I can't wait to hear how the *Loony Left* spins this one...

Wait for wait for it! "This guy is only one scientist. It's not like the sun has anything to do with warming the planet."

*Chuckles*

Solar irradiation has been level or falling of for the last 30 years and the globe is still warming. This guy has ALREADY been prooved wrong.

The anti-scinece bent of the conservatives makes me not trust any thing they say with out factual backing.

The question I always pose to conservatives on global warming is to have them ask why they don't want antthropogenic global warming to be true. Look deeply to the answer to that question and I think you'll see your biases come out and some shakiness to the strict pro-capitalistic dogma that you endorse and the is the foundation of your political philosophical base.

Hm, let's see: The vast body of scientists studing the issue says that greenhouse gases are causing global warming. Tony Blair, who followed Bush's lead in the Iraq war, has accepted the obvious that greenhouse gases cause global warming. NASA's top climate researcher. James Hansen. agrees, and feels the administration wants to shut him up. Right-wingers pretend like nothing's happening, then as soon as one Russian releases a report they like they proclaim "MINI ICE AGE ON THE WAY! EAT THAT, LEFTIES!"

Gozer: 'It's not like the sun has anything to do with warming the planet.' *Chuckles*

Ah, what wit. God save us from those who take pride in their ignorance.

*Chuckles*

I love it. You said close to what I figured you'd say. It's great! :)

Seriously though are you saying the sun has nothing to do with warming the planet? Nothing at all? I'm sorry but how is knowing the sun warms the planet ignorant?

2005 was the warmest year on record. January 2006 was the warmest January on record.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/02/07/D8FKGOE80.html

Modern society/ American society is nothing without the successes brought to us by science. You can sit there and make all the stupid political arguments against scientific evidence you want but in the end you will not change the laws of nature and nature will respond exactly according to those laws completely unfettered by so much ideological ignorance.

Like babies playing with a loaded gun we are a technologically dependent society of mostly ignoramuses.

Gozer: I love it. You said close to what I figured you'd say. It's great! :)

We try.

Seriously though are you saying the sun has nothing to do with warming the planet?

Uh, no. You pulled that one out of your own ass.

I'm sorry but how is knowing the sun warms the planet ignorant?

It's not. What's ignorant is ignoring the vast body of science and then seizing upon one favorable report, as if that refutes everything. Maybe Abdusamatov is right - I doubt anyone here is qualified to say. But even if he is, I doubt he would say greenhouse gases have no effect on global warming.

But hey, don't let that stop you. You're on a roll: SUVs on the sun, etc. Just drink the Kool-Aid, check your brain at the door, and enjoy the show.

*Shakes head*

I love how you go off on that one line of mine. Did I say anything about Greenhouse gasses? Did I say there was no global warming? Did I say anything about my view on the whole thing?

All I commented on was how I figured folks would respond. So you see why I'm chuckling here? You've attacked me for no reason and with no basis as to what I might do. For all you know I work for NASA in tracking the ozone hole or greenhouse gas build-up.

But don't let me stop you attacking me. It's fun. :)

Don't worry about it Gozer, you see uskglass is going to die in the next five to ten years anyways. And it will be my ford explorers fault! Damned murderous republicans and their SUV's.

"All I commented on was how I figured folks would respond."

They always say the best defense is a good offense gozer. You knew how people would respond and that they are right. Your feeble attempt to deflect ridicule of a pretty stupid concept.

*Chuckles*

Keep it up my friends keep it up.

"Like babies playing with a loaded gun we are a technologically dependent society of mostly ignoramuses."

Posted by: muirgeo

Ahhh... the "wiser than thou" mantra of the psuedo intellectual dumocrats which keeps them from winning elections.

"I doubt he would say greenhouse gases have no effect on global warming." Uskglass

Please post a link to the quote where anyone says that greenhouse gases have NO effect on global warming.

The debate is not if there is an effect, but how important the effect of manmade activity is incomparison to normal solar activity. You global warming fanatics seem to think that the sun has always functioned as a constant (unchanging) influence on the earth's atmoshpere, with the only variable being the increase effect of manmade activity (pollution, deforestation, etc.).

We all know that industrial activity and pollution have increased since the begining of the industrial revolution. And if we look at data from then to now we can see that there has been a slight increase in temperature. The conclusion that is drawn by many is that man is responsible for this increase. And Man can stop or reverse this increase. However if you look at the evidence and trends over millions of years (as extrapolated scientifically) your find that:

1. Over the last million years there have been about ten Ice Ages -
2. From 150 to 120 thousand years ago it warmed up rather rapidly.
3. From 120 thousand years ago to 16 thousand years ago it cooled down - that was the last Ice Age. (It ended because???)
4. Then it warmed up rather rapidly again. (why was this???)
Over the last 10 thousand years temperatures have been unusually constant.
5. Over the last 150 years it's been warming up slightly. (probably a result of industrialization)

While manmade activity may have contributed slightly to increased temperature, there is clearly a greater cyclicality to earth temperatures that has NOTHING to do with man.

So before we blame man for world wide global warming, please explain why temperatures were HIGHER 1000 years ago than they are today.

A Mini Ice Age Awaits...

Global Warming is immenent...

Can't they make up their minds???

Hey, I saw the movie and it was great. Sequel's due out soon.
:P

This prediction is just another in a series that talks about the warming, cooling, and ice age cycles the earth has gone through and will continue to go through, with or without human intervention. Rush Limbaugh has been telling his listeners for quite some time about the findings of scientists who study these cycles, and the fact that most of the recent global warming is the result of the sun's cyclical activity rather than greenhouse gases produced by us humans. Years ago, students were even taught about these cycles in their schools... before the days of the "cucumber curriculum"!

That is not to say that the greenhouse gases don't contribute some to the warming, but it is relatively small in comparison to that caused by the sun and other natural causes. But you don't have to listen to Rush Limbaugh to learn about the cyclical warming and cooling of the earth. Do a search with Google into the factors that contribute to global warming, sunspot activity, cyclical weather cycles, ice ages, etc. Better still, go to the library and do some objective reading and research, and not just that from liberals and environmentalists!

Further, this does not mean we don't need to work at reducing our pollution and greenhouse gases, but in a rational and phased manner, considering economic and other factors as well. Even if we immediately shut down America and the industrialized world, nature and natural causes will still present us with this problem. (Perhaps we will even need to increase production of more effective home insulation!)

If our liberal friends would take their blinders off and remove their ear plugs, these things wouldn't come as a total surprise, but then, they couldn't blame all of the warming on big oil, SUVs, industrial production, and America!

Unfortunately, the liberal message "sounds" right to the average person who was schooled in today's liberal schools.

The vast majority of liberals stating anything as a fact or truth doesn't make it so!!!

AAR

Thanks for the response, phnxbmed.

phnxbmed: Please post a link to the quote where anyone says that greenhouse gases have NO effect on global warming.

My response was based mainly on Gozer's statement, but the bit you cite is based on this:

Matt: ...this scientist tells us that global warming is a result of increased solar activity in the 20th century.

phnxbmed: The debate is not if there is an effect, but how important the effect of manmade activity is incomparison to normal solar activity.

I agree.

You global warming fanatics [ouch] seem to think that the sun has always functioned as a constant (unchanging) influence on the earth's atmoshpere, with the only variable being the increase effect of manmade activity (pollution, deforestation, etc.).

As you might say, phnxbmed, please post a link to the quote where anyone says that the sun has always functioned as a constant.

While manmade activity may have contributed slightly to increased temperature, there is clearly a greater cyclicality to earth temperatures that has NOTHING to do with man.

Again, I agree entirely. This is basic geologic/meteorologic fact.

So before we blame man for world wide global warming, please explain why temperatures were HIGHER 1000 years ago than they are today.

I don't know why they were higher - I recommend asking an expert. Obviously Earth goes through climate cycles over time. The point that we "global warming fanatics" are making is that human beings are having an effect on temperatures. Is that the be-all-end-all of climate change? No, but it's the only part we can do something about.

Why won't a meteor hit us already so we can end this bickering between non-scientists quoting non-science sources. Its funny when people say SUV's are causing the destruction of the earth or mankind isn't doing anything to the earth. The one overwhelming fact is that Earth is not some delicate flower. It can do a geological-fart and whipe out all of mankind for all we know. If anyone here was even able to begin to comprehend the complexity of these models and simulations done, no one would really discuss it and may just possibly realize how pathetic they were to act like they knew what they were talking about in the first place.

Seems like these are the same lunatics that claim Yucca Mountain is a crazy idea. Nevermind the simulations done for Yucca mountain! But oh wait, simulations say the Earth is warming so they haaaaaave to go out and protest and demand this and that. Incredible.

Oh and enough of the anecdotal evidence people. My room has been as cold as it's ever been, thus the earth is cooling; yah right.

When are we going to finally figure out that we really, really don't know exactly what is happening, when it will happen and how it is going to happen?

Regarding climate change I read Nature, Science , Geophysical Research Letters and EOS. I am pretty intellectual on the subject of climate change. Indeed the ignormatiy ( a word I made up for large degrees of mutual collective ignorance) being posted here on the subject may indeed be why "dumocrats" can't win elections. The neocon election machine has a lock on the ignoramuses that no amount of truth or facts can evade. Yes, are country is in a sorry way. There is no written law that says the smartest or best guys win the elections or that the electorate will be able o understand they are voting against their own interest. Elections can be completely determined on the degree to which the population has been dumbed down by the likes of blow hard know-nothing true pseudo-intellectuals like Rush, Sean and Bill and the degree to which treasonous politicians will mislead their electorate into thinking they are actually patriots and Christians when in fact they are nothing but pirates and scoundrels.

Let me simplify. Democrats may be losing elections not because they are wrong but because the electorate is dumb, gullible, ignorant, uninformed and actually anti-intellectual. All traits taken advantage of by Karl.

"Like babies playing with a loaded gun we are a technologically dependent society of mostly ignoramuses."

Posted by: muirgeo

Ahhh... the "wiser than thou" mantra of the psuedo intellectual dumocrats which keeps them from winning elections.

Posted by: phnxbmed at February 7, 2006 08:40 PM

Let me simplify. Democrats may be losing elections not because they are wrong but because the electorate is dumb, gullible, ignorant, uninformed and actually anti-intellectual. All traits taken advantage of by Karl.

Boy Muir, for being so smart you sure are a complete idiot!!!!

Ahhh... the "wiser than thou" mantra of the psuedo intellectual dumocrats which keeps them from winning elections.

Posted by: phnxbmed at February 7, 2006 08:40 PM

You said it phnx, he just don't git it tho! we all jus a buncha dumb hicks.

*Chuckles*

Insulting the electorate's intelligence doesn't help either.

"Elections can be completely determined on the degree to which the population has been dumbed down"...Muirgeo

That's really amusing considering its the liberal establishment that has controlled the primary, secondary, college and Post graduate EDUCATION system in this country. Could this perchance be an admission that our education system is broken. If so I would heartily agree.

"Let me simplify. Democrats may be losing elections not because they are wrong but because the electorate is dumb, gullible, ignorant, uninformed and actually anti-intellectual"...Muirgeo

It is this condescending attitude that comes across loud and clear to the electorate which is the reason your party doesn't win elections... well that and the paucity of ideas.

Some components of global warming may be human-caused, if it's happening at all. But it fits in so neatly into an anti-capitalist, statist political agenda that I find it hard to be credible. The typical solution for reducing human-caused global warming: taxes, regulation, bureaucratic legions, lots of silly attempts to make people feel "ashamed" for wanting to live decently, and lots of five-star conferences in exotic locales.

The Left has been so consistently wrong on the "big" issues in my lifetime that it is hard for me to imagine that they could get this one right.

As for the "scientific consensus": I've seen them come and go; after all, global _cooling_ was the big fear when I was a kid. This included the same script that global-warmers trot out: the shrill pronouncements that without International Action, we were all Doomed, and that those who question the need for immediate Action are Living in Denial. Time and Newsweek had some great covers in those days featuring glaciers in NYC, etc.

"The point that we "global warming fanatics" are making is that human beings are having an effect on temperatures. Is that the be-all-end-all of climate change? No, but it's the only part we can do something about."

Any contribution man makes toward global warming is insignificant when compared to the historical swings of temperature. Man's effort to affect global climate change in any meaningful way can be equated to attempting to bail out the ocean with a teaspoon.

"Regarding climate change I read Nature, Science , Geophysical Research Letters and EOS. I am pretty intellectual on the subject of climate change."

That's your idea of being an intellectual on the subject? Physics has a comparable crowd like you, i like to call them hobby physicists. They read SciAm, Nature, maybe PopSci, some stephen hawking books, half way through a book on string theory and all of a sudden they are the grandmasters of physics, time travel is possible, Einstein was wrong, wasting research money, blah blah blah. Moral of the story: reading a bunch of periodicals makes you a hobbiest, not an intellectual.

Foo,

Remember when I asked you to ask yourselves why you didn't want global warming to be true? Your reply below hits the nail on the head. Of course your logic is reversed. You assume global warming is a grand conspiracy to impose more socialist rules.

Of course its not a grand conspiracy . Its fully factually documented in our best science journals. The truth of global warming that you hate is that it implies that your simplified view of the world is off base. The belief that free market capitalism always works best when unregulated is bunkum. The reality of global warming reveals that an unbridled system could ultimately result its own destruction. Capitalism...the free market has no answer or self correction to things like climate change. Regulation and planning are needed. That doesn't mean people proposing regulation or planning are socialist or communist only that they are realist. The fact is that a truly unfettered free market system is completely incompatible with democracy. True democracy will never allow for the "true free-markets" the conservatives envision. We will always have a mixed economy and the sooner the neocons realize that the sooner we can come together to promote real democratic solutions while encouraging a fair and "free market".

Some components of global warming may be human-caused, if it's happening at all. But it fits in so neatly into an anti-capitalist, statist political agenda that I find it hard to be credible. The typical solution for reducing human-caused global warming: taxes, regulation, bureaucratic legions, lots of silly attempts to make people feel "ashamed" for wanting to live decently, and lots of five-star conferences in exotic locales.

Posted by: Foobarista at February 8, 2006 03:27 AM

phnxbmed: "Any contribution man makes toward global warming is insignificant when compared to the historical swings of temperature."

Historical swings of temperature on a geologic scale, yes, absolutely. The thing is, what's "OK" for the Earth may not be "OK" for mankind. Earth might not care about climate change - volcanic age, ice age, ocean levels this high or that high, glaciers this big or that small - but humans sure do!

"Man's effort to affect global climate change in any meaningful way can be equated to attempting to bail out the ocean with a teaspoon."

This is where I and many scientists disagree with you. You said earlier, "The debate is not if there is an effect, but how important the effect of manmade activity is incomparison to normal solar activity." That is the debate in the scientific community, yes, you were right. Now you've apparently decided the answer all by yourself.

Uskglass,

You seem to evaluate each sentance of mine as if it were totally disconnected from the previous one.

I said "Any contribution man makes toward global warming is insignificant when compared to the historical swings of temperature." This is based on the accepted historical record of the earth's temperatures. Is there something about this statement you don't understand? Because if memory serves, you agreed with me on this point.

If based on this data man's influence has been insignificant in comparison to cyclical temperature swings, it logically follows that man's efforts to affect global climate change would also be insignificant in comparison the larger solar affects. That is not to say that there couldn't be some impact, but the cost would far outweigh the benefit.

This is why we on the right believe there is a socialist political agenda behind the efforts to impose Kyoto on the US.

There really is no point in debating this.

It's called confirmation bias, and we're all players in the game. We conservatives will actively seek out those positions comfortable to us or that re-affirm our values, and upon posting it, liberals will automatically get their defenses up, immediately attack it without investigating any time in the manner, and go back and find some "evidence" that supports their original opinion.

It's pretty sexy like that.

phnxbmed, I addressed your exact quote in the post above your latest. I'm not sure why you went back to it. As for the rest...

If based on this data man's influence has been insignificant in comparison to cyclical temperature swings, it logically follows that man's efforts to affect global climate change would also be insignificant in comparison the larger solar affects.

I think this is where the miscommunication/disagreement/whatever begins. "Man and his actions with regards to the earth are insignificant compared to the sun and its actions regarding the earth." I agree entirely. That does not mean, however, that man's actions cannot make the earth a worse place for man to live, and conversely that making better choices will help man live better on earth.

That is not to say that there couldn't be some impact, but the cost would far outweigh the benefit. I disagree entirely. When companies are given the choice of bidding on cheap 'pollution vouchers' or else upgrading their equipment to meet new standards, they've historically always upgraded rather than spend a pittance on 'CO2 points' or whathaveyou. Obviously it's not that hard to be cleaner. Of course they'll whine and complain about how new environmental standards will Ruin the Economy (!), but when given a real-world economic choice it's amazing how quickly, cheaply, and economically they upgrade.

This is why we on the right believe there is a socialist political agenda behind the efforts to impose Kyoto on the US.

Your version of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, I guess. Nothing I can say to change your mind, there. You'll note above that I'm talking about market-oriented, incentive-based steps toward cleaner industry. Boo! It's socialism! Except not at all.

"Your version of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, I guess. Nothing I can say to change your mind, there. You'll note above that I'm talking about market-oriented, incentive-based steps toward cleaner industry. Boo! It's socialism! Except not at all." Uskglass.

If there is not a political component to the Kyoto accord then tell me why China and India are exempt??

Furthermore, the US is ahead of europe in the pollution standards that were set at Kyoto on a voluntary basis. Not only would we be surrendering our sovereignty, it would be economic suicide for us to tie our future to rules set by the rest of the world.

If you think that our foreign friends have only altruism at heart when they drafted Kyoto, then you are more naive than you seem to be.