Why not read the study proceedings and figure that out for yourself, "NotDumb"?

In the UK half of the Climate change Pro-claimers are under Criminal investigation!

Global warming is a solar system event and only a spendaholic could believe the incomplete and massaged data sets or any of the people that use such poor and Fraudulent science.

Political types love the TAX potential Climate change and that is ROBBING the public but in most national government are economic rapists anyway!

The Middle class must demand that industry and government stop inventing more taxes to control market world wide for a smaller and smaller number of corporations that benefit!

SAY no to any Global tax or science effort to stop what the SUN is doing!!!!!

Lucero,

The sun produces the heat (like the furnace in a home) and

our atmosphere traps the heat (like the insulation in a home) so

what would happen if the furnace (sun) ran the same and

more insulation was added to the walls?

Or to put it another way; what would happen if a person threw on another blanket at night?

The answer is the same... the inside gets warmer.

All of their research was found valid. They were given a slap on the wrist because one graph could be misinterpreted. (The same could be said for almost any large body of work - perfection is hard, unless you're a Tea Party ideologue.)

Sorry, but you really need to stretch it to find fault with the scientists here.

Of course, this was never about anything but creating FUD, to forestall any real action to stop climate change. The sad thing is that, besides the folks who are part of the well-funded campaign to discredit the scientists - Koch brothers, anyone? - the ones who will be worst hurt by all this are the true believers who will watch in denial as things get worse. Unlike the Murdochs and the Koch brothers and their ilk, the rest of us won't be able to move to the equivalent of gated communities to avoid the repercussions of global warming.

But I feel less sorry for all of you true believers who are screwing yourselves (and the rest of us) than I do for your children, who will suffer for your denialism.

I suspect that if Jesus Christ himself told Fuhrer Rick Perry that Climate Change was very real and that Mankind had better change his ways or the Environment would tank, that Fuhrer Perry would say that "Christ is just mis-informed and the truth is that Big Business is king and can do whatever it wants..."

"In the UK half of the Climate change Pro-claimers are under Criminal investigation!"

I often wonder how people can tell such obvious lies with a straight face. I know of no climate scientists who have ever been under criminal investigation, let alone "half."

The most succinct response to the climate change deniers is,

... "What if you are wrong."

By the time there is adequate evidence to change those already made up minds it will already be very much too late to stop the dominoes from falling. "Game over!"

Political dogma and philosophy is not a valid neutralizing counterweight to the massive scientific evidence. Climate change cannot be allowed to continue to be treated as just another political philosophy issue. This is about our very survival.

God help us if one of these science denying head-in-the-sand big business puppets gets in office.

What I learned from this article is that Romney is the only one with a halfway sane grasp on science. Halfway.

I hope all that Koch money fails to get one of these ignoramuses into the White House. They'd destroy us all for an extra buck.

Its proof that Dinosaurs still live today, which means the far right is also right, the Flintstones is a documentary.

Too bad for the disbelievers,...Global warming is not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing.

Totally agree.

It's going to take a lot of doing to prove that insignificant little man's activities can significantly affect the repeating cycle of a huge earth in an immense atmosphere.

How did you ever get a degree with thinking like that?

There are 7 billion "little" humans using massive machinery to leverage their effect on the environment. To deny that humans can collectively have a devastating effect on any environment is the height of blindness.

Well, obviously he's not a scientist... doesn't seem to be an economist... can't be a mathematician... so far he's... uhh..

Bubba Bush!

@spider: I am an earth scientist (MS in Geology), and can tell you that a whole lot of scientists don't buy the manmade global warming theory......and that's all it is at this point, a theory.

A person who claims to be a scientist who does not know the difference between a scientific theory, and how the word "theory" is used in general usage? A scientist who says "it's just a theory"? Really?

How disappointing.

So, when a "journalist" writes...

Are you questioning whether Alan is a "journalist"?

...that scientists overwhemingly accept the theory, that's just plain bulls**t.

Every National Academy of Science on this planet accepts the theory, as does 97% of climate scientists. The last scientific organization to accept the theory was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, who adopted the position four years ago. (Are you a member of the AAPG spider?)

Seems like an overwhelming majority to me.

Spider, I don't believe for one minute that you're a scientist. Even a skeptic scientist would know it's at least possable. I call B.S. on you.

Insignificant little people my arse. Ever see a picture of earth from space at night? Of course you have, you're a scientist. L.O.L.

Not a scientific case for global warming? Who are these shills above me? I know the oil companies have money to spend. But here? Who exactly are you idiots?

Modern medicine is entirely based on science, real science as it is practiced by real scientists. That includes the theory of evolution, which is scientific fact, and is used every day to generate antibiotics, cancer treatments, and more productive food crops. Rick Perry is not wise enough to be a leader. Period.

Shallowred...you are such a classic believer in political science...

The sun produces the heat (like the furnace in a home) and our atmosphere traps the heat (like the insulation in a home) so

what would happen if the furnace (sun) ran the same and more insulation was added to the walls?

Or to put it another way; what would happen if a person threw on another blanket at night?

The answer is the same... the inside gets warmer.

Your wonderful example highlights why some...ahem...most, do not believe in political science.

Your little proposed example is a complete fallacy. The furnace in your home or your body under the blanket are within the boundary of the insulation. On the otherhand the atmosphere is an insulator of the earth. The sun is OUTSIDE that system. Therefore, if you added more atmosphere, by your little experiment the earth would be cooler. Just as your house is cooler in the summer because of the insulation around your home.

Ohh well so much for the disbelievers

Global warming is the continuing rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans. Global warming is caused by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, resulting from human activities such as deforestation and burning of fossil fuels.[2][3] This finding is recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries and is not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing.

That the sun is outside the system is not relevant in this case because greenhouse gases allow sunlight in, but prevent a significant portion of the longer wavelength thermal radiation from escaping.

90 million tons of heat trapping emissions are pumped into the Earth’s thin shell atmosphere every 24 hours. Global warming is endorsed by every National Academy of Science of every major country on the planet.

This spring the majority of the counties in Texas were on fire Gov. Rick Perry requested a major disaster declaration for all but 2 of the 254 of the states counties --what a beggar also looking for a Washington hand out.

Texas is in the most severe drought on record

The drought has cost Texas an estimated $5.2 billion in crop & livestock losses this year

But Gov Perry thinks it’s all a conspiracy by those crazy scientists to destroy the world’s economy

So Perry has em all on their knees praying for rain.

Spider, a scientist would clearly never use the word 'theory' in the way you did. Your usage was more like a non-scientist as in, I have a theory that the earth is the center of the universe. That would be more in the realm of an hypothesis. Which is defined as, conjectures or proposed descriptions or models which have not yet been tested or proven to the standard of a theory.

In modern science the term "theory", or "scientific theory" is generally understood to refer to a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena, made in a way that is consistent with scientific method. In other words, an explanation of observed facts where the empirical work is published for peer review and which methods are documented in order to validate the results.

So, if the theory explaining global climate change is "only a theory" Then it is a generally accepted explanation of the phenomena. In fact, as stated above, there are no credible true scientific bodies that do not support this "theory"

It's only the quasi-religous, politically expedient dogma of the U.S. Republican Party that seems to hold to different hypotheses... Science has nothing to do with their positions

Eric

The Difference between an Environmentalist and a Denier

You can easily tell if someone is a true environmentalist, i.e. an advocate for a healthy planet -he is one who is happy to hear the news that the arctic ice has returned. He is one who celebrates when the recent climate data show the alarmist‟s predictions of catastrophic warming might be wrong.The denier, if he is an eco/political activist, always denies new data that show the planet may be healthy after all. The Media usually defines deniers as those who deny the scientist's computer model predictions.However, denyingthe measured climate data meets a better definition in the world of science.

Bert Rutan

I am an advocate of a healthy planet.

RickMays:

Shallowred...you are such a classic believer in political science...

The sun produces the heat (like the furnace in a home) and our atmosphere traps the heat (like the insulation in a home) so

what would happen if the furnace (sun) ran the same and more insulation was added to the walls?

Or to put it another way; what would happen if a person threw on another blanket at night?

The answer is the same... the inside gets warmer.

The sun's rays do not create heat until they strike the surface of the earth (there is no heat in space). That heat is then trapped in the earths atmosphere and that is how the insulation description comes into play. Look it up!

It's interesting how evolution and climate science are considered to be "just theories", whereas trickle-down "economics" is considered to be proven fact.

RickMays- Do you truly not understand shallowred's correlation between what is happening in our atmosphere and an insulated house, or are you just being an a$$?

Insideout- Hate to have to correct you, but there IS heat in space. So much so that if you were able to walk around in space unprotected, the sun would cook you pretty quick.

People that believe in intelligent design must think God is pretty stupid. And pretty self centered to think God's focus is on only one planet out of trillions. If you believe in God, I suggest he/she does not need to micromanage affairs on one little planet; instead God was able to create the universe using a big bang which unfolded to create the universe we see today. Do Perry and Bachman think God is not capable of making an elegant plan spanning billions of years?

The flat earth society is alive and well in the Republican party. Guess you don't need to worry about polluting the earth if you are waiting for the rapture to take you away.

It is absolutely appalling that the major candidates for leadership of the Republican party, and potential contenders for the Presidency are so incredibly ignorant and misinformed! How can this nation claim to be the greatest on earth, and still consider such a group of intellectually inadequate people qualified to be our country's leaders?

Seriously, anyone who does not accept evolution as a well-proven fact, does not see current global warming as largely a consequence of our civilization and technology, does not believe that education and advancement in science is essential to human progress, and opposes any kind of stem cell research; should go back to school and learn to read, preferably starting at kindergarten.

How can such ignorance be seriously considered acceptable for candidates to the highest office in the land. What a bunch of dolts! We deserve a whole lot better.

But then, maybe we don't. When almost 20% of the voting public listen to a loudmouth overstuffed self-professed drug addict, blather on their radios for two hours every day, accepting his distortions and misinformation as valid political discourse, then perhaps we don't.

"In a democracy the people usually get the government they deserve." I forget who said that but he was absolutely right. The biggest problem that is preventing this country from moving in the right direction is the unreasonable and self-proclaimed ignorance of a large segment of the voting public.

The Texas drought is being caused by known effects of La Nina patterns. So unless "serious" scientists like Andrew Dressler can tie CO2 levels to those La Nina patterns, their findings should be viewed with suspicion.

It's like climate scientists always pointing to hurricane data from the 1970s and saying "Look at the effect of global warming. We have so many more hurricanes now than in the '70s. It's proof of global warming!" These scientists know that the '70s were a statistical anomaly and that we in fact have a much LOWER hurricane rate than we did from the '40s through the '60s and that averaged throughout the century we have almost the same exact rate as we always have had historically. THAT doesn't help their cause though, so they use the anomalous '70s to paint a disingenuous picture to deceive and scare the populace and entrench their research dollars.

Alan Boyle says: "He's playing off the suspicions raised by the "Climategate" e-mail controversy that broke in 2009."

Sorry Alan, Climategate didn't cause suspicions, it CONFIRMED suspicions.

stonegarden:

Insideout- Hate to have to correct you, but there IS heat in space. So much so that if you were able to walk around in space unprotected, the sun would cook you pretty quick.

Actually you are half right! An object in space can have heat but the vacuum of space has no temperature. One side of you would burn while the other side would freeze!

Space ships have to be able to cool and heat themselves.

Absolutely right. There needs to be some sort of matter available to slow the sun's radiation down and produce the heat through inefficiency.

I think we're on the same page. ;)

See where RON PAUL stands on science:

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

Regarding Spider & his comments,

Nearly all the geologists I know work for either oil or coal companies. Not too hard to suspect a self-serving ignorance based on economic self-interest.

And it also does not change my opinion that the GOP is anti-science to the core.

spider ain't no scientist. that's my theory.

There is no Global Warming!

See it is really that the TeaReps hearts are getting COLDER...so it just seems warmer!

By the way the Pythagorean Theorem is just a theory too.

A Squared + B Squared =C Squared

It defines aRight Angle Triangle

And that is something you"righties' ought to like

stonegarden...

Let me try and set this straight - once and for all. Heat does NOT travel through space - radiation does.

Objects in space heat up because when solar radiation strikes them some of the radiant energy is absorbed, causing their atoms to vibrate faster, creating heat.

RickMays... By your logic, a greenhouse should be cooler inside on a sunny day. The earths' surface is warmed by solar radiation. It doesn't heat up the atmosphere and in turn heat up the surface. The atmosphere acts more like a greenhouse, trapping some of the heat inside. CO2 traps more heat near the surface and we pump billions of tons into the atmosphere continually. The world might be a big place, but it's still only so big.

I will believe a scientist before I believe a politician.. Sciences does not serve these politician's political agendas and they lie to the public and YOU believe them !

Scientists do what they do because they love what they do, and they have the BIGGEST BRAINS ! As I say, why take a chance when it comes to global warming ? why not do all we can not to pollute ? Better be safe than sorry

How can anyone not see these people are pursuing their own agenda? Rick Perry? Texas? Biggest oil producing state in the Union? Ron Paul? Big Business? No controls? And by the way we've seen how well that works in the last 10 years or so.

And this stuff about evolution. Does the GOP have the dumbest most provincial, ill educated candidates on the planet or am I suddenly living in a third world country? These people have no idea what they are talking about.
Garbage comes into their heads and falls out their mouth. It's a mystery to me how anyone can believe this in the 21st century. Intelligent design? Come on. It's just a catch phrase for crazy voodoo mysticism. You want to believe in a god, go ahead. But please don't drag your god into my science.

Do they somehow think that evolution applies to everything on the planet but humans? What do they think selective breeding is but human controled evolution?

I'll bet that's it. It never occurred to me before. They think humans are exempt due to their special place in the universe at gods hand...

whack jobs. They are all whack jobs.

Hey Spider, I have a 17 PHD's in Bio technological incendiary science... no big whoop... but since I'm on this blog I'll just BS everyone like you do in nearly every post you make.

Be honest with everyone will you? You work at Walmart in the middle of Florida... you have a HS education and "some college", mostly in technical studies that you took when you tried to get your refrigerator repair "certificate" however you didn't get a chance to finish due to government interference in your life.

Spider. It's funny that you claim to be a scientist, yet you seem not to know the definition of a scientific theory.

You will never hear a scientist say "oh, it's just a theory" - because the people who say that don't know the difference between the colloquial term 'theory' and a 'scientific theory.' Most real scientists know what a scienfitic theory is.

Let me put it in perspective. In science, Gravity is a THEORY - Heliocentrism (The sun in center of solar system) is a THEORY, Thermodynamics is a THEORY, Electromagnetism is a THEORY..... it goes on. They are scientific theories. Educate yourself.

To those of you here on Newsvine that are disputing the fact that human activity is warming the earth and that this is a serious problem:

Stop. Just stop.

I'd bet every cent I have that not a single one of you has a PhD in climatology. I highly doubt that a single one of you has ever even READ a peer-reviewed climatology paper and I don't think any of you would understand it even if you did read it. You have no contribution to make to the discussion because you don't have ANY qualifications to speak on the matter.

I've had this discussion MANY times in person with people that deny climate science. Every time, I've asked them which peer-reviewed papers they would cite to support their position. EVERY TIME I ask this I get a blank stare in response. Then I ask them to explain, in detail, what "radiative forcing" is. EVERY TIME I ask this the climate-science-denier gives me a blank stare and replies with "what?"

If you haven't read -- and understood -- at least 50-100 climatology papers you have absolutely no contribution to make to the discussion because you don't know enough about the subject. You can't criticize a scientific literature that you've never read, any more than you could write a good review of the artistic merits of a film you've never seen.

I bet Perry also thinks hurricanes and tornadoes are just God's breath, so we shouldnt do anything to prep or recover from them, because it's God's Will.

Like Jimmy Fallon once said on SNL, to counter balance the education of evolution in public school curriculum, the religious right wants dinosaurs to be called "Jesus Horses".

I thought I'd share the following pledge I got the candidates to sign last week.

I will ignore any scientific data that does not correspond both to the bible and to the interests of the Republican Party

Michelle Bachmann

Rick Perrry

Mitt Romney

Herman Cain

Sara Palin

Chien

Tres bon.

Is it any wonder that our students are falling behind in math and science when our "leaders" can't separate bronze age mythology from science.

Hindus believe the world was grown out of the naval of their principal deity. One Native American tribe believes the world rides on the back of a turtle. The Shintoists believe that Japan was created by the Goddess Amateratzu when she dipped her spear into the ocean and the droplets falling from the blade created the "Land of the Gods". All "religions" contain mythology that tries to explain the unexplainable in terms these ancients could understand.

To apply those mythologies to modern science is ludicrous.

"Life is a butterfly's dream on a summer's day." Zen saying.

"Lord, what fools these mortals be." Puck, A Midsummer Nights Dream.

AMERICA HELD HOSTAGE, day 230. I said that.

The Nazis hated intellectuals and disputed just about everything they had to say, especially if they were Jews.

Fascism is rising again - this time wrapped in an American flag and clutching a Bible.

I am a proponent of "Mediocre Design" It combines the elements of both evolution and religion. Basically it holds that certain design elements (e.g. the fact that the human face is designed so that when humans catch a cold the nose runs into the mouth) are poorly done. THe corollary of this is that they were done by an inept Deity - who I call "THE BARELY COMPETENT BEING" Our main prayers is called One and a half Cheers and goes like this

Priest: Let us give him 1 and one half cheers,

Congregation: "Hip, Hip, Hooray, Hip, Hip"

First off I would like to say that the only one that seems to have any credible knowledge here is Junicon. Looking through these comments it is clear to see that just about everyone uses the media as their source of education on the subject.

The earth goes through cycles of warming and cooling. Look up the Milankovitch cycle. This describes how the earths precession causes ice ages and warming periods. These cycles are approximately on a 25000 year cycle. the earth warming to temperatures higher than today is nothing new. The earth cooling to temperatures cooler than today is nothing new. What is new is that this time around there are 7 billion people living on the planet.

The earth warming is part of its natural cycle before it goes into another cooler period. The concern is the rate at which is heating. The rise in temperature is synonymous with the rise in population. More people mean there is more use of greenhouse gases which trap in the IR radiation the earth emits which means the earth will heat up. Through all these comments there has been no mention of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC is a group of many climate scientists that have studied climate and put together models and graphs showing the relationship between population and the rate at which the earth is heating.

The question that should be on every ones mind is how will the earth react? In 4 billion years the Earth has never experienced such dramatic unnatural changes as it does today with 7 billion people living on it. We have changed the global carbon cycle, the hydrological cycle and many more of earths natural cycles. So what has this done for our planet? With everything unnatural we put into the environment we make changes. Now we need to realize how those changes will affect the planet.

The warming is natural and "man made". It is "man made" because in our everyday lives we add levels of CO2 that would not have been added naturally. We also add CH4, NO2, and CFC's (which are man made and one CFC traps in as much heat as 10000 CO2 molecules do) but it is also natural in that as the earth heats up there is more water vapor in the air and water vapor is the most abundant green house gas.

Lets forget the politics and the media science and start considering what we need to do in order to live comfortably on this earth in the future

Bj

You are correct.

American Held Hostage, Day 230.

John- If you re-read my post, you will see that that is exactly what I said.

It's going to take a lot of doing to prove that insignificant little man's activities can significantly affect the repeating cycle of a huge earth in an immense atmosphere.

Tell that to the passenger pigeon.

The Passenger Pigeon, once probably the most numerous bird on the planet, made its home in the billion or so acres of primary forest that once covered North America east of the Rocky Mountains. Their flocks, a mile wide and up to 300 miles long, were so dense that they darkened the sky for hours and days as the flock passed overhead. Population estimates from the 19th century ranged from 1 billion to close to 4 billion individuals. Total populations may have reached 5 billion individuals and comprised up to 40% of the total number of birds in North America (Schorger 1995).

I have a slightly different perspective. While I believe it's happening, I won't declare the cause but I think it's both natural cycle probably enhanced by human presence. The thing is that I live in the far north of Canada (where currently the sun rises at 3:00 AM and sets about 11:00 PM) and one thing I know is that the Northwest Passage has opened up in the past few years for the first time in recorded history. That means you can travel by boat from the north atlantic to the north pacific without having to go through the Panama Canal. Transportation companies are not sitting back bickering about the cause, they're busy setting up trade routes and building thier businesses. My other opinion is that we can't keep pumping crap into the atmosphere at the rate we are and not think it's going to have some effect.

RW wrote:

Sorry, but you really need to stretch it to find fault with the scientists here.

It's not much of a stretch to condemn some of that group for collusion to prevent dissenters from publishing. Real science welcomes dissent.

Regards....

The relevancy here is, most every human is ignorant in the science of ecology, a science that explains how the Earth functions and cycles to sustain all life, including man's. Therein is the problem.

Science is not just concerned about a changing climate. They are concerned, man's unnatural changes to the Earth are producing a new planet that is nothing like the real Earth, the Earth that seeded all life and maintains it right today. "We have no analogues", referencing, to all of the vast deterioration of the Earth.

A scrambling climate is just a piece of the whole conundrum. Tag on an extinction rate of biological diversity that rivals the extinction of the dinosaurs, oxygenless zones in the marine ecosystems, the possibility of a drying hydrological system, new human diseases spawning all over the Earth, and most importantly, man's unnatural changes to the Earth's life giving physical body or her ecosystems and their biological diversity or cities [heat islands], concrete, roads, freeways, shopping centers, parking lots, toxins, pollution, agriculture, office complexes and slums. Now we are talking about a planet as life giving and sustaining as the rocks on Mars.

Scientists whose discipline is the science of ecology maintain, man is "suicidal" when he kills ecosystems, and when he pushes extinct biological diversity, it is a threat that rivals "thermonuclear war".

How can man not be killing the Earth's ability to support and sustain all life when he is concreting the Earth, burying and entombing her ecosystems, her life giving physical body and wiping out the strands in the web of all life or biological diversity? Does a sane individual wish to gamble, science is wrong? Wouldn't it be more prudent to err on the side of caution as no rocketships are loaded up for other worlds?

I guess if man could make it to Mars, he could make concrete from all the rocks, but what of oxygen giving trees and plants on the land and in the seas? What of pest and disease control, given by frogs, birds and lizards? What of fresh water produced by forests? What of a life giving soil given by all the preceding? Indeed, all ecosystems, altogether, create the very life zone of the Earth or the very biosphere/ecosphere, that thing called LIFE!

Junicon wrote:

If you haven't read -- and understood -- at least 50-100 climatology papers you have absolutely no contribution to make to the discussion because you don't know enough about the subject.

Jun, you apply that equally to believers and dissenters alike, right?!

Actually, an appeal to "experts" is a common and fallacious debate tactic. It's the truth that's important, regardless of the source or the motivation.

Seek truth, speak truth. Survive!

darn

Nobody is preventing anyone from publishing anything, but you need to realize that a scientific journal needs to vet what it publishes. It needs to vet it based on scientific criteria. The reputation of the journal depends on it. When a dissenter comes up with an article that meets that criteria, it would be published. The problem is that they don't.

Jonathan, some of these folks conspired in their e-mails to boycott journals that published papers by dissenters. That's their right, of course, but it is not something an honest scientist would do. Survive!

You know, it doesn't really matter if global warming is man-made, natural or a combination of the two or even if it is real or not. We still need to take care of our environment.

Junicon: thank you for your sanity.

I am a pediatrician. I don't tell civil engineers they don't know how to build bridges, I trust that they are educated on the subject and can do the job. I don't tell aerospace engineers how to build airplanes; I get on board and trust they knew what they were doing. I don't tell physicists how to run their experiments or that the LHC is going to swallow the Universe; I trust they know what they are doing. Just the same I don't like it when people tell me how to do my job. I could keep going on, but my point is similar to Junicon - LET THE EXPERTS DO THEIR JOBS! Stop with the arm chair scientist nonsense! That goes for the politicians too! How much do we spend on environmental regulation? How does that compare to how much we spend on blowing things up? I don't know the exact numbers, but I know they don't even compare.

Oh you people and your silly arguments...

It is so easy to dissect this issue. Corporate America has found it's greatest ally ever...religious extremists! Everything is "god's plan". It's no accident that those who want to let corporations pollute without regulation are the very same bible thumpers who are fighting all scientific truth. When will you folks wake up and realize the your real enemy is the complete corporate takeover of America that will effect EVERY aspect of your lives. Look no further than FEC vs. Citizens United to see that corporate dominance is now the law of the land...

Even though the game is over, it doesn't hurt to face the truth...at least once and a while...

Connecting the dots on this is easy -- if you are exposed to the science of ecology. The science explains, ecosystems are the real, natural Earth, the alpha and the omega. So, if there exists credibility to this science, then no one needs to question the climate puzzle.

This science lists ecosystems' services, functions and cycles. The moderation and regulation of the climate is listed as an "ecosystem service." What is sitting on the surface of the Earth influences the climate, regardless, through rainfall, wind circulation, evapotranspiration, cloud coverage and the type of vegetation or the lack of it on the Earth's surface. Cities climates are hotter than a natural system, precisely why in the 80's, science coined, "heat islands" to describe city's climates!

Ecosystems also balance the gaseous composition of the atmosphere and are the natural sequesteration of C02 and methane, another strong indicator and piece to this puzzle, and forested ecosystems transpire cooling water vapor that contributes to a cooler climate and rainfall, services concrete and cities cannot provide!!

If modern man is in the business of killing, polluting and destroying the Earth's ecosystems and pushing extinct the biological diversity that creates the systems, how can man not be scrambling the foundations of life itself on the Earth? Including the natural sequesteration of all of the C02!

Rory - plenty of Northern Lights up there? Thanks for the post.

TJW wrote:

LET THE EXPERTS DO THEIR JOBS!

So the purpose of this forum is what? For "experts" to pat each other on the back? Or for us peasants to proclaim the majesty of the "experts"? Seriously,what?

I come here to learn, sometimes to teach, but I can see that most are here merely to assert opinions, so I seldom meet my objective. I doubt many will grieve when I take my ball and go home.

Tony wrote:

We still need to take care of our environment.

IMO, self-evident. Survive!

Purnell - The northern lights are often fantastic to watch up here but at this time of year it doesn't get dark enough to get a good show. We're about 3-4 hours south of the point where the sun doesn't set, so It also sucks right now for stargazing, but it'll start changing soon. On the flip side though it's nice to be able to sit on the deck drinking beer at 10 pm and it's still daylight out.

Shallowred 1.3

You must be one of Al Gore’s zombie followers since you’re regurgitating Al Gore’s statements regarding our atmosphere trapping heat. Good old Al concocted his evidence to prove his assertions. However, very recent data from NASA’s own satellites show that more heat is escaping earth’s atmosphere than Gore contends, and thusly shoots large holes in Al’s global warming claim. Typically, Al Gore and his frenzied global warming minions pretend that NASA’a data doesn’t exist because it easier that way.

The one thing that this global warming frenzy is doing is making Al Gore a whole lot of money.

@TJW: "I am a pediatrician. I don't tell civil engineers / aerospace engineers / physicists how to [do their jobs]; I trust they know what they are doing. Just the same I don't like it when people tell me how to do my job. LET THE EXPERTS DO THEIR JOBS! Stop with the arm chair scientist nonsense!"

Hear hear.

I bet you just love, as a pediatrician, when people come into YOUR office and lecture you on the "connection" between vaccines and autism / psoriasis / cooties.

(And for the record, that little bit of science disconnect seems to occur more in the liberal community, showing that they are not innocent in the science vs. ignorance debate.)

"Supermarket science", where people can pick and choose to believe in what they like, and ignore the facts, is a scary disconnect from reality.

michael

Though there are some serious disconnects between vaccinations and the beneficial impacts of them as well, though I agree, I don't believe that vaccinations are the cause of autism.

....I agree, I don't believe that vaccinations are the cause of autism.

Cooties, however, are another story!

Vaccinations weren't debated as being the cause of autism. The mercury-based preservative that has been used in them is what has been argued as a very likely cause of the massive increase in autism. Mercury is the most toxic element on earth short of the radioactive elements.

The Scientific Method was in full display last week when the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing published the results of an important study conducted by Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. With access to NASA satellite data measuring the amount of heat escaping the earth’s atmosphere into space, Spencer compared the NASA satellite data to the amount of heat loss predicted by computer models relied upon by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in support of IPCC’s assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis. Spencer found that the NASA satellite data reveal more heat is escaping into space than IPCC computer models have predicted.

Spencer’s discovery confirms prior heat-loss data reported by another set of NASA satellite instruments. Together, the NASA satellite instruments provide a 25-year record of real-world atmospheric conditions contradicting IPCC computer model predictions.

Roy Spencer’s study of NASA satellite data was deservingly published in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. Look for Schmidt, Trenberth, Mann's Climate Astrology to soon appear in the pages of National Enquirer.

References;

1. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/08/03/nasa-data-pit-scientific-method-against-climate-astrology/

2. http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

AC Robertson 1.72

Excellent post. It says what my post does but in far more detail, a much better post than mine. I would reiterate that it's my belief that the UN intergovernmental panel manipulated their metrics to achieve the desired result. After all, for them it's the agenda that is more important than the facts.

Correct me if I'm in error but I think I read that the NASA satellite data actually indicated a cooling trend taking place over the past 12 or so years.

Poor Al, his dreams of reaping millions from the chicken little global warming panic is about to come to an end.

Who are the flat earthers now?

AC - Very good post. And yes, this is how science is suppose to work. This is why I am still undecided about this topic. Both sides have politicized this topic and that is where the problem is. There are too many scientists who are coming to conclusions too soon and when new data comes in, they have already made their bed.

Now, for the anti-global warmists, this data doesn't prove your side either. It proves the heat loss data was inaccurate in the IPCC model. Like in hurricane track forecasting, there are many models and they put the results together to normalize the anamolies. Global warming is far more complex than hurricane tracking, so all of these scientists have a lot more work to do before than can even come close to having a consensus.

No People are fed up paying for your Conscience!

Paul Lucero

No People are fed up paying for your Conscience!

They aren't? Should more funding be directed to this "Conscience" then?

--Commas are our friends.

Meaning in a sentence can change simply with a comma.

"No, money down!"

"No money down!"

These do not mean the same thing ^_^

@ Chrissy-3234137

It's all about confirmation bias. There's incredible amounts of data, increasingly so that supports both AGW itself, as well as a direct measurable correlation with post industrialization effecting AGW.

I see this similarly to the whole debacle regarding whether cigarettes were addictive. You had the large companies like Phillip Morris (later Altria) and others proclaiming that they weren't addictive, they even bought off scientists to doctor up data that kinda-sorta corroborated with their claims or simply tried to muddy the waters...but eventually, it came out that cigarettes are indeed addictive, and that these companies worked tirelessly for decades to suppress that informaiton.

Now, there are a whole bunch of wealthy and or entrenched industries that would rather not have to tear apart all of their capital investments and future expansion projects if it came out that what they were doing was causing a significant amount of harm to the planet, and may one day even jeapordize humanity's ability to live on it at all.

While one could turn my cigarette argument around on me and say that this is a conspiracy by the Far Left to impose a "green-fascist-takeover", I take the approach that there is more money localized on the side that doesn't want to change, while there is an international community and growing concensus among very diverse groups of scientists and nations that are saying that AGW is both real and affected by humanity's polution.

Look, no one but dirty hippies want to live in mud huts and shower strictly from rain water that they've heated in a solar oven. But at the same time understand that there's a real and powerful force in play to try to enforce the current status quo to safeguard their own interests and wealth.

The only reason why Republican-leadership are all up in arms about this and not as much about addictive cigarettes is because of the number of constituents that would be (temporarily?) negatively impacted by a sharp crackdown on polution and inefficient practices/machinery. So the issue has turned political.

In short...FOLLOW THE MONEY

There's LOTS of money in maintaining the status quo. There are only poor nation-states and tiny grant-funded scientists across the world that are supported for researching global warming...but there are HUGE industries that are heavily invested in how they conduct business, and China and India both have a vested interest in continuing their current method of expansion.

So, who do you think is more invested in whether we come to a conclusive decision about global warming; big money, or scientists?

I wonder how much grant-money someone could get if they were to start a scientific endeavor to counter the global warming "alarmists" ^_^...I bet there's be a lot of private funding just waiting to jump on board!

OK folks- can anybody in here tell me why the earth was 9 degrees warmer than it is now, 130,000 years ago?

The latest ice studies out of Greenland are stating so-

Ritdog, that is very unlikely; however the Earth WAS at least 9 degrees warmer over 50 million years ago. And among other differences, there was also more carbon dioxide then.

What's your proof for those statements, jock?

Since the end of the ice age 13,000 years ago, the earth has been warmer for 90% of the time. google it. We are in a very cool spell and just warming up to normal again according to the climate record.

Why did people farm in Greenland in 1000 AD?

Ritdog-908299,

Based on What???

The Greenland ice core data clearly shows a declining trend for the last 10k+years... see http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/alley2000/alley2000.html

Thermometers were invented less than 250+years ago, everything prior to this is a SWAG, based on ASSUMPTIONS...

Concerning temperature observations of ice cores, you might want to state why there is a 800+year lag between temperature and CO2.

Why there is a 80+year shift of CO2 readings so the current CO2 reads would match up with the ice core CO2 readings...

Then explain how the microbes growing in these ice samples will not effect the accuracy or the CO2 levels...

The actual readings from the combined Antarctic & Greenland ice cores revealed that:
1. The warmest period was during the last interglacial period. At that time, around 130,000 years ago, it was a balmy 4.5 degrees Celsius (8.1 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than today.
2. The coldest period occurred around 20,000 years ago, during the last glacial maximum, when the ice sheets were at their peak. It was about 10 degrees Celsius (18 degrees Fahrenheit) colder than today. see http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/070705-antarctica-ice.html

The medieval warm period was not global, it was due to local conditions in Europe and Greenland. The problem is not that humans can't survive global warming, it's that 7 billion of them can't survive the warming that is predicted, and do you really want what's happening already? Massive flooding, extreme heat, forest fires that destroy millions of acres? Really? God gave us a brain, and expects us to use it, otherwise we'd all be like as dumb as rabbits.

The issue isn't that the earth has been warmer or not. The issue is that our civilization developed when it wasn't and our population exploded to ~7 Billion humans in the mean time. With many of these living in coastal zones. A warming earth will result in increasing violent weather, changes in regional climates (some getting cooler), increased loss in species diversity (including some of our domestic plants and animals),...etc. Even ignoring the moral costs of all this, the economic costs will be unprecedented.

The danger in the climate change deniers is that we collectively lose time and focus to begin addressing the issues. The intent being to prepare for the inevitable and, hopefully, avoid the worst scenarios. All in the name of a short term short sighted ideology.

Whether, or not, the earth has warming and cooling cycles is irrelevant. Why refuse to do something about it if we can?

The National Geographic article only refers to polar temperatures over Antarctica, which are not a good indication of global average temperatures. I have never seen any other data showing a large amount of warming 130,000 years ago (compared to today). In any case, if you're going to argue that today's warming is natural (because it's happened in the past), then you should be prepared to explain what natural mechanism is causing it. Greenhouse gases fit the observed data; other explanations don't fit the data well.

Byron Raum, I liked your 'Trickle Down Economics' example. Very a propo. Since, trickle down is nothing like a scientific theory in that non of it's hypotheses have ever been proven to to be valid empirically.

In fact the last time that "Trickle Down Economics" was actually applied was during the medieval period when the nobility chartered artisans to make special purpose products to order. Since, their was no other market for goods and services beyond subsistence, the nobility was the only market for these specialized laborers. These same artisans along with a small services sector eventually became the middle class and the hold by nobility was broken.

Oh, and Seriously... No Really, Great post earlier in the thread. Spot on with your follow the money reference.

It wasn't just an INTENTIONALLY bad graph. It was also the intentional restriction of access to raw data to the point where all the raw data was DESTROYED instead of complying with FOI requests from scientists with opposing viewpoints. I mean really, what scientist destroys RAW DATA instead of sharing it with other scientists? What scientist destroys RAW DATA for ANY reason? I know...scientists with something to hide!

Now we're finding out that all the models were wrong. That CO2 is not trapping nearly as much heat as the most common models predicted. Of course all we have NOW are datum that has had incorrect models applied because they DESTROY ALL THE RAW DATA!

Mike in SA: . I mean really, what scientist destroys RAW DATA instead of sharing it with other scientists? What scientist destroys RAW DATA for ANY reason? I know...scientists with something to hide!

I've been a research scientist my entire adult life. I have NEVER met a scientist that includes every single raw data point in the peer-reviewed paper. To do so would be idiotic. Instruments fail. Human error screws things up. Unusual things happen to create outliers.

In graduate school I spent a number of years learning about when it is and is not valid to throw out data. It's an extremely complex issue and there are strict rules about it. It's not an issue that can be settled by Newsvine readers that haven't even read the literature or taken a single course in graduate statistics.

If you are interested in an analysis of the "climategate" issue from a respected nonpartisan fact-checking website, here it is:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/dec/11/climate-change-e-mails-and-copenhagen/

Junicon - Thank you, but unfortunately I think your words will fall on deaf ears. There is this need for absoluteness with most on Newsvine when discussing science in any form. I'm curious, what is your speciality? This article concerning the candidates and their views on funding science has become the largest issue for me, as I am looking to start work on my doctorates. Funding in the basic sciences will be critical for my work, Neuroscience, and will influence my decisions on where to go, how to pay and if it will be worth going in this direction of my education.

In regards to Perry and Bachmann, I tend to believe they are more concerned about the coming of Christ than global warming, disease and so forth. If all of these terrible things are happening, then maybe the rapture is near. They are no different than that nutjob in Iran. You two religions racing to get their saviour back on Earth.

/*Correction */ - You have two religions racing to get their saviour back on Earth.

chrissy

Malfeasance means that there was an intent of wrongdoing, not that a mistake was made. The ONLY thing that I saw was that a graph was misleading. That is not malfeasance. Fox news does that multiple times a day. A misleading graph isn't even one that is incorrect, it just means that it doesn't necessarily create a proper link between the data and the conclusions, or that some of that is missing. That is it.

Folks, the point isn't wether or not the Earth has had warmer periods with higher CO2 in the past. Yes, there have been warmer periods. The point is can we survive it and are we artificially making things worse? Remember in the past the whole surface of the Earth was different. There were different types of plants to absorb CO2, there was a different layout of the oceans and different currents to absorb and distribute heat. Most of all there was no one species with 7 billion members cutting down huge chunks of CO2 absorbing forest and toxifying huge chunks of ocean while simultaneously ever increasing their release of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

A lot of the trouble lies with people's world views and whether they accept a scientific or a religious view of history. Those who continue to believe the Bible gives us a literal history of the world will have a lot of trouble believing other science that conflicts with their day to day observations. Why should we worry about the climate if the rapture is about to come?

No the real debate was ongoing before the climategate, People in the science fields were astounded at the Bad science based on massaged data sets with observation windows that were considered laughable.

Even the Russians laughed at the data set when reviewed and made the claim that the authors of these papers were either fools or chasing grants instead of credible science!

You mean the same Russia that is making trillions of oil revenue and fossil fuels?

Stolen e-mails in the UK <-----> Murdoch <-----> Fox News

A pattern emerges.

you mean the Russians who are diving to the bottom of the sea; under the ice; staking flags; so that WHEN the ice melts, they can claim the oil? and burn MORE fossil fuels?

PEOPLE!

actions have consequences!

get a clue!

Explain the Mann data from UVa that is being released due to a 'Court Order'. see http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/virginia-politics/post/u-va-agrees-to-complete-response-to-global-warming-public-records-request-by-august/2011/05/25/AGvG5GBH_blog.html

Mann was using tree ring data to validate his theories on rapid temperature rise. Unfortunately the person that did the tree-ring research, has stated that his data is not does not validate temperatures...

Russians diving under the ice to the bottom of the sea....Gee

Are these White Russians? Did they use good Vodka?

You can drop all the flags on the ocean floor you want, Ships sinking do it all the time. MEANINGLESS

Mountain Climbers plant flags on Everest too, guess what it is still Tibet

he US planted Flags on the Moon, Dropped aFlag on mars, they are not part of the US

Dorothy dropped a house on the Wicked Witch of the East, She did not own OZ either--be careful before someone drops a house on you...and your little dog too

What a fool you are

So we are supposed to rely on Media Matters? You must be joking. Global warming is a fact. We have been warming for over 10,000 years after the last glacial period. To use data from such a short geological period of time to yell the sky is falling is ludicrous and dangerous. It is a political farce and scam to help progressives control the debate about the economy and trade. You bastards just love to tell others how to live their lives. You have been caught. Debate over.

@ pchacho

How is denying that humans have any impact on global warming not the very same thing, but to try and control debate about trade and the economy.

Does it ever concern you that the people that spend the most time trying to deny even the remote possibility that humans are causing an impact are also the ones that are not scientists, not subjecting themselves to the rigors of peer review and testible theory, and also (coincidentally?) have a large amount of wealth/infrastructure tied up in the heavy-polution aspects of the current economy?

When there was mounting evidence indicating that cigarettes were addictive back in the 1980's and 90's, did the big tobacco companies do a mea culpa immediately and figure out a common-ground solution, or did they try to obfuscate and cloud the issue, even going to great lengths to conduct their own "studies" which always supported the stance of the tobacco companies, or simply disproved the opposing tests, yet never stood up to peer review?

If you chose obfuscate and cloud the issue, than you are correct!

If humans are causing a significant impact towards global warming, is there more money in it for industrialists to change their business practices now and try to take a path that requires far greater efficiency and new infrastructure, or do they make more money by continuing the business that they have billions invested in right now for as long as possible.

Change is scary to shareholders and thus executives. There seems to be a lot more money in trying to not change, than to change, otherwise the "liberal progressives" would have already accomplished their "mission" and you would have to live in a solar-powered house and shower with rainwater before your Yoga class!

If you chose obfuscate and cloud the issue, than you are correct!

I win! Is there a prize?

Well, if you were a smoker back during the early 1960's you were entitled to a legal settlement that kinda-sorta paid for your healthcare costs associated with cancer/emphysema you would be afflicted with now thanks partly to the false information the tobacco companies were diseminating then that everything was fine and dandy.

But, I guess that would still make you a winner! ^_^

It's turtles all the way down, you bigot!

^_^

Science is an invention by the biased liberal media to make the GOP look stupid.

Everyone knows that our destiny is controlled by a being that can't be seen, heard, measured or understood.

Duh.

Liberals, a pagen woman/man god created the universe after smoking some hemp.

I resent that. It IS possible to believe in global warming, science and also believe in God.

Firstly, its 6000 years and secondly The Genesis account doesnt refer the creation of the universe and earth itself (Just says in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth - suggesting they had been around for some time before these creative 'days' - perhaps even millions of years), just the creation of it for human habitation, and the array of plant and animal life we see today.

The bible doesnt teach that God created the earth for human habitation in 6 x 24 hour days (the 7th 'day' was a period of rest). Rather the Hebrew word translated 'day' can refer to varying periods of time.

Like when Grandpa says 'back in my day'.

Interestingly, when summarizing Gods creative work, Moses speaks of the the whole 6 creative days as 'one day', the 'creative day' in Genesis 2:4. Therefore with that reasoning the creative days could have each been thousands of years long. The bible also speaks of one day in Gods eyes, being a thousand years to us.

I think Goldgirl goes to a revisionist church - like the ones that are now trying to claim that Jesus was wealthy (who else could have afforded a donkey)?

Goldgirl: sadly a large chunk of Christians cling to the 6, 24 hour days idea and won't look beyond that. It's then easy to deny other science including climate science, evolution, physics and all other sorts of science in general.

Goldgirl

I've heard many people try and argue that we can't know how long it took God to make the earth, that "one day in God's eyes, being a thousand days to us."

My rebuttal comes from, I believe, the 4th commandmemt which states (aproximately) "Remember the sabbath day and keep it holy. As God toiled to make the Earth in six days and rested on the seventh, so to shall you work and toil for six days and and rest on the seventh day, the Holy Sabbath."

The whole thing seems to come down to A) People trying to believe the literal words of some thing that was written 2000 years ago and meant more as a book of metaphors and morals, except that those words have little bearing on the world we live in today. Or B) People trying to interpret the bibles' writing in order to fit with their current world view. While some of the lessons may have bearing on a given individual's situation, they can't be applied in a blanket fashion on all individuals. That's why "The gov't shall make no law establihing a State religion" because your religious preferance shall not be the basis for the law of the land. People seem to forget that Freedom of Religion also means Freedom from Religion.

Why is it that, though the bible belt fanatics say God is going to burn the gays and commie liberals, it's the Red states that are burning up? Take a lesson from your own mythology if you refuse to trust science.

Texas heat spells occur about every 5 years.

How come no hurricanes for the past 900 days? A record since the Civil War.

Gore stated if their is global warming, huge hurricanes will occur constantly.

Guess there is no global warming, suckers.

@044110: How come no hurricanes for the past 900 days? A record since the Civil War.

Hurricane Greg is happening right now.

There have been dozens of hurricanes / typhoons in the past 900 days. Just because it didn't make landfall on the U.S. does not mean that it they do not exist.

isn't that hurricane Rick or is that hurricane Perry?

Todd, you're confusing weather with climate.

To everyone, what would it take in your mind to disprove global warming (or to show that the period of global warming has ended)? Unusually average temperatures and/or precipitation? This is a fair question.

Regards....

yeah- I gotta say, the GOP is really scraping the bottom of the barrel when it comes to fielding a candidate. The abject stupidity is astounding.

Just think what will happen to science funding once a bible-thumping, reality-denying "right-to-lifer gets elected.

Can you day "brain drain"?

Sure are a lot of bigoted Liberals here tonite that are psychologically disturbed.

Sure are a lot of bigoted Republican trolls here tonite that are phychologically disturbed.

Original Eric

I wonder how Bachmann and the other right-wing "Christian" candidates would feel if we put all religions on the table and let the students decide.

@ Ben R

That would be hilarious!

I've always found it fascinating that when one goes to college, they take a Greek/Roman "mythology" class, but they take a "theology" class when they study Christianity.

Where's the equal treatment? There are people that worshiped those numerous gods for millenia longer than Christianity and Judaism have been around.

Heck, why not some of the newer relgions! What about the Cargo Tribe of New Ginea? They worshiped the WWII airplanes that would land at airstrips carved out of their jungles...what makes their religion any less credible than Christianity or Judaism? Someone studying Mormonism is taking a theology class and not a mythology class...so clearly timeframe is not the issue.

^_^ I hate these labels, it's all BS anyway.

What is unresolved? It is hard to be" balanced" for and against scientific facts.

I am "for" scientific facts.

Clearly MSNBC is biased. There was no mention of the fiction of the biblical creation. Nor was there any mention of the truth of Ragnarak and the space aliens seeding earth 50 million years ago. If you want the true relgion (and actual truth), go to Scientology.

And if Scientology is not correct, maybe we should start worshipping Thor again. Or was it Zeus? Or Vishnu? One of those gods must be able to save us...

After all - science is only the study of 'facts' as we know them. And everyone knows that we don't know everything about everything yet. So nothing is valid and we should all ignore science. Remember that gravity is only a theory - and it is false if you believe enough. Just like climate change.

Science should not discuss climate change until they know the EXACT impact. Anything else is 'theory'. And all theories are just that - - not fact.

Of course - the same can be said about matter (the wave theory is more credible than the matter theory). So why do we need air bags in cars?

They are the Laws of Gravity, not a theory.

@ Interested Observer: The same could be said of God. Shouldn't be discussed until proof of it's existence can be given, irrefutably. It's really a 'Theory' of Christianity, now isn't it... ;)

See what I did there? Funny thing is, Science allows itself, in fact, encourages everyone to question it, and to continuously run each law, proof, theory, hypothesis etc... through a ringer. Why? Because it's ever-improving.

The Theory of God, allows no such questioning, because it folds faster than the French, under actual scrutiny.

Sorry Ron and Rand Paul are proof positive that Aliens have been to the Earth

frankly:

What, those aliens met both ron and rand paul and decided that intelligent life doesn't exist on this planet?

That is a pretty small sample set,

Oh wait, never mind, they met them when the GOP was caucusing.

Frightening is right. We'd become the laughingstock of the developed world with these three flat-earth society members, Perry, Bachman or Paul in charge of anything. No wonder Republican party registration is down to 30%.

Sure are a lot of bigoted Liberals here tonite that are psychologically disturbed.

ScienceX - and in parallel with intelligent design, we should teach the Greek theory (Zeus and all) , the Roman theory (all those roman gods), the Indian theory, the Scientology theory, and the Kant concept - that I am the only peron alive (the rest of you are just a figment of my imagination). But when they teach Kant - they better make sure that they name me as the only person alive.

Hey, um... 044110...? Cutting and pasting the same comment ("Sure are a lot of bigoted Liberals here tonite <sp> that are psychologically disturbed"), isn't really promoting the concept that your representation of conservatives is raising the intelligence bar for your party.

You're just demonstrating that you are a mynah bird that can endlessly repeat the same thing over and over again.

Wouldn't have to be full of CO2. Just, say, 10% by volume with the balance an 80/20 mix of N2/O2 (air).

haaaaa jcbwell... that is my favorite comment of the night

Butterfly Mage, I'd give you a thumbs up if you had worded your comment a little differently. I'm hoping you are not disparaging the Bible itself, only it's use in the hands of the GOP/TP. I am a staunch Democrat, about as far left as you can get but I both believe and respect the bible, just not in the hands of the GOP and the way they misuse it. They turn it into a sleaze novel to promote their own greedy agenda.

Butterfly Science is based on logic, Republicanism is not...and it did not used to be that way...sad that they lost their way.

Pandering to the backwater masses caused that. But they need those masses of uneducated zealots to vote them in so they can serve the wealthy who actually run the party.

(FYI I am quite well off, but that does not mean I sell my soul for a buck)

Sadly, this is the most salient commentary of the day.

The republican party has become a party to protect and advance the interests of the wealthy. it would not survive the scrutiny of the masses in any fair and rational analysis. How could you ever get people to vote against their self-interests? Transferring massive amounts of wealth to a small class of uber-wealthy is not in most American's self-interest. Yet that is what we do on a regular basis.

The strategy? Create a big tent, invite the ignorant by appealing to their fears (bigotry, xenophobia), to their religious extremism (creationists, deniers, fundamentalists) and to any other wacko (survivalists, nazis, isolationists) and now you have a block of voters, along with the wealthy that might win an election. The Tea Party is simply another example. Disenchanted with a party that had drifted towards reasonable and sanity, they broke away so they could focus and so they could force insanity on the party. Is it a strategy to win the election. Surely in some areas of the south where inbreeding and poor education has created a population of the profoundly stupid. But elsewhere? The veneer has been scraped away. Not sure they won't have to re-organize under a different name soon.

Allie: I have no respect for the Bible. It's a playbook for terrorism. The fastest way to become a non-Christian is to actually read the Bible front to back. If you still think God is "holy" after telling parents to murder their kids or to sell them into slavery, you are out of your mind.

First, Obama was one of the most scrutinized Presidential candidates in U.S. history.

Second, Perry is the new kid on the block. Nobody knows anything about him and we deserve to find out who this guy is. Obama has been around at the national level for a few years, if there was any dirt to be found we would have found it.

Third (and most imporant), climate change is conclusive and beyond dispute. It is people like Perry who try to make the future of our civilization into a political talking point.

Source: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/14/tim-pawlenty/do-scientists-disagree-about-global-warming/

A private company is responsible for those wind farms - what does Perry have to do with it?

By that logic, Governor Brown of California is responsible for Google, Yahoo, eBay, Linked, Facebook....

Third (and most imporant), climate change is conclusive and beyond dispute. It is people like Perry who try to make the future of our civilization into a political talking point.

Not true:

Over 100 Prominent Scientists Warn UN Against 'Futile' Climate Control Efforts

"Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming."

http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/

A private company is responsible for those wind farms - what does Perry have to do with it?

He (unlike Ted Kennedy and John Kerry) promote wind energy. They provide the means, the infrastructure and it is private citizens who provide the LAND for these generators.

Too, Texas provides the transmission means.

Private companies also provide electricity almost everywhere.

So, the facts of Texas' commitment to the environment and clean energy stands.

First, Obama was one of the most scrutinized Presidential candidates in U.S. history.

He got a pass from the media on anything controversial.

Take, for example, the "Church" of Jeremiah Wright. The MEDIA gave Obama a pass when he claimed that he sat in that "church" for 20 years and didn't really pay attention.

The media made Obama this bigger-than-life character, even though he is an empty suit. They have been cheerleading for Obama since day one.

Steven - their are several reasons why Texas has big wind farms - none of them have anything to do with Perry

1) Texas has big windfarms because Texas is a big state

2) Texas is generally warm - making the equipment much easier to service. This is the same reason an engineer would rather get oil from the Mideast and not Alaska - it's easier (ever tried to fix something in -20 degree weather?).

3) Texas has a LOT of land that is useless for anything but... wind farms.

4) Texas is centrally located, making it easy to distribute the power to other regions

There are many other reasons - but for some inane purpose you think we should focus on Perry because he 'allowed' it to happen in his state. Ridiculous.

And liberals cry the sky is falling and temperatures are rising. Really, look at the predictions from climate liars in the 1990's.

NYC sea level in 2010 6 foot higher than today.

UK will; see no snow after 2005

the list goes on and on and on.

Only peole that do NOT Understand Science believe in global warming or they plan to personally profit from stealing tax dollars

044110 - Sea level is not rising? Perhaps you should talk to people on islands in the south pacific. Nobody ever predicted that the sea would rise 6 feet in 20 years, or that snow would stop. You should stop watching Fox News and actually look at the real climate change data out there. From the UN. From NASA (that leftist group). From many studies that have been conducted. You don't get to cherry pick the facts to support your conclusion.

There is a phrase that applies: You should remain quiet and let people think you a fool than open your mouth (or post) and remove all doubt.

044110 - Reading you evoking people who DON'T understand science in your post is a very entertaining experience, to use nice words. For your information, and the benefit of the kids who might be influence by you at one point in their lives:

Science does not project scenarios based on pinpointing a few facts(as you just did).
Science builds on knowledge, logic and repeated experiences.
Science is best served by people whose thinking is not biased by religion.
If ALL scientists REALLY wanted to earn money by lying to humankind (which already sounds like a movie), they would find a threat that is NOT cause by men, which would make it definitely easier to convince people who would not have to change their habits. Something like a giant asteroid, with computer made clips, and that's it, money would flow.

Again, for your information, it is not a political party that is telling you that Global Warming is happening and is caused by men: It is the vast majority of the GLOBAL scientific community from your own country and from around the entire world. Perhaps will you tell them that they ''don't understand science'' ?

What baffles me is that very often,(although not always) people who deny those tons of observations are the same who on the other hand believe that when you die, a white beard (white man) will welcome them to heavens, Or a black bearded man with tons of virgins will welcome them to heavens, or whatever variant, and this simply because it is written in ONE book. And then they have the nerve to say that some people DON'T understand science.

You know what, i really wish you are right, and if one day I come the the conclusion that I was wrong, I will be the happiest , for me, and for you, and for everyone... but seriously, read the news, and read what those who ''understand science'' - as you said - have to tell you.

Here is a study preformed to determine the sea-level rise/fall in the Pacific by Vincent R. Gray | August 16, 2010 of Geosciences Australia. see http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/south_pacific.html

Abstract

The SEAFRAME sea-level study on 12 Pacific islands is the most comprehensive study of sea level and local climate ever carried out there. The sea level records obtained have all been assessed by the anonymous authors of the official reports as indicating positive trends in sea level over all 12 Pacific Islands involved since the study began in 1993 until the latest report in June 2010. In almost all cases the positive upward trends depend almost exclusively on the depression of the ocean in 1997 and 1998 caused by two tropical cyclones. If these and other similar disturbances are ignored, almost all of the islands have shown negligible change in sea level from 1993 to 2010, particularly after the installation of GPS leveling equipment in 2000.

Or this study - One of the biggest farces of all is the "shrinking Pacific islands" - actual research shows, they're growing, if anything.

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/nz-research-shows-pacific-islands-not-shrinking-3577883

One of the highest profile islands - in a political sense - was Tuvalu, where politicians and climate change campaigners have repeatedly predicted it will be drowned by rising seas, as its highest point is 4.5 metres above sea level. But the researchers found seven islands had spread by more than 3 percent on average since the 1950s.(due to coral growth)

The ONLY settled science is - The Earth CHANGES, man can either ADAPT or become EXTINCT...

Energy conservation and minimal environmental impart, should be the GOAL of EVERY HUMAN...

opps make that - minimal IMPACT

044110

Please provide proof of your claims that any climatologist asserted that Sea Levels would rise 6 feet in NYC ivy 2010.

A link will do...not to a blog but to a news source.

Aaaha one cheery [sic] picked pdf not appearing in any scientific journal from the Science and Public Policy Institute

rationalwiki.org/wiki/Science_and_Public_Policy_Institute
www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Science_and_Public_Policy_Institute
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_Public_Policy_Institute

Vincent Gray is a chemist without a single peer reviewed publication in this field.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_R._Gray

To counter this I cite a presentation from UNESCO that well known radical left leaning Al Gore hugging organisation dedicated to the NWO secretly funded by the trillionaire Caroline Lucas! NOT

Any response? Please take your time. I'm not holding my breath

(Apologies for the vitriol Alan but corporate shills and their apologists hell bent on propping up Big Oil and, in this case: coal; get my hackles up.)

First responseof any Lib that does not have data to support their opinion - Character assassination...

And you reference Wikipedia... Ha! Ha!

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

Reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. see http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=19

and

"Spencer is listed as a "scientific advisor" for an organization called the "Interfaith Stewardship Alliance" (ISA). According to their website, the ISA is "a coalition of religious leaders, clergy, theologians, scientists, academics, and other policy experts committed to bringing a proper and balanced Biblical view of stewardship to the critical issues of environment and development.""

well that took all of 30 seconds. Who's the next skyfairy worshipping cherry picking big oil shill you want to promote?

I would add that the article report and journalism are pretty well bedunked in the first three comments worthy of scientific attention. Heartland Institute LOL

But Bobb nailed it for me...

And I note that you dont refute my contention that the SPPI is a shill shell and that Vincent Gray is not a climatologist.

I do hope that you are being paid for all this I personally receive $1000 in gold for every byte from the Quintillionaire Al Gore's secret gold reserve in Pellucidar.

As long as there are prominent scientist bailing-out of the AGW sinking ship...

The SCIENCE & DATA is pointing at LOWER temperatures and INCREASING ice levels...

The mythical global warming ‘consensus’ continues to crumble as a top UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Turns on the IPCC and calls warming fears the “Worst scientific scandal in the history.”

1. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, - Award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist specializing in optical waveguide spectroscopy at the University of Tokyo, has a new book Lies and Traps in the Global Warming Affairs.

He writes of “inaccurate temperature measurements,” including chapters that call man-made global warming fears “the worst scientific scandal in the history.”

“I also cited the opinions of Dr. Akasofu (Professor Emeritus, University of Alaska) in the last part of the book. He sincerely advises us‚ ‘When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists’. . . I sincerely think he is correct,” Itoh wrote.

2. Dr. Denis Rancourt, - A former Anthropogenic (man-made) Global Warming (AGW) advocate, physicist Dr. Denis Rancourt, has officially renounced AGW, saying it is nothing more than a contrived imaginery ”myth” — in other words, an elaborate conspiracy.

As reported by Marc Morano of Climate Depot in his article of July 26, 2010, “Left-wing Env. Scientist Bails Out Of Global Warming Movement,” Rancourt, a former professor and peer-reviewed environmental science researcher at the University of Ottawa, in a June 8, 2010 essay, maintains that “Global warming is strictly an imaginary problem of the guilt-ridden First World middleclass.” (Rancourt’s e-mail: claude.cde@gmail.com)

3. Judith Curry, - Former IPCC scientist & AGW supporter. An American climatologist and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Richard Lindzen and Roger Pielke Sr. have been making far more critical statements about the IPCC and climate science for a longer period than I have.

“If they view you as a threat you will come under fire as well. They will question your credentials, your motives and your ability. They will impune your integrity and skill and it won’t occur to them at all that you were once their esteemed collegue."

This is already happening, has been for over a year. See my heretic piece in case you missed it first time around.

http://judithcurry.com/2010/10/25/heresy-and-the-creation-of-monsters/

- Judith Curry

Judy also said:

I think you are misunderstanding what the IPCC actually says. The statement says MOST (>50%) of the warming can be attributed to anthropogenic, with an confidence of very likely (>90%). My balance of 50-50 is a hair outside the IPCC range (which could include 51-49), and 1% difference is in the noise here. Most can imply 51% or 90%.

She disagrees with the IPCC only in the degree of change, not on the trend.

Your claim that she is "bailing-out of the AGW sinking ship..." is a horrible characterization of her position.

I assume that your other points are even less accurate, AC.

@Michael (Astronomy.FM) Yep! Not only that but he also spams this site with lies.

Eg "UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Turns on the IPCC..." If we do a little research he turns out to be: desmogblog.com/kiminori-itoh

"On his profile on the Heartland Institute, Itoh is described as an IPCC (Independent Panel on Climate Change) AR4 "Expert Reviewer" This title can be misleading, as it does not mean he was officially asked by the IPCC to review material. Rather, virtually anyone who requests to view a draft IPCC report and agrees not to publicly comment on the material is considered an expert reviewer."

@AC Robertson Words fail me! Except Yuk! Yuk! Yuk!

Sure are a lot of bigoted Liberals here tonite that are psychologically disturbed.

044110 want a cracker? Awwkkkk.

044110

PLease demonstrate any bigoted comments posted on here by a 'liberal' tonight. FYI Bigoted would be against a race, sex, sexual orientation, nationality.

Or you can just admit you are a pathological liar. Of course that would make you Psychologically disturbed.

You certainly like to post the same line over and over,,,that is Compulsive behavior ...which is a psychologically disturbance.

But hey

Obama is so smart he is afraid to release his grades

An excellent description of Obama!

After a failed George Bush presidency, I can't take Rick Perry, a George Bush in steroid.

come on Bill!

You know we can dump as much junk into the air as we want!

You know it won't hurt anything.

You need to trust that God will clean up our mess; doesn't it say so in the bible?

"Thou can trash thy planet as much as thou wants; go ahead; don't thinketh; just dumpeth"

9000 scientists have signed a petition stating no man made global warming exists. It is about 50/50

9000 scientists have signed a petition stating no man made global warming exists. It is about 50/50

That's an out and out lie.

Read the Oregon Petition Project...

More than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition denying that man is responsible for global warming.

.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/2053842/Scientists-sign-petition-denying-man-made-global-warming.html

"The current list of 31,072 petition signers includes 9,021 PhD; 6,961 MS; 2,240 MD and DVM; and 12,850 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science."^[2]

The so-called Oregon petition is almost worthless ... many names couldn't be verified, others who were contacted later said they no longer agreed with the petition, and many others had only undergraduate degrees and no relevant research experience. See the book Climate Cover-Up by James Hoggan.

About that Oregon Petition Project, AC. I did a little private research....

I have an unusual last name - pretty rare (and no, I'm not going to share my last name on the Newsvine). I decided to search the 31,000 names for anyone with whom I share our unique surname - I found two gents, distant "cousins" no doubt.

I did a simple Google search for these two gents; with our unique surname, and with the PP providing their full first name and middle initial, I found only one Google hit for each name - jackpot! (It's pretty rare to only find one Google hit for a given name, but my surname is indeed distinctive.)

My "cousin" Gary R. works for an auto parts manufacturing plant in Detroit. They make wood veneers for BMW. He is listed by the EPA as the plant's compliance officer.

My "cousin" Richard E. owns a Camero, and he has a habit of drunk driving and with a suspended license (recently busted in Vermont; he is appealing the lower court judgment). He is a licensed builder in New Jersey; I found that his contractor's license expires in 2029.

I could find no scientific connection whatsoever about either of my two "cousins".

I certainly did not perform a detailed search on these two gents, so I can not say with any certainty that they are not researchers who are very knowledgeable about climate change. But, if they are, they are hiding it very well!

From what I've seen the PP does not appear to be a very reliable resource.

You may perform your own search here:
http://www.petitionproject.org/signers_by_last_name.php

Yes, quantity is a good thing. But when dealing with science, quality is even more important. It would appear that the PP is lacking in both.

DVMs? uh that is a veterinarian...doggie doctors who are climate experts! who knew!

Anyway

To quote a Newspaper that is called "The House Organ of the Conservative party" in England is hardly one I would respect on the subject.

And the article said they were Scientists, most were Medical Doctors, etc, Only 9000 had PHDs and it did not say any of them were Climatologists, Geologists Etc. Hardly a group qualified to speak on the subject.

Michael.

You forgot about your cousin daryl and your other cousin daryl.

Interestingly, I do have a cousin Daryl (just one), and he has not signed the PP.

Michael (Astronomy.FM) & franklytrue,

Here is another list of EXPERTS that have raised doubts. Or you can read the book... see http://yhst-7134682615375.stores.yahoo.net/the-deniers-the-world-renowned-scientists-who-stood-up-against-global.html

here are few examples:

1. Dr. David Bromwich--president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology--says "it's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now."

2. Dr. Christopher Landsea--past chairman of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones--says "there are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity."

3. Dr. Antonino Zichichi--one of the world's foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter--calls global warming models "incoherent and invalid."

4. Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu--founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the "1,000 Most Cited Scientists," says much "Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change."

5. Dr. Claude Allegre--member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science, he was among the first to sound the alarm on the dangers of global warming. His view now: "The cause of this climate change is unknown."

6. Dr. Richard Lindzen--Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says global warming alarmists "are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right."

etc, etc.......

You will notice they ALL are experts in Meteorology and/or Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, plus they have the education to back it up...

There is a very big difference between meteorology (weather) and climatology (climate).

You cannot fix stupid

Jonathan-2055273,

You are right, the Climatologist are the ones telling the meteorologist their decades of data studying weather patterns in their specific areas are WRONG...

look at the reference provided and buy the book, but what the heck YOU know more that these hundreds of real scientist...

AC

Global Warming is about the GLOBAL changes, not about the local changes, which is weather.

That is like saying an auto mechanic can go and engineer a car.

The Scientific Method was in full display last week when the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing published the results of an important study conducted by Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. With access to NASA satellite data measuring the amount of heat escaping the earth’s atmosphere into space, Spencer compared the NASA satellite data to the amount of heat loss predicted by computer models relied upon by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in support of IPCC’s assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis. Spencer found that the NASA satellite data reveal more heat is escaping into space than IPCC computer models have predicted.

Spencer’s discovery confirms prior heat-loss data reported by another set of NASA satellite instruments. Together, the NASA satellite instruments provide a 25-year record of real-world atmospheric conditions contradicting IPCC computer model predictions.

Roy Spencer’s study of NASA satellite data was deservingly published in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. Look for Schmidt, Trenberth, Mann's Climate Astrology to soon appear in the pages of National Enquirer.

see http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/08/03/nasa-data-pit-scientific-method-against-climate-astrology/

mdpi.com/journal/remotesensing
An open access website based in Switzerland? Hardly Nature or Scientific American is it?
As for Roy Spencer? See my other post to your second attempt to pass off disinformation as fact.
National Enquirer? Oh I haven't heard of that Scientific Journal is it like New Scientist perchance.
Ka-ching!
However the creationist (!) Spencer's work is bedunked here:
greenerblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/have-spencer-and-braswell-blown-hole-in.html
"First, Spencer and Braswell (SB11 from now on) do not supply error margins on their figures. This is an astonishing fundamental error of method.

When the data is re-worked using more relevant timescales and error margins, there is a better fit between the observations and the models, particularly the model that factors in the ocean current changes.

The conclusion is that Spencer has not blown a hole in AGW. If anything he has blown another hole in his own credibility. Climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 remains in the 1.5-4.5*C range, which means that we have to decarbonise the global economy."

Next!

044110,

You are certainly making your rounds; but your logic is flawed.

Of course the earth's climate has changed in the past, but that does not mean that we get a free pass to dump insulation into our atmosphere without accelerating the warming process.

We are making things worse; and some of us are ignorant to it; and some of us are worse than ignorant; some of us spread ignorance;

please stop

Then don't call it climate change if it is not occuring. Quit lying and call it pollution control

It is occurring; and we are making it worse;

open your brain for one second

Interestingly, some recent studies show the upper stratosphere temperatures are growing colder - which is at odds with non-climate change believers who say global warming is a solar effect. If its a solar effect then you'd expect more uniform warming upper and lower atmosphere. Colder stratosphere is consistent with less reflected IR escaping from lower to upper atmosphere - consistent with effect of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere...sorry skeptics.

It's easy to explain. You're making $hit up, you're deranged and need some serious help.

Ashin,

If the increased levels of GH gases are reflecting the solar energy, your observation is correct. But the energy reaching the earths surface seems to be staying consistent with the solar radiation levels...

But if the GH gases are absorbing the energy, this layer and others would heat up and less energy would reach the earths surface. This is what the AGW people predicted, so far NO hot spots...

Unfortunately for the AGW crowd; with clouds/moisture, particulate matter, wind patterns, ground conditions, plant life, etc, etc. The earths atmosphere is not a straight-line computer model...

And their computer models are reflecting - garbage in = garbage out...

You're engaged in a debate with 044110? Seriously?

His resources are propaganda sheets from discredited far right organizations and his ideas and behavior matches that of an inmate from an institution run by the state. C'mon.

Spoken like an educated, non bigoted Liberal

Spoken like an educated, non bigoted Liberal

Spoken like a troll.

Actually not, he says what he has to say to win support from his constituency... which is - in big part - made of uneducated people. Everything that was predicted in my science classes from 25 years ago happened so far, and is happening day after day. Yes there were scientists who did cheat, and politicians like Perry (and most of the other contenders) are using this for rhetoric, but i am convinced they don't believe in their own denial. They're ugly, a threat to humankind, working for corporations that destroy the earth, the ecosystems, the air. That is the painful and flat reality. They are protecting the tax level of corporations who ARE the cause of the slow catastrophe that is happening. One has to be profoundly uneducated, or have a very low IQ to believe otherwise or have a complete lack of compassion for the next generations of humans, including their own grand grand kids. I can hear imbeciles ridiculing this message, pointing at irrelevant details to discredit the global consensus... they look at a finger when we show them the moon... well guess which finger i'm showing them right now.

wje37fcsm,

Unlike Al Gore???

Who passed the deciding vote on using corn for ethanol production in the USA...

He has admitted that:

1. He did it to garner farming votes in the up-coming 2000 election.

2. That using Government funds for ethanol was a bad idea.

Last year the US Government paid over $7+Billion+USD to the energy industry @ $0.45+per blended gallon...