I drank the global warming kool-aid so I am not gloating.

I have searched the internet far and wide to find a response from the man-made gw crowd. There is no response.

I hope to get some feedback.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...c8-3c63dc2d02cb

Well first off this was just released yesterday so I'm not surprized you can't find a response just yet.

It also should be noted that this is a minority report from Senator Inhofe, long known to be a shill for the oil companies.

As far as the report itself, 400 is not a big number when compared to the literally thousands of scientists who agree that Global Warming is man made including NASA, The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Joint Science Academies of the major industrialized and developing nations.

In fact a joint statement issued by the Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK) said:

The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus. Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change, doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global climate change. We do not consider such doubts justified.

Add to that over 250 peer reviewed studies that support man made global warming versus none that dispute it.

data disputing ipccc
facts, not fiction
signatures;pg 1


OK JAMES, here are 19,000 mostly PhD holders in physical sciences.Next is the study they are signing, verbatim. So if a study with 19,000 peer reviews and approvals is "none disputing it", Idon't know what is.As well, NOAA and NASA both have material open for viewing which disagrees or contradicts the IPCCpuppets.It is ironic how all you sheep love to point out who pays those contesting theChicken Little Scare Tactic, but never once point out that most off the IPCC scientists are merely paid by companies and institutes who have their own agenda and stand to profit hugely from this scam- nobody works for free.(I will not mention which public figure "conveniently,truthfully " holds 40+ % interest in a wind turbine company).So calling someone a "shilll" is rather hypocritical.(and you sold your car and use no petroleum products whatsoever? If not you are a "financial supporter" of the oil industry you love to malign.)Back to the IPCC.See this graph to find out the time period their studies are all based on. Generally, to determine a trend, you study an antire history to determine averages and events.The Quaternary is all they use, and this time period is not even accepted by the worldwide International Union of Geological Science nor the International Commission on Stratigraphy. It just happens to be a cold, co2 deprived(normal earth co2 is around 1000-2000-ppm, but during the Pre/ Cambrian ice age it was at 7000ppm...co2 is not a climate driver) time frame which makes todays data suggest global warming.In the history of earth there was only one other period which co2 levels this low, The Carboniferous, which is because enormous amounts of co2 were taken from the atmosphere by the formation of coal-thus the name Carboniferous.This is all proven fact, which is why the IPCC uses only 1/250th of the climate timeline as it would immediately disprove them. As well, NOAA and NASE satellites have detected a slight rise in sea levels: even if that rate increases (by the way, sea levels are 50-300m low presently due to glacial h2o lock up) the sea will rise one meter per 500 years. i won't lose sleep...feelfree to write- I have mountains of data/references/sources

NOAA CO2 facts
carboniferous periodclimate history
GLOBAL WARMING...ISN'T NATURE GREAT?

:tongue:

A petition is not a study and there has been no peer reviewed study that disputes that Global Warming is real and is man made.

But let's look at the credibility of that petition anyway.

The senior author of the paper accompanying the petition was Dr. Arthur Robinson, a biochemist, not a climate scientist. The second and third authors were Drs. Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon of Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. According to Hayashi, Baliunas and Soon are "legitimate scientists." What Hayashi fails to mention is that both of these individuals have been "senior scientists" with the George C. Marshall Institute, a right-wing think tank, and have been affiliated with other advocacy groups (e.g., Heritage Foundation, Fraser Institute) funded, in part, by the oil industry (particularly ExxonMobil). So, Baliunas and Moon may have science training and may be affiliated with an academic institution, but to the extent that politics and money influence their interpretation of climate data, they are not objective in their interpretations (Hayashi refers to them as "upstanding professionals") but are mouthpieces for the oil companies.

The fourth, and final, author was Robinson’s son, Zachary, who had no academic training in climate science or (to my knowledge) any advanced degree in any scientific field. Oh, yes, and the paper written by this team was sent out in petition mailings without any peer-review or without acceptance in any scientific journal. In short, it was an opinion piece that had no demonstrated scientific value.

In any event, even though the list of signers is now over 5 years old, there is evidence of sloppiness. In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal & Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.). These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency? Robinson claimed that about 2,100 signers had scientific background relevant to climate science, but there is no information given backing this statement.

Also, of interest, Scientific American recently contacted a small number of petition signers, who claimed to have a PhD in a climate-related science. About 25 percent (6/26) said they would not sign the petition today. If nothing else, this finding suggests that the petition (circulated in 1998) is outdated, made obsolete by new research and new data. Interestingly, three of the 26 individuals contacted did not even remember the petition! Assuming senility was not involved, this result suggests that a large number of original signers were not even aware of what it was they were signing.

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?f...66-bba0fa15e61f

Thanks James,

I convinced my 9 year old that man has contributed to gw. I would hate to tell him that I was misled.

I hope more information comes out in the next few weeks.

Regards

Hi,

You might recall my global warming essay at http://laps.noaa.gov/albers/las/globalwarming.html.

I've studied global warming for quite some time and I plan to read the first post as I have time and I'll add some responses to it (by editing this post) that I hope will clarify things. Remember that one should err on the side of caution in preventing global warming since once it takes hold it may be very difficult to reverse. Therefore relatively low cost measures make common sense (analogous to buying car insurance or something like that).

POST #1

1. Yes, extreme climate changes have occurred in Earth's history. However they haven't occurred during the history of civilization. Natural causes have triggered past climate changes. This case is different in having man-made cause. There aren't any obvious natural mechanisms to explain the warming this time around, in contrast to past climate changes. It's a moral question as to whether humans should "play God" in allowing ourselves to become an agent of major change in the Earth's climate and biosphere.

2. The natural glacial/interglacial cycles actually are at an ebb at present since the Earth's orbit is in a relatively circular state. These Milankovich cycles would currently point to a modest cooling - something we are thus overriding with man-made greenhouse gases (and land use changes).

3. Cosmic rays are an interesting factor, though I'll bet the effects aren't large enough to explain current warming.

4. It's true that water vapor gives us more greenhouse effect compared with CO2. This misses the point however, since it's the CHANGE in CO2 (and methane, etc.) that triggers the warming. Also, since warmer air holds more water vapor, more water is evaporated into the atmosphere (maintaining the relative humidity), and this amplifies the initially more modest warming significantly. In other words, adding more man-made CO2 also adds more water vapor (a leveraging effect) to increase the warming.

5. Both the Earth's surface and lower atmosphere are warming. There might be some cooling of the upper atmosphere, related to a second issue of ozone depletion.

6. Even if the Medieval Warm Period is found to be slightly warmer than end of 20th century temperatures it would pale in comparison to the expected additional warming as more greenhouses accumulate in the atmosphere. Solar radiation changes that could explain some past changes aren't presently big enough to explain the present warming rate (or the greater future warming).

7. As for warming on other planetary bodies, Pluto is currently moving closer to the sun to warm it. Triton (Neptune's moon) is having some local warming related to changing seasons. Mars has long term climate changes due to changes in its rotation axis tilt, and in its orbital eccentricity.

POST #3

1. It's true the current rate of sea level rise is one meter per 300-400 years. However the rate is accelerating and is anticipated to accelerate quite a bit more as the earth warms and that is the concern. In past times (e.g. 120000 years ago) the currently projected temperature rise has corresponded to meters of sea level rise.

2. I'll have to learn more about the details of a Pre-Cambrian ice age (this is the first I've heard of it). Note that volcanic activity can cool the Earth even when CO2 levels are high. When you go that far back you even start to factor in the fainter sun that compensates things. And perhaps the CO2 levels did temporarily lower during this ice age, triggered by lots of prior photosynthesis.

Current CO2 levels are proven to be the highest in over 650000 years, and a reasonable guess would be up to around 10-20 million years (longer than hominids have been around). The natural CO2 level during the Quaternary period is mostly 180-280ppm, so we are above that at present. Humans (and other present life) wouldn't be very well adapted to live in the generally higher CO2 levels and temperature of previous geological ages.

Hopefully this will help put some of the pieces of the puzzle into place.

Steve

I guess all these people work for Exxon as well...

No, huh? Not according to these amateurs.

rapid sea level rise alters view of (past) human migration:scripps/woods hole /national science foundation

" Global sea level has fluctuated widely in the recent geologic past. It stood 4-6 meters above the present during the last interglacial period, 125,000 years ago, but was 120 m lower at the peak of the last ice age, around 20,000 years ago"

I suppose if you are a creationist, you don't think man was around for that one...

Will it accelerate to the rate of tTHIS period which is well within the Quaternary and history of civilization?

" After the ice sheets began to melt and retreat, sea level rose rapidly, with several periods of even faster spurts. The first such spurt may have started about 19,000 years ago, at which time ocean levels rose 10-15 m in less than 500 years". Isn't that about a foot per year? WOW!Now THAT is some RISIN'!!! Imagine the reaction of the coast dwellers(who didn't exist) to that!
[b] nasa.gov/research

And how much of a concern is it?

"However, any significant meltdown will take many centuries. Furthermore, even with future accelerated discharge from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, it is highly unlikely that annual rates of sea level rise would exceed those of the major post-glacial meltwater pulses."(of the past)
nasa.gov.research

So i guess humans have never dealt with rising sea levels then...

Ancient City, Nine Thousand Years Old, Discovered Under the Indian Ocean
January 16, 2002, BBC report: Oceanographic archaeologists have discovered a historic site from an ancient civilization in the Gulf of Khambhat off the Gujarat Coast, adjacent to the west coast of India. It is considered to have a history of nine thousand years and to be several thousands of years older than humankind’s previously known earliest ancient city.
The site was discovered by chance last year by oceanographic scientists of the National Institute of Oceanographic Technology.

"A team of Canadian and Cuban researchers have discovered the remains of a 6,000-year-old city submerged in deep ocean waters off the western coast of Cuba....Geologists have recently hypothesized that a land bridge once connected Cuba to Mexico's Yucatan peninsula. And portions of the Cuban island are believed to have been submerged in the sea on three separate occasions in the distant past."

15,000 BC to 3,000 BC: The Great Global Erasure of Evidence of Ancient Human Civilizations: World sea levels rose at least 325 feet over 12,000 years, erasing virtually all traces of 30,000+ years worth of civilization and technology use (as well as robbing humanity of the bulk of its collective knowledge and history) along many low lying continental and island coastlines, while glacial melt transformed many fertile inland valleys into new rivers and lakes.
The thousands (perhaps hundreds of thousands) of people the world over were forced to leave the comfort of well established communities to start again in less hospitable locales. Facing new competition from entrenched long term natives and the hazards of increased vulnerability to disease, malnutrition, and predation, they suffered a high rate of attrition among their numbers. . This period may well mark another significant die off worldwide but in a larger scale and longer duration than that of the post-Columbus European settlement of North America . Participants in this first migration left much more technologically advanced and often more socially sophistocated nations for an unfamiliar wilderness and suffered enormous mortality rates as a result .
Archaeological Institute of America

Rising global sea levels and catastrophic continental glacier meltdowns submerged the coasts and rich inland valleys where much of prehistoric human civilization had been developing up until that point, leaving little more behind than a handful of isolated higher altitude inland settlements exhibiting technologies and practices often significantly inferior to those drowned by the rising water and flooding
.American Association for the Advancement of Science

but prior to that they are at their lowest in 130,000,000 years. But let's focus on the smaller value- thats how you find averages isnt it?



:unsure:
In an ironic aside, the global warming panic has now begun what is predited to be the largest food shortage ever worldwide as nations from the most advanced to the most impoverished dedicate food crops/farmland to Ethanol producing crops to cash in on the explosive rise in Ethanol value and marketability. But I guess starving people to death is one way to lower CO2.
( and although he is the devil, you can't say it's Bush's fault...he would be much happier to stick with gasoline. Demand creates supply .)



"There is just no energy benefit to using plant biomass for liquid fuel," says David Pimentel, professor of ecology and agriculture at Cornell. "These strategies are not sustainable."
Pimentel and Tad W. Patzek, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Berkeley, conducted a detailed analysis of the energy input-yield ratios of producing ethanol from corn, switch grass and wood biomass as well as for producing biodiesel from soybean and sunflower plants. Their report is published in Natural Resources Research (Vol. 14:1, 65-76).
In terms of energy output compared with energy input for ethanol production, the study found that:
* corn requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced;
* switch grass requires 45 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced; and
* wood biomass requires 57 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.
In terms of energy output compared with the energy input for biodiesel production, the study found that:
* soybean plants requires 27 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced, and
* sunflower plants requires 118 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.


"The rising demand for corn as a source of ethanol-blended fuel is largely to blame for increasing food costs around the world, the CBC reports.

SEA LEVEL

Hi - yes that is a good point to pin down. I did mention the sea level rise of 120000 years ago, and I was thinking of "civilization" as meaning more recent and more advanced types of civilization, say over the past 10000 years. Our large cities are mostly around a century or so old in terms of modern development, so having a several meters of sea level rise now is a bigger deal than it was at the end of the ice age when civilization was less developed and sea level was lower. As I mentioned before, do we want to start "playing God", and even come close to playing a role that nature has played in ice-age sized changes? In other words, we've already had our natural warming since the past ice age, should humans take it upon themselves to double that warming into pretty much uncharted territory in recorded history?

Sea level might indeed rise several meters in even just a century if the ice caps can slide into the ocean faster than expected. This is why the IPCC has removed their upper limit on possible sea level rise in their most recent (fourth assessment) report.

I did allude to how long hominids have been around (say 5 million years). My point is that our more advanced civilization would have a tougher time with global warming. It is fascinating though to learn about the "lost cities" that you mention. The good news is since I live in Colorado I will avoid being a resident of one :)

CO2 LEVELS

It's true that we want to talk about various changes in the context of their time scales. I think it is legitimate to focus on the past 10 million years that likely had CO2 levels lower than present. Prior to that hominids weren't around so it's difficult to talk about how humans could live in such conditions, let alone our current civilization. Even if we could adapt to such conditions, I like the present beauty of the Earth's ecosystems and wouldn't personally want to be responsible for wholesale changes in the biosphere.

Furthermore, it might take a very long time for CO2 to get back to (Quaternary) normal if we let it get out of hand, perhaps more than just centuries and maybe quite a few millenia. The oceans only absorb CO2 on years to decades timescales. Over centuries, they will kind of stagnate once they become saturated with CO2, then it would take millenia for the CO2 to get locked up into carbonate rocks.

SOLUTIONS

I do have some hope that with agricultural research (e.g. biochar), we can figure out how to lock up atmospheric CO2 into the soil. I agree that corn-based ethanol is only a "bridge" solution and with development of other biofuels the corn should go back to a food crop. Solar power can be developed further as one of the many needed "wedges". I also like nuclear fusion as a solution even if it sounds futuristic. And yes, lets gradually scale back our human numbers to a more sustainable level. We should be talking about positive solutions like this if we can reach some agreement on the hazards we face.

If we want to TALK about "Chicken Little Scare Tactics" then how about the three penny story about a Lil Tin Horned Dictator in an OIL RICH Country, and how THAT Dictator was supposedly buying "Yellow Cake" Uranium from Africa...and THEN how THAT Dictator was supposedly going to put this nation under "Mushroom Clouds" if we didn't INVADE to stop the production of WMD? :?:

HOW ABOUT THAT LIL FABRICATION?

As you can see I like to tell stories as well...now tell us how Santa's Elves make snow... ;)

Let's see...this world has literally millions of scientists...hundreds of thousands interested in weather & climate events...and out of that we found about 400?...wait a minute...let's make that 19,000...it's still a minority no matter how you cut the cake...99.999% says yes, but let's look at that .0001% that disagrees... :coolwink:

By the way, Hi EC! Long time, no see! ;)

I see now, this major ice storm in Tulsa that knocked the state out of power...the massive forest fires in the west...the drought in the east...Hurricane Katrina...it's all a figment of our overactive imaginations! :dripple:

Good points all. I suppose one of my issues is that the points you and I have discussed are not passed on to the public who by and large get all of their education from the media.Personally, I could care less about the fate of humans in the natural world. Our major contribution has been selfishness and destruction.But that is just me. I do however feel it is dishonest not to inform people that this is not unprecedented, and we only look at it regarding human interests.
The severity and rate are being exaggerated and I think a lot of that has to do with profit agenda. I am constantly posting on other sites the history of the climate and nearly all are surprised by the past warmings and high co2 levels.The graoph I use makes clear that is world history not just human history. At least tell everyone the whole story and let them decide. I bet most people would remain just as green.But scaring people unnecessarily is definitely wrong.I recently saw a program where the reporter interviewed a classroom full of 1-2nd graders who by and large felt the us would be underwater in a few years.The reporter asked the kids what their biggest fear from gw was and they all replied "drowning" These kids are growing up with a constant fear of drowning in their own town.The second fear was was death from an inability to breathe.Regardless of when they find out the truth(and none of them would have believed it at that point) they are in their impressionable years and this I'm sure has a strong negative effect on the adult they will become.I grew up watching for mushroom clouds and hearing about "mutually assured destruction" and "nuclear winter". I am not sure how I would have reacted to being told later that those things were not going to happen and I had been lied to.Certainly anger and a lack of any trust in educational/authority figures at the least.
Another of my issues with the GW fight is that very little seems to be actually happening. A heck of a lot of talking and demonstrating and bumper sticker buying and drum circles are happening with really no visible change.I would think that the first area of focus which could certainly be easily resolved (almost entirely with funding alone) would be the 1.5 acre per second removal of Amazonian rainforest, which provides 20% of worldwide oxygen( by removing co2).. Here is an excellent overview of one way to halt deforestation in S. Americarainforest rescue plan.The concerned public could easily put collective pressure the Govt,( or other industries) to take action there. The solutions suggested are easily within the realm of funding and technology of the US alone. Tell the world population to invest in the earths largest CO2 scrubber/ oxygen supplier and have an international comittee manage the funds and implementation.We have 40 years until it is gone.40 years.Regardless of your opinion, i do not think any predictions regarding ill effects of gw/co2 are theorized to happen that quickly.Tell the world that in 40 years we lose 20% of oxygen production/co2 removal and see what happens.
i actually wrote Al Gore almost a year ago suggesting he use his sway to educate the world on this matter.
"Talking about a path is not walking that path"
LaoTso:Tao Te Ching
*and for the record, I am a lover and worshipper of nature and its inhabitants.I grow a great deal of my own fruits/vegetables, get my years meat by hunting and then using every part of the animal for something useful, ride a bike everywhere within reason , do extensive volunteer clean up work and spend at least a month each summer living entirely off the land in the mountains with no human contact and when i leave you cannot tell I was ever there( i read "my side of the mountain "when i was young and so have done this since i was 16) 20+ years ago...

just so nobody tries to call me an enemy of the earth.[FONT=Impact][FONT=Impact]

Ok, let's let those points stand on their own merit for a minute...I am NOT saying there is NO natural progession when it comes to climate cycles...there always has been and always will be...What I AM saying is this...'global warming' exagerates those 'natural cycles' in a profound way...many say 'well it's ONLY a degree here or there, what's THAT matter?...Well it DOES matter if the ocean temperature is 82 Degrees when it SHOULD be 79 Degrees...THAT is the difference between a Catagory 4 Hurricane...and a Catagory 5 Hurricane...I KNOW they BOTH do damage...but the latter does a LOT more! :!:

What you bring up about rainforest removal also holds true. Turning the Amazon River Valley into the Sahara Desert is bound to cause problems... :!:

When it comes to ghg emissions...it wasn't 'bad' when it was just us, Europe, Japan,and Russia doing it...but when you add India & China to the list of polluters then THAT becomes a tipping point...not just for 'global warming'...but also for 'peak oil' consumption which affects prices... :bad:

By the way, nobody is telling children they are going to drown in their homes...any more than anybody telling children that Akhmet is coming down their chimney with a scimitar to cut their heads off...get my "continental drift" here? :?:

Incidentally, the "biochar" item I mentioned earlier relates to the Amazonian Dark Earth's of ancient dwellers, and if applied today may sequester CO2 into the soil for the long term, while simulateously increasing fertility and reducing pollution. Since fertility is increased, less land is needed and more forest would be saved.

http://www.biochar.org/joomla/

I only live near the mountains, so I admire your living off the land. FWIW I do work as a research meteorologist. I'm not working too directly in climate science though I am in the same building as some that do.

I agree that these types of time scales and values discussions are lacking in public discourse. Maybe we should go on a TV show sometime ;)

Sure! TV would be....GRREAT! All I am really getting at is this...if WE are exaggerating a 'point' with "global warming" then THEY have ALL but BLOWN that 'point' out of the water with "global terrorism"...Which is a bigger "fairy tale"? That the COAST is being 'engulfed' by the sea over time...or that Osama Bin-Laden's henchmen are rowing over here on Kontiki to plant a 'dirty bomb' in LA? :?:

Scalbers, I live in Oklahoma, and I also have no fear of 'drowning' or anybody forcing me to kneel on a rug and pray to Mecca multiple times a day....What I DO FEAR is members of the Aryan Nation...(good ol' white boys)....making a TRUCK BOMB and blowing up GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS!...get the gist of this? :?:

Yes, it's somewhat true that exaggeration is a general language of public discourse...

And I agree that danger could come from many different types of people as you more humorously mention. I used to go to school near Oklahoma City in the 1980s.

The results of exaggeration are known as..."spin"... ;)

It's NOT the facts that matter as how you 'spin' them...True facts stand on their own...and it is a FACT that the earth's climate has been rising for years...anyone can take anything and make it 'bigger than life'...just as anyone can find a 'dissenting' opinion on a majority finding... :laugh:

There are people who still insist the world is NOT round...They form The Flat Earth Society...I am SURE there are dissenters to Newton's Laws of Motion...and Einstein's Theory of Relativity...if you were to go 'looking'...for The Minority Report that is... ;)

"Deprogramming the masses since 1547"

Welcome to the Flat Earth Society Homepage! Please, be our guest. Just sit back at your computer, and let us do the talking. We'll tell you who we are, what we're doing, and what we're accomplishing in the world. You can look at some of our latest theories and insights, and, if you're interested, you can even become an honorary member of the Flat Earth Society. So stick around.
Mission Statement-

* Background information on the Flat Earth Society
* The Flat Earth Society's purpose - why we do what we do

Why a Flat Earth?

* Why we don't believe the world is round
* Scientific data and measurements backing up our claims

Fighting the "Evidence"-
* Dispelling common myths about "proof" regarding round earth theory
* Uncovering the conspiracy to withold the truth from the public

Current Events-

* What the Flat Earth Society is doing
* What you can do to help out in your own community

Join the Flat Earth Society-

* Become a member of the Flat Earth Society
* Help dispel heretic notions and re-educate the masses!

The Flat Earth Society is not in any way responsible for the failure of the French to repel the Germans at the Maginot Line during WWII. Nor is the Flat Earth Society responsible for the recent yeti sightings outside the Vatican, or for the unfortunate enslavement of the Nabisco Inc. factory employees by a rogue hamster insurrectionist group. Furthermore, we are not responsible for the loss of one or more of the following, which may possibly occur as the result of exposing one's self to the dogmatic and dangerously subversive statements made within: life, limb, vision, Francois Mitterand, hearing, taste, smell, touch, thumb, Aunt Mildred, citizenship, spleen, bedrock, cloves, I Love Lucy reruns, toaster, pine derby racer, toy duck, antelope, horseradish, prosthetic ankle, double-cheeseburger, tin foil, limestone, watermelon-scented air freshner, sanity, paprika, German to Pig Latin dictionary, dish towel, pet Chihuahua, pogo stick, Golf Digest subscription, floor tile, upper torso or halibut.

blah blah unsubstantiated blah.

"I could care less about the fate of humans in the natural world." Good for you.

"I do however feel it is dishonest not to inform people that this is not unprecedented." I guess you never read or watched "An Inconvenient Truth."

"I am constantly posting on other sites the history of the climate." I bet you are, so is Imhofe's staff etc.

Look buddy, the debate is over...

Go argue your junkscience with the buddies over there.

Very true. That is why there is still debate in this country over evolution.

The problem is that the MSM has confused the concepts of fairness and objectivity. The job of a journalist is to be objective, meaning presenting the facts without bias. But too many try to be fair, presenting both sides of an arguement. The problem is that many times both sides are not equal. And by presenting both sides as if they were equal does a disservice to the truth.

You can cut & paste as much junk science & propaganda as you like, that doesn't change the simple fact that there are over 250 peer reviewed studies which all conclude that global warming is real and man made while there is not one that disputes that conclusion.

I'll also add that it is a shame that in this forum, which is titled "A Reality Based Organization Fighting For Al Gore!", that this propagnda is given a platform.

There are over 250 peer reviewed studies that agree with Gore that Global Warming is real and man-made. There is not one that disputes it. That's all the facts that I need. As Gore himself has said the 'debate is over'.

Everything else is just junk science and propaganda and you know it.

http://www.politicalcortex.com/print/2007/12/24/95158/283