The Global Warming fanatics all point to the Kyoto Accords as the 'solution'. Yet, they always omit the fact that China and other nations never signed onto it.

While we and the Euros dismantle our manufacturing sites and ship them off to China and other non-Kyoto nations because we can't afford to keep them open, or we do it because we'll then meet the 'goals', eventually we'll end up having to depend on those countries for our cars, furniture, building materials, etc. We've destroyed our economy and allowed the greatest 'offenders' to have virtual control over the world's populace.

There are no industry-gutting proposals. As usual, you are exaggerating. Several cities have decided, independently, to abide by the Kyoto accord, and their economies have not been hurt.

Great point, Hermie. It's the reason the Senate voted 95 - 0 to reject the Kyoto Treaty. And the GW alarmists just don't have an answer to that except "but, but but all the Polar Bears are going to die."

BTW, did you read some of the comments in the internal link in Dartblog's piece?

Just a sample (from that eminent climate scientist, Josh Hartnett):

“If water levels continue to rise at this rate, my house in New York will be underwater, and I’ll have to get a gondola to get around. It’s frightening.

we may well experience global warming...again.

the debate is all about causes...& who profits (of course).

the recent UN Food & Agricultural Rpt, the ~1.5 billion global cattle herd emits more greenhouse gasses than ALL FORMS OF TRANSPORT COMBINED!

and their urine runoff pollutes aquifers more than any other single source.

lastly, the need to grow feedstock causes more deforestation than any other cause.

course the beef industry has great PR & is well insulated from serious examination by thoughtful folks.

so, as usual, lets follow the hype & attack the incorrect causes.

but all the Polar Bears are going to die

With the temperatures we've had in the lower 48 for the last week or so, the polar bears could move down here. Now that would be frightening.

I love irony of reading about someone's global warming warning on a day when I'm freezing my dupa off. Didn't Al Gore a few years back give a speech with his usual spiel in New York, on a day of record cold? (Perhaps Mr. Harnett should hold off on the gondola, and learn how to build an igloo.)

The Global Warming fanatics all point to the Kyoto Accords as the 'solution'. Yet, they always omit the fact that China and other nations never signed onto it.

It seems that most of Kyoto's requirements fall upon the West, as if the West is the main culprit. Besides China, I think that Russia, Brazil, Indonesia and Mexico are likewise largely exempt from Kyoto's requirements. Ironically, the West has a much better environmental record than some of the countries (especially communist and formerly communist) which would be facing less-stringent requirements. Because the West is penalized disproportionately, I'm inclined to think that the real purpose of Kyoto is to weaken the West, as Hermie suggests.

I'm inclined to think that the real purpose of Kyoto is to weaken the West, as Hermie suggests.

I'm inclined to think you're right, Bigfoot. It's the way the Left always attempts to level the playing field -- by punishing the achievers.
The real irony of Kyoto is that the majority of countries that have signed it are not meeting their goals. And even Kyoto advocates, at least the honest ones, admit that if everyone signed it and everyone met their goals, the effect on global climate would be statistically insignificant.

Boy the irony is RICH around here. I love it. Let me see if I can sum up:

1. First, you deny that global warming exists. It is a hoax, perpetrated by the left to (fill-in-the-blank...destroy America, detroy American industries, etc.). There is no consensus, there is only a debate.

2. As time passes, climatologists the world over coalesce around this issue. The science becomes harder and harder to refute. So now you geniuses are starting to tinker with your message. It then becomes "Okay, suppose you're right. What are YOU going to do about it?" That's just great. The Global War on Terror is OUR war, but the push to halt global warming? That now becomes the problem of those who have been warning about it for years. Nice trick.

3. This next step is where things get really interesting: the right-wing cabal on this site then offers this solution- surrender. Why fight it if it is irreversible? (It isn't, but that's the theory-of-the-day.) This is what is so ironic about this bunch. Iraq, the unwinnable, unending war, must never be abandoned. Americans don't surrender! But when it comes to global warming...hey, what's a guy gonna do? Just go with the flow, man. What's the worst than can happen? We build houses on the Rocky Mountains, move to Alaska and....viola! Problem solved.

Jeez, what a bunch of morons.

Global warming does NOT mean that the world is going to get WARMER all over the place. In fact, the opposite can happen. If you watched "An Inconvenient Truth," for example, (and I'm sure you all did) you will note that if the Greenland ice shelf melts and that water is dumped into the North Atlantic, it could mean another Ice Age in Europe. Not a tropical London, boys and girls. An ICE AGE. (Here, for your convenience, is the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvnMKBDjhnU

And to everyone who points to the weather outside and says "Jeez, it's ten degrees outside today! What's all this global warming hooey?", I can only say this: If the global warming crisis continues, you're not going to see better, more seasonable weather outside, kids. You're going to see vast, global climate change. Monstrous hurricanes. Blisteringly hot summers. Frigid, ungodly winters.

Get it now? So if you're going to (finally) entertain the idea that global warming exists, here's a tip: don't be a big, fat surrender-monkey. Try to actually contribute to the solution. In other words:

Follow your own advice.

Someone please explain to me how selling $35,000 electric cars that gey 60mpg instead of $35,000 SUVs that get 15mpg is going to "gut our economy"?

Or how building a $100 million wind farm to generate electricity is worse than spending $100 million on a new power plant?

"Gutting American industry"

and

"the world is going to end in ten years."

Those are BOTH hyperboles. The two extreme sides of a debate. Kyoto will not "gut american industry"... that's just patently rediculous, and those who say so are just as much like chicken little as those who say the world will end in 10 years.

Even the best plan to reverse global warming might take some decades to really have an affect, and that means - per global warming enthusiasts - that we're going to have a substantial sea level rise...why are no global warming advocates making plans for this?

You can't mobilize efforts in this regard unless and until people (especially governments) take the threat seriously. Right now, we're in education mode, and skeptics like you are the problem.

If global warming is happening, then has anyone actually gone out and studied whether it will be a net positive or negative?

The short answer is yes, and it will be a HUGE net negative. Think about what happens to you physically when your body temperature rises a few degrees -- it throws everything out of whack. With global warming, you are potentially talking about mass devastation of crops, mass mobilization of millions of people, etc. -- in short, a total conversion of the ecosystem and the economic system on which it is based.

In order to reverse global warming, wouldn't we have to reduce CO2 emissions to below their level in the 1950's or so? That seems to be when the global warming advocates say the temperatures really started rising...how, with about 4 billion more people on earth, do we come up with a plan for that sort of CO2 reduction?

Actually it started earlier, but I won't get in to details. The point is that 20 or so years ago, we (meaning, the planet) were collectively able to alter our habits (through regulation and other means), and we successively reversed the threat of holes in the ozone. Likewise, we can reverse the trend regarding CO2 emissions. Note that we don't have to necessarily LOWER them, but we have to REVERSE the trend.

Do the global warming advocates realise that if you eat right, exercise and are very careful, you're still going to die? ...Given all that, is a rise or fall of global temperatures really all that big a deal?

Care to apply that "inevitability of death" logic to the War on Terror? Or abortion?

I thought not.

I know that I'll be considered an anti-science Christian creationist hill-ape just for doing so.

No, it's more things like "The Death of Science," your wingnutty creationism, and your bizarre insistence that science be subjugated to religion (not just religion, but your religion) that lead to you being considered an anti-science Christian creationist hill-ape.

Thanks, Cyberactor for a well reasoned counterpoint to the mouth-breathers. Instead of looking out their window and saying, brrrr it's cold, try looking to the Sierra snow cap at its lowest levels since 1850 or the disappearing snow cap in the European alps. we are deeply in trouble here and all they can think about is that it must be some liberal plot to gut American business. morons one and all.

I think you've finally jumped the shark, Cyber.

First, you deny that global warming exists.

Rather than just call you a bald-faced liar, why don't you come up with some quotes from anyone on this blog that support that contention.

There is no consensus, there is only a debate.

Again, I think most everyone here agrees that there is "consensus" that the earth has warmed (geez, I'm getting tire of repeating this; would it help if I typed slower, Cyber?) by about a degree over the last century. And, yes, if you'd read all the information out there, not just that which supports your looney world view, you'd discover that there is indeed still a debate on this issue.

As time passes, climatologists the world over coalesce around this issue.

Climatology is a relatively young science, and is still reliant, to a great extent, on computer modeling because, in the whole scheme of the history of this planet, observeable, measureable data covers only a fly-speck in time. Much of the debate is centered around the fact that many scientists whose areas of expertise include physics, higher mathematics, meteorology and geology, do not agree with those on the climatology side, and they have a lot of good, solid science to support their disagreement.

The science becomes harder and harder to refute.

Actually, the more that's learned, just the opposite is true. Again, I hate to call you a liar, but, well if the shoe fits.....

It then becomes "Okay, suppose you're right. What are YOU going to do about it?"

Well, rather than simply rephrase the question, why don't you answer it?

but the push to halt global warming? That now becomes the problem of those who have been warning about it for years. Nice trick.

It's no trick. The alarmists HAVE been warning about it for nearly two decades. Every few years (or months) some eco-kook group comes out and says "we've only got 10 years left". Algore's been saying that since the early 90's. We've gotten through two 10-year periods, and the situation isn't even any worse. Sooner or later the alarmist crowd is going to have to put up of shut up.

This next step is where things get really interesting: the right-wing cabal on this site then offers this solution- surrender. Why fight it if it is irreversible? (It isn't, but that's the theory-of-the-day.)

I'll bite. How about listing some real-world, practical solutions that can be applied around the globe, that will have a significant impact on global climate. You can even reference climate models if you want.

What's the worst than can happen? We build houses on the Rocky Mountains, move to Alaska and....viola! Problem solved.

Now that's just silly, almost as silly as Josh Hartnett's comments.

Jeez, what a bunch of morons.

Ah, the inevitable end point of most Liberals' arguments. Just call those who disagree with you names. That'll convince a lot of people.

Global warming does NOT mean that the world is going to get WARMER all over the place.

Then I guess I gotta ask the obvious question -- why isn't it called "regional warming"? I'm guessing you watched the movie "the Day After Tomorrow", and actually believed it. LOL!!

Try to actually contribute to the solution. In other words:

Follow your own advice.

One more time; what was that solution again?

Great response, Spook, but don't count on the bad actor or any of his fellow travellers giving up their whine that conservatives "DENY" that the earth is getting warmer. They NEED that claim, because then they can prove it is, and damn us with that evidence.

Silly buggers...

Have you noticed the absolute refusal of any of them to address any benefits of global warming? Doesn't it seeem logical to examine the actual effects of higher temperatures, to see how this might make life better? It seems like drastically cutting the need for heating fuels would be a good thing, and so would extended and expanded agricultural production. But no, their coin has only one side---and it carries the image of Chicken Little.

From our friends up north:

"Prime Minister (of Canada) Stephen Harper once called the Kyoto accord a "socialist scheme" designed to suck money out of rich countries, according to a letter leaked Tuesday by the Liberals.

The letter, posted on the federal Liberal party website, was apparently written by Harper in 2002, when he was leader of the now-defunct Canadian Alliance party.

He was writing to party supporters, asking for money as he prepared to fight then-prime minister Jean Chrétien on the proposed Kyoto accord.

"We're gearing up now for the biggest struggle our party has faced since you entrusted me with the leadership," Harper's letter says.

"I'm talking about the 'battle of Kyoto' — our campaign to block the job-killing, economy-destroying Kyoto accord." "

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/01/30/harper-kyoto.html

Think of it this way, our space program generated thousands of technological advances used today in far-flung industries all over the world. America owns those patents and our manufacturers, for the most part, made the products that utilized that technology (I'm not talkin' Space Sticks here...more about this: http://techtran.msfc.nasa.gov/at_home.html )
If America, instead of Japan or India, for instance, led that technology, through our traditional role as world innovators, we would gain both the capital and manufacturing for our efforts. If we follow after other countries innovations then we will be paying for the technology and for the imports. A good example of this today may be the rise of Japanese car manufacturers while we discuss the potential demise of the Ford Motor Co.

Think of it this way, our space program generated thousands of technological advances used today in far-flung industries all over the world. America owns those patents and our manufacturers, for the most part, made the products that utilized that technology (I'm not talkin' Space Sticks here...more about this: http://techtran.msfc.nasa.gov/at_home.html )
If America, instead of Japan or India, for instance, led the more efficient and cleaner technology effort, through our traditional role as world innovators, we would gain both the capital and manufacturing for our efforts. If we follow after other countries' innovations then we will be paying for the technology and for the imports. A good example of this today may be the rise of Japanese car manufacturers while we discuss the potential demise of the Ford Motor Co.

"You're going to see vast, global climate change. Monstrous hurricanes. Blisteringly hot summers. Frigid, ungodly winters."

This city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions.

What do you mean, biblical?

What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor... real Wrath-of-God-type stuff. Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies.

Rivers and seas boiling!

40 years of darkness, earthquakes, volcanoes.

The dead rising from the grave!

Human sacrifice, dogs and cats, living together... mass hysteria!

lol

Spooky sez: “I think you've finally jumped the shark, Cyber.”

Again, I consider any criticism from the GoOPers on this site to be praise of the highest order.

Me: “First, you deny that global warming exists.”

Spooky: “Rather than just call you a bald-faced liar, why don't you come up with some quotes from anyone on this blog that support that contention.”

Heck, Spooky, why don’t you give me something HARD to do? You want to read a whole raft of anti-global warming nonsense? Simply pop open a beer, follow this link and have a party:

http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/archives/cat_environmentalism.html

Spooky: “[I]f you'd read all the information out there, not just that which supports your looney world view, you'd discover that there is indeed still a debate on this issue.”

Where’s that? The earth’s leading climatologist are about to publish a huge, collaborative paper on this very issue and guess why they’re being attacked? Because some of the leading climatologists think the report isn’t scary ENOUGH. So what “debate” are you referring to? Come up with anything that doesn’t mention that hack Lindzen or a certain fiction writer I could name and then we can talk.

Me: “It then becomes "Okay, suppose you're right. What are YOU going to do about it?"

Spooky asks me to answer the question myself. Okay, lazybones, if you’re not willing to do the research yourself, I’m happy to comply. The short list: concentrate on renewable energy, raise CAFE standards on cars and trucks to reduce emissions, invest in solar power, wind power, natural gas. Properly fund the development of electric/hybrid/hydrogen cars. Cap emissions, where possible, and where not possible, establish a cap and trade structure. I could go on (and on), but why don’t you bother to look up some of these solutions yourself? Oh, right. I forgot. You’re intellectually lazy.

Regarding how long we have left: “Every few years (or months) some eco-kook group comes out and says "we've only got 10 years left".”

The first time I have EVER seen any kind of projection like that was this week’s announcement. Any evidence to back that claim up, Spooky?

“Algore's been saying that since the early 90's.”

That we only have ten years left? Back that one up, too, won’t you?

Spooky: “I'll bite. How about listing some real-world, practical solutions that can be applied around the globe, that will have a significant impact on global climate. You can even reference climate models if you want.”

Lord, son, you need me to hold your hand while you cross the street, too? Apart from the solutions I offered above, the best solutions involve innovation. This, truly, is where America can once again lead the world: ingenuity. If we were to develop automobiles that can run on hydrogen, with zero emissions, don’t you think that this technology would spread like wildfire around the globe? If we truly backed a national effort to switch, completely, to ethanol-based or hybrid automobiles, if we truly ramped up our efforts to produce cars and trucks with 10, 20, 30 miles per gallon more than they currently get, can’t you see what the long term benefits would be? Not only would we slash our emissions, we would significantly reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It’s win-win! But cars are only part of the solution. There is industry as well. And, as I mentioned above, we need to make as many of these carbon-spewing industries green as soon as possible. Again: if we properly invest in these technologies and develop them effectively, which is not beyond our reach, we could change the way the world produces energy. So what the hell is wrong with that?

Me: “What's the worst than can happen? We build houses on the Rocky Mountains, move to Alaska and....viola! Problem solved.”

Spooky: Now that's just silly, almost as silly as Josh Hartnett's comments.”

Silly? It’s downright stupid! But that’s what Mark posted just this morning: “If global warming is happening, then has anyone actually gone out and studied whether it will be a net positive or negative? I mean, sure we'd lose some low lying coastal areas, but how much more of Alaska will be livable?”

You got a beef with that kind of idiocy? Take it up with the author.

Spooky again: “Why isn't it called "regional warming"?”

Do you REALLY need me to explain this entire problem to you, pal? I mean, I even provided you with a link that explains how global warming can cause ice ages. How much help do you really need to understand this issue? Graphic comic books?

Understand, for once and for all, that if global warming exists (and it does) and if even the BEST case scenarios come true, you're looking at vast, global climate change. And those of you who spent your time during the lead-up to this problem doing nothing or, worse, ridiculing it...you are the ones who will be held responsible if we continue to ignore it.

Given the lack of responsibility on your side of the aisle, however, I doubt that any of you much care what happens to the next generation anyway. Such self-serving smugness....I just don't get it.

First off, global warming is a huge problem, which has been primarily caused by the industrialized nations, mainly the United States. Our rates of consumption are astounding, and put even the most industrialized european powers to shame.

The main factor that makes sure nothing gets done is the American ideology of materialism, and that the world is out to get us. When in fact we are the ones who are destroying the world, almost single handidly. Instead of buying that huge SUV, that gets 40 miles to the gallon, why not buy a Toyota that is much more efficient.

The argument that we are going to have to rely on other countries for our goods if we are to help contribute to the fight against destroying the environment, is also poposterous and ignorant. Look at any material item you have in your house, and I gaurantee you that at least 90% of your material goods are produced either in or buy a different country.

Global warming is a huge issue, and one of the first giant steps we could take to help the enviornment is by changing our vehicles to use bio fuels. Scientists have proven that bio fuel is much cleaner than fossile fuels, and it would be cheaper at the pumps, and it would not cost very much at all to convert our cars.

The main reason why we, the United States, are not making progress to help the rest of the world fight global warming, is not because it would hurt the economy, but because the United States is full of too many greedy, money hungry people who are not willing to lose their stake in the oil industry.

There are all sorts of steps, like using bio fuels, that are available to us right now, but we as Americans are just to stubborn and do not want to give up even our most useless material goods. Yeah, the SUV may be your right to have, but will you still think that when your grandchildren cannot even step outside because the UV rays will cook them where they stand.

Oh, and the idea that global warming may be good, because more of Alaska will be inhabitable is utterly ridiculous. How can you live anywhere if the water sources are dried up, and the entire ecosystem is destroyed, you moron.

But hay we can still keep doing what we are doing, and maybe just maybe we will have 50 more years of great fun, never mind the fact that our children and grand children will have to clean up the mess that we left behind. But hey, the United States is the greatest nation ever, and we can do whatever we want, even if that means destroying the planet.

While watching that YouTube clip I came across this one of an interview with Al Gore discussing things individual people can do to minimize their contribution to airborne pollutants of all kinds. He mentioned a number of common sense things that not only make good environmental sense, but good economic sense. Things like using clock thermostats and flourescent light bulbs. Stuff like that. Not goofy stuff.

I don't think there's much doubt that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and other compounds are increasing, and that human activity is a significant contributor. And I think it's reasonable to be concerned about that, but not just because of a concern about their effects on global warming. For one thing, they could have other effects -- things like impacting plant growth and changing the pH of rain and the (plankton-bearing) surface layers of the oceans. But that's not the point I really wanted to make (nor could I make it forcefully if I wanted to). The point is that there's also national security issues involved as well. Joe Scarboro had an economist named Jim Cramer on last night. There's a clip of the interview on the MSNBC web site, but I don't know how to link to it. Anyway, the topic wasn't about global warming but about tensions in the Middle East and their potential effect on the price of oil. The take home message was that we need to get serious about alternative energy sources or we could be in for a world of economic hurt. True, some of the suggestions made by rabid environmentalist types are simply too expensive. But doing nothing could very well be too expensive as well.

The need to break our addiction to oil seems obvious to me. And I think there are some reasonably cost-effective technologies out there that are ready now or will be in the near future worthy of investment now. And at least some of those are "two-fer"s: that is, they could serve to (a) break our addiction to oil while at the same time; (b) reduce our carbon emissions. But, like everything else, we have to be smart about it. Neither an hysterical response on the one hand, or no response at all on the other, makes any sense to me.

Well, Cyber, now I have this mental image of you with your head about ready to explode. Your blood pressure must be off the charts. At least you tried, I guess, in Liberal circles, that's what's important.

Heck, Spooky, why don’t you give me something HARD to do? You want to read a whole raft of anti-global warming nonsense? Simply pop open a beer, follow this link and have a party:

I asked for quotes supporting your contention that Conservatives on this site don't believe the earth is getting warmer, not links to all the previous B4B GW threads. I scanned the comments on the first 3 you linked to -- didn't find anyone denying that the earth has warmed. Strike One.

So what “debate” are you referring to? Come up with anything that doesn’t mention that hack Lindzen or a certain fiction writer I could name and then we can talk.

Try reading the archives at this site for the last 3 years. I think you'll find few if any references to Professor Lindzen or Michael Crichton (both of whom have more credibility than Algore, BTW), just mostly reviews of study after study after study refuting pretty much everything you believe about global warming. Since you were too lazy to provide actual quotes to my first question, I don't feel obligated to list all the actual studies. Besides, Matt doesn't have enough band width to accomodate it. Strike 2.

Spooky asks me to answer the question myself. Okay, lazybones, if you’re not willing to do the research yourself, I’m happy to comply. The short list: concentrate on renewable energy,

That's happening. We're using so much corn for ethanol that the price of corn has gone up over 50% in the last 6 months. Mexicans can't even afford to buy tortillas any more. Ironically, if we used every kernal of corn produced in this country to make ethanol, it would only supply about 15% of our fuel needs, and then, of course, no corn bread with your chili. If you want to read up on what's being done in this area, check out all the links in this article.

raise CAFE standards on cars and trucks to reduce emissions,

I think that's about to happen based on Bush's recent comments.

invest in solar power

I have. Have you? I heated my water and assisted my geothermal system with an array of solar panels from 1979 to 1997. When I sold that house in 1997 the first thing the new owners did was tear out the solar panels and install a gas furnace.

wind power,

Sorry, Ted won't let me.

natural gas.

Been doin' that for as along as I can remember. According to many on your side, the burning of natural gas is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Properly fund the development of electric/hybrid/hydrogen cars.

LOL, isn't that always the Liberal solution, "we just aren't spending enough." Electric cars have been tried numerous times since the 20's. Nobody wants them. Are you suggesting that the government force manufacturers to make them and force people to buy them? I'll bet your are, aren't you?

Cap emissions, where possible, and where not possible, establish a cap and trade structure.

You mean a feel-good loophole that allows cheating? Even with cap and trade, most Kyoto signatories aren't meeting their goals.

I could go on (and on), but why don’t you bother to look up some of these solutions yourself? Oh, right. I forgot. You’re intellectually lazy.

You only answered the first half of my question. If all the things you cite were implemented to the max, what would be the effect on global climate? Sorry, Strike 3.

I've gotta run some errands. Maybe when I get back I'll address the rest of your post. Or maybe not.

Wow Mark,

I thank goodness that we have you and rest of the B4B forumites to really bring this issue back into perspective.

I had my panties all in a bunch about this administration putting the "kabash" or "watering down" of scientists and their information relating to "global warming".

The scientists are just a bunch of tree hugging left wing kooks. Evidence? What evidence? We sent our boys over to "talk" with these scientists and they sure changed their story. We went so far as to limit what kind of words they could put together, i.e., "global, and warming".

I really trust James Inhofe. Here's a guy that KNOWS the reality of the situation. You betcha.

I know when I read your posts, and the posts of those who view the world from your perspective, I am getting the real "dirt" as one might say.

Sorry, enough sarcasm.

What an absolutely asinine commentary.

Spook. Your sharp intellect and ability to argue your case is truly remarkable. Just living on the same planet as you is an honour. If you ran for President you would get about one third of all the votes.
Let’s try and quantify things a little by assuming that the following 3 moderate statements are true:
1) I think most of you would agree that the majority of all scientists believe that global warming causes some kind of a threat to us in the near future. Let’s be fair and say there is a 50% chance that they are right and a 50% chance that they are wrong in which case we have nothing to worry about.
2) If they are right let’s assume there’s a 50% chance that this threat is very serious, and let’s assume there’s a 50% chance that the threat is much less serious in which case we have less to worry about.
3) If the threat is serious lets assume there is a 50% chance that we can still do something about if we act quickly and a 50% that we can do nothing about it.

This means there’s a 12.5% chance that that:
Global warming is a real threat to us in the near future; that it will cause some serious problems for us but that that we can do something about it if we act quickly.
Or we can sit around on our fat behinds and talk about how its all conspiracy from the far left to undermine the US economy, or how the outcome might be good (how?).
No one is claiming that terrible things will happen with a 100% probability but when the majority of scientists all start saying the same thing we have to options; claim they all suffer from mass hysteria and start taking advice from Spook or we can stop this insane cycle of greedy consumption and work on a solution…..just in case.
Peace

To Spook:

Just to pick at a portion of your argument with actor, you need look no further than the first dozen words of this exact thread to see someone questioning warming:

"As I've been saying for about ten years now - if the world is warming..."

Now you are free to say, "He does not say that the earth ISN'T warming, he's just questioning whether it IS" but that would just make your argument look even more baseless and sad.

You are about 10 years behind the debate if you're still talking Kyoto. Caterpillar (you know, where BUsh was recently talkign about how much he's done for their company), most US utilities, automakers, and most oil co's except (of course) exxon are now preparing for a US cap & trade program.

Your arguments that we can't get to a pre-1950s level of co2 emissions is ludditism, and more reflects the views of environmentalist hippies who don't believe in technological answers to policy problems.

You are about 10 years behind the debate if you're still talking Kyoto. Caterpillar (you know, where BUsh was recently talkign about how much he's done for their company), most US utilities, automakers, and most oil co's except (of course) exxon are now preparing for a US cap & trade program.

Your arguments that we can't get to a pre-1950s level of co2 emissions is ludditism, and more reflects the views of environmentalist hippies who don't believe in technological answers to policy problems.

Cyber and Raker,

You haven't responded to even one of my points. I'll re-state one of them and see if you can tackle it.

In order to reverse global warming, per the theories behind the warming, we will have to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions below what they were before global warming started to take hold...this is nothing other than common sense; we can't just reduce the amount of CO2 and be happy...if we were to reduce our emissions by 10%, that would only slow down the death of the world in ten years (or is it 8 by now? When did's Gore's "scientific" movie come out?)...what point if we've only got 12, instead of 10? In order to fix the problem, there has to be a MASSIVE reduction in CO2 emissions, and these reductions had better happen over the next decade or two. Once again, I'm just working on the assumption that the global warming alarmists are correct.

My question: how do we do this? Switching to florescent lights won't do the trick, and we can't go into a ten or twenty year research effort...you've got 20 years, at most, before the world is wrecked. We've got to start today with very significant reductions....and no fair thinking of things that will kill people...anyone has to die, then the global warming alarmists should volunteer to be first.

And, Cyber, as an aside I am old enough to remember the "Famine '74" lapel buttons...every leftwing kook had them back there in 1971....we were all supposed to start starving to death in 1974.

Spooky: “Well, Cyber, now I have this mental image of you with your head about ready to explode. Your blood pressure must be off the charts.”

Haw, haw, haw! Look at silly Cyber! He’s so mad! Look at how much he cares about the planet. Isn’t he ridiculous? A real laugh riot! Haw, haw!

“I asked for quotes supporting your contention that Conservatives on this site don't believe the earth is getting warmer, not links to all the previous B4B GW threads. I scanned the comments on the first 3 you linked to -- didn't find anyone denying that the earth has warmed. Strike One.”

Did you get distracted or something, Spooky? Did your interest drift? Did you see a fluffy puppy or did a bird fly past the window? Cuz all you need to do to see those quotes is to....look for them. Here are a few, just from the past couple of weeks:

“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.- Posted by: Almiranta, 1/20/07"

“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. Posted by: Almiranta, 1/20/07"

“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. Posted by: Retired Spook, 1/20/07"

“Global Warming is nonsense, dont believe it.. Posted by: Cameron, 1/22/07"

See that? Global warming is a “scam.” It’s “nonsense.” The “pendulum is starting to swing the other way.” And watch out for those alarmists! They don’t know what they’re saying, even if most of the earth’s climatologists agree with them!

Sheesh, all you needed to do was READ. Was that so hard?

Regarding the so-called “debate” on global warming, Spooky then makes what some people call a “big fat mistake.” He points me to the pseudo-science site “World Climate Report.” Why, do you ask, is it pseudo-science? I’m glad you asked. Because it is run by a fella named Patrick J. Michaels, one of the world’s leading “global warming skeptics.” Well, given that Dr. Michaels holds a Ph.D. in Ecological Climatology from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, why shouldn’t we listen to him? Because, and I’ll bet you saw this coming, he is an industry hack, just like his colleague Professor Lindzen. His credibility was shredded twelve years ago when this issue was examined in an article in Harper’s Bazaar, which you can find here:

http://dieoff.org/page82.htm

The basic problem with global warming skeptics, darn it, is that they all seem to be funded by oil interests. In fact, Spooky’s favorite website, World Climate Report, is funded by an organization called “Western Fuels.” Golly, what a coincidence!

On renewable fuels: “That's happening. We're using so much corn for ethanol that the price of corn has gone up over 50% in the last 6 months. Mexicans can't even afford to buy tortillas any more. Ironically, if we used every kernal of corn produced in this country to make ethanol, it would only supply about 15% of our fuel needs, and then, of course, no corn bread with your chili. If you want to read up on what's being done in this area, check out all the links in this article.”

I did. Know what was fascinating about it? #1: it didn’t mention the fact that biofuels from sugar would cost a hell of a lot less, and produce a lot more energy for your fossil fuel dollar, than corn. They’re already doing it in Brazil. But here? Guess what: the corn industry AND the sugar industry are fighting these measures. Gee, if only we had some leadership from, say, the White House on this issue.

#2: Skeptics claim that biofuels currently cost more to produce than gasoline, making it inefficient. But virtually EVERY skeptic agrees that this will not continue and that, soon, biofuels will be the wave of the future. Not just corn, Spooky. Sugar and other sources, too.

Re: CAFE standards: “I think that's about to happen based on Bush's recent comments.”

Bout damn time, too.

Re: solar power investment: “I have. Have you? I heated my water and assisted my geothermal system with an array of solar panels from 1979 to 1997. When I sold that house in 1997 the first thing the new owners did was tear out the solar panels and install a gas furnace.”

No shortage of idiots out there, Spooky.

Re: wind power: “Sorry, Ted won't let me.” Ha, ha, ha! He’s SO funny!

Me: “Properly fund the development of electric/hybrid/hydrogen cars.”

Spooky: “LOL, isn't that always the Liberal solution, "we just aren't spending enough."

LOL! Yeah, we’re kooky that way. Wanting to spend money where it’s needed. We’re just NUTS about that kind of thing!

Spooky: “Electric cars have been tried numerous times since the 20's. Nobody wants them. Are you suggesting that the government force manufacturers to make them and force people to buy them? I'll bet your are, aren't you?”

Uh, no. But how about this: a tax break, a big one, for people who buy electric or hybrid cars. Some INCENTIVE. Sounds crazy, doesn’t it? Really looney-tunes, I’ll bet! But I’ll make you another bet: people will quickly lose their distaste for such vehicles (which the auto industry has purposefully killed over the past 20 years), if they have the proper incentive to buy them.

Re: cap and trade: “You mean a feel-good loophole that allows cheating? Even with cap and trade, most Kyoto signatories aren't meeting their goals.”

They’re doing a hell of a lot better than we are. Remember, Spooky, the goal is to reduce emissions. Not entirely eliminate them- that is virtually impossible, given our current technology. But other countries are WAY ahead of us on lowering emissions. Is that the way it should be? I’ll bet you think it is, don’t you?

“You only answered the first half of my question. If all the things you cite were implemented to the max, what would be the effect on global climate? Sorry, Strike 3.”

You mean if we stop spewing carbon into the atmosphere? Could we help to reverse the effects of global warming or, at the very least, slow it down? Who knows if it could work? It may be too late. But we better try, and try pretty damn soon.

“I've gotta run some errands. Maybe when I get back I'll address the rest of your post. Or maybe not.”

Um, who cares?

One historical fact on gw that can not be refuted is that this President hired a bought-and-paid-for shill in hiring Phillip Cooney (presently employed by ExxonMobile) as his former chief of staff on the Council on Environmental Quality.

Cooney's unilateral edited of the national climate change reports during 2002 and 2003 to water down its conclusions is also a proven historical fact.

I remember the right getting down right outraged when Clinton hired a Sierra Club guy to an environmental position... but this President hiring a a lawyer and former lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute to oversee gw issues is completely A-OK.

It's like we live in parallel universes.

Cyberactor

My hat is off to you. Substantial information in a thought-provoking post. You know your stuff.

Mark sez: “You haven't responded to even one of my points. I'll re-state one of them and see if you can tackle it.”

You mean, like that “Hey, don’t sweat it. We can all live in Alaska” point? That ridiculous piece of hogwash?

“In order to fix the problem, there has to be a MASSIVE reduction in CO2 emissions, and these reductions had better happen over the next decade or two. Once again, I'm just working on the assumption that the global warming alarmists are correct.”

That’s about right. What’s the problem now?

“My question: how do we do this? Switching to florescent lights won't do the trick, and we can't go into a ten or twenty year research effort...you've got 20 years, at most, before the world is wrecked. We've got to start today with very significant reductions....and no fair thinking of things that will kill people...anyone has to die, then the global warming alarmists should volunteer to be first.”

Anyone want to try and explain that last piece of drivel? (Killing people? Anyone?)

But, for grins, I’ll take a crack at the first half: Yes, Mark, you’ve finally got the picture. We need to start, today, with very significant reductions. The White House should perhaps embrace the idea of tackling this issue with something more than lip service and a good start would be to stop distorting scientific research on the issue.

Ah, but you see, George has been a leading proponent of fixing the global warming problem for years, hasn’t he, Mark? George Bush, on June 11, 2001:

“I've just met with senior members of my administration who are working to develop an effective and science-based approach to addressing the important issues of global climate change. This is an issue that I know is very important to the nations of Europe, which I will be visiting for the first time as President. The earth's well-being is also an issue important to America. And it's an issue that should be important to every nation in every part of our world.

“The issue of climate change respects no border. Its effects cannot be reined in by an army nor advanced by any ideology. Climate change, with its potential to impact every corner of the world, is an issue that must be addressed by the world.

“...My Cabinet-level working group has met regularly for the last 10 weeks to review the most recent, most accurate, and most comprehensive science. They have heard from scientists offering a wide spectrum of views. They have reviewed the facts, and they have listened to many theories and suppositions. The working group asked the highly-respected National Academy of Sciences to provide us the most up-to-date information about what is known and about what is not known on the science of climate change.

“First, we know the surface temperature of the earth is warming. It has risen by .6 degrees Celsius over the past 100 years. There was a warming trend from the 1890s to the 1940s. Cooling from the 1940s to the 1970s. And then sharply rising temperatures from the 1970s to today.

“There is a natural greenhouse effect that contributes to warming. Greenhouse gases trap heat, and thus warm the earth because they prevent a significant proportion of infrared radiation from escaping into space. Concentration of greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have increased substantially since the beginning of the industrial revolution. And the National Academy of Sciences indicate that the increase is due in large part to human activity.

“...The policy challenge is to act in a serious and sensible way, given the limits of our knowledge. While scientific uncertainties remain, we can begin now to address the factors that contribute to climate change.

“There are only two ways to stabilize concentration of greenhouse gases. One is to avoid emitting them in the first place; the other is to try to capture them after they're created. And there are problems with both approaches. We're making great progress through technology, but have not yet developed cost-effective ways to capture carbon emissions at their source; although there is some promising work that is being done.

“...Our country, the United States is the world's largest emitter of manmade greenhouse gases. We account for almost 20 percent of the world's man-made greenhouse emissions. We also account for about one-quarter of the world's economic output. We recognize the responsibility to reduce our emissions. We also recognize the other part of the story -- that the rest of the world emits 80 percent of all greenhouse gases. And many of those emissions come from developing countries.

“....America's unwillingness to embrace a flawed treaty [Kyoto] should not be read by our friends and allies as any abdication of responsibility. To the contrary, my administration is committed to a leadership role on the issue of climate change.

“We recognize our responsibility and will meet it -- at home, in our hemisphere, and in the world. My Cabinet-level working group on climate change is recommending a number of initial steps, and will continue to work on additional ideas. The working group proposes the United States help lead the way by advancing the science on climate change, advancing the technology to monitor and reduce greenhouse gases, and creating partnerships within our hemisphere and beyond to monitor and measure and mitigate emissions.”

Say, how’d that go? What kind of progress have we made in the past five and a half years, George?

“And, Cyber, as an aside I am old enough to remember the "Famine '74" lapel buttons...every leftwing kook had them back there in 1971....we were all supposed to start starving to death in 1974.”

Gee, a potential world-wide calamity that never took place. Can you imagine such a thing?

Time to put your cards on the table, Mark. Either you agree with your President that global warming is a serious problem that needs immediate attention or you don’t. Quit sitting on the fence, grow some stones and act like a responsible steward of the planet.

Or, in the alternative, get the hell out of the way and let the grown-ups, and the scientists, help to address this issue.

Pick a side.

Wow, Cyber, your keyboard must have smoke coming out of it. I was going to address some more of your issues, but this little ditty pretty much says all we need to know about you:

You mean if we stop spewing carbon into the atmosphere? Could we help to reverse the effects of global warming or, at the very least, slow it down? Who knows if it could work? It may be too late. But we better try, and try pretty damn soon.

Oh, gee and if we don't we're all gonna fry. It is comforting, though, to know that there are people out there like Cyber who care so much for the future of the planet.

"Algore's been saying that since the early 90's."

That we only have ten years left? Back that one up, too, won’t you?

Gladly, "Earth in the Balance", 1992 (author - Algore), page 197.

Around here, they’re starting to drop like sickened flies, as the fetid stench of false pulchritude and blatant nepotism play out their last retarded act to a crowd that is visibly beginning to thin and throw licorice candies at the stage. The evil white poodle of doom continues to loiter in the parking lot of our discontent. Some say his name is Yorick, to which I slyly reply, “Ah, Yorick! I knew him Horatio! Many was the time he bore (and bored) me on his lumpen and flea-ridden back!” which totally confuses everybody. But I have bigger lunkers to skin and fry. The dull now sharpened arrow of pain and despair, waylaid and delivered at the end of the random female bumper weighs heavily upon my stress level and systolic blood pressure as the ominous clouds of elective back surgery are no longer a distant fuzzy specter but a menacing boogey man, passing the kidney stone of corporeal dread until all hope for simple resolution gives up the ghost and faces the dreaded noise of certain permanent malfunction in regards to a continuing subsistence without twinge or tweak of physical trepidation.

There is absolutley no scientic evidence that global warming is caused by anthropogenic emissions. In fact, the 1700 scientists that have come out and signed the "Global Warming Petition" have found that; "the global warming hypothesis has failed every relevant experimental test."

So until Algore, Leoretardo and Whoppi's ex can provide evidence rather than conjecture, I'll keep the spigot on full blast.

Oh, but wasn't it the latter two morons that said we only had ten years left? But that was at least ten years ago....morons.

So, it's getting warmer, and all the polar bears are going to die?

Great, if I ever visit the "Great White North," I won't freeze to death, nor will I be mauled to death by one of those smelly polar bears.

Life is great, and libs are kooks...

Sorry, I didn't sign off properly on my last post.

Wade

Perhaps, before we blow ourselves to kingdom come or completely screw up the environment we'll get to experience the Rapture. Isn't it expected sometime soon? I seem to remember someone here mention the possibility a little while back.

Gee Cyber, I don't know where to start. So I'll lay it out in a remedial format.

1) Bush is chasing the politics of GW...so freakin what?
2) There is absolutley no scientic evidence that global warming is caused by anthropogenic emissions. Do I need to state it again?

Thus far, not one scientist has provided evidence and until then, it's moot.

BTW Cyber, have you done your part to be a better steward of the planet...hmmm?

Hey Cyber, OT, but when are you gonna answer the question regarding the border issue and terrorists? I've been on vacation for a week and haven't seen your response. You remember, you were to let us all know how Iraq could be left out as a terrorist safe haven and Al Qaeda ONLY had camps in Afghanistan. I've asked this question of a dozen or so kooks and none will respond. I'd really like your response.

*Sighs*

If I was to name the top five most contentious issues I've seen here they'd have to be (in no particular order):

1. The War on Terror
2. Abortion
3. Global Warming
4. Taxes
5. Border Control

I'd put gun control up there but minus the sunset of the Clinton Gun Ban we've not really talked about it much. *Shrugs*

Being periferially invovled in the science being discussed (I work with the guys who run the satelites that record all this climate change) here I have to once again wonder about the actual science here. Science is one of my favorite things and it pains me to see it used as "proof" in politics. Mainly because it temps scientists or others to publish incomplete items or make assumtions or draw conclusions far too soon.

For instance, anyone else remember the "Ozone Hole?" That has seemed to fall of the radar in recent years. Oh sure, I hear it mentioned now and then but mostly all the "Chaos" that was proposed hasn't really happened. Back then those who were trying to curb the reactionism to the news mentioned that we haven't even been recording data on the ozone layer that long. For all we could tell it's always been there and it normally expands and contracts. Yet there were those who went off on it and predicted cancer for all if things didn't change.

Now, before anyone mentions it, yes we did make changes. But you know what, that hole is still there. It still expands and contracts reguardless of what we did. Oh sure there might be a minor fluctuation over the years, but in the end we don't really know much about it because our data over time is still a very small ratio.

For global warming here's how I see it:

The globe warms and cools normally. It's happened many times before, and it'll most likely continue.

I would ask, are ice ages good or bad? Are the warm periods between them good or bad? Is there such thing as good and bad climates?

Are alternative energy sources worth persuing? Heck yeah! I think we should have been using more nuclear power for decades now. Fusion, Wind, Geothermal, and others should all be persued.

Do we need to dramatically change how we do things now to do all this? No, I don't believe so. We are always looking for ways to improve, not only ourselves and our way of life, but our environments around us. The two don't need to be mutually exclusive.

Regarding the so-called “debate” on global warming, Spooky then makes what some people call a “big fat mistake.” He points me to the pseudo-science site “World Climate Report.”

OK, Cyby (I guess if you can call me Spooky, I can call you Cyby), so you don't like Pat Michaels' site. Is it because he uses references like these to make his point:

Chase, T. N., K. Wolter, R. A. Pielke Sr., and I. Rasool, 2006. Was the 2003 European summer heat wave unusual in a global context? Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L23709, doi:10.1029/2006GL027470.

Büntgen, U. D.C. Frank, D. Nievergelt, and J. Esper, 2006, Summer Temperature Variations in the European Alps, A.D. 755–2004. Journal of Climate,

Ahlmann, H.W., 1948. The present climate fluctuation. The Geographical Journal, 112, 165-193.

Chylek, P., et al., 2006. Greenland warming of 1920-1930 and 1995-2005. Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L11707, doi:10.1029/2006GL026510.

Lutchke, S.B., et al., 2006. Recent Greenland ice mass loss by drainage system from satellite gravity observations. Science, 314, 1286-1289.

Serreze, M.C., et al., 2000. Observational Evidence of recent change in the northern high-latitude environment. Climatic Change, 46, 159–207.

Divine, D.V. and C. Dick. 2006. Historical variability of sea ice edge position in the Nordic Seas, Journal of Geophysical Research, 111, 10.1029/2004JC002851

Gagnon A.S. and W.A. Gough. 2005a. Trends and variability in the dates of ice freeze-up
and break-up over Hudson Bay and James Bay. Arctic, 58, 370–382.

Gagnon A.S. and W.A. Gough. 2005b. Climate change scenarios for the Hudson Bay
region: an intermodel comparison. Climate Change, 69, 269–297.

Gagnon, A.S. and W.A. Gough. 2006. East-west asymmetry in long-term trends of
landfast ice thickness in the Hudson Bay region, Canada. Climate Research, 32, 177-186.

Parkinson C.L., Cavalieri, D.J., Gloersen P., Zwally J., and J.C. Comiso.1999. Arctic sea
ice extent, areas, and trends, 1978–1996. Journal of Geophysical Research, 104, 20837–20856.

Diffenbaugh, N. S., M. Ashfaq, B. Shuman, J. W. Williams, and P. J. Bartlein (2006), Summer aridity in the United States: Response to mid-Holocene changes in insolation and sea surface temperature, Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L22712, doi:10.1029/2006GL028012.

Tian, J., D. M. Nelson, and F. S. Hu (2006), Possible linkages of late-Holocene drought in the North American midcontinent to Pacific Decadal Oscillation and solar activity, Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L23702, doi:10.1029/2006GL028169.

Pudsey, C.J., Murray, J.W., Appleby, P., and Evans, J. 2006. Ice shelf history from
petrographic foraminiferal evidence, Northeast Antarctic Peninsula. Quaternary Science Reviews, 25, 2357-2379.

Pudsey, C.J. and Evans, J. 2001. First survey of Antarctic sub-ice shelf sediments reveals
mid-Holocene ice shelf retreat. Geology, 29, 787-790

Boisvenue, C. and S.W. Running. 2006. Impacts of climate change on natural forest productivity – evidence since the middle of the 20th century, Global Change Biology, 12, 862–882,

Midgleya, J.J. and A. Seydackb. 2006. No adverse signs of the effect of environmental change on tree biomass in the Knysna forest during the 1990s, South African Journal of Science, 102, 96-97.

Pederson, G.T., S.T. Gray, D,B. Fagre, and L.J. Graumlich. 2006. Long-Duration Drought Variability and Impacts on Ecosystem Services: A Case Study from Glacier National Park, Montana. Earth Interactions, 10, Paper No. 4.

There are dozens more. All these studies either refute what you believe or point out the positive aspects of warming (or both) All these all pseudo-science?

I suggest you look up Scientific American's back issues not only for proof that humans are causing global warming, but that there are economicaly sound reasons for doing something about it.

Our economy always does better with new technology, new ideas, innovation. You sound like somebody who has an interest in buggy whips around 1910.

Sorry, that should have been "ARE" these all pseudo-science?

Cyber,

You still haven't addressed the issue...HOW are you going to do it? Please don't tell me that in all your massive research on the subject you haven't come across a step by step plan which will first halt and then reverse global warming BEFORE Al Gore's ten years are up....

Libs like Cyby have lots of good talking points on this, Mark, but that's all they are is talk. I suppose some of them recycle, drive Priuses and swap out their incandescent light bulbs for compact fluorescents -- all commendable actions, but not even equivalent to a glob of spit in the ocean in effecting global climate. It would be interesting to see an extensive national poll of adults asked this question: "would you be willing to sacrifice in any significant way to stop global warming?" I'd love to see the answer to that. Hell, Id love to see politicians answer that question. I just don't have any sense that a significant percentage of the general population gives a rat's rear end about global warming.

Retired Spook,

Reading this thread..
Cyber: “First, you deny that global warming exists.”

Spook: “Rather than just call you a bald-faced liar, why don't you come up with some quotes from anyone on this blog that support that contention.”

Cyber is correct. I used google to scan the posts myself. At first there was broad disagreement that global warming existed (and there are still about 10-15 current posts from conservatives that global warming is a myth because its cold outside). Then over time the debate on here shifted to the cause of global warming.

I dont know how to create a link in this. But if you email me I can send the google link. stevencar46@yah00.com

Love him or hate him, Cyber is right on that point.

My opinion on the subject: Having lived in Baltimore during the 70's I recall all too well what happens when pollution goes unchecked (had to get away from the city life after that). In addition this is God's world and what a beautiful world it is. Why would anyone object to polluting it less?
Will less pollution affect global warming? I have no idea. I dont pretend to understand what the climatologists have to say (have you ever read a journal article? I dont know how my wife does it day in and day out). But do I want to pollute my neighbors air or my Rev's air? Nope. I see the pollution come down the Shenandoah valley every summer from the Ohio valley. When I first moved here over 23 yrs ago I could see all the way over to Staunton 30 miles away. Now I am lucky to see 8-10 miles away.

I know I drive an old F150 that dont have the best gas mileage, but I have laid photo-voltaic tiles on our roof and use solar heating (although I gotta drain that during the winter time) The tiles and convert cost alot of money. But I consider it money well spent.

I guess I look at it this way, if you believe this is God's creation, why mess it up any more then you have to? Thats why me and other farmers in the area use(d) non-input farming techniques. We dont/didnt use nitrogen based fertilizers trucked in from Iowa. Instead we used mother natures best fertilizer in the world: chicken shit. :) We sold our products only locally and would only buy locally (when we could). It cuts down on pollution. I want my grandchildren to experience the clean air I had when I was a kid. Why would I want to leave this earth worse off then when I cam e into it? It just dont seem right to me.

IT

You seem to hold and practice what most of us consider true Christian values. If my memory serves me correctly, before Bush, those Americans professing to espouse the teachings of Christ did not have the selfish, sanctimonious, war-mongering and beligerent attitude adopted by the so-called 'followers of Christ' today. Something has gone terribly wrong.

Just so u guys know when they talk about global warming they are talking about the average global tempature. For those who remeber their calculus this is

let S be an integral sign and u, v, and w be a coordinate system in R^3 not nescisarily cartisian ( in fact probably spherical coodinates because you will integrate over a sperical shell ). Let T(u, v, w, t) be the tempature at the point (u,v,w) at time t. The average tempature is then

SSSST(u,v,w,t)du dv dw dt

where the integral is evaluated over the sperical shell of the surface of the earth extending to the top of the trophosphere and over the year. Local phenomanom will not have much effect ( the earth is big ) even if the tempature at a point is infinity the average will still be finite

Time for the smackdown! Everybody ready? Here we go.

Yesterday, Spooky, in in infinite wisdom, tried to lay the smackdown on ME, producing a list of scientists quoted by Dr. Pat "Industry Whore" Michaels as footnotes to his anti-global warming screed. Then he lays this on me: "All these studies either refute what you believe or point out the positive aspects of warming (or both) All these all pseudo-science?"

Boy, oh, boy. Is this gonna be fun. Pay attention everybody.

I looked at Spooky's list. Then I did the research. Spooky did not. Spooky LIED. How can I make such a bald-faced assertion? Because Spooky said, again: "All of these studies either refute what you believe or point out the positive aspects of warming (or both)."

Wanna bet, jackass?

Now, let’s take a look at these scientists cited by Dr. Pat “Delusional Prostitute” Michaels, shall we? Spooky provides me with a list, so it should be pretty easy:

S. Ichtiaque Rasool: Predicted that, among other things, aerosol use would lead to global COOLING in a famous paper in the early 70's. Later realized that the opposite would happen. Not a global warming skeptic. Strike one.

Roger A. Pilke, Sr. on climate change: “Humans are significantly altering the global climate, but in a variety of diverse ways beyond the radiative effect of carbon dioxide. The IPCC assessments have been too conservative in recognizing the importance of these human climate forcings as they alter regional and global climate.” Get that? TOO CONSERVATIVE. He cites burning forests, the “soot on snow” conundrum and many global warming issues (he prefers the term "global climate change") when referencing how humans are affecting the world's atmosphere. Strike two.

Ulf Büntgen, et al.: This article neither proves nor disproves global warming in any way. It is an article, quite literally, examining Summer Temperatures in the European Alps. Strike three.

Hans Ahlmann: Now here’s a fascinating guy. Who was Dr. Hans Ahlmann? Not only was he a big believer in global warming, Dr. Ahlmann was the lead scientist quoted in this New York Times article “Warming Arctic Climate Melting Glaciers Faster, Raising Ocean Level, Scientist Says.” The date of the article, Spooky? May 30th. 1947. Read that again. Nineteen-Forty-Seven. Dr. Ahlamann was a pioneer in the field of global warming studies, you dolt. Strike four.

Petr Chylek: A genuine global warming skeptic, Dr. Chylek published a paper in 2004 deriding the claims of global warming “alarmists” in predicting a melting of the Greeland Ice Shelf. Ohhh, he was so dismissive! But wait a minute. What happened? A year later, Dr. Chylek had a change of heart after looking over his findings and, whoops!, reversed himself. He is no longer a global warming skeptic and his paper in 2005 read, in part: “Temperature changes over Greenland are of special interest due to a possible melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet and resulting sea level rise. General Circulation Models (GCMs) predict that the temperature changes in Greenland should proceed at a faster rate than the global temperature change. Until now there has been no confirmation that Greenland's long-term temperature changes are related to the global warming and that they proceed faster than the global temperature change. Using double correlations between the Greenland temperature records, North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) index and global temperature change we find a region of Greenland that is not affected by the NAO. Using this region as an indicator of Greenland's temperature change that is related to global warming, we find that the ratio of the Greenland to global temperature change due to global warming is 2.2 in broad agreement with GCM predictions.” Uh-oh. Strike five.

Scott Lutchke: Published a paper showing that the Greeland Ice Sheet was melting at a far more rapid rate than currently measured. Another believer. Strike six.

Alexandre S. Gagnon and William A Gough: Frequent collaborators (and global warming believers) co-wrote an article on the effect of global warming in Canada. A selected quote: “General circulation models (GCMs) are unanimous in projecting warmer temperatures in an enhanced CO2 atmosphere, with amplification of this warming in higher latitudes. The Hudson Bay region, which is located in the Arctic and subarctic regions of Canada, should therefore be strongly influenced by global warming.” Strike seven.

Need I go on?

Spooky, you really blew it this time. You wanted to refute what I was saying and attempted to do so by producing a list of PRO GLOBAL WARMING SCIENTISTS.

Now, tell me: exactly how dumb do you feel now? Hmmmmm?

Cyberacter

Excellent!!! A+.

Yeah, Cyber, it appears ya got me. I don't have the time to even attempt to refute what you've said. You obviously have a lot more time on your hands than I do. Pass the crow.

I should be thanking you, Spook. You did exactly what I expect from the righties on this site. You challenged me. You made me do my homework. So, I did it and I got back to you.

Then, you did something I rarely EVER see. You respected the work I did and conceded. Very impressive. I say that with all sincerity and appreciation. (Cause I obviously put some work into it.)

Here's the thing that gets me: This is an issue that ALL of us should rally behind. We're talking about the future of the planet here. We can't let the EARTH be a non-partisan issue? Boy, if that's not possible, our twains, so to speak, ain't ever gonna meet.

Some opponents of the theories of global warming, I firmly believe, are opposed simply because it is a lefty issue. An Al Gore issue. To throw your weight behind this crucial matter means to have to side with a constituency that you, and others, may find distasteful. So, instead, the pseudo-science is believed. The skeptics, who should be thrown in Scientist Prison, are lauded. And the myth of a "debate" over this issue persists. It's awful, really.

Evangilicals, Lord love 'em, have finally jumped on the bandwagon, claiming that as servants of God, they are compelled to try to preserve the planet. Now, I'm no Evangelical, but I welcome their support and their efforts. We need as many people on our team as we can get.

Hope you're willing to join one of these days and bring some of you skeptical buddies along.

I have to say, I've enjoyed this thread. Regretfully perhaps, this isn't a topic I've spent a lot of time trying to digest. The science involved is beyond my ability to deal with directly. And even if I were inclined to give it a shot, almost all of the primary research articles are behind subscription firewalls. So I, like most other people I would guess, have to rely on what other people say the authors say. Unfortunately, that second layer is almost always politically charged in one direction or another.

Anyway, it seems to me that both energy conservation and searching for alternative energy sources with less of a carbon footprint makes sense on a number of levels. And if a given solution can do both, and do it economically, then it's a no-brainer. So with that in mind, Cyber, you offered a short list of potential solutions, which, on their face make sense. But apparently I need to know more. I'm not trying to be combative, I'm just seeking information. In that regard I'd like to probe what you know on the basis of what little I know, and to see if you could offer further reading (or further information because, well, I AM intellectually lazy and I don't mind admitting it, lol!). So here goes... Your short list included:

(a) concentrate on renewable energy
I think there's a lot of merit to that. It will help to free us of our addiction to oil which, if nothing else, will free us from being held hostage by unstable regimes around the world. But at what price? What their estimated economic footprint? And what is the overall carbon footprint of each alternative? Do you have any references that would allow me to evaluate the investment/maintenance costs and the ultimate carbon footprint versus their eventual compensation?

Renewable energy sources are also dependent, at least to some extent, to the nature of their intended use. Most importantly, the solutions available for transportation are quite different from the solutions available for fixed locations. As far as transportation goes, from what I've read, biofuels extracted from corn and/or sugar aren't viable solutions here in the US. A better solution appears to be cellulosic biofuels, like fast-growing trees and switchgrass. Not only are they better suited to the climate in the US (and Canada), they are also carbon-positive -- i.e., they fix more carbon in the soil through their entire production and use cycle than is spewed into the atmosphere.

(b) raise CAFE standards on cars and trucks to reduce emissions.
Yeah, I think there's quite a bit of room for improvement here, and at relatively low cost. It just hasn't been much of a priority up to now.

(c) invest in solar power, wind power, natural gas.
As I understand it, currently solar power and wind power are saddled with high mantenance costs. Do you know if that's true? As for natural gas, how does that help the CO2 problem?

(d) Properly fund the development of electric/hybrid/hydrogen cars.
Electric cars are limited in range. Plus, they are ultimately dependent upon the economic efficiency and carbon footprint associated with the source that provides the power where you plug them in. And what about spent batteries?
Hybrids also have maintenance cost issues, as I understand it. Likewise, as I understand it, the economy and carbon footprint of hydrogen fueled vehicles is also dependent upon the source of the power required to produce the hydrogen.

(e) Cap emissions, where possible, and where not possible, establish a cap and trade structure.
Hasn't that already been done at least to some extent? I'm not talking about Kyoto, I'm talking about here in the US. And by the way, what do you think about Kyoto? Personally, I think the Kyoto agreement was poorly designed. It basically invited those signatories so inclined to cheat. It might have represented a step in the right direction, but it was a very small baby step. Any serious attempt at curing or even curtailing global warming (and related problems) has to be based on more than mere trust. And the best way is to make the alternatives economically viable.

Cyber,

Sorry, I withdraw my question about what you think about Kyoto. Upon review I see you already answered it, at least superficially. But I'm curious about what you know about The Netherlands. As I understand it, they've managed to become not only carbon neutral but carbon positive -- while still maintaining one of the most vibrant economies in Western Europe. Am I wrong? Can you offer any info on that?

Rico:

I'm going to get back to you on your questions as soon as I can but, for today, I must beg off. I blew my whole morning dealing with Spook's last post. Took me a while to gather all that material, as you might be able to imagine. But as soon as I'm able, I'll jump on your stuff, too.

Cyber,

I'd appreciate that. I mean it seriously. It seems to me that this is an issue we all need to know more about.

Well, Rico save me A WHOLE LOT OF TYPING, LOL. And he asked some reeeeeally great questions.

Cyber, as I think I mentioned in a previous GW thread, Ricorun and I correspond regularly on a variety of issues including GW. Neither of us is the greedy, earth-trashing ogre that you try to portray us and other Conservatives to be.

I should be thanking you, Spook. You did exactly what I expect from the righties on this site. You challenged me. You made me do my homework. So, I did it and I got back to you.

That was my intent, and you didn't let me down. I'm sorry I didn't do my homework a little better.

Then, you did something I rarely EVER see. You respected the work I did and conceded.

In spite of the fact that you called me a "jackass" and a "dolt", and God knows what else.

Very impressive. I say that with all sincerity and appreciation. (Cause I obviously put some work into it.)

You obviously did, and it will cause me to pursue my rebuttals in the future with a great deal more care and scrutiny.

Here's the thing that gets me: This is an issue that ALL of us should rally behind. We're talking about the future of the planet here. We can't let the EARTH be a non-partisan issue?

Ya know, I really don't think it is a partisan issue, so much as two competing ideologies, if that makes any sense. The Left takes such an authoritarian and hysterical approach. That, and the fact the "science" and "consensus" shouldn't be used in the same sentence. Consensus is the stuff of politics, and I think that's where most skeptics like me get hung up. If this really was a strictly scientific debate, I might have a totally different view of it. Like Rico, however, the more I read about this subject, the more I realize how much we don't know about this planet.

Hope you're willing to join one of these days and bring some of you skeptical buddies along.

It isn't even a matter of "joining". In the end it's just a matter of being the best possible stewards of the planet that we can be, and have a little trust in technological innovation and the entrepreneurial spirit.

Evangilicals, Lord love 'em, have finally jumped on the bandwagon, claiming that as servants of God, they are compelled to try to preserve the planet. Now, I'm no Evangelical, but I welcome their support and their efforts. We need as many people on our team as we can get.

Hope you're willing to join one of these days and bring some of you skeptical buddies along.

Posted by: Cyberactor at February 1, 2007 03:47 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alot of "Evangelicals were on the bandwagon from the start actor, just not.......as spook eloquently put it," The Left takes such an authoritarian and hysterical approach."

We don't!

Retired Spook bearmanUSMC,
" The Left takes such an authoritarian and hysterical approach."

That statement can easily be written:
" The Right takes such an authoritarian and hysterical approach."
Instead of applying the Global warming issue, apply the Abortion issue.

I increasingly find it humorous how each side on here is pretty much identical. Both sides have different beliefs of course, but they both act exactly the same.

One persons authoritarian and hysterical approach is another persons passionate belief that they are right.

I'll use myself as an example. Try convincing me God doesnt exist. As an atheist, you will present all kinds of historical evidence, facts, figures, etc. But no matter what you say or do you wont be able to refute my belief that I am right. I will then be labeled as 'authoritarian and hysterical'

On the flip side, I try convincing an atheist that God does exist. I will point out miracles, historical accounts of Jesus in writings that are not part of the bible, etc.. But in the end I wont be able to refute his belief that he is right and I will think he is crazy, authoritarian, and idiot, etc.

Conservatives do not use logic and reason any more then liberal do. If conservatives did, then it would be relatively easy to convince them that God doesnt exist. ;)

See my point?

See my point?

Not really. Did you get my e-mail?

The concensus and irrefutable science.....

On July 24, 1974 Time Magazine published an article entitled "Another Ice Age?" Here's the first paragraph:

"As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ICE AGE."

Now the libs have claimed that "GLOBAL WARMING" is not a warming of the globe at all.......it is warming and cooling of different areas of the planet. Why not call it REGIONAL WARMING and/or REGIONAL COOLING.

But that is not a scary global catastrophe now is it?????

But......but.....but.....concensus and the evidence!!!!!

There was a concensus many years ago that the earth was flat and that the earth was the center of the universe with OBSERVABLE evidence.

The evidence is not that absolute one way or another. Just because many people say does not make it true. But then again, the left is famous for taking the word of a few hundred as concensus of millions.

TLbullshit
so what's your point? Just ignore GW and the fact that it could be caused my man?

"Now the libs have claimed that "GLOBAL WARMING" is not a warming of the globe at all."

who? can you give a link for that one?

"The evidence is not that absolute one way or another."

Ok, then give your evidence and stop acting like a troll

Cyber, I'm still interested in any information, or links, or whatever, you can provide regarding the cost-effectiveness of any proposed solutions. That's rea