In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed or published the same conclusions as presented in the TAR report:
     
     * NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
     * National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
     * National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
     * State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
     * Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
     * Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
     * American Geophysical Union (AGU)
     * American Institute of Physics (AIP)
     * National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
     * American Meteorological Society (AMS)
     * Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
     
     If this is not scientific consensus, what in the world would a consensus look like?

     [reply]
107. 

     4/15/08

     ekim941

     It's mid April and in Florida it is 30 degrees. It's harder and harder to believe global warming every day.

     [reply]
     1. 

        4/15/08

        offendedblogger

        I am not laughing at you, I am laughing with you.
     2. 

        4/15/08

        ekim941

        Can you laugh with me and bring a F-ing blanket
     3. 

        4/15/08

        offendedblogger

        Hell no! I had to drive in white out conditions up here today, I'm keeping all the blankets to myself.
        
        Snow in April in Idaho, who ever heard of such madness?!!
     4. 

        4/15/08

        ekim941

        I think Al Gore had today off
     5. 

        4/15/08

        ekim941

        I have a feeling that I am going to get Boo-ed out of this thread for that comment.
     6. 

        4/15/08

        offendedblogger

        Al Gore would cry like a little girl up here at my place right now, guaranteed.
        
        He'd never last a whole winter.
     7. 

        4/15/08

        ekim941

        He promised us global warming dammit
        I'm freezing here.
     8. 

        4/15/08

        offendedblogger

        I wonder if Tiffany would represent us in a civil suit against him? I think we definitely have a case.
        
        I bet we could track down a couple of polar bears who will testify for us too!
     9. 

        4/15/08

        ekim941

        Yeh, as long as you don't shot them with your bow.
        I want a penguin to represent me, they look so well dressed
     10. 

         4/15/08

         offendedblogger

         Hey, I'm no bear killer! I only shoot animals I can eat, well unless you count the neighbor's dog but that was an accident, I swear!
     11. 

         4/15/08

         ekim941

         What, you can't eat bear? I thought you could eat any animal that is made out of meat? That dog wasn't a "Chow" by any chance? I hear they are good with rice.
     12. 

         4/15/08

         offendedblogger

         Ew, bears are scavengers you aren't supposed to eat them. It isn't Kosher hehe.
     13. 

         4/15/08

         ekim941

         My billboard doesn't exclude bears. I thought polar bears ate fish and slow seals?
         
         
108. 

     4/15/08

     MarkPogue

     For the past 3-4 years, I've spotted several armadillos in my area...St. Louis.
     Before then, it was unheard of.

     [reply]
109. 

     4/15/08

     kevingoodman

     At any rate I am saving for a time share on the moon.

     [reply]
     1. 

        4/15/08

        offendedblogger

        Kevin, I have room in my underground bunker for you.
        
        Well, at least for that Persian rug collection of yours.
     2. 

        4/15/08

        kevingoodman

        Count me in I'll leave the rugs for artifacts!
     3. 

        4/15/08

        kevingoodman

        Because time with you is priceless
     4. 

        4/15/08

        offendedblogger

        Awww, that is so sweet. I'll even paint the walls a sage green in your honor.
110. 

     4/16/08

     earthandeconomy

     Godwin's law has been modified to become:
     
     Gore's law
     
     "As an online climate change debate grows longer, the probability that denier arguments will descend into attacks on Al Gore approaches one."
     
     laanta.blogspot.com/2008/03/gores-law.html
     
     From looking at more recent posts in here I would say there is some truth to it.
     
     PS, I won't be "offended" by personal attacks, in case you care...the whole insensitive lot of you. wah!

     [reply]
111. 

     4/16/08

     earthandeconomy

     
     
     Storybook...
     
     Here is a good "Skeptometer"
     
     www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

     [reply]
112. 

     4/16/08

     boazstuff

     The weather is definitely getting more predictable - It will only get worse. I'm staying in Singapore and i've never encountered worst thunders and lightnings than 10 mins ago. Till now, the sky refused to stop roaring, even now, though it kind of softened. Lightnings flashed like shutters every few seconds. Strangely, only passing rain showed up.

     [reply]
113. 

     4/16/08

     velvethammer

     Ways to stop producing carbon dioxide
     
     Stop breathing - When you exhale you release carbon dioxide
     
     Don't drive - We all know how bad driving is
     
     Don't live in a house/apartment/condo or any building that uses gas or electricity - Homes produce 2-3 times as much carbon as cars.
     
     Don't wear shoes or any sort of clothing produced in a factory. Grow a cotton field and make your own clothes by hand.
     
     Quit school - Those school buildings produce more carbon in a year then you do in 20 years.
     
     Eat meat raw - Whether your using gas or electric both produce carbon dioxide.
     
     Turn off this monitor and computer - You hypocrite.
     
     Don't use toilets, urinate or poo in your back yard.- The water to your house is cleaned and sent to your house using pumps that use electricity.
     
     Stop exercising - Increasing your heart rate increases the amount of oxygen you take in and turn into carbon dioxide.
     
     Die - Dying younger means you will do all of the above less. Living one year less means you will save the earth 8.4 tons of carbon dioxide every year your not here!
     
     “The attempts of environmentalists to bolster the myth of human-induced global warming is downright immoral.” Philip Stott, Professor of Biogeography, University of London
     
     Every Climatologist will tell you the Earth's temperature has been much hotter and colder than it is now.
     
     There was an Ice Age and it warmed up, there was a Mini Ice Age just 500 years ago and it has been warming up ever since. The Industrial Revolution was not around during those periods.
     
     NASA reports because of Solar Flares the Sun is the hottest it has been in over 100 years. There are no cars on the sun.
     
     Global warming is causing ice to melt on Mars. There are no cars on Mars.
     
     Thousands and thousands of studies and experiments prove that more carbon dioxide produces better fruits, vegetables, trees and almost any sort of plant life.
     
     Most of the temperature increase happened before 1940 (Before most carbon dioxide was released by cars and factories)
     
     The hot year of 1998 was caused by El Nino.
     
     Joining the Kyoto Protocol would cost the U.S. approximately $400 Billion every year and have virtually no effect on earths temperature.
     
     April 28, 1975 Newsweek printed an article about scientists predicting doom and gloom because of Global Cooling.
     
     Climate models do not take into account water vapor that is 95% of the atmosphere.
     
     The United Nations left out two statements that were suppose to be in the final draft of a paper on Global Warming.
     
     1)“None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
     2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”

     [reply]
114. 

     4/16/08

     timethief

     My assessment is that you really ought to take your concerns to the White House.
     
     References:
     The AR4 Synthesis Report
     IPCC Fourth Assessment Report
     * FULL REPORT
     www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf
     Working Group I Report "The Physical Science Basis"
     * FULL REPORT
     www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm
     Working Group II Report "Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability"
     *FULL REPORT
     www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg2.htm
     Working Group III Report "Mitigation of Climate Change"
     *FULL REPORT
     www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg3.htm
     
     So here’s the reasoning in a nutshell. Activists warn: Upheaval and destruction. Skeptics warn: severe economic harm.
     
     First off, no one’s perfect. So any choice you make brings with it a risk if your choice turns out to be a mistake. Given that understanding, which risk would you rather take:
     
     (1) listen to the activists and take big action now, risking the possible harm to the economy that the skeptics warn us about,
     (2) or listen to the skeptics and don’t take big action now, risking the possible destruction and upheaval that the activists warn us about.
     
     The bottom line is, which is the more acceptable risk: the risk of taking action, or the risk of not taking action?

     [reply]
115. 

     4/16/08

     timethief

     "Despite the uncertainties, there is general agreement that the observed warming is real and particularly strong within the past 20 years."
     From: Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions
     Publisher and Date :National Academy of Sciences, 2001
     
     Even CNN, in language typical of other reportage, stated that it (the National Academy of Sciences report) represented 'a unanimous decision that global warming is real, is getting worse, and is due to man. There is no wiggle room."
     www.desmogblog.com/the-deniers-the-world-renowned-scientists-who-dont-actua...

     [reply]
116. 

     4/16/08

     earthandeconomy

     The Hottest Hoax Around!
     
     

     [reply]
     1. 

        4/16/08

        earthandeconomy

        
        
        Quick, call the bear off please.
        
        news.worldwild.org/happy-weekend/
117. 

     4/16/08

     MarkPogue

     There's always the skeptic and the deniers.
     Skepticism is healthy. Usually a skeptic is open-minded enough to draw a logical conclusion from evidence.
     Then there's the denier. You can show him/her thousands of articles, tests, loads of data, graphs, physical evidence....but yet will argue these facts.
     The deniers are the ones that cry will help after the boat is underwater.

     [reply]
     1. 

        4/16/08

        offendedblogger

        Not me, I live at a high elevation and according to Mark Stoneman you all will be wanting to invade my little piece of paradise that is Idaho!!
        
        I'll be at the border, ready to fend you off.
     2. 

        4/16/08

        timethief

        @Mark
        I hear you. Well put.
118. 

     4/16/08

     timethief

     @Chelle,
     I live on a tiny island that some call paradise. I have a valid passport and I may require a change in elevation so, are you open to negotiation?

     [reply]
     1. 

        4/16/08

        offendedblogger

        @Timethief ~ Hey, are you on Victoria Island. BC?
        
        If so, I'd love to negotiate so long as it involves me staying at your place 3 weeks a year, rent free, with room service and a private masseuse.
119. 

     4/16/08

     timethief

     No I'm not on Vancouver Island. I'm on a much smaller island but I'm not saying which one. Sadly, my lifestyle doesn't live up to your expectations. Hmmm think rustic or even primitive house in the woods and you will have a clearer picture of my reality.

     [reply]
     1. 

        4/16/08

        offendedblogger

        @Timethief ~ Hehe, you are talking to a girl who lived a year in an Amish house at the edge of an Amish village.
        
        I can do rustic.
120. 

     4/16/08

     MarkPogue

     quote:
     "There seems to be a lot of information coming out recently supporting the idea that the global warming movement is a fabrication. What do you think?
     
     I suspect there is a fabrication to marginalize scientific facts that support human-contributed climate change.

     [reply]
     1. 

        4/17/08

        earthandeconomy

        For the general reader like myself, it is very difficult to navigate through the noise to find reports that definitively applicable to our current warming trend. As you know, there are a number of overlapping competing theories:
        
        1. The earth's magnetic field flipping (approx every 200 years):
        news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/09/0927_040927_field_flip.html
        
        2. Then we also have short term cooling from La Nina and warm from el Nino (year-to-year in shorter intervals)
        environmentaldefenseblogs.org/climate411/2008/03/24/cooling_from_la_nina/
        
        3. There are also sun solar flares (next cycle expected 2011-12)
        hesperia.gsfc.nasa.gov/sftheory/spaceweather.htm
        
        4. Then there is a much larger cooling period or ice age (millions of years)
        www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ice/chill.html
        
        5. Then there is the existing "hockey stick" attributed to anthropogenic climate change (as portrayed in urikalish's graphs in prior posts) compared against studies using corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes, ice cores, etc. According to Skeptical Science, "Each record reveals that the 20th century is the warmest of the entire record, and that warming was most dramatic after 1920."
        
        The IPPC's Fourth Assessment Report also supports this. They state:
        
        "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now
        evident from observations of increases in global average
        air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow
        and ice and rising global average sea level"
        
        There is a plethora of scientific data out there...which can be manipulated very easily for self-serving purposes. I have observed that individuals appear to latch on to theories that are convenient for their argument rather than isolating the one that appears to be more applicable for our current trends. When we talk about global warming, I think most of us are looking at the existing trend that began in the 20's and a forecast over the next 50 years— a trend that is linked to human activity and carbon.
        
        The other trends, which tend to take their natural course over time should not be confused with the more recent climate models. Many I mentioned happen on much longer cycles (except la nina and el nino). For longer cycles we would not necessarily see as dramatic change because they happen over a longer elapsed period of time.
        
        I think we remain skeptical because the global warming trend which we are currently observing is rapidly increasing and breaking scientific estimates that were too conservative before. Also, with some of the more recent models there is a level of uncertainty because of the amount of data and complexity of modeling it. Sometimes we are conservative to take a stance based on the data...reputations are riding on it.
        
        At the end of the day, amidst this uncertainty you have to start to trust the majority of experts. I don't mean your local professor or even a respected university panel. Even the IPCC is even often scrutinized (though one must admit they have some of the world's most well respected scientists on their panel).
        
        When you look at the world's scientific community then it becomes extremely clear there is a consensus that climate change today is a real issue. There are international scientists and governments that are pursuing solutions; there are international businesses and organizations; there are individuals and the collective global effort. We are not simply talking about a few media journalists or a few crackpot scientists who are calling for action. This challenge is playing out on a global scale and the impacts are already being seen (food, energy, water, forests, wildlife). Read the news. I get my daily media from over 200 rss feeds including those which I don't feel are credible. I can share this OPML file for anyone that wants it. I want to learn both sides. I keep hoping we are wrong.
        
        When we talk about conspiracies and fabrication, I ask myself why would someone create a fatalistic hoax like global warming for personal gain...and why would so many intelligent people support it if there was not some validity to it? There are other ways to achieve personal gain without taking on causes that result in widespread anxiety.
        
        Take Al Gore for instance, have you noticed how tired he looks...like the weight of the world presses on his soul? You don't get those sleepless bags under your eyes if your soul purpose was to get rich off of carbon credits. I truly feel he is sincere when he says we have a moral obligation to the cause. Let's not forget his interest in environmentalism began as a teenager. Sure, observations of a person's demeanor and exterior are not scientific. We can note they are merely observations.
        
        I really have a difficult time believing that a collective group of people would be sadistic enough to create a global warming hoax for pure personal gain in this day and age. I could be wrong, but then blame me for trusting there is good in people first rather than doubting human intentions.
        
        We must begin to see how large America's role is with this issue...not simply because we emit three times as much carbon on average vs. an individual in China, but because other developing countries are waiting for us to pave the way. (We could go into the statistics for resource consumption too. Staggering if you watched the NatGeo "Human Footprint" special this week.)
        
        A guest author for Grist writes:
        gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/17/151137/795
        
        "If the U.S. -- the wealthiest country on Earth -- won't [act], how can we expect developing countries to do it?"
        
        So true and you don't need to be a human behaviorist to understand the impact of "modeling" on shaping then minds of others.
        
        I am very passionate about the subject I am going to offer some real advice "crap or get off the pot, and in this case the planet". In other words, stop wasting your breathe if you aren't going to pursue an emergent solution to transcend existing paradigms—excessive consumption, waste, lack of conservation, polluting technologies...
        
        If I want a daily weather forecast I can watch the weather channel. In fact this summer is going to be cooler so we don't need a day by day forcast from your local city for the next few months. Save your C02 (breathe).
        
        Think bigger or don't and please don't contribute to the "noise".
     2. 

        4/17/08

        earthandeconomy

        PS MarkPogue I agree with your statement that you suspect:
        
        "there is a fabrication to marginalize scientific facts that support human-contributed climate change."
        
        In fact, I expect large automakers and oil companies to act just a big tobacco has. Why do think we are already fighting over a 35 MPG fuel efficiency standard as being too much?
        
        Do you know why Toyota also fought in favor on not passing the standard?
        www.truthabouttoyota.com
        
        Ridiculous.
        
        When you know you have a finite resource why wouldn't you cut consumption in half if you had technologies to do so...you wouldn't because it impacts the bottom line. That is the conundrum.
        
        I think we are programmed to expect something happens for profit always and let's face it companies are already cashing in off the green thing. They have to adapt or they won't be in business.
        
        Eventually the savvy consumer will figure it out and make wiser choices. Let's hope so
121. 

     4/17/08

     creative666

     ...and Elvis has been living in Cape Town for the last ten years... he asks if someone from the states can send him a cheeseburger?

     [reply]
     1. 

        4/17/08

        earthandeconomy

        Let me guess, that was your analogous way of masking that global warming is a hoax correct? If I had to guess, something wasn't clear. Get the humor though. You are a creative "devil"
        
        Urkalish said something similar in an earlier post:
        
        www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/is-global-warming-a-hoax#comment_302406
122. 

     4/17/08

     creative666

     Damn I have been rumbled

     [reply]
     1. 

        4/17/08

        velvethammer

        The King can haz cheezeburger!
        
        Gee I hope he likes White Castle's.
        
        
        Hopin' to rock his world with a Crave Case of Slyders.
     2. 

        4/17/08

        timethief

        @creative666 and velvethammer
        Just in case it isn't clear to you I'm not in the least impressed by your less than meaningful contributions.
        I'm politely inviting you to demonstrate your respect for those who do wish to participate in a civilized and sensible conversation by starting your own threads.
123. 

     4/17/08

     velvethammer

     @ timethief
     
     Impressing you is the last thing on my mind. I can assure you.
     
     FYI creative666 and I are not the only ones who injected a bit of silliness in this thread.
     Back read.
     
     Oh and BTW I posted some serious links and quotes. Just because you do not happen to agree with anything I posted, does not mean that I was not contributing to the discussion.

     [reply]
     1. 

        4/17/08

        timethief

        @velvethammer
        Thanks for acknowledging that the issues are serious and that the silliness you admit to demonstrates a lack of respect. It's sad to be here witnessing a cabal of adults acting like clowns and shaming themselves by devoting their brain power to trying to bully others into silence.
        
        I acknowledge your right to hold a dissenting opinion and to substantiate it. Thank you for committing to contributing to meaningful dialog.
     2. 

        4/17/08

        offendedblogger

        Timethief, no one is silencing anyone. Feel free to speak to whomever, and skip past whomever you so choose.
        
        Freedom is an amazing gift, it's better than communism anyday!
     3. 

        4/17/08

        timethief

        @velvethammer
        Indeed I have re-read the thread and you are quite correct when you point out that you and creative666 are not the only BC members who "injected a bit of silliness in this thread". I'm glad that you pointed that finger. It helped me isolate who the members of the BC cabal devoted to bulling those who do believe that action ought to be taken to mitigate global warming into silence are. Thanks again.
124. 

     4/17/08

     earthandeconomy

     "When Elvis Presley died in 1977, there were an estimated 37 Elvis impersonators in the world. By 1993, there were 48,000 Elvis impersonators, an exponential increase. Extrapolating from this, by 2010 there will be 2.5 billion Elvis impersonators. The population of the world will be 7.5 billion by 2010. Every 3rd person will be an Elvis impersonator by 2010." -
     
     Source: Herb Caen, San Francisco Chronicle; October 27, 1993
     
     Still sounds like a population problem no matter how you slice it.

     [reply]
125. 

     4/17/08

     velvethammer

     "Thanks for acknowledging that the issues are serious and that the silliness you admit to demonstrates a lack of respect"
     @ timethief
     I did not acknowledge anything of the sort. I would appreciate if you would not put words in my mouth.
     
     @ offendedblogger Well put!
     
     My views on Global Warming encompass far more than my skepticism on the validity of proof or lack there of.
     
     As an example the UK.
     Quote
     "At the same time, homeowners will be asked to make their homes "carbon neutral" and required to draw their energy primarily from low or zero carbon sources such as wave, tide, solar or nuclear power. To ensure compliance, the government will send out inspectors to scrutinize everything from how a home is insulated to the kind of appliances it uses. Those who fail to meet the decreed standards will be fined and penalized. Just how serious the government is about enforcement can be sensed from the words of Environment Secretary David Miliband who stated -- while unveiling the program -- that it would be "painful" for home owners to continue to have an "energy inefficient home."
     
     These sentiments were echoed by a group of cabinet ministers who said that complying with the new regulations will necessitate sweeping changes in lifestyle across the board. Everybody in Britain, they concurred, will have to "live, work and travel differently."
     
     It is essential that we see these developments for what they really are: A thinly-veiled attempt by devotees of the state to take over a western society the like of which has not been seen since the Soviet-sponsored revolutions of the late 1940s.
     
     The practical consequence of these plans -- should they succeed -- will be a radical empowerment of the state which will end up with virtually unlimited powers to regulate nearly every facet of life. Everything from the way people travel to the manner in which they furnish and maintain their homes will now be subject to governmental decree and oversight. Those who refuse to comply will be punished -- and severely so -- if the words of Miliband are anything to go by.
     
     This is precisely why the idea of man-made global warming so appeals to those on the political left. Being ideological cousins of erstwhile socialists, they share a desire to expand government regardless of the cause or issue they ostensibly espouse. In global warming they have sensed the perfect opportunity, for if the underlying claim is true and the planet is indeed headed for destruction, then the impending catastrophe can only be averted by united action on a grand scale. And such action can only be taken by a strong state which has been granted a wide range of powers to deal with this life-or-death crisis."
     
     [...]When similar measures are finally proposed in America -- as they inevitably will be -- we must be prepared to expose and call them for what they really are: A ruse to bring about the socialist dream of an all-powerful state in charge of every aspect of our lives.
     End quote
     
     www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=19965
     
     Karl Marx is smiling from beyond the grave no doubt.

     [reply]
126. 

     4/17/08

     johnsblogs42

     tsk, tsk, tsk.
     
     I toooold yooouuuu guys this was going to happen. Didn't I tell you this was going to happen? This is what always happens. But did anyone listen to me? Nooooo. And just like the discussions of the past on "Religion" and "GW," it always disintigrates down to name calling and personal attacks. With people (albeit incorrectly) believing they have some superior insight into the topic, and being just as guilty as the other side of omitting/refusing to face contrary evidence.
     
     At least one of those had the consideration to send me an apology of a sorts for personal attacks. And I do thank them for that.
     
     But since it's obvious that the thread will get no better, I'll make this my last entry to it, and could really care less now who I offend. Except for Flimjo, who originally opened the discussion. I can fully understand why he hasn't been back in here for a bit. Every one else can take their facts and, well, they know what they can do with them.
     
     So, to any who are perched on top of their self proclaimed "untouchable" ivory towers of superior intellect, I feel it necessary to point out two things that the overly brilliant mind might find easy to miss;
     
     One is, the obvious "lack" of ability to comprehend the topic of the thread itself. Flimjo simply stated in the discussion opener;
     
     "There seems to be a lot of information coming out recently supporting the idea that the global warming movement is a fabrication. What do you think?" (You'll find this statement at the top of the page, for those who need PROOF.)
     
     Or what can more easily be understood as, (I'll translate, for those suffering of acute over-intelligence,) "Do you think it's a hoax or not?" I don't see any request/demands for proof in Flimjo's opener. No "substantiate your claims" demands. It's pretty cut and dry. It's a YES or NO response. Yes, the question was that simple.
     
     The other is; When was any singular individual appointed high crown princely supreme commander of the thread? I must have missed the mandatory coronation ceremony attendance memo. NO ONE RULES THE THREAD, so demanding that people contribute in some respectable fashion is moot, and does just as little, (if not more damage,) than any one elses comment in here in the way of contribution. Especially when they weren't even the original initiates of the discussion in the first place.
     
     So pull the "holier than thou" logs out of whatever orifices that are being grossly obstructed, causing severe back-ups of mental methane, producing an overabundance of snobbish effects and join the rest of the real world.
     
     You might be surprised at how much more welcome you may be. Either that, or take these discussions to the "Groups" section were Lording over each other won't involve the rest of the BC community.
     
     And on a more Monty Python-ish note;
     
     "And now for something completely different......."

     [reply]