And the answers will follow, right here! These answers will be as weak and full of holes as the original science provided by the messiah, Fat Al.

Let the BS start!

After the 2005 hurricanes, we were told to expect another active season during 2006. The reason was cyclical conditions in the Atlantic that were bringing on a 20-year period of high TC activity. Then, 2006 turned out to be a comparative dud. Part of the reason was El Niño, which (even though located in the Pacific) tends to suppress Atlantic hurricanes. So with the El Niño over with, the 2007 season was supposed to be active. El Niño merely gave us a small reprieve, you know. But in 2007 so far, a dud.

I found this Global Warming Primer over at Willisms.com. According to page 7, 3.4% of CO2 emissions are caused by humans. On page 8, we see that 0.28% of the greenhouse effect is caused by humans. So if anyone wants to believe that the anthropogenic 0.28% of the greenhouse effect caused all those hurricanes in 2005, be my guest.

All this shows is that you don't even understand what climate change science is suggesting. You guys hate Al Gore, fair enough, but you are letting your partisan views make it so you don't even understand the issue. You say things like, "Well, now we've had 2006 and most of 2007, and we're seeing a remarkably quiet weather pattern. What gives?" Well what gives is you come off as totally uninformed if you think one year's data area enough to make a case - a case either way. It's about trends, and the trends should concern you even more than your hatred of the opposition.

Anthony Watts posted a 4-part video presentation by Dr. Bob Carter, a member of the AGW skeptic scientific community in Australia. In the reader discussion that followed, I noted the following:

The BBQing Polar Bears was a nice touch. Except for describing the University of Arizona site as a typical site, I thought Dr. Carter was right on the money, and entertaining at the same time.

Surprisingly, in the comments section, Dr. Carter responded:

Folks,

Thank you for your supportive comments.

Stan, please let me know (bob.carterATjcu.edu.au) if have misrepresented the University of Arizona weather station by describing it as “typical”. If it is not typical, then it is not clear to me whether you you think that it is actually worse than most or better than most! I shall be happy to stand corrected by the local experts.

And, whilst I am writing, congratulations to Tony and all his team for the important contribution that they are making in documenting the US stations. I have already started looking for support to perhaps repeat the exercise in other countries.

Finally, anyone interested in other things that I have written on the AGW issue can find material at my website at:

http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/new_page_1.htm

Bob Carter

I responded again and then expanded on my response in the following email to Dr. Carter:

Dr. Carter,

In answer to you question in the comments section of Anthony Watts' blog, I posted the following:

Bob, I thoroughly enjoyed your presentation, and I’m honored that you would address my lowly, layman’s comment. I am anything but a “local expert”, but I have been following Anthony’s project since near the beginning, and while
the site at the University of Arizona may not be the worst one he’s highlighted on this blog, it certainly has to be one of the most egregious
examples of a site run by people who should know better. If, after the total survey is complete, it ends up being representative of the “typical” site, then things are in even worse shape than many of us thought.

I could have sworn that, in the original post, Anthony described the University of Arizona site as "the worst yet", but upon reviewing the post,
I couldn't find that terminology. As I said, I'm flattered that someone with your credentials would respond to what I said. I have no scientific background, just a BS in Business Administration. I'm a retired Navy Spook
(Cryptologic officer) and currently self-employed manufacturer's rep. who just happens to be fascinated with the climate change/global warming debate.

While I've got your attention, and, assuming you have time to respond, I am curious as to how you think this whole debate will shake out.

Keep up the good work.

Stan Needham
LCDR, USNR-Retired

To my surprise, Dr. Carter emailed back the following response:

Dear Stan,

Thank you for taking the trouble to write.

You sound as if you have had a fascinating professional career, which really shouldn't be described as "just" anything! Besides, the essential science of the global warming issue is actually very simple (despite all the attempts by the IPCC and others to obfuscate the issue), and able to be understood and assessed by any interested, normally educated person.

I take your point about the Arizona station. My choice of words was sloppy in that I actually had in mind that the station was a "typically flawed" one rather than typical of the whole set of stations. As you will appreciate, however, when one is on one's feet sometimes the brain and the tongue make a less than perfect connection. Thank you again for the caution, and I will try to be more careful on future occasions.

Finally, to your question.

It is apparent that the AGW "shake out" is going to take many years if not decades to occur. Despite the complete lack of alarming evidence, and the low likelihood of either evidence or dangerous warming eventuating, the political world is in the grip of an amazing anti-scientific hysteria on the issue. Hysteria is, of course, not treatable by using rational arguments (i.e. scientific method), and especially not if it is suffered by people who have the power of democratic vote.

The blame for this state of affairs lies with a now tightly integrated (though not initially consciously conspiratorial) group of corrupted people and organizations foremost amongst which are doctrinaire environmentalists and green NGOs, self-interested scientists and science organizations, and ignorant, moralistic journalists and public celebrity figures. (emphasis added)

The environmental debate in general, and AGW in particular, have already inflicted profound damage on our post-enlightment society and are attacking the very roots of the scientific method, and future historians are going to look back and marvel at our stupidity which, Lysenkoism apart, is unparalleled in history. Most sinister of all is the fact that around 3 generations of school children (all since around 1990) have now been indoctrinated with an anti-scientific attitude to environmental matters, and the most able and oldest of these persons are already starting to move into senior managerial positions.

We are therefore going to pay dearly for a long time yet for our abandonment of the enlightment principles of the use of evidence and experiment to understand the world around us, and participation in rational discourse to deal with its problems. Democratic politics that are based instead upon post-modernism and fuzzy warm feelings towards environmental issues are disastrous.

Sorry to go on so, but you did ask!

Kind regards.

Bob Carter

Now I know that all our resident AGW alarmists will attack the messenger, but from everything I've read on the subject (and I've read a lot), I find his comments, particularly the bolded part, to be right on the money, and I believe history will prove him right.

Incidently, for those of you who haven't seen the temperature monitoring site at the University of Arizona, here it is. One would sincerely hope that this doesn't end up being representative of the typical site.

For the past two years, in an effort to convince everyone of the Global Warming, the MSM have used sensational headlines and scare tactics predicting impending doom due to the worst hurricane seasons ever.

The real result...the last two seasons have been the among quietest on record. And all we hear in response to this mistake is **crickets** from the left and the MSM. Or worse yet, the reasoning the Global Warming is responsible for the lack of storms. So we know that Global Warming is responsible no matter what happens. Actually its no longer Gloabl Warming, but Climate Change...which can be anything.

In the meantime all of these scare tactics have succeeded in seriously damaging the boating industry in South Florida. John Q Public has been scared out of that first or next boat purchase because the end of the world, as we know it, is at hand.

This may sound trivial, but its not for the tens of thousands of individuals and business involved in the marine trade. This has been a disaster of major proportions. But not because of any storms, but because of uneccessary hysteria created by irresponsible reporting.

In the meantime all of these scare tactics have succeeded in seriously damaging the boating industry in South Florida. John Q Public has been scared out of that first or next boat purchase because the end of the world, as we know it, is at hand.

phnx, it's becoming increasingly apparent that this is an INTENDED consequence of the Alarmists' agenda. Those nasty ol', polluting power boats -- who needs 'em?

Hey jayhay, you forgot to mention that CO2 levels are rising! Oh my God! CO2 levels are rising!

Spook,

The hysteria has even hurt the sailboat industry, as well as the associated support industries, marinas, hotels, etc. etc.

jayhay,

And don't think we haven't noticed that "global warming" is morphing into "global climate change"...this way you can say you know what your talking about no matter what...warmer? Global climte change. Cooler? Global climate change. More hurricanes? Global climate change. Fewer hurricanes? Global climate change. Nifty thing, global climate change, ain't it?

Trends are important things to look into, but trends have a habit of continuing until they stop - and no one knows when they will stop. If on a car trip I turn right once in the first hour, three times in the second hour and seven times in the third hour, how many times will I turn right in the fourth hour, if present trends continue? See what I mean?

What is wrong with the global warming zealotry is that it is pretending to know a bunch of stuff which it not only doesn't know, but can't know.

The reason the last two years have been mild, with a lack of major hurricanes, is simple. It's global warming. When it's too hot, it's because of global warming. Too cold? Global warming. Too dry? Global warming. Too rainy? Global warming. The reason the Red Sox swept the Rockies? You got it--global warming!!!

What a bunch of hooey, this global warming crap!!!

3.4% of CO2 emissions are caused by humans Posted by: Bigfoot at October 30, 2007 10:08 AM
________________________________________

Have you been to Denver or Los Angles on a bright sunny day? I don’t have to be a scientist to know the air those people breath is unhealthy. Have you ever been to Yellowstone? Although most of the CO2 in Yellowstone comes from the trees, you don’t have to be a scientist to know the air in Yellowstone is healthier than that of Denver or Los Angeles. God gave you common sense, use it.

This is one issue I just don’t get the Republican viewpoint. Say the scientist are wrong, and we act on the facts brought out by leading scientist around the world, at a minimum the world would be a cleaner place with more fuel efficient cars and plants. Whole new industries will develop to solve the problem.

I listened on Monday as Limbaugh whined about global warming. I just don’t get. Is it because Democrats are for cleaning up the environment then Republicans must be for pissing on it? Could it be right wing radio is paid huge sums by environmentally unfriendly corporations to keep the lemmings in line?

The easiest way to understand GW is this:
It will get hotter, unless it gets colder or stays the same.
It will be dryer, unless it rains.
There will be more hurricanes, unless there aren't.
There will be less snow, unless it snows.

Gore is brilliant with his understanding of the weather, whatever happens he is correct.

phnx, one of the aspects of modern Liberalism is that it is so rooted in emotionalism that the tendency to not anticipate unintended consequences is amplified. It's especially evident in the comments of many of the Lefties who post here. They just don't think things through clearly.

And then, of course, you've got a substantial number on the Left who look at the loss of thousands or tens of thousands of jobs, and say it's a small price to pay to make the air or water cleaner or save some obscure endangered species of rat or frog or bird or whatever. A caller to Limbaugh's radio show last week made the excellent point that Liberals, and particularly radical environmentalists, are really anti-human. I couldn't agree more.

Plainjane,

"Although most of the CO2 in Yellowstone comes from the trees..."

Did you ever take a biology class? Plants ABSORB CO2, they do not produce CO2 unless they are burned.

"Is it because Democrats are for cleaning up the environment then Republicans must be for pissing on it?"

Just because the conservatives to not buy into the man-made GW scare tactics, does not mean we are not for cleaning up the environment and keeping it clean. Conservatives are all for maintaining clear air. The air is cleaner now that it was in the past (remember the almost daily "Smog alerts" in the 70's?). We aren't for destroying our economy based on junk science.

There is a difference between clean air and the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. We support the efforts to reduce pollutants in the air. We do not support attempting to blame man for whatever increase in CO2 has occurred recently. We do not support draconian measures to try to stop something we have no control over.

The Goracle and his GW Alarmists are pulling a huge scam to further their anti-capitalism, anti-progress, anti-American agenda. Consider the facts:

The #1 source of CO2 in the atmosphere is release by oceans when oceanic temperatures rise.

The #1 factor in rising oceanic temperatures is solar activity. There has been a recent period of increased solar activity.

There have been hundreds, if not thousands, of periods of global warming in the Earth's history. Mankind had ZERO impact on causing or increasing these periods of global warming.

In every previous instance of global warming and CO2 increases, CO2 increases ALWAYS followed a period of global warming by several hundred years. The warming caused the CO2 increase, not the other way around. Where is the proof that in this one instance, in the 4.5 billion history of the Earth, CO2 is causing the global warming, rather than being a product of the natural cycle of warming and cooling?

The Antartic Ice Cap is growing, rather than shrinking.

Now lets consider the distortions and lies being told by the GW Alarmists:

"Man is causing a record increase in atmospheric CO2 levels." A lie. CO2 levels have been much higher in the past, even during periods before the appearance of man on the planet. What caused those record CO2 levels? Fred Flinstone and his prehistoric SUV?

"The Earth's glaciers are melting." Some are, some are growing. They have retracted before. (Ever wonder how the remains of prehistoric man, which were found recently when one of the glaciers retracted, got there? The glacier must have been smaller in the past, then grew. It is now shrinking. It the future, it will grow again).

"The Ice Caps are melting and will flood costal regions." While the Artic Ice Cap has become smaller, the Antartic Ice Cap has become larger and thicker.

"Global Warming has caused an increase in the number of hurricanes and their severity." Then how do you explain the lower number and severity experienced in the past two years?

According to NOAA, there are an average of 17.9 hurricanes hitting the US per decade. Since 1960, we have averaged only 14 hurricanes hitting the US each decade. The highest average? Between 1871 and 1920, we averaged over 20 hurricanes hitting the US each decade. The number hitting the US is going down, rather than increasing.

Severity? How about these facts - of the top 20 hurricanes to hit the US, only five occurred since 1970. The rest were all before 1969.

"Global Warming is causing record high temperatures, record low temperatures, record drought, record rainfall, record everything associated with the weather." So? Does that mean that we should destroy our economy?

But you go on preaching your GW Alarmism. You and your kind are perpetuating a "climate" of fear, based on theory and computer models that attempt to predict what the climate will be like in 10, 20, 50, or 100 years. Since man does not completely understand the dynamics of the weather and the climate (the effect of clouds on climate change, for instance), why should we be basing policy decisions on computer climate models when the models are using variables that we don't understand?

"Have you ever been to Yellowstone? Although most of the CO2 in Yellowstone comes from the trees..." Plainjane

This is perfect example of the intellect of the average environmentalist wacko.

Case closed.

phnx: This is perfect example of the intellect of the average environmentalist wacko.

Actually, plainjane's right -- when vegetation rots CO2 (among other GHGs) is released. The net flux of carbon in Yellowstone is still very negative (more carbon is sequestered in the soil than released into the atmosphere), but she's technically correct.

I tend to listen to the vast majority of credible scientist out there. You know, like the 1400 scientists that wrote the recent UN rapport stating that the point of no return is quite near, and that we really have to take action now! I tend to listen less to a bunch of right wing, war mongering moppets that believe the earth is only 6000 years old and that George Bush is a man of intelligence.
Let me explain it to you so that you might be able to understand it. Forget about your hatred for Al Gore for a second. He didn’t invent global warming and the fact that you dislike him as an individual shouldn’t undermine the issue of global warming.
Let’s look at four extreme scenarios and lets pick the worst case scenarios for all 4 possibilities:
1) Global warming is not real and we do nothing. consequence: nothing will happen except perhaps some gloating from the global warming skeptics.
2) Global warming is not real and we do something. Extreme Consequence: cleaner air, water etc but also a worldwide recession.
3) Global warming is real and we do something about it. Extreme consequence: we manage to turn the tides and get cleaner air, water etc but also a worldwide recession.
4) Global warming is real but we do nothing. Extreme consequence: see levels rise several feet during a very short period of time. Mass migration (hundreds of millions of people). Starvation. Sociological problems of biblical proportions….oh, and a worldwide recession.
Hmmm….what to do…what to do. Seems to me like we need to take this seriously just in case the obviously vast majority of the science world happens to be right! I mean, doesn’t that make any sense to you? Then add to the equation the very likely possibility that we can do something about it and still enjoy economic growth if we do it the smart way.
Here are 2 suggestions, but there has got to be hundreds of things we can do:
- Lower every Americans income tax (x%)but then put an environmental tax on things like cars. The more environmentally friendly your car is the less tax you have to pay. This will stimulate consumers to buy cleaner cars which will stimulate car manufactures to produce cleaner cars.
- Make it interesting for private citizens to invest in solar panels, wind energy etc. Allow them to sell any excess energy they might create.
- Vote for someone who cares (dem, republican or independent)
Lets stop debating all the irrelevant things like Al Gore’s personal energy bill. It doesn’t matter if he’s a saint or a sinner. He is irrelevant.
For the sake of your children please Wake up.

A-10: Since man does not completely understand the dynamics of the weather and the climate (the effect of clouds on climate change, for instance), why should we be basing policy decisions on computer climate models when the models are using variables that we don't understand?

Policy decisions are made all the time in the face of compelling yet incomplete information -- on all sorts of issues. So that alone is not a good enough reason. I could argue with a number of your contentions, but I suspect it would be pointless. But the overall fact is, there are a number of issues that argue in favor of promoting conservation and alternative fuel sources, all of which coincide with the GW argument in terms of ways forward but which have little or nothing to do with GW other than coincidence.

What frustrates me is the science surrounding GW, be it for or against, is getting in the way of solutions -- solutions that make sense on many other levels as well. I just read an article about a guy that converts Hummers so they get 60 mpg -- while doubling the torque (the rotational power at the wheels). He has a $5K conversion kit available that will allow any diesel powered car to double its gas mileage while also doubling its power. I read another article about a guy that has developed what he calls a "wind belt" -- a mechanism that draws energy from a mild breeze at 30 times the efficiency of a similarly sized wind turbine, while at the same time dramatically reducing the cost and maintenance. Then of course there's enhanced geothermal systems and cellulosic biofuels. I saw Craig Vetter on the Colbert Report last night talking about his recent advances in developing synthetic organisms for a range of applications from yielding ethanol, butanol, or even gasoline, to sequestering carbon in the soil. It was a ridiculous interview of course, but the technology is real. And it could be awesome (that one might be a bit far away, but it would be a mistake to bet too heavily that Craig Vetter fails).

From macro technologies to micro ones, there are all kinds of things out there that are on the brink of fruition. Some lack modest amounts of investment in R&D, others simply lack capital. We could wait for pure market forces to eventually put them in play, or we could get the power of the federal government involved to lessen the hump. I favor the latter (assuming it's done smartly), because I am very convinced that it wouldn't cost all that much. In fact, with the proper policy in place, where the gov't makes investments in return for eventual proceeds, it might actually MAKE the government money. Frankly, it strikes me as dumb not to. The stakes are getting too high.

You want the truth:

What Has Bush Done With Our Precious Hurricanes?
Some of us are old enough to remember a time when the mighty hurricane still roamed the high seas in vast herds, wild and free, unspoiled by the destructive force of man's greed. Not so long ago, scientists marveling at the sheer number of hurricanes worried that they might run out of names for them. Now, with yet another mild season drawing to a close and less than 15 storms to show for it, many are left wondering what is responsible for the disappearance of our beloved Hurricanes, not to mention our free $2,000 ATM cards.

http://blamebush.typepad.com/blamebush/2007/10/what-has-bush-d.html

We know who is responsible. Don't we.

One of the posters made a point. Regardless of whether or not global warming is fact or fiction it benefits us to clean up our act and start being more CONSERVATIVE for lack of a better term. Environmental solution companies are rapidly growing and creating an entire market that creates not destroys jobs. People fear that if alternate fuel sources become the main source of power that all of these petrol companies will go out of business causing the loss of millions of jobs. We will always need fossil fuels to run many things that can't or don't need to be replaced by alternatives. Here is how I see it; what comes out of the back of a car WILL KILL YOU if you breathe too much of it in so why is it that we think it is okay to release it into the atmosphere. I don't know, you all can be as complacent and apathetic as you want. Oh and as far as the disregard of killing off plant and animal species is concerned; there is a reason why ecosystems exist. We kill of one species that was supposed to keep another in check and then they become rampant. We introduce one species to take care of another and then we become rampant. What we do to our environment and ecosystems can and does have dire consequences. It doesn't take and environmental zealot to understand this but it does take some common sense and at least a 6th grade education.

"like the 1400 scientists that wrote the recent UN rapport stating that the point of no return is quite near"

Wow, 1400 people wrote 1 report! Go ahead, name 10 scientists at the UN.. Fat Al doesn't count.

ricorun "when vegetation rots CO2 (among other GHGs) is released. The net flux of carbon in Yellowstone"

Doesn't that also explain all of the oil and gas reserves under the North Pole? Oil and gas from vegetation decay! Actual science. But wait, why was there massive vegetation in the frozen North Pole before the USA was born? Because it was warm. Before automobiles. Before farming. And Rico, where did the oil reserves in the Middle East come from? Vegetation. And by the way, 2+2 is 4.

SEW: Doesn't that also explain all of the oil and gas reserves under the North Pole?

Yup. But so what? After all, that doesn't necessarily mean the North Pole was once not frozen. Don't get me wrong -- once upon a time a long, long, time ago, way before humans ever existed, there were almost certainly times when even the poles were ice-free. But I'm not sure those times would have supported human life -- and certainly not anywhere close to the abundance with which it exists now. The other thing is, the oceans underneath the pole (or for that matter, the ice ON the Antarctic continent), even now, are accumulating organic sediments which, eventually, will turn into fossil fuels. For another, the poles weren't always in the same place as they are now. Nor is earth's precession (the cant in its orbit) the same. Nor is its orbit. Nor is the distance to the moon (which is constantly increasing, and thus having constantly less effect on the tides, among other things). All of those things affect both regional and global climate. And finally, there's the matter of plate techtonics: what is now Antarctica wasn't anywhere close to the south pole a long, long time ago.

Of course, in order to measure anything in the paleontological record one can't do it directly. It's not like there were weather stations scattered all over the place, or satellites in the skies. One has to rely on proxy data, some of which are probably reasonably accurate (like ice cores), some of which are more problematic (like measuring beryllium isotope ratios in partially fossilized sea shells). The further you try to go back the harder it gets to say anything with accuracy. And the spottier the record gets -- if indeed you can figure out where the record came from with any accuracy relative to the disposition of the plate you're talking about, relative to the precession and revolution of the earth at the time, yadda yadda yadda.

So tell me again what the twos are that you are using to equal four?

rico, 2+2=4

increasing CO2 levels does not=global warming

Yadda, yadda, yadda

2+2=4

Global warming has come and gone. And come again. And gone. The sun is warm. 2+2=4

Simple math, not simple "science" where increasing CO2 creates global warming.

martin,

Many of us who are not GW Alarmists are not denying that global warming occurs. We agree that there have been hundreds, or even thousands, of periods of global warming in the Earth's history. Just as there have been hundreds, or even thousands, of periods of global cooling. In every previous period of global warming or cooling, man has had ZERO impact on the warming or cooling. We maintain that man, again, has ZERO, or negligible impact on the current climate change, if it is in fact changing.

Why would we want to cripple our economy, and that of the world, for something we are probably not causing and cannot stop.

Here's how I evaluate your doomsday scenarios:

"1) Global warming is not real and we do nothing."

Most of us non-GW Alarmists do not advocate "doing nothing". We need to continue to conserve, reduce pollution, and explore alternative energy. We just don't what to ruin our economy and return to living in caves.

"2) Global warming is not real and we do something. Extreme Consequence: cleaner air, water etc but also a worldwide recession."

Again, conservatives support cleaner air, water, etc. We do not think, however, we need to cause a global depression (thinking we'd only have a recession is wishful thinking). If the draconian measures advocated by the Goracle were implemented, millions will die in developing countries.

Additionally, the GW Alarmists are focussing on the US making most of the sacrifice, when it is China, India, and other Third-World countries that are the worst polluters. When the Goracle can get China and India to stop building 50 new coal-fired powerplants each year, and comply with western pollution standards, I'll consider jumping on the bandwagon.

"3) Global warming is real and we do something about it. Extreme consequence: we manage to turn the tides and get cleaner air, water etc but also a worldwide recession."

You are assuming we can do something about it. Based on the hundreds, or even thousands, of previous periods of global warming, which occurred without human contribution, what makes you think we can stop it? What if we imposed all of the possible technologies and reduced human CO2 contribution (which is less than 4% of the total CO2 produced) to nothing. What if the global warming continued? What if it is really caused by solar activity (the same cause for all of those hundreds or thousands of previous periods of GW)? What do you suppose we do to reduce the solar radiation that is hitting the Earth 24/7 and actually causing global warming? What do you tell the millions, or billions, who's lives were ruined because we crippled the world's economy for nothing?

"4) Global warming is real but we do nothing. Extreme consequence: see levels rise several feet during a very short period of time. Mass migration (hundreds of millions of people). Starvation. Sociological problems of biblical proportions….oh, and a worldwide recession."

You've been drinking too much of the GW kool-aid. What is going to cause the see(sic) levels to rise several feet in a very short period of time? Melting of the Antartic Ice Cap, where the average temp is -40 degrees, and where the Ice Cap is actually getting larger and thicker? Greenland's Ice Cap, where scientists calculate that the temperature would have to increase over 10 degrees for centuries for it to melt?

Even the IPPC reported that: "Thresholds for disintegration of the East Antarctic ice sheet (which comprises 80% of the Earth's Permanent Ice) by surface melting involve warmings above 20° C... In that case, the ice sheet would decay over a period of at least 10,000 years."

GW Alarmists are willing to cripple the world's economy to stop something that would take at least 10,000 years to occur. And that would only occur if the average surface temperature in Antartica were to increase 60 DEGREES. I wonder how many periods of global warming and cooling the Earth would experience during those 10,000 year? Since it has had several periods of warming and cooling in recorded history, probably a few. Any period of cooling would reverse any Antartic Ice Cap melting. So the odd's of the Antartic Ice Cap melting and flooding coastal regions in the near future are ZERO. So we should send the world into an economic depression over something that is virtually guaranteed NOT TO HAPPEN?

Oh, and by the way, the increased temperatures will also extend the growing season and allow farming in areas previously unsuitable for farming. Any loss of farmland to GW is offset by farmland gained as a result of GW. Bottom line - ample food resources to sustain Earth's population.

Of course, even the IPCC doesn't support the Goracle's worst case scenario of a 20 foot increase in sea levels. They are predicting, I say again, PREDICTING, a maximum increase of 20 inches. Say, these scientists are some of the same ones who PREDICTED a much worse hurricane season for 2006 and 2007 were they? So much for predictions.

And I'm not even going to talk about all the scientists who just 30 years ago were warning about "global cooling", and are not leading the "global warming" hysteria.

martin,

Many of us who are not GW Alarmists are not denying that global warming occurs. We agree that there have been hundreds, or even thousands, of periods of global warming in the Earth's history. Just as there have been hundreds, or even thousands, of periods of global cooling. In every previous period of global warming or cooling, man has had ZERO impact on the warming or cooling. We maintain that man, again, has ZERO, or negligible impact on the current climate change, if it is in fact changing.

Why would we want to cripple our economy, and that of the world, for something we are probably not causing and cannot stop.

Here's how I evaluate your doomsday scenarios:

"1) Global warming is not real and we do nothing."

Most of us non-GW Alarmists do not advocate "doing nothing". We need to continue to conserve, reduce pollution, and explore alternative energy. We just don't what to ruin our economy and return to living in caves.

"2) Global warming is not real and we do something. Extreme Consequence: cleaner air, water etc but also a worldwide recession."

Again, conservatives support cleaner air, water, etc. We do not think, however, we need to cause a global depression (thinking we'd only have a recession is wishful thinking). If the draconian measures advocated by the Goracle were implemented, millions will die in developing countries.

Additionally, the GW Alarmists are focussing on the US making most of the sacrifice, when it is China, India, and other Third-World countries that are the worst polluters. When the Goracle can get China and India to stop building 50 new coal-fired powerplants each year, and comply with western pollution standards, I'll consider jumping on the bandwagon.

"3) Global warming is real and we do something about it. Extreme consequence: we manage to turn the tides and get cleaner air, water etc but also a worldwide recession."

You are assuming we can do something about it. Based on the hundreds, or even thousands, of previous periods of global warming, which occurred without human contribution, what makes you think we can stop it? What if we imposed all of the possible technologies and reduced human CO2 contribution (which is less than 4% of the total CO2 produced) to nothing. What if the global warming continued? What if it is really caused by solar activity (the same cause for all of those hundreds or thousands of previous periods of GW)? What do you suppose we do to reduce the solar radiation that is hitting the Earth 24/7 and actually causing global warming? What do you tell the millions, or billions, who's lives were ruined because we crippled the world's economy for nothing?

"4) Global warming is real but we do nothing. Extreme consequence: see levels rise several feet during a very short period of time. Mass migration (hundreds of millions of people). Starvation. Sociological problems of biblical proportions….oh, and a worldwide recession."

You've been drinking too much of the GW kool-aid. What is going to cause the see(sic) levels to rise several feet in a very short period of time? Melting of the Antartic Ice Cap, where the average temp is -40 degrees, and where the Ice Cap is actually getting larger and thicker? Greenland's Ice Cap, where scientists calculate that the temperature would have to increase over 10 degrees for centuries for it to melt?

Even the IPPC reported that: "Thresholds for disintegration of the East Antarctic ice sheet (which comprises 80% of the Earth's Permanent Ice) by surface melting involve warmings above 20° C... In that case, the ice sheet would decay over a period of at least 10,000 years."

GW Alarmists are willing to cripple the world's economy to stop something that would take at least 10,000 years to occur. And that would only occur if the average surface temperature in Antartica were to increase 60 DEGREES. I wonder how many periods of global warming and cooling the Earth would experience during those 10,000 year? Since it has had several periods of warming and cooling in recorded history, probably a few. Any period of cooling would reverse any Antartic Ice Cap melting. So the odd's of the Antartic Ice Cap melting and flooding coastal regions in the near future are ZERO. So we should send the world into an economic depression over something that is virtually guaranteed NOT TO HAPPEN?

Oh, and by the way, the increased temperatures will also extend the growing season and allow farming in areas previously unsuitable for farming. Any loss of farmland to GW is offset by farmland gained as a result of GW. Bottom line - ample food resources to sustain Earth's population.

Of course, even the IPCC doesn't support the Goracle's worst case scenario of a 20 foot increase in sea levels. They are predicting, I say again, PREDICTING, a maximum increase of 20 inches. Say, these scientists are some of the same ones who PREDICTED a much worse hurricane season for 2006 and 2007 were they? So much for predictions.

And I'm not even going to talk about all the scientists who just 30 years ago were warning about "global cooling", and are not leading the "global warming" hysteria.

SEW: rico, 2+2=4

increasing CO2 levels does not=global warming

Yadda, yadda, yadda

2+2=4

Global warming has come and gone. And come again. And gone. The sun is warm. 2+2=4

Simple math, not simple "science" where increasing CO2 creates global warming.

Is this a response or a poem? If it's a response, where would you like me to start? Then again, considering that I can't distinguish any logic in it, it's probably better considered a poem. Either that you need to start all over again.

Sorry about the double post.

Ricorun,

Somehow you are assuming that all conservatives and Republicans are evil, poluting monsters. I would guess that most of us are as environmentally friendly as those on the left. I, for one, recycle, keep the termostat turned down in the winter and up in the summer, and do other energy-conserving things.

We also welcome technological advances to further reduce polution, increase fuel efficiency, and provide for our energy needs.

Where we differ from most liberals are that we are practical. It is not practical, or "carbon-neutral", to rely on solar panels or wind turbines for our energy needs. Especially when Democrat members of Congress block their development. It is not practical, or politically feasible, to rely on foreign oil or coal for the majority of our energy needs.

What is practical is development and construction of additional nuclear powerplants, which the left has blocked for decades. What is practical is drilling for oil in ANWR and offshore, also blocked by the left.

What the left has left us with is either us economically unfeasible energy sources, or politically unreliable energy sources.

Rico, Thanks! It is a riddle. And the answer is, you just don't get it. But 2+2=4, and increasing CO2 does not create global warming. But increased solar activity does! Still don't get it? Yet you see logic in CO2 = global warming. My, oh my.

Don't forget, while we are shutting down our economy over GW, we need to shutdown Chenny and Halibuton's factories on Mars. Because Mars has experienced the same percentage warming as the earth has.

That said, I do support alternative power sources, Nuc, solar, wind, fuelcells, ect. Electric cars will not do it. We already have an overloaded grid and not enough production. Plugging in your car could cause a black out without additional power plants.

Joel,

Durbin, Pelosi, Reid, and Schumer give BusHitler credit for the Global Warming problems on Mars, not Cheney Halliburton. And that will likely be the centerpiece of the Democratic 2008 platform, in addition to impeach Bush and Rove even though the evil Rove has departed.

Joel: We already have an overloaded grid and not enough production. Plugging in your car could cause a black out without additional power plants.

You're probably right. But one of the problems with the grid is that it relies on large power-generating facilities often located remote from the eventual user. The power drop associated with transmitting the power long distances over wires can be on the order of 50%. Some places in Arizona already have instituted what they call a "smart grid". Basically, a smart grid is bidirectional, allowing customers who generate their own power -- usually by way of solar panels or a backyard wind turbine in AZ, but it could be any source -- to contribute whatever excess power they generate back to the grid. Apparently, the Pacific Northwest (Oregon and Washington) are about to initiate a souped up version of a smart grid wherein appliances designed to take advantage of it will cut their power usage at peak times. Another interesting development is high velocity, low friction turbine batteries that are capable of storing excess power with much greater efficiency than any chemical battery can. The idea is that peak usage goes through a daily cycle, and fluctuates according to the weather as well, which is unpredictable. You can't operate a power plant very efficiently unless you can somehow store the power generated during low usage periods so that you can expend it in high usage periods. To the extent that you can do that efficiently you can increase the overall efficiency of the facility. LA just brought some turbine batteries on-line. If I recall correctly, they estimate it will take just a couple of years for the things to pay for themselves.

A bit off-topic, but since I don't regularly go to theaters anymore, I hadn't noticed the poster for "An Inconvenient Truth" until I saw a DVD display. If that's supposed to be a hurricane emanating from the smokestacks, it is spinning the wrong way; Katrina (and all North Atlantic hurricanes) spin counter-clockwise, and not clockwise as depicted on the poster.

Global Warming is part of the natural cycle, and will pass in time. The climate goes in cycles, and always will. There is Global Warming and Global Cooling, the level of the Seas rise and fall, man has little impact on the cycles and never will. The human race can do many things, however, controling natural global phenomenon is not one of them, and I think it is a bit presumptuous to think that we can. Perhaps the big Global Warming awareness that we are experiencing is a fast way for some to make a dollar. There is no doubt that we need to clean up our act, with an end result of a better quality of life, but to change the global cycle, I don't think so. If all of the Global Warming Advocates would stop talking about it, the air temperature would probably drop as a result of the decrease in hot air.

artelb: Global Warming is part of the natural cycle, and will pass in time. The climate goes in cycles, and always will.

I defy you to prove it.