Facts are powerless among the global warming faithful. It's akin to any religious zealot or extremist...they believe and that's the end of it. The world has been warming and cooling for billions of years, long before George W. Bush and Halliburton ruined life as we know it.

Having said that, I would love it if the US were TOTALLY energy independent. No reliance on the Middle East, Mexico, Canada, Venezuela, etc. None. Screw them all. We would be much safer and ssecure as a nation. That is why I won't drink Al GGore's kool-aid, but do support alternative energy including, wind, nuclear, clean coal, hydroelectric, solar, hydrogen, and increasing domestic oil supplies in places like ANWR and the coasts.

1. What makes a person a climate scientist?
-Any scientist who's field of study is in any way contingent on aspects of the climate
(how has this common sense fact escaped you for all these years, try to pick up a 6th grade text book)

2. How many such people are there in the world?
-a lot, why does the exact number matter, we're looking for facts, not opinion polls

3. How was it determined that 90% of them subscribe to anthropogenic global warming?
-They don't, but can you show me one accredited scientist in any field who say with 100% certainty that there is absolutely no anthropogenic global warming?

again, just like Iraq you don't care about the outcome, you only care in doing your best to prove those you disagree with wrong even if it means lives are lost, you don’t want the proof, you want to find a way to gloat.

disagreement is good, discussion is good, but you have to do better than

"earth's climate is always changing, and that rapid warmings (sic) and coolings (sic) took place long before the burning of fossil fuels"
really? hey thanks for bringing that to everyone’s attention ,you’re right, the debate is over.

Earth's warming, not too much debate there, however, either we're playing a part in that or we're not, are you comfortable waiting for that proof to arrive in the form of a climatic mushroom cloud? Oh wait, there's no corporate gain to be made in that sort of ‘better safe then sorry’ approach, so of course you're against it, besides it's science right, and that just don't play too well in your pews.

Unfortunately, if it's ever broadcast in the US, FoxNews will be the only one to step up to the plate and air it. Just preaching to the choir there, so it won't have much of an impact.

I don't know what a "climatic mushroom cloud" might be, but that's the typical mindset that needs to be combated with more than just a TV documentary. This kind of rash hysteria suggests a more comprehensive approach is necessary, firstly with the education of our own kids. If they're taught on the front-end how ridiculous this stuff is, maybe the next generation will have a lot more time to dedicate to far more important -- not to mention realistic -- issues.

Opus,

If there is a consensus in favor of anthropogenic global warming, then there must be facts to back that claim up...from what I've seen, the assertion that 90% agree with anthropogenic global warming is something just made up out of whole cloth, repeated endlessly in accordance with the Big Lie theory, and has now become accepted as a fact, especially on the left. And if there isn't a consensus, then the primary support for anthropogenic global warming is out the window....you'll now please come up with absolute facts to show that humans are causing it, and that there is no other major cause involved (and if there is any other major cause involved, then we really can't do anything about it).

are you comfortable waiting for that proof to arrive in the form of a climatic mushroom cloud? Oh wait, there's no corporate gain to be made in that sort of ‘better safe then sorry’ approach

Better "safe then [sic] sorry"? You mean like adopting Kyoto, which according to even its backers is going to save us only about 7/100th of a degree Centigrade in 100 years? Will that 7/100th ºC keep the "climatic mushroom cloud" away?

try to pick up a 6th grade text book

The term is "better safe than sorry". After I'm done with that 6th grade text book, I'll be sure to pass it your way.

hey thanks for bringing that to everyone’s attention ,you’re right, the debate is over

No, Opus, you have that backwards. Those of us who are pointing these things out are responding to the other side's attempt to close the debate. For example, there are some on the other side who would have people thrown in jail for "global warming denial", likening it to "holocaust denial". I have yet to see anyone in the "skeptical" camp proposing to arrest or jail those whom we disagree with.

The debate is also not just about phases of global warming or cooling in the past, but also about how recent events are interpreted. We've just had a pretty cold winter, something that goes against the computer models of the global warming "believers", which predicted milder winters arising from global warming. What do the "believers" say about this? Either, "this is just local cold, the globe is still warming", or "global warming caused this cold snap", or "this is just one year, next year might be different". On the other hand, some of us skeptics think that cold winters might either be evidence that the earth is not heading into a climatic mushroom cloud, or that the computer models are wrong.

By the way Opus, please give my regards to Binkley, Milo, Hodgepodge, Rosebud the Basselope, Steve Dallas, and all the other residents of Bloome County.

"1. What makes a person a climate scientist?
-Any scientist who's field of study is in any way contingent on aspects of the climate
(how has this common sense fact escaped you for all these years, try to pick up a 6th grade text book)"

So, if your podiatrist claimed you needed a heart transplant, you'd consider his word just as good as a cardiologist becaise heck, they both graduated med school and their licensed by the state and they both deal with the human body.

"2. How many such people are there in the world?
-a lot, why does the exact number matter, we're looking for facts, not opinion polls"

A Lot? OK..So by your definition of what an 'expert' is, we can also make a list of 'experts' in the area of structural engineering by including carpenters, concrete pumpers, plumbers, and welders because they all deal with the building of schools. Then if you have a population of 100 consisting of 90 plumbers, 4 welders, 2 carpenters and 2 structural engineers, you'd go with the consensus of the plumbers who say they believe that the bathrooms need more work than the roof.

"3. How was it determined that 90% of them subscribe to anthropogenic global warming?
-They don't, but can you show me one accredited scientist in any field who say with 100% certainty that there is absolutely no anthropogenic global warming?"

The 90% figure is constantly thrown around as 'proof' that the GW crowd has absolute credibility. That's the standard line that the trolls here, on other blogs, and in the MSM have used over and over again, as if someone actually contacted each and every 'expert' and asked them.

Conversely regarding anthropolgical global warming, the GW crowd refuses to acknowledge they
are the ones who could be wrong, (They are 100% certain) and that those who disagree are in the pockets of 'Big Oil' and should have their credentials as scientists revoked...or at least shunned by acedemia and the MSM.

The liberal mantra is often heard, 'well at least we tried to do something' doesn't really matter that millions continued to be held impoverished, schools rotted, etc.

Opus rings the same bell.

I also often hear 'even if there is the slightest chance...'
Well, with that line, no one would do anything if there was the slightest chance that some harm could come.

Just go back and hide under your bed.

We'll let you know when its safe to come out, trust us.

"And if there isn't a consensus, then the primary support for anthropogenic global warming is out the window"
No, this isn't an opinion debate

"now please come up with absolute facts to show that humans are causing it,"

how about you read my original post before giving some canned response...
nothing in this world is for certain, and this argument cannot be over absolute fact and certainty...what can? The point you keep missing is that if there is a 1% chance that it could be due to human activity, and there is a 1% chance that we can do something about it...we must, remember the terrorist only have to be right 1% of the time...same goes here

you could be right, maybe we have nothing to do with it, but if people smarter then you or I say there is a possibility, When the EPICA shows ice core evidence of co2 levels never seen since the 20th century, when the NOAA says there is a possibility, when NASA says it could be due to human activity, I'm gonna take their word over yours

now, show me one accredited scientist in any field who say with 100% certainty that there is absolutely no anthropogenic global warming?

Are there any scientists that don't believe the Earth's temps. are rising? I don't think so, but I'm sure someone can dig somebody up.
Do all scientists believe that Climate Change is anthropogenic in nature? No, but most of them do. Again, you can break out Lindzen, Ball (who's in this documentary) and all the weathermen in Delaware but how is their position any stronger then the mainstream view.
Believe whatever you want, but it seems that all you guy's who call it a "Big Lie" are the ones who should be supplying the facts. Stop posting on this blog and debunk the lie already! You're not swaying anyone by reporting ad nauseum on a handful of skeptics.

Cheers!

Bigfoot
the (sic) was all I needed, thanks,

"For example, there are some on the other side who would have people thrown in jail for "global warming denial", likening it to "holocaust denial"."
well no, you know that's bs as much as I do, but I'll tell Bill you said Ack!

Hermie.
how is a podiatrist contingent on the study of the heart?
'experts' in the area of structural engineering don't do anything simply on consensus either...
did you have any actual point to make?

"The 90% figure is constantly thrown around as 'proof'"
give me a link or you're just making it up, since you say constantly this shouldn't be hard

Porter
"doesn't really matter that millions continued to be held impoverished, schools rotted, etc."

-how much is Iraq costing...that's a lot of rotted schools that could have been fixed
Why is the 'better safe then sorry' argument is only valid when the neo-cons throw it out?...makes you look like an uniformed hypocrite there Porter

Bigfoot, did you check for grammatical errors?

The wingnuts are only interested in claiming they are right and anyone who questions them has got to be wrong.
Thats why they keep saying that Bush's Iraq war is successful, and it is because of the "Defeatacrats" that we are not winning the war.

you guys are SO cute.

The schools were rotted long before Iraq, be careful how you through the word hypocrite around.

The liberal agenda and liberals in general are filled with hypocritical statements, platitudes and general intellectual dishonestly.

Liberals have been and always will be on the wrong side of the issues as their chicken little global warming screeching is showing.

"Possibility" and "could be" Opus??

Kinda vague for the GW crowd to be asserting that GW IS caused by man with such strong words like "possibility" and "could be"...don't ya think?

From what I gather ice core CO2 data only proves the "behind" or "past" effects and the time in which it happened, however, if you take a look at the climate graphs over thousands of years, the CO2 levels increase after each of the glacial terminations and three ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise after, not before.

There are other factors to understand like "Changes in the amount of summer sunshine, due to changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun that happen every 21,000 years, have long been known to affect the comings and goings of ice ages. Atlantic ocean circulation slowdowns are thought to warm Antarctica, also."

All of which "could be" or are "possible" causes...Opus.

Forget all the right side left side I'm right your wrong my scientists are more scientific than your scientists. Why take the chance? It is to big a gamble not to consider that for the past 125+ years human technology in the pursuit of capitalistic industry have been burning coal, oil and oil by products and pumping the residue into the atmosphere. It HAS an effect. An undeniable effect. Now whether there is a one to one correlation to overall global climate change remains to be seen but again, it is to risky not to consider the possibility. I think that the core issue is of those who believe that this some sort of political conspiracy while denying the measurable scientific aspects, however accurate or flawed those conclusions may be. But to disparage the concensus of a majority of scientists; however great or small that group may be is plain stupid.
Global climate change is a fact. Look at the tornadoes this past week as just one example. Even if human activity has a zero effect, the fact still remains that the world wide climate IS changing and as inhabitors of this planet we better be plenty concerned and try to figure out how to survive into the future instead of concentrating our energies on killing each other over ideas and ideology about who is right and who is wrong. This planet is billions of years old: we are just visiting....

With all the froth that comes from the likes of tomjeffairplane and opus et all, I would not trust them to enforce the laws of gravity. Sorry guys, you and your like and burned any credibility you may have had long ago. All that comes out are half truths and slash and burn tactics against anyone who dares to defy.

You gave yourself away by using the tired old blame America using the phrase "pursuit of capitalistic industry"

Nice try.

Opus,

It is your side which is demanding massive changes...therefor, it is upon your side to show the absolute necessity of these changes...we point out doubts, and I've yet to see one of the doubts actually disposed of by the warming enthusiasts...it ALWAYS comes back to either an insult (pocket of Big Oil, eg) or a blanket assertion that everyone is on your side (90% of climate scientists) to stifle debate.

Gave myself away?? I am not hiding. You, however are an IPOS. GFYS. If you need any help, call Ann. What are you, writing from prison?

Like I said, with all the froth that comes from the likes of tomjeffairplane and opus...

Spare us the insipid and juvenile language. No one is impressed or care.

Global climate change is a fact. Look at the tornadoes this past week as just one example. -- tomjeffairplane

Dang greedy capitalists have gone and ushered in the tornado age! Oh, man....this is just unbelievable.

Congratulations on your climb to unprecedented heights of gullibility -- just be forewarned that the air is pretty thin up there. I recommend two teaspoons of herbal tea with a shot of kool-aid to numb the pain.

ha ha....got your hat handed to you that time tomjeffairplane. I like the idea that you are pointing to the recent tornados to substantiate your argument!! That is more than laughable..we're talking here the global climate of a planet. Not a one day recurring normal occurence. Have you never seen a tornado, or a rain storm? Geez, I hope a sunspot bites you on the arse so you get some sense.

"Look at the tornadoes this past week as just one example."

Cause EVERYONE knows that tornado's in those parts of the country are soooooo rare.

Could you be any dimmer?...my guess is yes.

Tom,

We're really used to much better lefty trolling than that...see if you can find Ricorun's e mail and ask him for some advice...gotta be sharp to be on Blogs for Bush.

Tommy. .you do know that Alabama and Georgia have allot of tornadoes in the early spring. .nearly EVERY YEAR right?

Try actually living somewhere before claiming NORMAL weather as proof of Global warming, will ya?

Of course, its a standard "Orthodox Church of Global Warming" trick to take ANY weather that is in ANY WAY out of the ordinary and claim its proof of global warming. . unless it can't be used that way and then it is ignored.

Example: Extremely calm Hurricane season after predicting an extremely violent one? Crickets chirp. Heat wave? Proof of global warming. Cold snap? Proof of global warming. Heavy snowfall? Proof of Global warming. Tall cow pees on a flat rock? Proof of global warming. Using statistical manipulation to make 'Inconvenient truths' like the medieval warm period disappear. Showing warming trends that don't exist unless you start and end the graphs in exactly the places they start and end them. Making extravagant claims about massive sea level rises and other such thing, even though they apparently didn't happen during the medieval warm period. .WHEN IT WAS WARMER THAN THE PROJECTIONS OF THEIR MODELS CLAIM IT WILL BE.

If you're over twenty one and believe in the Cult if Global Warming" you need to seek professional HELP.

As a Christian, the issue of global warming is a side note. It behooves me to treat this world created by God with respect. By that, I mean pollute less wherever and whenever possible. If this involves significant sacrifices on my part as a Christian, then I do those sacrifices willing.

I've never understood why people on here whom describe themselves as devout Christians argue over the validity of global warming. Who cares? As a Christian you should not cause harm to this wonderful gift that God has given us.

Instead it appears that some of you believe the earth should be exploited for financial advancement and anything that impedes that financial advancement somehow denotes communism, leftism, kookism, or whatever *ism you want to call it.
How is that leading the lift of a Christian?

IT,

what are you talking about? is there anyone here that has said or even campaigned for the destruction of earth through pollution or any other means?

so by your argument, those of us who believe that mmgw is a total crock are not christians? or less christian? please. nobody is advocating polluting. we are just saying that mmgw is a pure hoax. it's an attempt to bring our country down to a third world level so all of the other poorer countries will feel better about themselves. it's typical social-(gasp)ISM!

"Even if human activity has a zero effect, the fact still remains that the world wide climate IS changing and as inhabitors of this planet we better be plenty concerned and try to figure out how to survive"

well then, if human activity has zero effect on the climate than human activity would have zero effect on changing the climate.

the debate is whether or not man is causing global warming. i'll be the first to admit this: I DON'T BELEIVE THAT THERE IS ANY GLOBAL WARMING! how do you like that? sorry but .7 of a degree over 150 years isn't enough for me to believe that we actually have a global warming issue. excuse me if i don't go out a purchase some heat protective clothing. at this rate the earth will warm 5 degrees in 525 years. wow, it's getting hotter while i type this.

bottom line is, i'm only 34 years old. i've seen high temperatures broken from 1908. i've seen low temps broken from 1948. if global warming were actually happening shouldn't we see hotter temps year to year with no cooler temps year to year? or are the temps going in a cyclical pattern? climate change is constant. it gets a little warmer, and it gets a little cooler, from time to time. but it never continues on the same course.

Instead it appears that some of you believe the earth should be exploited for financial advancement

IT, could you provide some reference for that observation? I've often said that the things the alarmists says we need to do to reverse global warming represent a financial opportunity, that would have, as a side effect, making the planet a better place to live. But I don't recall anyone here advocating the trashing of the planet for financial gain, and the consequences be damned.

Bottom line, most of us on the skeptical side see this merely as yet another (in a long line) attempt by the Left to destroy capitalism and keep a significant number of people downtrodden and poor. It's clear, at least to me, that people like Algore really care little about the planet.

Falgore,

Great minds think alike. You must have been posting while I was typing.

If there is a consensus in favor of anthropogenic global warming, then there must be facts to back that claim up

Uh, Noonan? There's a consensus in favor of evolution, complete with a massive and ever-growing pile of facts to back it up...yet you still insist on jabbing your fngers in your ears and screaming, "Lalalalalalala!" You don't care about evidence or consensus, obviously, so it's quite funny that now all of a sudden you are demanding it stringently. But hey, consistency has never been a hallmark of yours...or even something with which you have a nodding familiarity.

Spook,
This is why I say people are for polluting:
Are you opposed to increased pollution standards? Im not talking about enforcing other countries. We can only control our pollution.
Are you willing to pay higher prices if it were to mean less pollution generated by Americans?

I get the distinct impression that people are opposed to increased pollutions standards (because they believe the myth that it will put us at an economic disadvantage)

I also get the distinct impression that people are NOT willing to pay higher prices. (after all look at the average American that flocks to buy Chinese made products, versus paying a higher price for a high quality American made product. That’s patriotism at its finest)

On one side we have people that believe global warming is real and man made. They believe pollution controls should be put in place to curb CO2 emmissions along with other pollution controls.

EVEN if you think global warming is a myth, why be against the increased pollution standards?
It seems that almost everyone on this forum is against the increased pollution standards.
I’m not. I live in the country. I love clean air. I believe this world was a gift from God. And I have absolutely no problem paying higher prices.

I remember the cry from businesses when Nixon created the EPA and the Clean Air Act was passed. They all claimed the US would be put at an economic disadvantage. I heard this AD NASEUM. OVER AND OVER AND OVER.

Today its a repeat of the same story.

You want to know what happened when the government mandated pollution controls?
A bunch of US businesses and entrepreneurs stepped up with new and innovative pollutions controls.

The US COMPLETELY dominates the controls industry. You go to just about any power plant in the world and inside you see GE, Johnson Control, etc, sitting in there.

I heard the same crap when they came out of the CAFE fuel standards. "Impossible! We will never meet those standards" Japan will end up dominating us economically.
30 yrs later Im driving a 280HP truck that gets 30MPG.

Once again a bunch of crafty individuals came up with new inventions.

The entire time our economy has been growing.

The way I look at it...I have complete faith in the inventors and business people of this country.

Increase pollution standards and you are guaranteed that someone will make a better mouse trap and make some nice money doing it.
Who cares if the excuse for increased pollution controls is "global warming"? I dont. It means my fellow Americans will be polluting less.
And that my friend is a good thing.

IT, I think you and I are basically on the same page. You are, however, confusing pollution with CO2. Ricorun has a better handle on this aspect of the debate than I do. Hoepfully he's monitoring this thread and can set you straight. Pollution in the form of non-GHG emmissions actually moderates the effects of global warming

Other than that, I pretty much agree with everythin you said. When you speak of having "complete faith in the inventors and business people of this country", you're preaching to the choir. I've been singing that song for a long time. I don't agree with the people who think that continuing to strive for a cleaner environment will destroy our economy. While the cost of some goods and services will probably increase, such a move will also provide lots of new jobs. What will hurt the economy, however, is if the Left gets their way and attacks the problem with things like a Global Carbon Tax.

IT:

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant: the Clean Air Act doesn't specifically earmark CO2 for that very reason. The idea that the EPA should be allowed to regulate it under the Clean Air Act is as absurd as trying to regulate oxygen.

Guess you were posting while I was typing, RS. Heh...

Spook,
Actually Im not confusing CO2 and pollution. I used to be a controls systems engineer and still do alot of consulting on the side.

The control systems used to remove CO2 and reduce the emission of CO2 also have the side effect of reducing pollution (SO2, SCI2, etc). You cant have one without the other. In fact to my knowledge there is only one system that specifically removes CO2 w/o removing any other contaminants (which if memory serves me: is passing the exhaust over potassium/Sodium hydrochloride.)

A majority of CO2 controls are pollution controls that have been modified to remove CO2.

Ok, after I wrote this, I called a a very old colleague that is still with DOE. There is a technology called CO2 sequestering.
He pointed me to this:
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/futuregen/

Its definitely food for thought!

Interesting article, IT. Too bad it's going to take 10 years just to get the pilot program up and running. According to Algore, we've only got 10 years left before it's too late.

Spook: "IT, I think you and I are basically on the same page. You are, however, confusing pollution with CO2. Ricorun has a better handle on this aspect of the debate than I do. Hoepfully he's monitoring this thread and can set you straight. Pollution in the form of non-GHG emmissions actually moderates the effects of global warming"

Why listen to me? I'm just a lefty troll. Lol! Anyway, it sounds like IT could know more than I do about that. But let me ask you, IT, what do you (or your colleagues) know about enhanced geothermal systems (EGS)? The more I read about it the more interesting it sounds. The appealing aspect of it include:
1. EGS plants can be built almost anywhere in the US (though some sites are better than others), and the availability of the resource (heat from the earth's core) is essentially limitless.
2. They have essentially zero emissions
3. They are scalable according to need.
4. They offer uninterrupted operation
5. They have a relatively small surface footprint, and thus don't disrupt the local ecosystem.
6. Much of the technology they employ are very similar to those employed by existing oil, gas, and power generation industries, which both accelerates their development and reduces the resistance those industries might otherwise show.
7. Evidence suggests that CO2 is actually a better reservoir "stimulator" than water and thus, coupled with a coal-fired plant, could not only offer a very effective method of carbon sequestration but also enhance the yield, lower maintenance costs, and prolong the lifetime of the EGS plant.

Spook,
"......we've only got 10 years left before it's too late."

Some people claim its 686 days. ;)

Rico,
Im VERY familiar with those systems. My farm has a geothermal heat exchanger for heating and cooling the house. It relies on the same technology as heat mining, but instead of just extracting the heat it also injects heat. Its extremely efficient because is well below any potential frost line.
When I get a chance I will email you a photo it.

"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant: the Clean Air Act doesn't specifically earmark CO2 for that very reason. The idea that the EPA should be allowed to regulate it under the Clean Air Act is as absurd as trying to regulate oxygen."

I remember when the same was said about dioxin's.

I even remember watch a guy on TV drink a cup full of sludge that was contaminated with dioxin just to prove his point.

I remember the same was said about CFC's.

I remember the same was said about DDT.

The list goes on and on.

I also remember the exact same arguments: Regulating this stuff will put us at an economic disadvantage.

All the exact same arguments I heard over 30 yrs ago.

History does repeat itself, doesn't it.

Bottom line: We do not know the effect of injecting large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. If it adversely affects the earth, it is a pollutant.
Unfortunately as in most cases, we will not fully realize the effects until much much later.

But then again, you celebrate the the cutting of a tree every 5 seconds.

I suspect you were not very old during the 70's. You attitude towards regulation might be different if you had been.
But then again, it might not. Some people revel in pollution and filth.

AEG,
I just perused your website and noticed that you lack a fundamental understanding of climatology (which i am by no means an expert). My observation is based on your own statement:
"If computer climate models are so accurate that they can project temperatures in the Arctic over the next several decades, then surely a simple 10-day weather forecast will demonstrate how accurate a model can be. After all, we're only talking about 10 days into the future versus 33 years, right?"

You are comparing climatology to meteorology.
Im surprised you are making that comparison as they are not related.

That is like comparing newtonian physics to quantum physics. Yes, they both refer to physics, but the laws applicable on the newtonian scale are not applicable on the quantum scale.

You do understand the fundamental difference between climatology and meteorology correct?

Why listen to me? I'm just a lefty troll.

Rico, I got a pretty good chuckle out of that too. Not sure why Mark has pidgeon-holed you that way.

Im VERY familiar with those systems. My farm has a geothermal heat exchanger for heating and cooling the house.

Me too, IT. I have a WaterFurnace with an open loop that discharges into my pond, which serves a dual purpose. In addition to heating/cooling my house extreeeeeemly efficiently, it keeps an area around the discharge open in the winter for the deer to drink, and moderates the temp of the water in the summer which makes it great for swimming. What kind of system do you have?

I remember the same was said about DDT.

I'm somewhat of a bird fanatic, and I appreciate the fact the the banning of DDT probably saved the Peregrine Falcon, but I don't think it was worth the millions of people who have died from insect born illnesses like Malaria, particularly in Africa. What amazes me is that, in all these years, no one has come up with an acceptable substitute for DDT.

BTW, I'm all for more of this kind of discussion.

BTW, I'm all for more of this kind of discussion.

Me too, but I can't keep up well enough to contribute. So I'll just read, and hurl insults when I feel they're warranted.

It's the sun...

You are comparing climatology to meteorology.
Im surprised you are making that comparison as they are not related.

You might want to rethink that statement, IT. Here is what Britanica.com has to say on the subject:

Climatology:

branch of the atmospheric sciences concerned with both the description of climate and the analysis of the causes of climatic differences and changes and their practical consequences. Climatology treats the same atmospheric processes as meteorology, but it seeks as well to identify the slower-acting influences and longer-term changes of import, including the circulation of the oceans and the small yet measurable variations in the intensity of solar radiation. (emphasis - mine) but it seeks as well to identify the slower-acting influences and longer-term changes of import, including the circulation of the oceans and the small yet measurable variations in the intensity of solar radiation. (emphasis - mine)

Hell, keefer, if you can read you can keep up. It's a fascinating subject. BTW, I'm looking forward to 10-20 years down the road (assuming I'm still here) when scientists finally have to admit that, yes, it is the sun.

Oops, I missed the rest of the description of Climatology from Britanica.com:

From its origins in 6th-century-BC Greek science, climatology has developed along two main lines: regional climatology and physical climatology. The first is the study of discrete and characteristic weather phenomena of a particular continental or subcontinental region. The second involves a statistical analysis of the various weather elements, principally temperature, moisture, atmospheric pressure, and wind speed, and a detailed examination of the basic relationships between such elements. Since the 1960s a third main branch, dynamic meteorology, has emerged. It deals primarily with the numerical simulation of climate and climatic change, employing models of atmospheric processes based on the fundamental equations of dynamic meteorology. Other significant subdisciplines of climatology include bioclimatology and paleoclimatology (qq.v.).

Since you asked spook

One popular controversy involves claims that restrictions on the use of DDT in vector control, imposed by various national governments, donor countries and international aid agencies, in response to pressure from environmentalists, has resulted in millions of unnecessary deaths....

Stockholm convention: Never Banned DDT for human health issues and it is still used in many countries today. Also the reduced usage of DDT in malaria eradication began the decade before because of the emergence of DDT-resistant mosquitoes

As of 2006, DDT continues to be used in other (primarily tropical) countries where mosquito-borne malaria and typhus are serious health problems.

In Mexico the use of a range of effective and affordable chemical and non-chemical strategies against malaria has been so successful that the Mexican DDT manufacturing plant ceased production voluntarily, due to lack of demand

Amp, you obviously cut and pasted your post. What is the source?

IT: "Im VERY familiar with those systems. My farm has a geothermal heat exchanger for heating and cooling the house."

My understanding is that EGS bears some similarities, but nonetheless quite different. But that may reflect the limited extent of my knowledge rather than reality. But as I understand it, you and Spook's geothermal circuits act as a secondary heat exchanger, coupled with the condensor/evaporator in a more or less typical refrigeration/heating system to reduce the "heat lift" required, thus making the system work more efficiently. In an EGS, essentially all of the heat lift is performed in the underground heat exchanger, and there is no secondary system -- unless it's coupled with a coal-fired, gas-fired, or oil-fired plant to harvest the excess heat that would otherwise be wasted. But that's a different concept. Am I missing something?

But for the record Spook, I think it's "very likely" (lol!) that it's not just the sun that's heating the planet. But even if I'm wrong there are still several other reasons why continuing to do nothing about our national energy porfolio makes no sense. However, I'm willing to bet you a pemium double espresso choco cappocino mocha late (heaven knows if that even makes sense: I prefer my coffee black, but I have to keep up those libbie appearances, ya know? lol!) that in ten years time the average temperature of the earth will rise another degree. And if I'm wrong, it will be worth it if in the mean time we have made significant headway getting out from under the thumb of the Saudis, Iranians, Liberians, Venezuelans, and others that keep twisting up our national defense strategy into the parody it currently is.

Dear spook,

I have two friends who do research on Malaria - one focusing on using irradiated Plasmodium falciparum and Plasmodium vivax as a vaccine vector and the other works on the biology and antigenicity of the circumsporozoite protein. We discuss the issues so I know this off the top of my head.

would you like a source to cut and past from?

"""Opus, If there is a consensus in favor of anthropogenic global warming, then there must be facts to back that claim up."""

Obviously. If you want references for such evidence the largest scientific study of anything, ever was recently updated on this very topic.
Read the IPCC report.

"""..from what I've seen, the assertion that 90% agree with anthropogenic global warming is something just made up out of whole cloth, repeated endlessly in accordance with the Big Lie theory"""

It would certainly appear to be just made up. Yet you saying this implies you don't think you just made it up. However the fact that you know this is just made up, or more likely a misinterpretation of the IPCC confidence level, raises the question of why you would ask people to prove it while suggesting no proof of this figure implies other things are untrue. You are either lying yourself, confused or intentionally misleading.

""" and has now become accepted as a fact, especially on the left."""

As opposed to.... ?
You just dedicated an article to this rather than the very easily obtained explanations for what the consensus level in peer reviewed studies on climate change is and what the 90% confidence level in the IPCC report actually reflected.

"""And if there isn't a consensus, then the primary support for anthropogenic global warming is out the window.."""

Er... no. You have in a single sentence explained your fundamental lack of knowledge of both science and math.

"""..you'll now please come up with absolute facts to show that humans are causing it, and that there is no other major cause involved (and if there is any other major cause involved, then we really can't do anything about it)."""
Posted by: Mark Noonan at March 4, 2007 06:21 PM

This is what you require of "Opus" is it.
The anonymous commenter on a blog. Who posts merely weeks after the latest instalment of the IPCC report has been released providing you with precisely this.

I guess laziness could explain this to someone gullible. That you really wanted a commenter to post more text into the comments section of one topic than has been published on this blog to date, just because you asked him too.

And just because you were too lazy to go read RealClimate or like bogs from climate scientists who have already provided answers to the couple of dozen questions raised about the IPCC report in layman circles along with the hundreds that you've never heard of. Sunspot correlation with temperature and how it doesn't account for observed warming being one of them.

But nobody is buying that for obvious reasons. That you honestly want your answers from a commentor rather than climate scientist. Or that that you want them at all.

After all you are the same person who in the same post (intentionally published one presumes) who wrote this as one of the answers you were demading someone front up with some cold hard facts on:
"1. What makes a person a climate scientist?"

would you like a source to cut and past from?

Actually, I would. Just from the way it was worded, your whole post appeared to be assembled from a larger document. I'm not questioning what you said; I'd just like to learn more about the subject.

The statistics on Malaria are frightening

Malaria is one of the planet's deadliest diseases and one of the leading causes of sickness and death in the developing world. According to the World Health Organization there are 300 to 500 million clinical cases of malaria each year resulting in 1.5 to 2.7 million deaths.

Children aged one to four are the most vulnerable to infection and death. Malaria is responsible for as many as half the deaths of African children under the age of five. The disease kills more than one million children - 2,800 per day - each year in Africa alone. In regions of intense transmission, 40% of toddlers may die of acute malaria.

I found this article quite interesting.

For many African countries now debating the use of DDT, the WHO decision will be a lifesaver. Just days after the WHO announcement, Uganda said that it will go forward with its indoor spraying program in 2007. Uganda's Health Ministry reported on Sept. 20 that spraying with DDT would help reduce infant mortality from the current 88 out of 1,000 births to 10. Opponents had complained that use of DDT will cut into their agricultural exports to the European Union, which is notoriously frightened of pesticides. Meanwhile, 800 Ugandan children die a day from malaria.

Studies have shown that malaria incidence drops dramatically after an indoor spraying campaign. South Africa, for example, resumed the use of DDT in 2003, and within one year, the incidence of malaria in the worst-hit province, KwaZulu Natal, fell by 80%. In two years, the number of malaria cases and deaths dropped by 93%. As the WHO has stressed, there are no environmental effects when small amounts of DDT are sprayed on inside house walls. (emphasis - mine)

Alas, Noonan, you haven't looked at Mr. Durkin's credentials very closely. He's a Marxist, part of a group called the Revolutionary Communist Party, and he has a beef with environmentalists and environmental science because the facts they raise don't fit in with his Marxist ideology. Under his beliefs, environmentalism is "cultural imperialism", a way for the bourgoisie to lord it over the proletariat.

The last time Mr. Durkin made a documentary about environmentalism, my dear Noonan, Channel 4 had to issue a humiliating prime time apology because Mr. Durkin had lied, selectively edited and took out of context the interviews he has made. Since Channel 4 is a public service broadcaster, this was deemed unacceptable after many complaints were made about Mr. Durkin's committment to the truth rather than his committment to accuracy.

Well done, Mark, you've gone a long way to proving that the insane left and the insane right have very much in common.

Bigfoot:
"For example, there are some on the other side who would have people thrown in jail for 'global warming denial', likening it to 'holocaust denial'."

Who, please?

If you missed the documentary, you can get it here.

The Great Global Warming Swindle

http://www.mininova.org/tor/612593

http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3635222/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle

here is another one

http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3635143/Channel_4_-_The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle.avi