Why I’m a Global Warming Skeptic


Pages: 1 2

Let’s begin by acknowledging that the science of global warming is beyond the vast majority of us.  Nonetheless, this does not mean we turn off our brains and simply accept the pronouncements of those sounding the alarm and offering their remedies.  I am a global warming skeptic (to say the least) specifically because I have thought through the issue and the claims of the alarmists just don’t add up.  What follows is my thinking and what it is that has led me to conclude that global-warming is a leftist farce which is being perpetuated for both financial and political reasons.

First, I am skeptical because skepticism is the scientific starting point.  Not cynicism but skepticism.  This is especially true when the remedy being proposed is so drastic — in this case requiring the near-total dismantling of society as we know it.

I am not overly impressed by talk of a “consensus” as there are enough good and serious scientists who reject the claims of the alarmists to make the pronouncement of “consensus” simply untrue. Besides, every wrong theory that had previously been embraced by society – such as the “fact” that the world is flat – was embraced by a “consensus” of scientists at the time and obviously that consensus was very wrong.

My skepticism is only increased with the knowledge that the science of climatology is relatively new, little tested and since its claims about consequences are decades and even centuries in the future, never proven by having had their predictions come true.  In fact, many of the alarmists’ most hyped claims have been proved by time to be patently wrong.  As one leading alarmist wrote in an email he thought would remain private, global warming has been on a fifteen year hiatus that he felt needed to be covered-up.

My skepticism of this new science is furthered even more by the knowledge that the “facts” upon which their models are created are based almost entirely on numbers that are not easily verified and which require great speculation to determine.  If these “facts” are wrong then the models are useless (to say the least.)  Remember, the whole global-warming theory is based on only a couple of degrees of change over many millennia. Do scientists really know what the temperature was in northeast Siberia in the year 802?  Do they really know that number down to a single fraction of a degree?  I’m skeptical and you should be, too.

My confidence in the conclusion of these alarmist scientists is further weakened because I’ve been here before.  For as long as I can remember the “experts” – many the very same people pushing global warming hysteria today – have been predicting one ecological disaster after another.  In the 1970s and virtually every year afterwards, we were doomed – doomed!!! – to global cooling, global wetting, global drying, mass starvation, acid rain, an epidemic of heterosexual AIDS, Mad Cow and, just the other day, a deadly pandemic of Swine Flu.  Alarmism seems to be a tactic employed by scientists to draw attention to their causes, garner major funding and make a name for themselves and hyped by a willing news (and publishing) media because hysteria sells.

My trust in the conclusions of the alarmists is even further diminished by the unscientific methods the alarmists are using in their efforts.  Not only are we now privy to leaked documents emailed back-and-forth between those at the head of the “climate change” research detailing the destruction of their work and their underhanded methods of preventing Freedom of Information laws to allow others to double-check their supposed findings, but the campaign to slander other scientists – those whose work sheds doubt on the alarmists’ claims – reeks of the kind of cowardice shown by those who know they are lying.  Slander is not a scientific practice.  Dubbing anyone who challenges their hysterical campaign as being like Holocaust deniers is an ad hominem attack with no scientific merit.  In fact, it is anti­-scientific, a means to discredit the man rather than the answering the opposing science.

Pages: 1 2

  • http://prosemiteundercover.phpbbnow.com/index.php Andy Lewis

    Whada doooooooofus.

    • rawesley747

      Very good article overall, but I have a bone to pick with the first sentence: "Let’s begin by acknowledging that the science of global warming is beyond the vast majority of us."

      First of all, global warming "science" is not beyond the vast majority of us. In fact, the author's own criticisms belie that claim. He understands full well the problems with the so-called science of global warming. However, it has become commonplace, whenever any non-credentialed "layman" talks about science to offer up the the ritual disclaimer: "I'm no scientist, but…"

      Scientists nowadays are beginning to look a lot like medieval Catholic priests, asserting their authority by virtue of their credentials and by virtue of an obscurantist language. I don't need a PhD in physics to know that "carbon," "carbon monoxide," "carbon dioxide," and "methane" are not equivalent and that to use the terms interchangeably is not an example of scientifically precise language. I don't need to be able to follow the intricacies of Einstein's mathematics to know that the notion of a global average temperature, at best, carries little information or that the concept of a carbon equivalent is mathematical legerdemain. And all I have to remember is high school biology to realize that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, that plants convert carbon dioxide to oxygen and that all plant and animal, and human, life contains, perish the heretical thought, CARBON.

      The more we utter the disclaimer about science, the more we portray scientists as the smart guys in white lab coats who play with test tubes and who are beyond our understanding, and more importantly, beyond our ability to criticize, the more we play into and validate the concept of a world where scientists "make the rules."

      • NikFromNYC

        "First of all, global warming "science" is not beyond the vast majority of us."

        One problem is that most serious skeptics are caught up in highly arcane statistical analysis, or better yet the debunking of same. Yet I've found a few quite simple to understand results which do not rely on black box mathematical meat grinder algorithms to make their point.

        Thermometer and tide gauge records do not support AGW, nor do the vast majority of single site temperature reconstructions from proxy data such as ice core oxygen isotope ratios. The first direct records show recent warming and sea level rise to represent no change in trend whatsoever in our higher CO2 era and the later show that the medieval and especially Roman periods were as hot and hotter than today.

        Also, the motives of the environmental movement are easy to divine by clearly noticing how they reacted in 1989 when cold fusion was announced but not yet debunked. They were utterly horrified at the possibility of abundant clean energy. In an article in the LA Times they were trying to outdo each other condemning the possibility:

        “It’s like giving a machine gun to an idiot child.” – Paul Ehrlich (mentor of John Cook of SkepticalScience.com, author of "Climate Change Denial")

        “Clean-burning, non-polluting, hydrogen-using bulldozers still could knock down trees or build housing developments on farmland.” – Paul Ciotti (LA Times)

        “It gives some people the false hope that there are no limits to growth and no environmental price to be paid by having unlimited sources of energy.” – Jeremy Rifkin (NY Times)

        “Many people assume that cheaper, more abundant energy will mean that mankind is better off, but there is no evidence for that.” – Laura Nader (sister of Ralph)

        Climategate had an effect on the debate that was indirect. It opened the flood gates, basically, so that a large body of skeptical claims suddenly earned the right to exist in the realm of real debate. I can summarize Climategate with a single quote:

        CLIMATEGATE 101: "Don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone….Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that." – Phil Jones

        That the major alarmist blogs are owned by far left PR firms was one of my recent discoveries, ones with clients deeply invested in green energy speculation (with a $125 million online gambling money laundering conviction or connection to the fraudulent autism/vaccine scare tossed in for fun too).

        [This site isn't allowing me to post links. The Reply button displays "Posting..." forever. I'll try just the text.]

      • klem

        I’ve heard it said that if you are a climate change skeptic its because only climatologists can fully understand it. I think good science is understandable by all.

    • sedoanman

      You proved he was right when he said, "Dubbing anyone who challenges their hysterical campaign as being like Holocaust deniers is an ad hominem attack with no scientific merit. In fact, it is anti­-scientific, a means to discredit the man rather than the answering the opposing science."

    • johnnywoods

      Are you looking in a mirror when you say that?

    • RAP

      Methinks YOU just proved the author's point about how the left deals with anyone who questions the religion of manmade global warming …. LOL.

  • F. Swemson

    The author is correct. But most of us are unaware of how immense a lie it actually is.

    Man-made CO2 accounts for roughly 1 part in 62,500 in our atmosphere. To say that's what's causing the warming that took place from the mid 19th to the end of the 20th century is absurd. The most ironic part of the farce however, which nobody seems to notice is that WARMING IS GOOD!

    Yes the earth was warming until 12 years ago, when it began cooling. But the warming was caused by increased solar activity, which has been constantly changing for the last 4.5 billion years.

    A british citizen sued their school system to force them to stop indoctrinating their children by showing Gore's Sci-Fi Fantasy to young & impressionable school children on the grounds that there's a law over there that prohibits POLITICAL indoctrination of children in schools. He won. The court found virtually all of Gore's major points to be lies or gross exaggerations. That movie is full of lies. For more details read Lord Monckton's report @ http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreer

    The root of the hoax can be found in the UN, and their insane plan for the 21st century called Agenda 21. The progressive globalists behind this, from Maurice Strong, to George Soros are all sociopaths. The Clintons, Obama, Gore, Kerry and others are all part of the scam. If you want an entertaining point of view on this, listen to what George Carlin had to say about it @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw

    fs

    • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDTUuckNHgc James

      Time for some Climate Change 101

      “Man-made CO2 accounts for roughly 1 part in 62,500 in our atmosphere. To say that's what's causing the warming that took place from the mid 19th to the end of the 20th century is absurd. “
      Over the last 2 centuries, 280ppm has risen from to 385ppm (it fluctuated between 260 and 280 over the previous 10,000 years). This increase in C02 is consistent with the output of manmade co2. And you are correct that the increase in C02 alone would not cause all of this warming. Rather, it’s the positive feedback loops created (mainly the trapping of water vapor) which exacerbates the process that’s resulted in said warming.
      “The most ironic part of the farce however, which nobody seems to notice is that WARMING IS GOOD!”
      That depends on the region and situation. If you live in a developing country along the coast, the flooding that will occur from sea level rising and other natural forces that will be strengthened by warmer surface temperatures it is not good. Likewise if you depend on agriculture for sustenance and the warming dries up crops and destroys local agricultures. And of course, if you live in a developing country there is little government infrastructure to react to such events.
      “Yes the earth was warming until 12 years ago, when it began cooling. But the warming was caused by increased solar activity, which has been constantly changing for the last 4.5 billion years.”

      Nonsense. 1998 was an exceptionally hot year due to El Nino, and the subsequent years didn’t match 1998. So yes, if you selectively take 1998 and compare it to today, it appears to have “stopped.” On the other hand, if you are intellectually honest you will see that global average temperatures have been rising again and 1998’s are becoming commonplace.

      And solar variation has been effectively measured for over 40 years now. The only variation measured is the 11-year solar cycle, which changes solar output by 0.1 percent. The ocean’s enormous thermal inertia prevents the climate from reacting to such short-term variations. Also, the stratosphere has cooled which is consistent with warming from greenhouse gas emissions (which warms the surface and lower atmosphere, but cools the stratosphere) and not solar output. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDTUuckNHgc

      • F. Swemson

        James;

        Based on what you say, I deduce that you're a member of the church of global warming, and if so, I've learned that it's a waste of time trying to debate with people who believe in junk science as a matter of faith, but here are a few facts to consider:

        As the climate warms, CO2 rises up from the oceans, because it's solubility in water decreases as the water temperature rises. That's the source of the increase in CO2, not man. Human use of hydrocarbon based fuels, and all other man made CO2 accounts for roughly 4% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere, which means that the increase in CO2 you refer to, even if it were the cause of rising temperatures, is strictly natural. It's not however. Temperature rise drives CO2 levels, not vice-versa. Man's total CO2 output is less than 16ppm. It defies common sense to believe that such a small amount of a beneficial trace gas is what's caused the earth to warm.

        Warming doesn't dry up and ruin agriculture. Look at how lush the tropics are. During the Medieval Warm Period, average temperatures were as high as 6 degrees higher than it was in 1998. There were vineyards and a successful wine industry in northern Scotland at the time. It's true that in hot and dry areas like Arizona, it would be be even harder to grow crops if it got warmer, but the increase in farmable land in northern climes, more than makes up for any small loss in those already hot & dry areas when temperatures rise even higher.

        Your understanding of solar cycles and greenhouse gases is completely wrong, and the video you refer to is just another in a long series of disinformation paid for with the $50 Billion that the UN and major governments of the world have spent on the issue over the last few decades.

        As Dr. Bob Carter says, we can't stop earthquakes, volcanos, tsunamis, tornados or hurricanes. Everyone understands that these are natural events, beyond our power to control. Climate change is exactly the same, with the exception that it happens over a much longer period of time.

        Fro an excellent rational view on the issue, I suggest the following short video:
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgaeyMa3jyU

        fs

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7OdCOsMgCw James

          F. Swemson

          “Based on what you say, I deduce that you're a member of the church of global warming…junk science as a matter of faith”

          The more I talk to deniers the more I’m reminded of my discourses with creationists.

          “As the climate warms, CO2 rises up from the oceans, because it's solubility in water decreases as the water temperature rises. That's the source of the increase in CO2, not man.”

          This is the type of positive feedback I referred to in my previous post. C02 emissions result in an increase in temperature (“And you are correct that the increase in C02 alone would not cause all of this warming. Rather, it’s the positive feedback loops created (mainly the trapping of water vapor) which exacerbates the process that’s resulted in said warming.”). Yes, as the oceans warm, more co2 is released into the atmosphere. As I said, it’s not merely the increase of co2 that we have to contend with. It’s the positive feedback loops that the resulting warming leads to that make climate change the problem that it is.

          Furthermore what you don’t seem to understand is how human output affects that carbon cycle. While natural cycles lead to co2 emissions, they also reabsorb them. Human-emitted co2 adds more to co2 output, which leads to less of it being reabsorbed into carbon sinks.
          “Temperature rise drives CO2 levels, not vice-versa.”

          Actually, in the video you posted, Bob Carter clearly states that a rise in co2 levels does drive temperature increases. Both are true; they are not mutually exclusive. It’s well understood how co2 traps photons which cause warming. Furthermore, the increase in c02 far exceeds anything we’ve seen before. The only ‘new’ factor is human activity emitting co2. Solar cycles, volcanoes, and every other excuse deniers try and jump on have been with us all along.

          “It defies common sense to believe that such a small amount of a beneficial trace gas is what's caused the earth to warm.”

          Or perhaps it simply defies one’s confirmation bias in their world view that government is always the bad guy and the market it always best when he government isn’t involved, and they will do whatever they can to avoid admitting to anything that might hint at the need for government intervention…especially when it’s something that was introduced to the mainstream by that evil communist self-proclaimed internet inventor, Al Gore!

          “Warming doesn't dry up and ruin agriculture. Look at how lush the tropics are. “

          Rhetoric. You are obviously well-informed enough to understand that warming will have different effects on different regions. As we speak, desertification is happening in China and people are flocking to cities. A heating up of the earth will certainly have tradeoffs. No doubt tourism would likely offset some of the losses in other industries. But rising sea levels and increased precipitation will cause obvous problems, especially in coastal cities. Such problems will likely be manageable (but expensive) in countries like the US. But they will likely be disastrous in less developed countries, with large populations living in coastal cities. As I said before, these countries don’t have the infrastructure we do to respond to emergencies.
          “Fro an excellent rational view on the issue, I suggest the following short video:”
          I guess I’m not surprised to see Bob Carter (former Director of Australia's Secretariat for the Ocean Drilling Program and a Co-Chief Scientist for drilling leg 181) downplaying climate change by (more or less, rightly) claiming that the doubling of co2 emissions would cause only about a 1% increase in global average temperatures and completely leaving out the positive feedback loops caused by water vapor and release of co2 perpetuated by heating (which will in effect, cause more heating).

          Here are some excellent reviews of Bob Carter’s nonsense. http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-sthttp://www.skepticalscience.com/carter-confusion-

          • F. Swemson

            James:

            Again you're wrong on all counts.

            1: Implying I'm a creationist. Nothing could be further from the truth.

            2: Re: Bob Carter. Nice try. All legitimate scientists like Carter understand that greenhouse gasses do have a slight warming effect, however the effect of greenhouse gasses from our use of fossil fuels is statistically insignificant. Water vapor (aka: clouds) however make up 95% of all greenhouse gases, leaving CO2 & methane etc, making up the rest. Assuming the entire 5% was CO2, after you take into consideration the fact that only 4% of total CO2 comes from man's activities, and do the math, you realize that only two one thousandths of 1% of all greenhouse gas warming can be blamed on man. Then when you consider that greenhouse gas warming, which is not yet fully understood, and which is being challenged by many scientists as a major factor in climate change, accounts at best for such a small % of all warming (the sun is the driving force) you see how absurd it is to blame warming on CO2.

            It HAS been proven that rising temperatures cause increases in CO2, however the lag time between the two is so long (roughly 800 years) that many haven't noticed it. But all you have to do is look at any chart showing long-term temperature against CO2 levels and you'll clearly see that temperature rises precede rises in CO2..

            3: You also conveniently ignore another thing that Dr. Carter said, and that's the fact that just as man makes a slight contribution to warming, man also does things that cause cooling as well. Whenever we cut down "dark" forests to plant light crops like wheat, more of the sun's heat is reflected back into the atmosphere rather than being absorbed. Since greenhouse gases only absorb a tiny fraction of the heat radiated back into the atmosphere, its overall effect is very small. Nobody even knows whether the net effect of human activity is either warming or cooling.

            3: The alarmist’s obsession with greenhouse gasses is bogus because it only accounts for 1 of the 3 methods of heat transfer from the earth to the atmosphere. While greenhouse gasses are the only part of the atmosphere that can absorb heat that "radiates" from the earth, the rest of the atmosphere, which is 78% nitrogen & 21% oxygen, also transfers heat back into the atmosphere through "conduction" and "convection". Since nitrogen and oxygen represent 99% of the atmosphere, the gross effect of greenhouse gasses on climate change through radiation, is further seen to be extremely minor.

            4: Your comments about sea level rise are also bogus. Al Gore says that continued warming will cause sea levels to rise by 6M (20ft) as a result of the melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland, and implies that this will happen in the near future. But Gore is lying. The IPCC says that such dramatic rises have happened, and may happen again after several millennia, but that over the next 100 years, they will add a little over 6cm (2.5"). But this applies ONLY if the earth keeps warming and those ice sheets melt as they predict.

            But they won't melt for 2 reasons.

            1: During the height of the Medieval Warm Period, when it was more than 6 °F warmer than it's been in recent history, only a small area of southern Greenland's coastal areas melted, revealing the green pastures that inspired Eric the Red to name it "Greenland" in the year 985AD. In fact the ice sheet in central & northern Greenland has increased over the last 50 years, and there is no evidence that the main part of the Greenland ice sheet has ever melted since the continent was formed. Gore's claims are so broadly recognized as lies and gross exaggerations, that even the IPCC says that temperature would have to be sustained at more than 5.5°C (9.9°F) above its present level for several millennia before half the Greenland ice sheet could melt.

            2: While the total ice covered area of the northern hemisphere has indeed diminished over the last century, the total ice area in the southern hemisphere, has increased quite dramatically. This is a big part of the entire AGW deception. The IPCC's discredited "Hockey Stick" graph, only takes into account temperature data from the northern hemisphere, and most of the rise on the right side of the chart is based on grossly exaggerated and inaccurate data.

            cont

          • F. Swemson

            Alarmists like you love to portray people like Dr. Carter as a bunch of crackpot "deniers" while implying that the alarmists make up the larger "consensus" of scientific opinion on the subject. This is one of the alarmists most effective lies. In truth the vast majority of legitimate scientists believe that climate alarmism is a total crock. Over 31,000 of the leading American scientists, including over 9,000 with PhD's, have signed a petition urging our government to ignore the bogus recommendations of the Kyoto accords. They have also sued Al Gore, over the lies and exaggerations in his film. This is not the first time that his film has been challenged in court. The first time, when it was challenged in the British High Court, virtually all of his major points were found to be lies or gross exaggerations. He even lies about the polar bear population which has grown by more than 400% in the last 50 years since the Eskimo’s have been restricted from hunting polar bears as they did in the past. Their numbers dwindled prior to 1950 ONLY because of over hunting.

            The biggest factor in the big picture that you alarmists like to ignore is that the earth started cooling about 12 years ago, and has been on an overall cooling trend since. At least two of the known solar cycles are now converging and they promise to cause the earth to cool for another 50 to 60 years. Some alarmists have actually already started whining about global cooling once again, as they did in the 1970’s. Google “Global Cooling” and you’ll see that the debate has already begun. The Global Warming alarmists are denying the coming cooling strenuously, even to the point where the record cold temperatures in the last few years were actually blamed on Global Warming. While this may be seen as a benign example of dishonest & corrupt scientists trying to cover their collective butts, it is in fact going to cause grave harm to poor people all over the world, a great many of whom will starve during the coldest of the coming years.

            The reason why is simple: Crops don’t grow well during the earth’s cold periods. This plays directly into the goals of the globalist elites whose entire game plan for the rest of this century is to reduce the earth’s population to less than 10% of what it is today. Anyone who thinks that this statement is absurd should look deeply into their plan for the 21st century: “Agenda 21”. This horrendous and evil plan is based on the absurd idea that the earth can only sustain 500 million people. This means that roughly 6 billion people have to go. Of course the people behind this outrage deny this, and you have to do a lot of reading to really get to the bottom line, but it’s a fact. The global warming hoax is a key element in the implementation of this plan.

            By creating a false impression that CO2 is a pollutant, they were able to mandate the use of ethanol in our fuel. This use of ethanol has eaten up roughly 30% of our corn crop, which is making the price of corn go through the roof. Moreover, since a huge portion of our corn crop is used as animal feed, the cost of animal products is also rising dramatically. Since the CPI conveniently no longer includes the rising cost of food or fuel, they’ve been able to hide the real inflation statistics from the American people for years now. In fact the purchasing power of our dollar has dropped 20% over the last 10 years.

            One of the leaders of this insidious plot is John Holdren, Obama’s “Science Czar”, who, along with Paul Erlich wrote a book in 1977 advocating forced abortions and mass sterilizations in order to save the planet. Virtually all of Obama’s top advisors are believers in this cause. The reason is simple. They’re the world’s elite and they don’t want to have to share the world’s resources with 6.5 billion people. The alarmists and other members of their circle call the claims I'm making here to be wild conspiracy theories, but history has shown us that many so called insane ideas wind up being true in the end analysis. The global warming hoax doesn’t just hurt the earth’s poor by reducing food supplies, in other ways it’s far more insidious.

            cont

          • F. Swemson

            One of the key parts of their plan is to prevent the people in the poorest countries (in Africa etc.) from developing their own natural resources. As poor societies become industrialized, they use huge amounts of fossil fuels as China and India have shown us. The global warming hoax gives the elites a “moral” reason to be against this, and that’s why they continue to give them billions in aid, most of which winds up in the Swiss bank accounts of their corrupt rulers. Everyone who has seen through the façade of the far left progressives, understands that all their protestations about wanting to help the poor & underprivileged is a lie. All one has to do is look at the urban ghettos that the welfare class is forced to live in. Their landlords in many of these slums, people like Valerie Jarrett and Tony Rezko, have built their fortunes by feeding off the poor people they claim to champion.

            It’s obvious James that you’re either a member of this unholy alliance, or a paid functionary of theirs. The only possible reasons for your position on this issue is that you’re a true believer, in which case you’re not too bright, or you’re one of them, in which case you’re a liar… Which is it?

            fs

            BTW: James…

            This little debate is over as far as I'm concerned. I've heard all of your claptrap a dozen times over. It's all bogus and corrupt, and ever since Climategate, when the CRU eMails were leaked showing what liars they all are, the rest of the world is starting to catch on to the truth as well. Contrary to what our government has been telling us for years, America has the largest fossil fuel reserves in the world, with more than enough to supply us with energy for at least 200 years. By that time I'm confident that our technology will have found a better and less expensive way to produce the energy we need. In fact I'm pretty sure we'll be seeing some major progress on that in the next few years. Stay tuned!

    • WilliamJamesWard

      Great to read some sane comment, been looking for you, nice to see you
      back, been what? 61 weeks, hope you are well………………Regards, William

      • F. Swemson

        Thanks William. Good to hear from you as well.

        I've been working on some interesting projects, one of which is related to the subject at hand. I'm also working on a book about this and a few other related lies that the far left progressives like to tell.

        Cheers;

        fs

  • flowerknife_us

    It is called "Man made" because Man made it up! Truth hidden in plain site.

    • johnnywoods

      Al Gore did not invent the internet, he did invent global warming.

  • tarleton

    Here in the UK ,the cult of Global warming is full blown and much of it has to do with the dearth of Christianity and the human desire to'' believe in something ''
    In a broader sense , enviromentalism is the return of pre christian paganism in a high tech form …or paganism dressed up in modern clothes and GW is the vision of the apocalypse ! Al gore is the prophet , eco-twits are the true believers who will not tolerate deniers or climate heretics and their ''holy symbol '' is the wind turbine painted green , that is evocative of the ''holy cross'' and will look good worn as a shoulder patch worn on their green shirts

    Global warming is completely bogus that only educated idiots and mixed up kids would believe it ,and anyone over thirty who believes such rubbish should be ashamed of themselves
    The modus operandus of eco-twits is wild exaggeration as seen by the hysterical bogus predictions in the 1970's of ''global cooling'' , then acid rain , then ozone layer.

  • tarleton

    continued …and when their predictions turn out to be bogus ,try moving the goalposts or even deny making them in the first place , or claimed to have ''fixed the problem'' and saved the planet
    These folks are green ''Elmore Gantrys'' and hucksters…it's the return of LYSENKOISM …science corrupted by politics

    PS…..have you noticed how many of the eco-zealets turn out to be ''gay '' ?

    • cao2

      That is a very excellent point (the one in your "P.S.") -and also the Lysenko science they are practicing. I am constantly referring to the chicken littles as Lysenko scientists and propagandists for modern day Lysenko science…because that is really what it is…politically driven BS for power.

      • tarleton

        Britain is more entrenched in the cult of GW than the US and will give you a preview on where it all leeds to …any good conman knows that you can only cry wolf so many times before loosing all cred and that's exactly what's happening here in the UK….last winter was the coldest in 30 years , giving us 6 foot of GW but who are you going to believe , the ''experts'' or your own lying eyes ?
        These so called climate scientists are going to be ignored , resulting in them becoming increasingly shrill and deranged, like an aging french actress who cannot accept that she's not wanted anymore

    • dirtybird

      I wasn't familiar with Trofim Lysenko & his legacy in USSR, but he is a fitting parallel to the current madness. More recently, Americans have been entertained by the apocalyptic predictions of one Rev. Harold Camping, who captured a lot of media attention when he predicted that divine judgement was coming May 21, 2011. When that day came & went, he pronounced his corrected date to be Oct. 21, 2011. Sound familiar?

      • tarleton

        If a total wanker like Al Gore says it's true ,then that alone should tell you it's bogus
        He's a perfect example of an educated idiot and eco twit…hahaha

        The cult of GW has a psychosomatic explanation and not a scientific one

        • F. Swemson

          Gore's been a compulsive liar for his entire life. It first became evident to most of us when he talked about his Vietnam experiences when running against Clinton for the nomination in 1992.

          fs

    • http://www.climateliars.com/ Camron

      Hi Tarleton,

      I am very interested in some of these goal post movements. How many climatologists were predicting global cooling in the 1970s? I know this prediction made its way through the popular news items (ie newspapers, whose business model unfortunately depends on hysteria to drive circulation) but how many peer-reviewed papers were purporting this prediction?

      • tarleton

        I have a copy of National geographic (circa 1977) with front page screaming headlines ''scientists predict GLOBAL COOLING over the next 30 years …OK ?

  • Lisa

    The saddest aspect of all of this is that people like the writer and the commentators are willing foot soldiers for large corporations that don't give a rat's ass about you all. These corporations care only about profits. And because you don't understand the first thing about the difference between science and a hole in the wall, people are already dying around the world. Worse is to come and you and your families will suffer greatly but then you'll probably say that it was all god's will. What are you going to tell your kids btw. when things get unbearable in about two decades? If your kids ask what you did to make a difference when it's time to hand over the whole ugly, hot mess? Are you going to say oops, baby, I am really sorry that you don't have a planet, but I thought that Rush got it right even though he is a drug-abusing manipulator who put his love of hate before the good of the people? There will be that day when your kids will ask you and you will have to look them in the eye and whatever you say, they'll know that you were an uneducated ignoramus who despite the best efforts of the brightest and smartest among us believed the liers, the profiteers, and ideologues. Good going folks, I'd say that's quite a legacy to be proud of. Thanks for the hot summer ahead. Hope that you enjoy it.

    • joe tentpeg

      Agreed! Re. corporate profits- we need congressional hearings on where all GM, Ford, and Chrysler's untaxed profits went after getting rich selling SUVs to Neanderthals and thus warming the earth out of the last ice age!

    • tarleton

      LISA….I thought this was an atempt at irony or sarcasm …HAHA….you're EXACTLY the type of idiot that would believe this rubbish ….when so called scientists can predict what kind of summer we'll have in 2012 , I MAY believe them when they try to predict the climate in thirty years …go back to watching American Idol …you moron

    • klem

      Surely you don't truly believe the crap that you just wrote. You have some deep seated depression happening here, how do you get along each day?

    • nightspore

      Speaking of hot summers, where have they been lately?

    • Stephen_Brady

      Lisa, at one website at which I comment, a leftist continually warns me that, "WEATHER IS NOT CLIMATE". He usually does that during the Winter. He never warns me about the difference between weather and climate in the Summer. I wonder why?

      And you end your post with, "Thanks for the hot summer ahead. Hope that you enjoy it."

      Lisa … it's Summer. It's supposed to be hot. Do you get it, yet?

    • Amused

      Congratulations Lisa , you have a functional brain . This crowd out and out vrejects any conclusions or theories reached by science . The basis for their " conclusions " of course is VERY LOGICAL . If ANY DEMOCRAT spoke it , especially Al Gore , then it's an out and out LEFTIST LIE . And yes , anything that threatens OIL as KING , is the enemy .

    • Kender

      My hot summer has yet to get above 80 degrees F and I live in the desert…so GW has failed me this year Lisa. Let me ask you a question Lisa. According to scientists when the dinosaurs roamed the earth the CO2 concentration was much higher and it was much hotter than it is now. My question is this: was it the dinosaurs driving SUVs, paving over the ground or building big houses and eating fast food that made it warmer? Or was it a combination of these things?

    • Nick

      Lisa…you understand all the problems and use all the PC words…when I start to listen and believe people who say things like you I always take the box out from the garage, open it and look at the doz pair of Long Johns I purchased 40 yrs ago when the same people, organizations and media told the world of the new Ice Age..good science is never about scaring people..it's about talking about ideas…not attacking people who just because they have different ideas..

    • wilky

      "large corporations that don't give a rat's ass about you all. These corporations care only about profits"

      Lisa, raping and piliging the customer does NOT lead to sustainable profits. Quit looking at the carrot that the left has put in front of you and look beyond it. Global warming is another of the lefts carrots.

  • SwampFox2U

    We are doomed by Carbon. So what is going to happen to the Carbon Ring…One must consider the Carbon Tax is almost limitless. Now the Politicians can tax the air we exhale. Just wait until those who wish to redistribute wealth decide the feasibility of taxing those countries with high concentrations of exhalers so THEY can purify the air.

  • sedoanman

    Can a man be against himself?

    "I'm for you against the rich and powerful!" declared Vice-president Al Gore in the campaign of 2000.

    This from one of the richest, most powerful men in the country.

    • klem

      Had the US Cap&trade legislation been successful, he would have become one of the richest most powerful men in the world. Perhaps "the".

  • Andrew

    It's hilarious how the commentators talk about "IT'S ALL ABOUT MONEY!!!" …Do you really not realize how absolutely tiny the "Green" industry is compared to the carbon emission industry? The distortions and lies set forth that deny global warming and climate change are funded by the corporations who would lose everything were the world to realize we are headed for disaster. Do you really think the green industry has enough money to convince every scientist of something? No, but do you know who does? Exxon, Toyota, and basically every industry today.

    • klem

      "Do you really not realize how absolutely tiny the "Green" industry is compared to the carbon emission industry?"

      Do you realize how big the carbon emission industry is about to become? With the advent of huge shale gas and methane hydrate deposits worldwide, the carbon emissions industry is about to explode, thus far this industry is just in its infancy. You aint seen nothing yet!

      Cheers

    • Alvin

      The Green industry is not "tiny". It consists of those same so-called global carbon industries trying to get their stake in the billions of dollars governments are willing to invest (waste) to find the solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Why do you think BP changed their motto to "Beyond Petroleum"? If you are dumb enough to spend taxpayer money on green boondoggles and subsidies them, they will take it with a smile. Also, government subsidies for renewable energy is at least 50 times as great per unit of energy as compared with fossil fuel energy. Would you like to cut all subsidies for energy? Let's do it.

  • http://www.kiradavis.net mrsmdavis

    I can remember as a kid being terrified, TERRIFIED, of acid rain. Every report on tv, every "awareness" assembly at school was about the dangers of pollution and the potential acid rain it could cause. My own mother told me that by the time I was her age I wouldn't even be able to go outside when it rained because it would make us sick with cancer or other diseases or worse, burn and scar us. Seriously. I carried this terror inside of me for decades, until as an adult, thankfully, I learned about healthy skepticism, like Mr.Sayet, and learned that it wasn't just for the things I disagreed with. It could and should also apply to the things I believed in. That skepticism eventually led me to discover that the whole global warming thing isn't as set in stone as the media would have us believe. There are many intelligent, knowledgeable detractors who make great arguments for why there really is no such thing. One friend said to me, "Of course the weather and temperatures change. Why wouldn't they? This is earth. Its always changing. Do you really think its the same temp everywhere now as it was during the Ice Age?" That made me think. Not to mention the fact that I am now a grown woman and have yet to be burned when it rains.

    • johnnywoods

      I remember hearing that acid rain actually made sweet corn taste even sweeter.

  • evy

    Read KJV 1611, the Authorized, for an analysis of the 'green movement'…and (tarleton) you will get an explanation for your observation in Romans 1. Dirtybird, read 1 Thess 4, 1 Cor 15, and John 14 for starters to show you what Mr Camping tried to explain so miserably and unbiblically. As to the author of this article GOOD WORK. We need to read 2 Peter 3 for a look at the real global warming. It will all come out one day; then, the Gore-y Inconvenient Truth will be exposed for the Convenient Lie that it is.

    • klem

      Um, huh?

  • tagalog

    The "science" of global warming/climate change:

    1. There appears to be a correlation between the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and rising temperatures; the nature of that correlation (whether high CO2 concentrations precede or follow a temperature rise), and whether one is a causative factor of the other is not fully understood, but it does seem to exist;

    It's not all that hard to figure out.

    It's not all that elusive.
    2. During the past 100-150 years, since the end of the Little Ice Age, the CO2 concentration in the troposphere has gone up by about 1/3;

    3. Humans have probably contributed some unknown amount of CO2 to the increased concentration of CO2 in the troposphere over the past 100-150 years.

    That's the science of global atmospheric warming.

    • nightspore

      If the temperatures are steadily rising as you indicate, why were the highest temperatures in the (30-year) record from the lower trophosphere observed in 1998? Did the CO2 levels stop increasing 13 years ago?

      • F. Swemson

        More telling was the major cooling from the mid 40's thru the mid 70's when out increasing use of fossil fuels was rising at its highest rate.

        fs

      • tagalog

        Nightspore, you are misreading what I said.

  • cjk

    Why are true statements put under moderation at this site? You are beginning to act like the Mohammedan fascists you claim to oppose?

  • cjk

    Is it now anathema to speak the truth here at Frontpage?????
    I dare you to show my comment in it's entirety to your commenters and have them decide as to it's appropriateness. What a JOKE

  • cjk

    The comment follows next if these censors publish it…..oh the humanity!!!
    Let's see what your readers think? MY CHALLENGE TO YOU controllers of speech at Frontpage.

  • cjk

    You Mr. site administrator are pathetic!

  • cjk

    Now you can't publish it because you will be shown for what you are if you do.
    YOU censor truthful statements on laughable grounds.
    YOU are like the Al Gore types.
    I dare you to publish my original INNOCUOUS comment.

  • cjk

    Here's the comment with two words excised:
    One volcano blows more ……..into the atmosphere in a week than all of mankind has in all of history.
    Yet the greenie-socialists expect us to fulfill their …………. of us all becoming subsistence farmers on their feudal estates over this.

    • cjk

      You are indeed a deceiver Mr. administrator !
      My above comment says it was published 3 days ago, but it wasn't now was it you liar?
      You only published this later after I published it first at Brietbart.
      Everyone notice how it has no negative score from all the administrator's brownosers?
      That's because the liar only recently posted it.
      The Fuhrer (administrator) wouldn't publish this innocuous post before….Gotchya, LOL

  • cjk

    A volcano emits more pollution into the atmosphere in a week than mankind has in all of history.

    • klem

      um, no volcanos don't.

      • ebonystone

        Right! Everybody knows that volcanoes emit only pure spring water and talcum powder.

  • cjk

    The greens/socialists want all of us to become subsistence farmers on their feudal estates over this alll

  • cjk

    You are pathetic Mr. Site administrator. People like you are a part of the reason The West is declining.

  • cjk

    This site administrator will not publish anything that shows him wrong.
    Who cares if the other readers are in effect censored also? His idiocy is hidden and that's all that counts.

  • cjk

    A volcano emits more pollution into the atmosphere in a week than mankind has in all of history.
    This got through?
    Mr. site administrator let this horrendous statement go?

  • cjk

    PATHETIC YOU ARE

    • Stephen_Brady

      I think that you are lying, cjk. I don't think you attempted any "innocuous" statement.

      • cjk

        And you won't even know now will you? Which is my point, DUH.

        • Stephen_Brady

          Try it again, then. I've had comments on this, ad other websites, that disappeared. I've tried the same comments, and they went through. This may not be some sort of conspiracy against you. Also, save your posts. If one disappears, you can cut and paste until it stays.

          As for me, I want to know what you said that YOU think was so offensive, here.

          • cjk

            There is absolutely nothing offensive in what I said. If you don't believe it , oh well.
            Read my challenges to the moderator carefully and you'll see that he won't post it because it will show how unreasonable he is.
            I wish you could see it, it's NOTHING.
            This is about censoring what is said and how it is said.

          • cjk

            I used two words which may be construed as obscene: HORSESH*T, and W*TDREAM.
            Tried to repost with different words but the almighty one refused to post for whatever reason I don't know.
            THIS IS THE TRUTH, and it's also why the guy shouldn't be censoring opinion.

          • cjk

            Can't believe my posts are getting through , there must be a different 'moderator' on duty. Here's the original post, I swear:

            One decent volcano blows out more horsesh*t in a week than all mankind has ever done.
            Yet the greenie-socialists want us all to become subsistence farmers in order to satisfy their w*tdreams over this.

            That is the offensive comment that his highness wouldn't publish.

      • cjk

        Tried to post it for you again but I guess the truth just makes the moderator look too heavy-handed, foolish and picky.

      • cjk

        Visit my profile to see the offending comment. I am going to post it at another site with an explanation.

  • cjk

    You are like a corrupt referee Mr. Site Administrator.

    • http://www.climateliars.com/ Camron

      Your posts are being removed?

  • cjk

    I got some other descriptions for people like you, but then you'd actually be justified in not publishing such a comment.

  • cjk

    If you readers here saw my original statement you would see why I'm pissed at being censored by some nameless, faceless abuser of power.

  • cjk

    The censoring of my original statement is ridiculous and 90+% of everyone here would agree if they we're ALLOWED to read it.

    • voted against carter

      Hey idiot,..

      I looked at your profile. All you do is cry censorship. seems kind of TROLL like to me.

      just say'n

    • ebonystone

      I think we've all got your point, cjk. No need to repeat it fifty or sixty times. Altho I must admit, I'm getting curious about your disallowed comment.

      • cjk

        The comment's on my profile, I posted it on Brietbart with an explaination.

        ACTUNG! Mr. 'moderator'

  • tim heekin

    carbon dioxide is a nutrient just ask any plant

  • cjk

    A decent volcano emits more (horse excrement) into the atmosphere in a week than all of mankind ever has.
    Yet the (global warmers, socialists) want us to fulfill their deepest desires by becoming subsistence farmers on their feudal estates over this.

  • cjk

    You coward. Yes you are a coward for not publishing a statement composed of zero profanity void of personal attack.
    This current comment has infinitely more profanity or personal attacks than the original
    You can't publish the original because it will reveal you as a fool for censoring it.

  • cjk

    I have made many comments in order that those reading will be able to by pass the censor to see what is going on.
    If they can censor me, than they can censor you also and thereby mold the argument to what they want.
    This type of behavior reeks of that practiced by the left and more brutally by Mohammedanism.
    You will be hard pressed to find someone more zealous for truth than I am, so when They can flippantly decide what I can say and how, it is an ominous development. Especially at a site such as Frontpage which I consider to be on the forefront of our fight.
    VERY SAD AND DISAPPOINTING

  • cjk

    I figured it out!!!!
    Anthony Wiener is the site administrator!

    • eMuse5

      I don't think your original comment had even a quarter of the entertainment value that all your subsequent "sarcastic" comments have. Thank you to the moderator for providing me with some smiles as I begin my day!

      • cjk

        The moderator says you're welcome; now you can pull your nose out of his behind..

        • eMuse5

          …and a mature comeback, too! It's like Christmas.

          • cjk

            The truth does indeed hurt sometimes, but you'll probably be better for hearing it.

    • theleastthreat

      I had a comment rejected once and finally figured out that it contained the derogatory word for tea party member. ( I was trying to make a point how the tea party was portrayed by the left) Your original comment probably had a word in it that the site filter picked up on. You can plainly see they didn't censor the other (many other) comments you made.

      • cjk

        I reposted the comment careful of the language and it was rejected.
        My original comment did contain two words which might be considered profane: Horesh*t and w*tdream.
        The comment is no big deal, but they can't publish it now because it will show them to be heavy-handed, picky and foolish.

        I find it more offensive that our comments are rejected for no other reason.
        I will post the comment on another site with an explanation: visit my profile and you will see it.

      • cjk

        Visit my profile and you'll see the original comment posted at another site with an explanation.

  • klem

    “I am not overly impressed by talk of a “consensus” ”

    real wolrd observations kill scientific consensus. There was scientific consensus that there were no panets outside our solar system until about 1999 when the first exo-planet was found. What happened to that consensus? Real world observation proved that It was just plain wrong. There is also consensus regarding the big bang theory, its been around for 60 years or so. I think that one will be dumped too someday. Everything is good for the Big Bang, many years ago astronomers observed distant stars are moving away from each other as the theory predicted. But only a few years ago they relaized that the stars are actually accelerating as they go, this does not fit the Big Bang, they should be slowing down. Again real world observations are doing the damage, its not dead yet but the Big Bang is getting wobbly. I predict that over time, real world observation will kill CAGW.

  • dirtybird

    I have also read extensively as a layman, and can poke holes in your argument for the correlation between CO2 and temps without skipping a beat. My problem is not the bluster of those sceptics, but rather the tranparent way in which so-called scientists reveal their agendas in their fight against transparency.

  • saveUS

    The whole global warming hysteria is based on predicting future using mathematical formulas that use parameters (coefficients) made up by the "scientists".
    As an engineer, I know how you can manipulate the outcome of a formula by plugging various parameters in . First of all, these formulas are not proven, they are just theories as meaningful as psychic/fortune teller predictions. Then, the input data is totally dependent on the "scientists". I prefer to listen to predictions of future by a Gypsy (no offense to them) than to a "warming" activists.
    For several years, I designed thermometers for measuring atmospheric temperature and I know very well how difficult is to measure temperature and how unreliable the data achieved from many countries are. There are many local influances to be avoided. Which temperature stations are you going to select for your data base? What about those thousands discontinued in Syberia in 1990's? Why suddenly what we and annimals exhale is "a polution"?

    • http://www.skepticalscience.com/ James

      Actually the variables are well-tested and conform to basic laws of physics. The climate models are repeatedly tested and reverse scenarios are run using what we know. Under thse tests, past climate patterns are recreated (meaning the models are accurate). As for issues with temperature reading. Locality and time of day are taken into account. Yes there will be some blips in the data but the aggregate is correct. Satellite readings, rising sea levels, retreating glaciers, etc all independently corroborate the same FACT of climate change.

      • Grayzel

        Simple………………garbage in garbage out…………..

  • saveUS

    There is no relation between an objective science and global warming activist preachings. This is a dangerous suicidal CULT created to replace Christianity.
    Kyoto is the obvious suicide/murder of the Western civilization. Why the fastest developing nations (China, India) are excluded? Is it not racist? Unless destruction of European civilization (mostly done by self-loathing idiot whites) by definition is not rasist.
    It seems that self-destruction of our culture by greedy "al gores" is coming. They think that after destroying it, a new red/green "paradise" will be created. Obviously, it has been tried for over 220 years in Europe with disastrous results (and I know it better than an average American, because I was born in a communist country). I hope I am wrong.

  • saveUS

    The funniest thing is a recent fad of "climate change" . This is incredible. They are not sure whether the climate is warming or cooling. Just in case, they want to say it is a disaster both ways. I cannot believe that people can listen to it without cracking up. This should be ridiculed in the media 1000 times more than Sarah Palin (who just makes small mistakes in details, but has more common sense that the whole MSMBC staff).
    Who are we? Muslim philosophers believing in duality of things or complete IDIOTS with no sense at all, but with Ivy League degrees? I cannot believe I spent so much on good college education of my children. They are still good and smart kids (thanks to Catholic schools), but they lost a lot of common sense due to brainwashing by academia (who raise the tuition by 7% each year on average no matter what). Recession, depression does not affect their greed at all.

  • Brianna

    "They are to blame for allowing the left to dominate this issue and make it totally political."

    I hate to break it to you, but when the alarmists want to use the arm of government to enforce their draconian regulations on the populace at great economic cost, there is no choice but to fight the battle politically. Government, by definition, can have only one policy on an issue; it cannot accommodate the skeptics and the alarmists at the same time.

  • Amused

    LOL….you sent them to college , so they could be economic elitists and make more money , and now you cry foul ? LOL….you got suckered of course . So it's all the fault of " academia " eh ? Looks like you can't even buy common sense , nor would you recognize it ,if it fell out of tree and hit you in the head . Take your own advice , which I hear so much around here- "follow the money ". Academia's greed ? Don't make me laugh . Whose greed do you think got us into this mess we face today ? Academia 's ? LOL….."ignorance is bliss " eh ?

  • Amused

    So9rry Evan , but I must take exception to your hysterical rant . "dismantle society as we know it " ??? Gimme a break !! Yes skepticism is healthy bin any scientific endeavor , yet you and your bunch are not skeptiocs , no not even cynics , you are in purposed denial . And that having an agenda , which is totally ideological having nothing to do with science , which you reject out of hand , based not on any scientific basis , but purely on accusation , innuendo and aspersions of wrong doing . In short you are anti-science when it benefits your political agenda . This has become a trademark of Neo-Cons and Republicans . Heads in the sand just like the islamists so many rant about here. Not that either has an excuse , but you and your ilk have the brains , but are intellctually dishonest .

  • James

    “As one leading alarmist wrote in an email he thought would remain private, global warming has been on a fifteen year hiatus that he felt needed to be covered-up.”

    Nonsense. 1998 was an exceptionally hot year due to El Nino, and the subsequent years didn’t match 1998. So yes, if you selectively take 1998 and compare it to today, it appears to have “stopped.” On the other hand, if you are intellectually honest you will see that global average temperatures have been rising again and 1998’s are becoming commonplace. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/images/g
    “Do scientists really know what the temperature was in northeast Siberia in the year 802? Do they really know that number down to a single fraction of a degree? I’m skeptical and you should be, too.”
    There are numerous methods for measuring past temperatures and these apples-to-apples comparisons show a correlation between co2 and global average temperatures. It’s not necessary to know the exact temperature for Siberia in the year 802. The climate change
    “In the 1970s and virtually every year afterwards, we were doomed – doomed!!! – to global cooling”

    Actually, only a handful for climate scientists made this claim. This claim was met with skepticism within the field and was soon after debunked. However, it does make for a great story so it certainly received media attention.

    “And lo and behold, the very same folks who are screaming “the world will end tomorrow” and then destroying the evidence, pocketing millions, flying around the globe to pick up their rewards and honors are exactly the same people who support every other leftist, socialist, punish-the-successful/reward-the-failure policy.”

    The countless scientists gathering data ad publishing more and more evidence of climate change are not pocketing millions and flying around the world. But I understand, you are more concerned with “being Conservative” and since Al Gore ‘liberalized’ the climate change, people such as yourself have taken to straw man arguments against a well-established theory under the pretense of ‘healthy skepticism.” Your arguments are fine If you are just preaching to the choir (which you appear to be), but they make you a laughing stock to those who understand the science.

  • http://www.skepticalscience.com/ James

    So if person A shoots person B with a gun and person B dies, I suppose person A is off the hook. Sure, one can correlate the events but a correlation cannot be used to prove causation, right?

    Some people that phrase way too far. When you have enough independent correlations, and a model for how and why the correlation exists, you can make the case. And that is the case with climate change.

    • Paul

      James the model that exists can not even get the last hundred years climate correctly. The weather forecasters cant even get the weather 5 days in advance right.

      • drewq

        Think about it like this, we have a correlation between fatty deposits in the heart and heart attacks. There is a scientific theory which explains the correlation. Yet the theory cannot perfectly predict when a person will have a heart attack, or even who will. That does not mean that the theory is wrong. That's one possibility, the other possibility is that the complexity of the theory does not match the complexity of the problem, because the problem is very complex and confused even further by other factors that affect global temperatures. I'm not squarely in a camp, but I don't think global warming can easily be dismissed, nor do I think we should be reverting back to horse and buggies. The true problem is that much more (quality) research needs to be done, but the potential consequences make the waiting game a dangerous game to play

        • Dixon

          If you aren't 'in a camp' look at sea level as an integrator of heat content (most sea level rise since the end of the ice-age is caused by thermal expansion, not melting ice). IF human released CO2 is a problem, the rate of sealevel rise should be increasing. It isn't. If it isn't, CO2 isn't a problem. Granted its a short timescale, but its a good metric, and one we have good data on. We should wait until we see the *rate* begin to increase, then we will have strong evidence for AGW, with some possibility of a catastrophic element.

          You don't amputate the head because of a migraine….

  • F. Swemson

    Bert;

    If you're right, how do you explain the dramatic cooling which took place from the mid 1940's thru the mid 1970's. See the following Time Magazine article:
    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,…

    I find the part on page 2 where they blame global cooling on our emissions to be the most interesting of all.

    Did you know that the Global Warming hoax, is the 4th instance of Climate Alarmism in the last hundred years?

    For a good survey of the history of Climate Alarmism see:
    http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/01/24/159

    fs

  • F. Swemson

    The biggest corporate profiteer from the hoax will be GE if we don't stop this insanity. See:

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/04/onero

    fs

  • BS77

    When asked if global warming led to a rise in the ocean levels….a commentator said yes, the sea levels are rising….but only in certain areas!!! How ridiculous is that?

  • Alcheson

    Excellent post by the author in my opinion. Another clue who which side is spreading propaganda:

    Lets say someone is trying to perpetrate an elaborate hoax. If they then set up websites to spread the hoax as far and wide as possible, do they include links on their websites to websites that could possibly expose their hoax or just include links that takes you to other websites that perpetuate the hoax?

  • Alcheson

    The answer is obvious – Don't provide lilnks to websites that can potentially destroy your hoax. Now lets take this obvious answer and apply it to global warming websites.

    Realclimate: NO links at all to credible skeptical websites such as wattsupwiththat.com. Realclimate has a multitude of links to other warmist websites but ZERO to credible skeptical sites, they don't want you to know they exist. Same can be said for ALL of the major warmist sites.

    On the other hand, go to wattsupwiththat (scientific and skeptical website) and low and behold, prominently on the home page are links to ALL of the major warmist websites. They actually encourage you to visit their websites and study up all you want. Afterall, knowledge is all powerful for the truth. Once you've studied both sides of the argument with an open mind, you can easily see who the propagandists are and who is telling the truth.

  • Amused

    LOL…it's a good thing Al Gore got on the bandwagon , instead of say , Ronald Reagan or either of the Bush's . Imagine , all of you nay sayers would be arrrrgggghhh ! ENVIRONMENTALISTS !!!

  • Amused

    I love how some of you wanna be 'scientists " parrot the words of your demagogues . This is why science and religion and /or politics should never be mixed . Science is basically a matter of observations and predictions which are made based on those observations . Science has no agenda while religion and politics are nothing but . An example of the ignorance propounded by such wannabees is the matter of rising ocean levels .He cannot understand and therefore mocks the scientific statement that this can be seen in some areas and not others .Oh how ridiculous says he ! Well there are islands in the Pacific that are losing land not by inches but by feet each year . It all depends on the simple geography of an area , and oceanic currents , as to how obvious these changes will be . For the same reasons tidal changes are extreme in some parts of the globe and minimal in others . So low lying midocean islands will be the first to see evidence of rising sea levels .Ergo , this simple goegraphical fact gives pause bfor non-scientific denials such as the ones that litter this blog .Sea levels ARE rising , and that has to do with more melting ice at the Poles .

    • Chris Nichols

      You would fail a fourth grade earth science class. That's what is so amusing about you. Tell me genius, what happens when you put a can of soda in the freezer. If sea levels are rising, it's because we are getting more ice. It's called the Archimedes principle. You see, water has more volume in solid form, ice, than it does in liquid form, water. That means it displaces more space. Which again, means that if the sea levels are rising, we are getting more ice. Try a little experiment, place some ice in a glass then fill it to the top with water. Oh, but when the ice melts it will flow over the glass, right. Just trying to help out before you show the rest of us what a complete moron you are.