Is Global climate change a reality or just propaganda created by tree huggers? With a poll.

Record floods in a tiny part of the Earth mean climate change, so this has become the mantra.

If you call Pakistan, Tenn., Columbia, Canada, Texas, Australia, Great Britain, Panama, Mexico, Germany, Italy, Greece, The Balkans, Vietnam, Thailand, China, Minnesota, Iowa, Venezuela, Rhode Island, North Carolina, Nigeria, Bennin, India, Sri Lanka, etc., "tiny parts of the earth" ....... You may want to look-up the meaning of "tiny".

7 votes

#1.2 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 4:21 PM EST

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=1619910

The sea is rising at Midway Rick -

Sea level rise at Midway Island -

7 votes

#1.3 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 4:44 PM EST

RatPoison

Everybody is aware that there is an increase in green house gases in the atmosphere, and that more ultraviolent radiation is reaching through to the planets surface. We are also aware that the planet goes through natural cycles of heating and cooling brought on by any number of variables from volcanos, to impacts into the earth, to activity with the sun. What we are not sure of is how each of the various factors we are measuring today will interplay with one another.

For example, most people are aware of the Gulf Stream which moves warm waters up the east coast and around the bottom of Greenland where it then goes back south by Britian and back down to the equator. What they may not be aware of is that the current and the speed and strength of its flow is heavily related to the salinity in the Atlantic. With the melting of ice caps and the injection of more fresh water into the ocean there has been a drop in salinity that has weakened the flow of this current. Subsequently the Gulf Stream has supposedly become a weaker current than it was thirty years ago.

I believe it was in 2006 or maybe 2007 when for a couple of weeks the Gulf Stream actually ceased flow during the summer months. The importance of this is the loss of this current and the warm waters it brings up the coast would result in a change in climate for the all of the New England states, etc. Instead of having a warming affect, we would get a cooling affect driving average temperatures down.

There are a lot of other tangents and theories regarding the Gulf Stream and its slowing... for example that more hurricanes will turn and spin in the Gulf of Mexico as opposed to running up the coast. But I guess the real question is whether or not humans have affected the normal cycles of the planet with the release of tons of carbon dioxides and methanes from our industrialization... to which I'd have to say yes. Is it as large of an impact as some would have us believe... probably not, but I do think that we will continue to see a growing amount of uncertainty regarding the world's climate as a result of the portions we have unbalanced.

I don't think making moves to curve our situation will change the direction that we are already heading in either... this snowball is starting to pick up speed and I just don't think using wind energy and electric cars will reverse this renewed balancing act by the planet.

3 votes

#1.4 - Fri Dec 10, 2010 10:33 AM EST

Rickeroo

Colorado Bob:

Sea level rise at Midway Island -

My point was to put sea level rise (thermal expansion, ice melting) over 70 years into photographic perspective.

I took a look at the data. Indeed, the tide gauge puts it at 2.7 inches in a century, which means 1.9 inches of rise since the 1942 photograph, probably undetectable visually and 16% of the average tidal variation of 12 inches at that location. It took 70 years to get there, which speaks to the volume of water that's melted thusfar.

The year without a summer occured in 1816, and the Mississippi flooded severely in 1927. These are occasional events that occur, and are not indicative of a trend. When vast areas of flora/fauna change due to climate, then this would be an indicator of climate change that does not depend on microscopic variations.

I took a look at the sea level trends:

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/

Lots of green arrows, which correspond to a rise of 0 to 1 foot per century. Assuming those arrows represent 6 inches, this just about equals the "7 inches" of sea rise in the past 100 years. It's curious that there aren't more drastic up arrows indicating an increasing rate of rise. Indeed, there are some, but these look like they are negated by the 'lowering' of the sea level near Alaska and Norway/Sweden.

Incredibly, the measurements of NOAA are telling us that Alaska's south coast and Norway/Sweden are losing 2-4 feet of water a century. This does not fit the pattern.

There are two reasons for the rise in sea level per the global warming theory:

1. Thermal expansion of water. CO2 traps heat, then heats the oceans, which expand in volume. Which areas of the Earth would then see a drop in sea level, when the volume of water has increased? My answer would be that no area would see a sea level drop due to thermal expansion.

2. Land glaciers melt, adding water volume to the ocean. This could be likened to taking water from another planet and adding it to our oceans. Which coastal areas would see a drop in sea level as a result of this? My answer would be none.

A question there is: by what mechanics are those 2 areas showing a sea level decline? Could the opposite of that mechanic also cause sea level rise in other areas?

If NOAA is showing a huge reduction in sea level in those areas, there can be only one conclusion. The sea level computations are relative and do not take into account any change in the land mass distance from the center of the Earth, as plates interact as they float on a thin crust.

1 vote

#1.5 - Fri Dec 10, 2010 1:44 PM EST

RatPoison

Not exactly Rickeroo... the areas where the sea level is declining is actually because the land is expanding. The accepted explanation is in direct relation to the recession of glaciers, the loss of that weight pushing down on the ground has allowed it start expanding from its compacted stated. It's not that the sea level isn't rising there, it's that the land is rising at a greater pace.

This was the explanation discussed and provided back in 2005 (I believe) and there is a fancy term for the phenomena that I cannot recall at the moment.

Islands like Midway aren't a great place to measure and draw conclusions because that an island is subjected come in a variety of forms that usually are renewed from time to time. For example volcanic islands tend to keep growing over time. Barrier islands renew themselves through a process of "roll-over". These factors inheritantly doesn't allow us to create a baseline for comparison beyond just talking simply about the islands size. Though... there is a slight exception to barrier islands since these islands will sink and disappear if the rate of sea level rise is faster than the factors that are required to sustain it (marsh growth, and sea activity to physically create the "roll over").

3 votes

#1.6 - Fri Dec 10, 2010 2:04 PM EST

Rickeroo

RatPoison, you have a point there. I believe it's called rebound.

Most of my skepticism results from the dire predictions of the past, versus the physical manifestations we see today.

#1.7 - Sat Dec 11, 2010 8:34 AM EST

King Dave

Humans are effecting and speeding up the heating cycle of climate change, by burning more fossil fuels and deforestation over the past hundred years. It is true life on Earth will go on, perhaps just not with us. There is hope, electric cars, technology, some type of stabilization of population growth and we could be here for a great long time.

7 votes

#2 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 12:35 PM EST

I am really concerned about the implications of Global Warming and Climate Change. So many scientists disagree on this subject and it seems that many are in denial just to prevent panic.

I really want to know and so I turn to you, my readers for answers. If I try to state factual data I will be torn to shreds. I hope this article is popular because I really enjoy researching this topic.

2 votes

#2.1 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 1:00 PM EST

evilgenius

I am really concerned about the implications of Global Warming and Climate Change. So many scientists disagree on this subject and it seems that many are in denial just to prevent panic.

All climatoligists do agree there is change. What they haven't reached a consenious on is have we already gone too far, can we slow it down or can we reverse the trends?

5 votes

#2.2 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 1:26 PM EST

Roxanne2Sweet

What most people are unaware of is the crucial role of the arctic's sea ice, it's the planet's air conditioning system.

It has to be just right; if it grows too much then it reflects (white) enough sunlight back into space to tip the planet into a new glaciation (ice age).

Currently however it's doing the opposite: thinning and vanishing. Too little arctic sea ice will see too much sunlight (heat) being absorbed by the newly-exposed arctic ocean (dark, water) which will quickly trigger an ice-free arctic and a planet tipped into a rapid greenhouse event. Then you will have a new End-Permian mass extinction of species, which is also known as 'The Great Dying'

5 votes

#2.3 - Fri Dec 10, 2010 1:09 AM EST

There is much credible science which supports both the assertion and the anthropomorphic aspect.

There is NO science which shows the opposite.

6 votes

#3 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 1:00 PM EST

Reid Bryson, the 87-year-old considered to be the father of scientific climatology, has spoken out strongly against anthropogenic global warming theories. The following is from an interview of Mr. Bryson by Wisconsin’s Capital Times in 2007.

"Humans are polluting the air and adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but the effect is tiny, Bryson said. "There is a lot of money to be made in this," he added.

"If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide.'"

Just because almost all of the scientific community believes in man-made global warming proves absolutely nothing, Bryson said. "Consensus doesn't prove anything. There is very little truth to what is being said and an awful lot of religion. It's almost a religion. Where you have to believe in anthropogenic (or man-made) global warming or else you are nuts.

"The growth of cities makes it hotter, but that was true back in the 1930s, too," Bryson said. "Big cities were hotter than the surrounding countryside because you concentrate the traffic and you concentrate the home heating. And you modify the surface, you pave a lot of it."

Regarding Al Gore's movie about global warming, An Inconvenient Truth: "Don't make me throw up," Bryson said. "It is not science. It is not true."

5 votes

#3.1 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 1:13 PM EST

Thats an assertion BY a scientist, not the science itself.

And the heat island effect is PROOF that at the minimum, man can and DOES affect at least local climate.

I repeat, there is NO science which shows we are not affecting the climate.

Every National Academy of Science on the entire planet is in agreement with this.

7 votes

#3.2 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 1:26 PM EST

kwebber

I repeat, there is NO science which shows we are not affecting the climate.

It is imposible to prove a negative. The only way it could be proven is if there were an exact duplicate of the earth, with the exact same history minus human beings.

2 votes

#3.3 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 6:11 PM EST

http://www.skepticalscience.com/its-not-us-basic.htm

there is proof there is man made global warming!!! just like there was proof that ethanol would decrease emissions.

lmao

seriously here people.

wake up

1 vote

#3.4 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 6:15 PM EST

kwebber

But there is proof that the earth has warmed in the past before people began polluting. So where is the proof that that is not what is happening this time.

1 vote

#3.5 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 6:21 PM EST

Roxanne2Sweet

We know this time it's us because of the human fingerprint :

3 votes

#3.6 - Fri Dec 10, 2010 12:58 AM EST

http://www.wunderground.com/global/GL.html

Greenland -
Of all the stations currently reporting precipitation , 4 are reporting snow , and 7 are reporting rain .

This pattern has been in place for over a month.

5 votes

#4 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 1:09 PM EST

But what does that mean?

2 votes

#4.1 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 1:14 PM EST

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/press-releases/global-warming-could-cool-down-temperatures-in-winter?set_language=en

Kevin -

A fellow named Lief at Climate Progress said it best -

When the Arctic is covered with ice the Arctic area cools down faster than the surrounding continents. 24 hour night happens first the furthest north. This allows a pool of arctic air to stabilize in the vicinity of the Arctic circle with minor polar out breaks sweeping thru the continental regions from time to time. Most of the cold stays safely pooled above the Arctic Ice. However, remove a lot of the ice in the summer and something all together different happens. The open oceans collect more heat as the summer sun is not reflected by the ice but adsorbed by the darker water. This delays the fall ice formation as the ocean must give that heat back to the atmosphere before it can refreeze. As winter continues on the continents are able to cool faster than the Arctic open waters. Warm air rises and cold air sinks. Warm being relative to the cooling continents. This sucks warm air from the lower latitudes to replace the freezing cold air pressing southward over the land masses. Think not? The end of November the temperatures in northern Greenland were warmer than San Francisco. At the same time there was an unprecedented rain event thru Alaska from Anchorage to Barrow on the north slope. In the last week of November! Likewise above 71 degrees north latitude in Norway temperatures rose above freezing. Look on the maps and see for yourself. If cold is sliding down over the land where does the replacing air mass have to go to get north? Recall that when a body is in motion it tends to stay in motion. You now have a huge air mass not flowing in a circular pool but two cold masses flowing south and two warmer, MOIST masses flowing north , cooling and replenishing the southerly flow. One more thing. What does cold moist air do in the winter? SNOW! And lots of it.

Global Warming could cool down temperatures in winter

5 votes

#4.2 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 1:22 PM EST

The open oceans collect more heat as the summer sun is not reflected by the ice but adsorbed by the darker water.

I have also read that the ozone holes are bombarding the poles with radiation and speeding up this process. This in turn leads to more evaporation which causes cloud cover and traps greenhouse gasses which is further ripping open the ozone.

None of this sounds good to me.

1 vote

#4.3 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 1:27 PM EST

Dr Fell

But what does that mean?

it means that in those places where the tempreture is above freezing, the precipitation is predicted as being rain & where it is below freezing it is predicted as being snow.

1 vote

#4.4 - Sat Dec 11, 2010 11:21 AM EST

samenslow

The problem is not with the science. The problem is with politics and greed. If you go beyond a group's name, for those "scientists" who argue against human induced climate change, you will find big oil and others who fear a loss of profits in the short term.

It is possible that it will get temporarily colder before getting hotter as ice caps melt into currents like the Gulf Stream. Then it will get a lot hotter very fast.

There are industries that can be developed to fight climate change; however, I do not think anything can be done until we find someway to control population growth. I am not an optimist. We must make revolutionary changes in how we live. We won't.

6 votes

#5 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 1:13 PM EST

from a Huffington Post article: 1 Dec 2010

House Republicans Scrap 'Unnecessary' Global Warming Committee

The new soon-to-be Republican Congress is so unconcerned with global warming that their leader, Speaker-in-waiting John Boehner, has announced that they're throwing an entire House committee dedicated to the topic out the window.

2 votes

#5.1 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 2:06 PM EST

samenslow

If you were to follow just the postings on this article and say 75% disagree with man made climate change and 25% agree. I think, considering the possible consequences if the 25% are correct, we should take action.

What are the consequences of taking actions if the 25% are wrong?They would include cleaner air to breath, cleaner water, forests and bio-diversity, and a better food supply, all-in-all a nicer planet to call home. New jobs would also be created to replace job opportunities that are never coming back.

Oh, the cost! The same as a few missiles and maybe a carrier. How many times do we have to be capable of destroying the world to feel safe?

2 votes

#5.2 - Sat Dec 11, 2010 8:48 AM EST

Around the globe we have been hearing about massive floods

The Panama Canal was closed for the third time in its history on Wednesday due to flooding rain.

The low unleashed 4.39 inches of rain on Tocumen, Panama, in 24 hours, ending at 7 p.m. EST Wednesday. An additional 1.52 inches of rain fell in the preceding 24 hours.

http://www.accuweather.com/ blogs/ news/ story/ 42744/ flooding_forces_panama_canal_t.asp

After the wettest year on record, December has seen the isthmus suffering under heavy downpours for days on end.
http://www.newsroompanama.com/ panama/ 2061-continuing-rain-causes-deaths-evacuations-and-closing-of-canalr.html

4 votes

#6 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 1:15 PM EST

Is heavy rain usual for Panama? I have no idea. The Panama Canal is part of the shipping lane connecting us to global trade isn't it? Are you saying that rising water levels are affecting shipping?

#6.1 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 1:21 PM EST

The Extreme Rain Events of 2010

AK -
I just put up the Panama story because it's just the latest in a very long list of extreme rain events this year.

3 votes

#6.2 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 1:47 PM EST

hhabilis

Of course we are experiencing climate change; climate has been changing for roughly 4.5 billion years. Anyone who thinks climate is, should be, or ever has been stable is a fool.

6 votes

#7 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 1:38 PM EST

And anyone who thinks that adding 30 Billion tons of carbon a year to the atmosphere won't have drastic effects is a blind man.

4 votes

#7.1 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 1:55 PM EST

Republican leaders seem to disagree with Science.

All but one of the 48 Republican hopefuls for the Senate mid-term elections in November deny the existence of climate change or oppose action on global warming, according to a report released 14 September 2010.

The strong Republican front against established science includes entrenched Senate leaders as well as the new wave of radical conservatives endorsed by the Tea Party activists, says a report by the Centre for American Progress.

2 votes

#7.2 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 2:01 PM EST

I believe that it's not so much that they disagree with science as it is that they agree with big oil money and coal economy.

4 votes

#7.3 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 2:04 PM EST

hhabilis

And anyone who thinks that adding 30 Billion tons of carbon a year to the atmosphere won't have drastic effects is a blind man.

Or a physicist.

#7.4 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 3:41 PM EST

Peter Pei

The nature has its own cycles - it warms up, then cools down and then warms up... Those cycles are longer than our life time or the recorded human history.

3 votes

#8 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 1:46 PM EST

afloatinasea

There is no answer to any of this. The variables are so many and so unpredictable that our trying to figure how and why is as relevant as a pimple on an elephant's ass.

1 vote

#9 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 2:11 PM EST

according to what scientists?

1 vote

#9.1 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 2:16 PM EST

bmx mom-902413

They can't even get tomorrows forcast correct, but can prdict what will happen in the future. The climate has always and will always change. Last I heard we were still coming out of an ice age, so of course it's getting warmer. The world has been much warmer in the past than it is now.

#9.2 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 2:52 PM EST

Thats your argument for not having any science to back your assertion?

1 vote

#9.3 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 3:22 PM EST

what I find interesting is gore...even though he knew ethanol would cause more pollution pushed it anyway.

if you TRULY believed the end was coming via pollution...then why would you want to make more of it.

in regards to glaciers..there are some areas where glaciers are increasing.

so melting is some areas...growing in others....we just came out of a little ice age so we are supposed to be warming up.

people are lying.....the results of the AGW crowd are bought and paid for by those who stand to make billions off of enslaving the world.

it is a war that will see no end ever...as there will always be weather problems...highs, lows....trends....its just amazing the nonsense behind this.

but more telling to me is Al Gore....if he supposedly believes in global warming or climate change...then why would you want to make pollution worse?? oh yea

$$$$MONEY$$$$$$

4 votes

#10 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 2:43 PM EST

bmx mom-902413

Gore has made a fortune pushing global warming.

1 vote

#10.1 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 2:53 PM EST

and he admitted last week that he knew ethanol would cause more pollution but pushed it anyway.

AND HE STILL HAS SUPPORTERS!!!?????

3 votes

#10.2 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 2:55 PM EST

afloatinasea

James

Do you think Progressives would admit that one of their gods has failed?

2 votes

#10.3 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 3:01 PM EST

Any science to support your claims?

1 vote

#10.4 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 3:08 PM EST

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-08/australia-wheat-growers-may-abandon-crops-cbh-says-update1-.html

Wheat for March delivery on the Chicago Board of Trade rose 0.6 percent to $7.89 a bushel at 12:23 p.m. in Singapore after rising to a four-month high of $8.11 on Dec. 7. The price has gained 46 percent this year.

2 votes

#10.5 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 3:09 PM EST

sure there is science to support the anti agw claims...funded by big oil right?? and the evidence supporting AGW is funded by people who would benefit.....hmmmmmm

if gore really thought there was global warming..he would of never pushed ethanol....and since they know it causes more pollution now...they should stop using it immediately.

but they dont...and he didnt.

enough said.

1 vote

#10.6 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 3:11 PM EST

"There were a lot of buyers that were waiting for the southern hemisphere crop in Argentina and Australia to come in to see if that would moderate prices a little bit, but the situation has just done the opposite," Peterson said.

2 votes

#10.7 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 3:18 PM EST

There is james?

Show it.

1 vote

#10.8 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 3:23 PM EST

clarke

show me proof that it is happening...you cant you can just show biased lies from people who are looking to profit from this.

you cant prove it

if you want to enslave the world then you had better have unbiased proof.

they dont...and so there is backlash.

end of story.

1 vote

#10.9 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 3:30 PM EST

So you are asserting that EVERY National Academy of Science on the Earth is biased?

Because they ALL fully support the consensus.

They are ALL wrong?

3 votes

#10.10 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 3:35 PM EST

they get their funding from a biased source.

its all bull@!$%#.

and from what I have seen they have said its "likely" caused by man...hardly conclusive enough evidence to enslave the world and reek starvation and death on the planet.

2 votes

#10.11 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 3:38 PM EST

Every National Academy of Science on the planet gets their funding from biased sources?

And starvation is what happens when formerly productive areas become barren. It's all around you as we speak and you seem reluctant to open your mind to it.

3 votes

#10.12 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 3:46 PM EST

No offense, but you seem only to be able to throw out unsubstantiated claims, with the only proof of them being your own opinions of who is trustworthy.

Like saying that Every Academy of Science on the planet is biased.

3 votes

#10.13 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 3:53 PM EST

you can ignore that gore doesnt believe in global warming..that he lied to make money.

I cant.

#10.14 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 4:20 PM EST

I don't pay any attention to Gore, one way or the other.

1 vote

#10.15 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 4:37 PM EST

funny thing....why would all the scientists who are sooooo smart not know that ethanol was worse for the planet and support gore...when persons with common sense such as engineers...who by the way are also not bought off by our government...and those with lets say an iq above 100 ..say from the beginning that it is a scam??

why??

1 vote

#10.16 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 5:05 PM EST

James

again, you are dancing around the issue. I asked if you had any science to back up your claims that AGW is false.

Can you show me some research that supports your stance or not?

4 votes

#10.17 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 5:09 PM EST

and i asked you..why would scientists who you are saying I should listen too....say that ethanol was good when anyone with common sense kknew it was not.

so you want me to take the word or findings of people who dont have a @!$%#ing clue as to the most basic things?? are you serious?? they have zero common sense and push an agenda either by stupidity or corruption and you want me to believe them??

the burden of proof is on the AGW crowd...and they are failing miserably.

1 vote

#10.18 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 5:18 PM EST

I don't care who you believe james. I asked if you could come up with some research to show another cause for the warming, that would discredit the anthropormorphic slant.

You can't and I get it. You can't answer a straight, simple question.

3 votes

#10.19 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 5:32 PM EST

i dont have too.......they cannot come up with proof without lies or corruption.

it is there thought process that is new...they are the ones who need to prove to me that it is real..

its like saying to me....prove to me that wood is really not water.

I couldnt find @!$%# to disprove that claim...and that claim holds as much water as does the dumbass AGW agenda.

and again you wont answer why scientists would think that ethanol was good.

2 votes

#10.20 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 6:05 PM EST

Gemini-1880123

Glaciers are melting and melting and melting. The earth is gradually warming up or this would not be happening.

1 vote

#11 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 3:43 PM EST

driverseven

The real sad part of this is that the solution is not that difficult -- so we stop burning coal and oil.

How many people die each year producing both? We can put more people to work on a changing economy -- and one of the planet's other big problems is un-employment. Not just here but all around the developing worl.

Even if the argument against climate change were not completely iron-clad, the resistance to evaluating the evidence by some is just plain stubborness to accept change.

3 votes

#12 - Fri Dec 10, 2010 10:48 AM EST

NitroNate

globally, the climate constantly changes. nothing we do or don't do will change that. however, determining whether activities of man are contributing to climate change is a different story. i believe they are, but i'm really not all that concerned. the main reason being that you can't change mankind. we are horrible creatures that don't belong on this planet. we don't deserve it. we will ultimately destroy it and in doing so will destroy ourselves and return what's left back to the animal kingdom.

then maybe in another 100 million years or so, some organism will evolve back into another form of "human" and the cycle will start over again.

#13 - Fri Dec 10, 2010 1:52 PM EST

Acapulco Kevin,

Given your own admission that you are not a scientist and accepting that in good faith I can understand your terrible quandary at trying to sort out the Science Facts from the Science Fictions, …. the truths from the untruths ….. and the real and factual scientific beliefs from the mythical and environmental religious beliefs. Thus I will assume that the only easy thing for you to figure out is …… which side of the AGW fence each of the individual Posters are sitting on.

First of all I would like to say that I am not a proponent of CO2 caused Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) and therefore disagree with 95+ % of the piffle and tripe that they claim, or should I say mimic, as being actual, factual evidence that proves their claims.

Secondly, on most any subject, especially subjects pertaining to Science, I am not biased for or against any person, group, organization, company or corporation, but I am extremely biased in favor of the teaching and learning of the actual, factual accepted Scientific Laws and Principles. And that is because I was educated to be a professional, a professional Educator, a High School Teacher of Biological and Physical Science. And that was long ago, before the lefty liberal environmentalists took control of most all Lesson Plans and textbook contents within the Public School System. And I only told you that because the AGW’ers love to accuse anyone that disagrees with them as being a supporter of big oil, etc., etc. in a futile attempt to discredit their naysayer. They really, truly believe that all Science theories, Laws, Principles, actions, reactions and results are determined by consensus and/or public opinion.

Having said the above I will now, as per your request, address the subject of CO2 caused AGW.

(Kevin) Now with unprecedented speed we are observing all of the earth's glaciers melting. We don't have to look as far as the Swiss Alps to see the changes, ….

Kevin, how can anyone state “with unprecedented speed” when they are incapable of citing a factual reference of/to all acts of glacial melting in the past 500, 1,000 or 5,000+ years which they can compare the current glacial melting to? Does anyone know how fast the glaciers and snowpack in the Swiss Alps melted prior to Hannibal marching his 40,000+ soldiers and 40 elephants over the top of them? How fast did the Greenland glaciers melt prior to the Vikings coming ashore? DUH.

Kevin, why do you suppose the proponents of AGW would claim that current Arctic glaciers and sea ice cover is melting “with unprecedented speed” when creditable Scientific research proves otherwise. Proves that said Arctic ice experienced a horrific bout of melting between 10,000 and 12,000+ years ago. To wit: Holocene Treeline History and Climate Change Across Northern Eurasia

Kevin, there are so many things that disprove CO2 caused AGW that I don’t know which ones to begin with.

The Keeling Curve disproves CO2 caused AGW. .... Henry’s Law disproves CO2 caused AGW. .... Mathematics disproves CO2 caused AGW. .... The refusal to include the effect of atmospheric H2O vapor on near earth temperatures disproves CO2 caused AGW. .... The use of extremely questionable Temperature Records disproves CO2 caused AGW. .... The FUBAR math used to calculate Average Temperature Increases./Decreases disproves CO2 caused AGW. .... And the fact that the proponents of CO2 caused AGW can not prove that atmospheric CO2 has any lasting warming effect on near earth temperatures that exceeds any 12 to 16 hour period disproves CO2 caused AGW.

In reality, the proponents of CO2 caused AGW are actually basing their claims on “Association equals Causation”, which is nothing more than Junk Science or their Sci-Fi Religious belief. Take your pick.

And Kevin, I will provide my learned opinion on any of the above “disproves” if you requests said.

Kevin, when it involves matters of Science, it really doesn’t matter how many related “proofs” one has to substantiate their claims about a specific entity because, .... if just one (1) of their proofs are proven to be false it negates all the other RELATED proofs ….. and one has to start over again. The person(s) making the claim can not just omit the “false proof(s)” and still claim the results/conclusions of the “combined proofs”. But Junk Scientists will do it anyway.

Cheers, SamC

1 vote

#14 - Fri Dec 10, 2010 3:52 PM EST

nikkinala

I was looking forward to reading an interesting, educated, unbiased opinion, but the name calling foreshadowed that it would not be so! Unfortunate, because it was off to a good start.

1 vote

#14.1 - Sat Dec 11, 2010 12:50 PM EST

Name calling, huh?

Was it .... Keeling Curve .... or ... Henry’s Law ....... that turned your crank to "OFF"?

#14.2 - Sun Dec 12, 2010 9:18 AM EST

socialjustice

Even if the climate change argument didn't exist, what about National and Individual energy independence?

We could solve our jobs problem now by solving our energy independence problem.

1. Weatherize older homes.

2. Wind farms on every farm.

3. Solar panels on every building.

4. Convert our semi-truck fleet (30% of all domestic transportation oil use), and othe fleets, to natural gas or hydrogen. Hydrogen is 30% cleaner and it is domestic. Hydrogen can be made from natural gas as well as electricity and water.

But Republicans say "Hell No We Can't", and they won the election.

40% voter turnout in 2010, 60% voter turnout in 2008, voting matters.

Republicans say we (the government) can't pick winners, while the Oil Corporations donate to their campaigns. The Bush tax cuts for the middle class didn't even begin to pay for the increase in energy costs the last decade.

America has a 1.4 trillion dollar energy bill. We import 400 billion dollars, 75% of our fuel oil.

Republicans say "Hell No We Can't" be winners, be energy independent.

1 vote

#15 - Fri Dec 10, 2010 5:03 PM EST

America has a 1.4 trillion dollar energy bill. We import 400 billion dollars, 75% of our fuel oil.

Republicans say "Hell No We Can't" be winners, be energy independent.

socialjustice, it is apparent to me that you have intentionally overlooked the fact that it was Obama who issued a Presidential Order shutting down and curtailing any new oil well drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and extended the ban on any drilling off the East Coast.

And what good does it do to weatherize homes when people won't keep their doors and windows closed?

And what good are wind farms where the wind is undependable?

And what good are solar panels in areas that are mostly cloud covered when ya really need them to be generating electricityfor you?

And what about that "real estate problem" for locating wind turbines and solar panels on?

And were are the tens of millions of poor folks going to get the money to pay for those "weatherizations" and the "conversions" of their vehicles, their heating systems and their electrical system?

1 vote

#15.1 - Sat Dec 11, 2010 10:02 AM EST

Blayde

It is unfortunate that with all the scientific evidence there are still deniers. It isn't unrelated to the opposition to Obama; Is it?

1 vote

#16 - Fri Dec 10, 2010 7:54 PM EST

The AGW'ers are always trying to incite "class warfare" in order to push their agenda down the throats of the populace, aren't they?

#16.1 - Sat Dec 11, 2010 10:05 AM EST

wbbtexas

This Touches on one of my Major Concerns, as I Examine the Political Landscape in America Today, and See Parallels to the early 30's in Germany. THERE TOO, was a Distrust of Academia, Science, and Intellectuals in General. AND with the Literati.

Somehow, these folks, by listening to Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter, Savage, et al...have Convinced themselves that LEARNING itself is SUSPECT. They have Foregone Television Programming Written by Great Writers, in Favor of Narcissistic ME Shows.

They Disdain the Findings of Science as "A Liberal CON". Of Course, when they DO That, they are Accusing 1000's of Honest Scientists around the GLOBE of Being "Liberal Stooges", and that is a Deep Disservice to their Hard Work, and it Implies Treachery, and Complicity with Someone's Agenda.

One of my CORE Principles is that People ALWAYS accuse OTHERS of what THEY Themselves DO.

As we Have Observed the Republicans/"Conservatives" grow more and MORE treacherous in the Last several Decades, and Work MORE and More off of an AGENDA, and Grow more Machiavellian in their Politics as well, it should Be NO Surprise that their Policy Positions Reflect these Trends within their Own Party.

John McCain was a Fairly Typical DOUBTER until he WENT to Alaska, and Saw 1st Hand what the HELL is Going on with our Glaciers, and the Impact it is Having on Animal Life There.

He Came BACK a Changed Man. One who Admits There IS Climate Change Going ON, and Most Likely it is the Direct Consequence of FILLING up the Upper Atmosphere with Coal and Petroleum Products for a Century and a Half.

But MANY People, who Would NEVER Consider that a RIGHT WING Conspiracy Killed Kennedy, or that SOMETHING is FISHY about 9-11, Even Though they SAY...You Can't Trust Government!, Think Nothing at ALL of Damning the Work of Thousands of Scientists ALL over the World.

2 votes

#17 - Fri Dec 10, 2010 10:36 PM EST