I'm advocating some global warming right now; I just took my dogs out, and it's freezing!!!

Ever notice that with liberal causes every issue they advocoate is ' settled'. Abortion is settled law. Global warming is settled science.

No, they are not just because you say they are.

Every notice they want to silence anyone disagrees with them? Barney Frank did in a committee meeting last week and this weather babe are just two that come to mind before my coffee starts to take affect.

They use to talk about the ozone all the time. What happened to that? I thought we would all die of UV, Gamma, IR... posining or somthing like that. Let me get this straight, it's going to warm up until we all freeze to death right? I'm so confused.

Every notice they want to silence anyone disagrees with them?

But on the other hand, when THEY want to disagree with someone, then they say "dissent is the highest form of patriotism".

And the Republicans are the "neocons"? Bend over and don't say a word, "science" [liberals and journalists] has spoken. We don't need debate or scientific discourse.

The true neocons in Dallas [liberal professors] are objecting to the Bush library at SMU. The only point of view they want is a total monopoply on speech and tenure. No conservative views allowed! What idiots!

SMU has always wanted to be considered an Ivy but is an average university at best. To become the best, take the Bush library, fire the liberals, hire some conservatives and turn your nose to the elites. Be a leader, not a follower. Buck the Liberal university mindset. Turn it upside down. The true thinking class is sick of it.

What do scientists know? According to scientists the Earth is billions of years old but everyone knows the God created the world in 7-days. We should just ignore the scientists because according to the Bible, the Earth is our dominion. God Bless America and God Bless the GOP.

and doesn't it figure that they think they are quoting Jefferson when they are really quoting some left wing zealots, one from the ACLU and someone else named Howard Zinn.

30° at 12:30 here in the Nations Capital and windy. Snow tomorrow night. Bring back last week.

Asking a meteorologist about global warming is like asking a veterinarian about evolutionary biology.

CW, really bad comparison, is that the best you can come up with. That was just plain stupid.

This is for people who actually want to learn about climate change and its causes rather than repeat what you've heard from a politician. Warning, requires undergraduate knoledge of math physics and chemistry.

http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Earth--Atmospheric--and-Planetary-Sciences/index.htm

We all know, this is the latest political football
"Global Warming", and it will be bounced around where it too will be Bush's fault. Scientists are
pro and con on this, but we know it will become another issue for the Dems in 2008.

Which speaking of 2008:

'I AM JUST SHOCKED TODAY, THAT HILLARY ANNOUNCED SHE IS SEEKING THE PRESIDENCY IN 2008!! WHO WOULD
HAVE THOUGHT OF THIS, SINCE SHE HAS DENIED IT ALL ALONG-COULD IT BE THIS PHONEY LIAR IS MORE WORRIED
ABOUT OBAMA AND "TODAY" DECIDED TO THROW HER HATE,
I MEAN 'HAT' INTO THE RING? WHAT A SHOCK!

Show me something that CW has come up with that isnt. A mind like the frozen antarctic...barren.

"Always follow the money trail and it tells a story.."

I was going to write this exact commnent, but there is was, so I just had to quote it.

Follow the money.

Global warming is big business. Abortion is big business. PETA is big business. These are just three of the scams that are draining billions of dollars sway from taxpayers and foundations and well-meaing individuals, to enrich the P. T. Barnums of this age, who have proven that "there is a sucker born every minute".

We are never going to get away from greed. But the cloaking of this avarice in trumped-up claims of concern for animals, or concern for the planet, or concern for victims of rape and incest is despicable. It's business, it's money---it's BIG money. And the funny/sad thing is that so many of those who are so willingly sucked in are the same ones who spout their hatred for corporations and Big Business.

Mark, at the risk of being unacceptably off-topic, I would like to quote a recent story, from January 8 of this year, to illustrate my point about PETA being one of the groups profiting from an emotional appeal while not acting on their claimed agenda...
......................................

Why Is Colorado's Governor Calling PETA "A Bunch Of Losers"?
And Why Don't Snowbound Cattle Deserve "Animal Rights"?

Last Wednesday, on Denver radio station KRFX, Colorado Governor Bill Owens leveled words like "losers" and "frauds" at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), an organization that's no stranger to controversy. Owens told listeners: "What a bunch of losers. Don't give your money to PETA."

Why did the elected leader of the 8th-largest U.S. state unleash his feelings about the animal rights group? As many as 340,000 cows and steers were stranded by southeastern Colorado's latest snowstorm. National Guard units have been mounting a frantic bid to save the freezing animals. Faced with 15-foot snowdrifts, rescuers airlifted bales of hay and hoped for the best.

And when local media asked PETA for help . well . let's just say the wealthy activist group wasn't enthusiastic about "saving" future T-bones and rib roasts. On the air, a PETA spokeswoman sniffed: "I don't know that it's really the most noble cause."

PETA, famous for lobbing rhetorical grenades at hunters, had no sympathy for Colorado's wildlife either. Asked if her group would intervene to save deer, elk, and other wild animals, the PETA spokeswoman snapped that "there's really nothing to be done."

Does PETA care more about hurting ranchers and crippling the beef industry than about "saving" flesh and blood animals? Did Governor Owens finally say out loud what most Coloradans are thinking?

The Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) keeps tabs on the lunacy of today's animal rights movement. On the CCF website, you can listen to interviews with PETA's spokeswoman, and hear Governor Owens in his own words.

And at PetaKillsAnimals.com, you can also learn about two PETA employees who will face felony Animal Cruelty charges later this month (yes-you read that right) in North Carolina. They allegedly killed dozens of healthy, adoptable animals in the back of a PETA-owned van, and tossed the bodies into a rural trash dumpster. According to government records, PETA killed more than 14,000 dogs, cats, puppies, and kittens between 1998 and 2005.
...................................

Not about the global warming scam, but relevant when discussing the hypocrisy of groups which prey upon the emotions of the gullible for their own self-enrichment.

"Asking a meteorologist about global warming is like asking a veterinarian about evolutionary biology."

What about asking the professor of atmospheric sciences at MIT? His article in the WSJ sheds light on the contradictory science and one sided intimidation that has a chilling effect on real science. Further, I thought the Democrats were against religious rigidity halting stem cell research, so why is scientific rigidity halting global warming research that actually hasn't reached a conclusion (you know, that darned scientific method) not funded by America?

"Asking a meteorologist about global warming is like asking a veterinarian about evolutionary biology."

What about asking the professor of atmospheric sciences at MIT? His article in the WSJ sheds light on the contradictory science and one sided intimidation that has a chilling effect on real science. Further, I thought the Democrats were against religious rigidity halting stem cell research, so why is scientific rigidity halting global warming research that actually hasn't reached a conclusion (you know, that darned scientific method) not funded by America?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

Almiranta

If what you say is true, then PETA has lost all credibility. Sort of reminiscent of the anti-abortionists who say they value human life but proceed to murder doctors who perform abortions or to blow up abortion clinics. Both display hypocritical tendencies.

For an issue on which the basic science has been "settled" for nearly 2 decades, there sure is a lot of contradictory data out there. One of the most comprehensive articles that I've read recently is this one, which also contains a number of additional links at the end.

Actually, I think the pendulum is starting to swing the other way on the issue of global warming, as is evidenced, not only by the increasing number of peer reviewed studies and articles from credible scientists, but also the sheer panic from some of the alarmists. The next few years could be quite entertaining as the Left often gets even more kooky when confronted with how they've distorted information for material gain.

CW,

Since you seem to be in the know, perhaps you can help us out. Since you seem certain that meteorologists are not climate scientists, you must know precisely who is...so, what makes a person a climate scientist, how many are there in the world, and how was it determined that most of them support anthropogenic global warming?

If what you say is true, then PETA has lost all credibility. Sort of reminiscent of the anti-abortionists who say they value human life but proceed to murder doctors who perform abortions or to blow up abortion clinics. Both display hypocritical tendencies.

CO, you Lefties have refined moral relativism to an art form. The only problem with your logic is that the murders and bombings you mention have been pretty much nonexistent since the late 90's.

Mark,
Although I disagree with CW on many of the posts I have seen in the short time I have been here, he does have a point.

There is not a cut and dry definition of a climatologist.
But generally speaking a meteorologist specializes in predictive statistic science. By analyzing trend lines and using computer models, they make predictions based on historical statistics.
The climatologist on the other hand specializes on the natural factors behind weather phenomena.

For example, if an AMS meteorologist sees a specific weather pattern forming off the coast of Africa, he/she will study the statistical data and use that in conjunction with 3 standardized computer models currently in use.

A climatologist on the other hand will see the same weather pattern and he/she will look at sea surface temperatures (or SST's) and the interaction with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation or AMO.

Sometimes the line seems blurry and there is actually alot of discussion on-going in the weather/climatology community.

Usually the biggest distinction is the meteoroligst has passed a certification test from the AMS and the climatologist has a PhD in one of the many sub-specialites of earth science.

To confuse the issue even more, the AMS recently introduced a new certification with different qualifications. The new CBM, you must have an undergrad degree in Meteorology.
They did this because many AMS "Meteorologists" you see on air in fact do not even have a degree.

At the Weather Channel (TWC) they do employ a climatologist. I cant recall her name off the top of my head...

Sorry Mark, I just read your full original post.

You are correct that you do not see alot of climatologists claiming on TV that global warming is man-made.
The reason for this is there is just not alot of historical data to determine if the current cycle is man made or not.

Take for example the AMO I mentioned earlier. The only reason climatologists agree on it is there is enough historical data to confirm its existence. Once you get past the early 1900's there is just not enough data for climatologists.
However they do believe they have enough data to determine what causes the AMO phase to change and that in turn may lead to a greater understanding of climatology.

climate change has been happening on earth for billions of years and will continue to happen whether humans are here or not...there is nothing we can do about it...so stop using tax payer money to try to stop it. For people who claim to want to stick to what the constitution says (directed toward liberals) you sure like having the government do things that they, by the constitution, do not have the power to do....but hey i guess that goes for most everything the government does nowadays.

To give you an idea of just how long ago this issue was hijacked by the political left and the press (often one and the same), Richard Lindzen, whose WSJ article Morris links to above, wrote one of his first comprehensive articles on the topic back in 1992, in which he identified the beginning of the "consensus" claim:

Other scientists quickly agreed that with increasing carbon dioxide some warming might be expected and that with large enough concentrations of carbon dioxide the warming might be significant. Nevertheless, there was widespread skepticism. By early 1989, however, the popular media in Europe and the United States were declaring that "all scientists'' agreed that warming was real and catastrophic in its potential.

One of the most humorous aspects of this issue is that Algore claims we only have 10 years left to "do something" before the effects of global warming are irreversible. Unfortunately, he's been saying that for about 15 years. I'm not sure at what point wild, baseless claims like Gore's become irrelevant, but I hope it's soon.

Hehe Spook you been over to Rush's site and seen the "Algore Doomsday Countdown Clock?" I wonder what he has it set to say on the day it hits zero?

*Chuckles*

Anyway, I've said this before and I'll say it again, "The whole subject is still open and there's not enough data." We can get a lot of neat data from core samples, we've been monitoring the climate for decades with satelites, but in the end we've only got a fraction of the total climate picture. Core samples give you broad climate readings over years, and our satelite coverage is very recent compaired to the whole of climate history. To say we all "Know" that global warming is man made is akin to "knowing" that the earth was the center of the solar system.

Now I'm not sure if they count, but I've spoken to a few of the climate scientists down at JPL who actually built and run some of the climate satelites that everyone gets their data from. While they do believe the earth is warming they were quick to point out that they don't know exactly why. There are too many variables in place to put it all on the feet of man. (They also pointed out a few interesting alternatives to "fixing" the problem. One of which was making our roads more reflective which I thought was interesting.)

CO, I merely sent on an article about a radio talk show. There are enough details for you to check it out if you so choose.

The determination to present anti-abortionists as hypocritical murderers seems to be a linchpin of radical Left rhetoric. Let me point out ---- again--- the fact that the very few people who bombed clinics worked alone. They were disturbed people who latched onto the abortion issue as a venue for their emotional and mental problems, they did not represent any group which was dedicated to murdering abortionists, and they were aberrations.

Now, if they had been representing a national group which had great acceptance on the Right, was adored and cosseted and pampered by conservatives all over the world, was held up as a beacon of desirable goals and principles, and which received MILLIONS every year to promote their cause, if they were killing in the name of a group vaunted by Hollywood celebrities, fawned over by the media, and generally described in the most glowing terms---THEN you might have some sort of relevance. But no, not really, because if the stated point of the group was be to kill those who murder babies, and if the group proceeded to kill those who murder babies, it would be consistent with its stated agenda.

We live in a country which outlaws murder yet which votes, overwhelmingly, that death is an appropriate penalty for those who commit murder. While I do not, absolutely DO NOT, condone the actions of the bombers, I can see how an unhinged mind could make the link that allows it to feel that he, the bomber, is doing the same work in the name of justice. Wrong, unhinged, irrational---but explainable.

How can you explain the elaborate charade of collecting MILLIONS every year, and garnering immense publicity, in the name of protecting animals, while at the same time acting as PETA in Colorado did this month?

You stretched as far as you could, Gumby, but you fell far short of making a point---unles the point was that the radical Left will go to any extreme to ignore a valid point if it doesn't jibe with their agenda, and even farther to try to invent a point to counter it, even if it doesn't make any sense. In that context, point(s) taken...

Science isnt found with consensus, its found with fact. A consensus opinion is just that, an opinion, which obviously not everyone holds.

Long long ago, right here in this galaxy, learned men thought the earth was flat, in fact there was a consensus to 'prove' it.

If the proponents of global warming really believe in it, they should welcome differing opinions; there is no better way to stimulate science than to have many people trying to prove or disprove a theory. If global warming were real, the anti-GW arguments would be scientifically killed one by one.

Morris writes: What about asking the professor of atmospheric sciences at MIT? His article in the WSJ sheds light on the contradictory science and one sided intimidation that has a chilling effect on real science.

The article in question was written by Richard Lindzen, whose patron is ExxonMobil.

it's not just research dollars for these folks and those who advocate 'global warming', it's also all about the revenue that will be generated making everythign 'global warming compliant'. Just think of all the fines and taxes that can be levied agaisnt companies who violate the 'global warming' mandates. Europe is already set to impose fines on businesses and homeowners whos businesses and houses aren't 'global warming' complaint, and I believe it is Brittain who wants to charge a rediculous polution tax on anyone who flies into their coutnry on comercial jets to 'offset the damage done to the atmosphere'.

SacredScoop

Why is it that every single anti-human global warming scientist is "paid off by the oil companies." I've posted a few times a list of about 3000 climate scientists with the listing to look them up who aren't all on the band wagon of human global warming. Every time I post it up someone says "oh they're paid off by the oil companies." What? All 3000 of them? You've checked?!

I'm sorry, does that mean I can say, "Oh they're paid off by all the environmentalists?" to every pro human global warming guy? Hmm? No. Take a look at the actual information and then decide, don't just write everyone who's anti-human global warming as being an oil shill.

It's gonna snow today in the PDRMD--I'm on my knees praying for some global warming...soon!!!

The Christian Science Monitor had an article where I learned “a 2004 Science magazine survey of all peer-reviewed scientific studies of climate change showed 928 papers supporting man-made global warming. None denied it.”

Spook: "For an issue on which the basic science has been "settled" for nearly 2 decades, there sure is a lot of contradictory data out there. One of the most comprehensive articles that I've read recently is this one, which also contains a number of additional links at the end."

Contradictory data is certainly a big problem. For example, Spook's clearlight.com article says "Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity." On the other hand, a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says this (Section 1.3.1): "For about a thousand years before the Industrial Revolution, the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere remained relatively constant. Since then, the concentration of various greenhouse gases has increased. The amount of carbon dioxide, for example, has increased by more than 30% since pre-industrial times and is still increasing at an unprecedented rate of on average 0.4% per year, mainly due to the combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation. We know that this increase is anthropogenic because the changing isotopic composition of the atmospheric CO2 betrays the fossil origin of the increase."

So which is right? It could be that both are. For example, it may actually be that only 6 billion tons of CO2 are contributed from human activity per year. But there are negative feedback ("scrubbing") mechanisms that are actively re-fixing CO2 in the earth's soil and oceans. It may be that the extra 6 billion tons are enough to swamp the feedback mechanisms, thus resulting in an overall rise in CO2 concentrations. And CO2 concentrations are only part of the overall issue. There are other aerosols to consider and other effects to consider. In other words, their contribution to global warming is itself only part of the issue, it seems to me. It is true that the various aerosols affected by human activity -- CO2, methane, nitrates, sulfates, chlorofluorocarbons, etc. -- exist in trace amounts. But then again, iron in your body also exists in trace amounts. And if you attempted to increase or decrease it by 30% it would still be a trace amount. But you'd be dead nonetheless.

I am not, by any means, inclined to be an alarmist. But I'm not exactly comfortable about the whole situation either. I do have a very hard time wrapping my head around global warming and related issues (even to the extent that I've tried, which isn't very much, admitedly). What I talked about here just scratches the surface of the overall complexity of the system involved. The IPCC report is intended for consumption by the general public. But reading it is enough to make your head smoke. It does mine, anyway.

Additionally, let me also say that I see various other reasons why we in the US should actively seek ways to wean ourselves from our dependence on fossil fuels. One of them is national defense. I am sick and tired of goofballs in the Middle East holding our economy hostage. And to the extent that fossile fuels remain a significant part of our energy equation, they will. Now is the time to get thoughtful rather than hysterical, it seems to me.

Anyway, that's my two cents.

I'm afraid my previous link to the IPCC report isn't likely to be particularly useful to anyone but the most dedicated. This is a better one.

Sorry about that.

Saying that people who believe in anthropogenic global warming and want funding to deal with the problem are just in it for the money is as ridiculous as claiming that churches only want federal "faith-based initiative" funding to pay their own salaries, or that people who want money to cure cancer aren't trying very hard, because they want cancer to stick around so they can get more funding.

A money trail is not evidence that people do not care deeply about what they say they do.

CW.
a link
http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/UnstoppableGlobalWarming.pdf

Some quotes during Q & A which mentioned the Science article
pages 15-16

Jonathan Rauch, National Journal: For Mr. Singer,
"what is wrong with the science paper that found that 900 studies included not a single one that took exception of global warming as a fact?"

MR. SINGER:
"But now let me talk about the article in Science magazine, which came out, for those who are interested, in December of 2004, was it, or 2003; 2003. It was written by Naomi Oreskes, a professor of science history at the University of California in San
Diego, and she claims, and still does, that out of the 932 abstracts which she got from the ISI database on the Internet, not a single one disagreed with the consensus about manmade
global warming.
Subsequent to this remarkable article, which many people tried to reply to but none of the replies were published by Science, she found that she had overlooked 11,000 other abstracts, and published a correction, but still maintained her original position. She didn’t examine the 11,000. But it’s interesting that someone who works in the field would be unaware of the fact that there were 11,000 – 12,000 papers published in the last
10 years and she only ended up with 900."

MR. SINGER: "Now, someone took it upon himself – Benny Peiser, professor at the University of Liverpool in England – to look at those 932 abstracts. And he did. And he got very different results. He found that more disagreed with the consensus than agreed, but most of them were noncommittal and just didn’t comment.
His work is published in another journal because Science accepted his corrections but then decided not to publish it, for reasons which we don’t fully understand. So the uncorrected version still stands in the literature unresponded to, at least in Science magazine."

Bruce

Global Warming is nonsense, dont believe it.

Myth: The scientific data is overwhelming that human-induced global warming is underway.

Fact: There is very little evidence that global warming is underway. Advocates of the global warming theory rest their arguments largely on climate models and surface temperature measurements. The climate models have been consistently wrong. In 1988, they projected the planet would warm by 0.8° C (1.44° F). In 1990, the forecast had to be revised down to warming of just 0.3° C (0.54° F) per decade. In 1995, the forecast was again revised down to warming of just 0.2° C (0.36 °F) per decade. To date, neither satellite nor surface temperature readings have met or surpassed this warming forecast. The surface temperature readings also lack credibility. Surface temperature measurements don't cover enough of the planet to provide reliable temperature data. They are also vulnerable to the Urban Heat Island Effect, artificial warming that occurs in urban areas due to absorption of heat by buildings, concrete and asphalt.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/GWFactSheet.html

Also, look at this quote from a scientist who supports the 'Global Warming' theory (note last sentence!):

Dr Stephen Schneider - "We are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have."

Bruce, you are my hero of the day! Great work tracking down that comment on the 900 + papers.

I didn't have your references, but I was able to tell from CW's comment that he is not able to read and process information very well. He said "928 papers supporting man-made global warming. None denied it."

Again, the mandatory DUH. CW is extremely impressed that of 928 papers supporting man-made global warming, none denied it. AS IF papers "supporting man-made global warming" would also deny it. Though his post was so badly written it was hard to tell just what he was trying to say. Taking his words at face value, he appears to be saying that 928 papers were written saying global warming is a good thing ("supporting it").

I find the tortured syntax and general gobbeldygook symptomatic of the fuzziness of Liberal "thinking" in general. "Regurgitating" is more like it, as they try oh so very hard to remember what they hear on Airhead America and then bring it back up for us here, with predictably unsavory results.