The Hoax

Beam this one up Scotty.....please and thank you!

I know people who still think the other two were hoaxes.

Just one more, in a long line of........ well, maybe.

However, I view the "Global Warming" debate similarly to the question of whether or not there is a God.

If those who don't believe in a God are right I have nothing to lose believing the way I do. But, If I am right and they are wrong they'll have an eternity to pay for their actions.

"Global Warming", because of man's actions and apathy, may be a fact, but it is hardly a "hoax." Want to bet your (your kids', your grandkids') life on it??

Merry Christmas, Woody

"Everything I say, you should regard not as a statement but as a question"--physicist Neils Bohr to his graduate students. That's not the attitude of Al Gore and the climategate people; they're awfully dogmatic and intolerant. (And Mr. Gore seems unwilling to inconvenience himself by trimming his own lifestyle.) Global warming is a theory. That it snowed in Tennessee this April is a fact. That several dozen qualified scientists put their names to an ad telling President Obama the science is NOT all in should keep the discussion open.

Apparently, Clay is either confused or has had an awakening.

Elvis is alive=hoax Moonlandings faked=hoax AGW=hoax

All true, and those who believe in any of the above are ignorant rubes.

However, only one was designed to drain the developed world of cash, reset the clocks to the dark-ages, and invest total global control in a non-elected governing body.

The issue is not whether we have global warming or cooling, the real issue is what are the odds and what are we willing to gamble? Let's say the odds are a low 25% of a related disaster within 30 years- no problem since I'll be gone and my kids and grandkids can deal with it. I'll just continue driving my big suv past the smokestacks and living in my big energy guzzling house.

When any issue or cause is being overpromoted by lunatics and fanatics; then skepticism is healthy and prudent. Someone needs to explain what happended with the Global Cooling crisis of the 70s, the widening hole in the Ozone Layer scare of the 80s, and the depleated forests of South America crisis of the 90s.

No, I think you're the confused one, SCOTTYM.

Clay seems to be saying that Global warming is every bit as much of a hoax as the moon landing or Elvis Presley's death.

Since those weren't hoaxes, the logical conclusion would be that global warming isn't either.

From an AP article this am: As hopes faded for a strong climate deal, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton sought to put new life into flagging U.N. talks Thursday by announcing the U.S. would join others in raising $100 billion a year by 2020 to help poorer nations cope with global warming... The Chinese thus far have resisted what they see as a potential intrusion on their sovereignty. But without that, Clinton told reporters, "there will not be the kind of concerted global action that we so desperately need..." "It's good there's now been a statement of support for a clear number on long-term finance," U.N. climate chief Yvo de Boer said of the U.S. offer. "This discussion will have to take place with other parties, whether they feel that sum is adequate..." Expert studies, by the World Bank and others, have estimated the long-term climate costs for poorer nations, from 2020 or so, would likely total hundreds of billions of dollars a year. China and other developing countries say the target should be in the range of $350 billion... De Boer commented afterward, "I'm keenly looking forward to hearing what the U.S. contribution to that fund will be..." German Chancellor Angela Merkel, meanwhile, said the U.S. must improve its offer of emission cuts and stressed the urgency of reaching a concrete climate agreement in Copenhagen...(and there's more-read the entire article).

Andrew, Scotty and Bookie said it all regarding the political and scientific issues. The AP article finished it off. Just who are these Who's who are telling other Who's to pony up for the poorer Who's who are rightly skeptical about the whole schmiel? Who are the who's who are going to self-destruct by paying all the other Who's? Methinks it is the Us's.

OllieH - what type of logic do you practice? Because Elvis' death and the moon landing weren't hoaxes, then logically global warming isn't either? Have you ever heard the term "non sequitur?"

Ditto bookieturnersghost.

Good reminder of the global cooling/coming ice age scare of the early '70's...

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/12/17/ice-try

Hoo, hoo, hoo!!....

Its getting hotter in here!

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate-goes-serial-now-the-russians-confirm-that-uk-climate-scientists-manipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/

There is a reason that geologists aren't on the global warming alarmism bandwagon. But don't mind them. They just study the history and processes of the Earth. Come to think of it, I think Elvis was a geologist.

Liberals love to try to intimidate non-believers of their doctrine by such tactics as this silly cartoon. Its easier and more convenient to joke when you can't make substantive arguments to dispute such scientific findings as the increasing polar ice cap size, the recent findings of distorted 'global warming' claims, etc.

We have quite a collection of those running from their responsibilities as stewards for Mother Earth.

nucanuck - when I get over my lunchtime food coma, I will respond.

100 Reasons Why Global Warming is a Natural Process:

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138

What a Hoax! And the main conspirators must be our scientific societies, such as the American Meteorological Society, World Meteorological Society, American Geophysical Union, American Astronomical Society, American Assoc. for the Advancement of Science, National Science Foundation, etc., all of whom have issued policy statements supporting the premise that the atmosphere, ocean, and land are warming and that humans have significantly contributed to this warming. But, what the Hell, these societies are only composed of working scientists with their Doctorate degrees, quietly publishing the results of their work in peer reviewed journals with no chance or desire to appear on Fox news.

una61- but these scientists and associations that support the global warming issues are not published in the narrow conservative news sources so most right wingers have no knowledge of these findings. They don't want to be confused with intelligent scientific studies.

Here's a thought starter that could spur some interesting commentary on both sides of this issue...

People on either side of the AGW issue believe what they believe largely based on their political worldview, right? And we tend to believe "experts" whose opinions and statistics fall in line with our politics. What if we took all of this out of it, and pretended there were no Al Gores, no IPCC, no media bias, no whatever. What have you personally, in your own day to day observations, noticed that would lead you to believe that this planet is in dire straits, and is going to "die" in a relatively short period of time? Put some thought to this, don't just say that you saw a smoke stack billowing out smoke or something or other...

Una61 Do you remember in the 70's when all the scientists told us we'd be frozen solid by the year 2000?. I do. I'm not frozen, but by damn I am getting colder. It was 7 up here in CT this morning. Supposed to be colder tomorrow. Global warming......I don't think so.

una61, why didn't you list Vice President of the United States? Oh and, Bernard Madoff had a pretty good title and resume that allowed him to scheme/hoax/fraud a lot of seemingly intelligent people. Don't say you're not a little skeptical after learning of the Climategate emails. Not just a little?

Walden said "What have you personally, in your own day to day observations, noticed that would lead you to believe that this planet is in dire straits, and is going to "die" in a relatively short period of time? "

I have noticed that the mountain evergreens are now brown because the winters have not been cold enough to kill the pests. I have noticed relatively fewer snowfalls than thirty or so years ago. More people from Florida and California are moving here because of the climate.

This is not an immediate threat but it may be a warning signal.

The earth goes through so many natural cycles that affect climate that it is nearly impossible to take global warming as fact. Tectonic plate movements, the earth's magnetic field, ocean currents, convection currents within the earth, effects from the sun, and so on.

Evidently Gore isn't worried about the "non-hoax" as much as he claims, nor are all the officials taking private planes to Copenhagen. People need to focus more on sustainability, not whether or not the earth's temperatures are going through high cycles.

(Insert best Al Gore impersonation here)

EaTn - you may be referring to the Eastern Hemlock, which is under severe stress due to the invasion of the wooly adelgid (apparently imported from Asia). This is a highly unfortunate catastrophe, but I am doubtful it is caused by AGW. Consider the chestnut blight that effectively destroyed all the American Chestnuts, once the largest, most prolific tree in all of Appalachia and beyond. This blight, which also originated in Asia, occurred in the early 20th century, well before any possible AGW could have even begun.

The matter of snowfall? I agree, there isn't as much snowfall in and around Chattanooga as I recall there being in the 1980's. However, this may simply be a short term natural climate fluctuation.

My question back to you is, are either of these things you cited (which are both good observations, by the way) anything that would cause you to believe we need to adopt climate protocols such as those being thrown around in Copenhagen right now? In other words, are you so sure that AGW is causing either of your observed phenomena, that you are willing to allow our Government to enact legislation that will effectively tax us to the point of national pain for programs that won't move the dial one bit?

It continually amazes me the mindset of conservative individuals. They are scared silly of anything new or different that challenges their status quo attitudes. Left to them we would still be in the dark ages.

Conservative attitudes have been the bane of mankind and their fear of anything new or different has been a stumbling block to progress for centuries. They have fought all original thought and progress on human rights, scientific progress, and anything that differs from their current understanding.

The term ignorance is bliss must be very comforting.

Andrew Lohr points out that it is a fact that it snowed in Tennessee in April, so?? Who cares? That does not refute the climate crisis. The oceans are warming at an alarming rate. Since oceans occupy most of our planet, we should be concerned. Areas such as the Arctic Ocean have warmed dramatically causing huge ice sheets to break apart. By the way, it takes water temperatures a lot longer to warm up than land temperatures, this problem isn't going away anytime soon.

Is it real??? Take a deep breath! Sigh!!! We all know peeing in your Wheaties is not good for you, Right??? Well lets start on a local level and see it for what we are. Our streams are infected with e coli! In Georgia they don't measure for e coli when testing the water! Does something sound fishy? Tennessee has the same surface water problem. Where does surface water go? Your kids may play in it. It may enter an underwater aquifer! Then we fast forward to the Al Gore's nobel prize. Here is a man who was shamed into becoming responsible for his excessive energy use. All the while creating a carbon credit exchange that has the potential of creating the biggest financial fraud of modern time. Yes we should stop driving soccer mom tanks, yes we should be funding electric heat pumps for any home in the US that does not have one, yes we should be building atomic electric power plants and should have started years ago. It is safe, and clean compared to the current options. I just love people who end their comments with something stupid like "Ignorance is bliss" Grow up and make a point. If you live in the political realm thats your loss. If your not part of the solution, your part of the problem!!! I have yet to see a video of a polar bear drowning!!! I'm just sayin!

sos wrote, "The oceans are warming at an alarming rate. Since oceans occupy most of our planet, we should be concerned. Areas such as the Arctic Ocean have warmed dramatically causing huge ice sheets to break apart."

Really? How in the world could we possibly know what rate of ocean warming is normal or conversely, abnormal and therefore "alarming"? Before the '50-'60s era, water temperatures were measured with a bucket dropped over the side of the ship, pulled back on board after filling with seawater and then the water temperature was measured with a mercury thermometer and noted by hand in the ships log. After that era, the water temps were measured at the inlet to the engine-room and noted into the ships engineering log. None of these data were expected to be more accurate than within a few degrees of the actual ocean temperature. Those records are then compiled, "adjusted/normalized", and compared to modern (adjusted) satellite, and ARGO data.(The ARGO buoys originally were reading "too cool", so the scientists adjusted that data as well.)

Even if we had a reliable way to know with any certainty what the ocean heat content was 100(or 1,000, or 10,000) years ago, how would we know that it was the "right" temperature back then, and now it is not.

Even if you could know these things (you can't), by what line of evidence could you trace it back to the 3% of total atmospheric CO2 that was released by man?

One last little bit. You are aware that ice-cover over the arctic ocean retards the heat loss of those waters, right? That water cools a lot faster when it is exposed to the Arctic winds. While it is also true that ice-free water should absorb more solar energy, we're talking about the high latitude Arctic, and the incident angle of the solar rays messes up the energy transfer. Energy-wise, ice-covered vs. ice-free Arctic waters may be a wash, or it could be a climactic feedback mechanism of the positive or negative type. We just do not know, and likely never will so long as ideological and political interest keep playing hanky-panky with the data.

hotdiggity wrote, "It continually amazes me the mindset of conservative individuals. They are scared silly of anything new or different that challenges their status quo attitudes. Left to them we would still be in the dark ages."

Wow, and here I was under the impression that it was the "conservatives" who are not so easily stampeded off a cliff for fear of (climate) change.

Your caricature of "conservative individuals" is cute.

Learning from history, making small, well considered changes in all facets of life, and not rushing blindly into the unknown are indeed "conservative" ideas.

I generally find that "conservative" ideas usually do not have the unexpected side effects often associated with progressive ideas. "Conservatives" usually see those types of problems coming from a mile away and actively avoid them, as opposed to progressives who seem to be actively attempting to subdue human nature, and therefore, as a side-effect, stifle innovation and progress. You did notice what happened over there in the USSR and eastern Europe during the cold war, right?

Here is a near perfect example of the fraud and/or malfeasance in "climate science".

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-faster-and-faster-the-dominos-fall/

How about those "adjustments" now?

I am completely in awe that any thinking person can ignore the evidence of fraud in the AGW issue, and simply believe that it is all true and will result in catastrophe.

Above all things, follow the money...and the power that goes with it.

Who stands to gain the most in the near future from the global warming chickenlittle?

Let's just assume there are a few fruitcakes doing fraud with the data being fed into center in UK. So what? What does this have to do the with data being gathered by hundreds of scientists around the globe? Absolutely nothing. The special interest groups are pushing the bs, some dimwitted are believing it and others are just following their Rush leader.

EaTn,

Those few scientists are at the very center of the IPCC process. We're talking about the lead authors. Those hundreds of other scientist have based their research on the data "prepared" and supplied by those few. It is a house of cards. Without the hockey-stick, and the "adjusted" data showing the late 20th century warming, the other research has no underpinning for support, it is just a mixed bag of novel observations. Claims of any effects due to "unprecedented warming" have no validity if there is no "unprecedented warming". Jones, Mann, etc., could not find evidence of this "unprecedented warming" so they made it up.

The special interest groups are indeed pushing BS. Those special interest groups include but are not limited to, globalists, enviro-nuts, neo-facists, power-hungry politicians, wealth redistributionists, and Wall Street commodities traders. Concerning the last there, Enron was a big fan of CO2 demonization for the purpose of creating a market they could then manipulate. Plenty of other folks are very prepared to step into Enron's shoes.

And yes there are a lot of dimwitted people who are believing it all. Like oh, maybe, you.

What does Rush say about all this? I don't ever listen to that show.

SCOTTYM- I don't believe anyone knows the absolute effect of environment pollution. I know there are locations where pollution is killing folks. I know on days the Tennessee Valley is holding smog air causing issues- it's known as the allergy doctors place to be. I know you can't continue cutting down our air filtering forests while continuing increasing the output of air pollutants without something being effected. I don't need a scientist to tell me what common sense tells me.

So I guess the national debt is a hoax too?

I posted this on another string, but though it appropriate to re-post here:

For those who are concerned with the unprecedented warming of the ocean and melting of the icebergs/ice caps: Here is more proof! "US Weather Bureau Report The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds."

This was copied from an AP issued publication in the Washington post on November 2, 1922.

Well, Scotty you beamed them up alright, thank you. Now we're back at the point where Walden left off. Living proof that he too is right. The ideologically stunted (by their own gods' propaganda via comments above), are left with talking about local pollution. Obviously, they've never visited New Delhi or Shanghai. Talk about one can't breathe. Obviously, the deaf and blind willfully remain so.

Instead of impoverishing Americans further with their leftist policies, I'd like to see the whole lot of them overseas, in countries like China and India or better yet, Russia and Sudan, screaming at them to smarten up! Get out of the Dark ages, we're all dying! See how far they'd get in those 'free' societies with that nonsense.

Over the decades, in Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto and further north, snow and rain has ebbed and flowed. No, there are no palm trees growing in Vancouver yet (or 12 foot snow drifts in Orlando). When there is, I'll be sure to let you know.

whatsthefuss had a point. We all (as some of us have done for decades) should be doing our part in not filthying our own nests. Sending billions and trillions of dollars to Despots living in swamps of their own making will not cause them to suddenly get environmental religion and join us in Nirvana. Here's the endgame of that kind of 'logic', Us=Poor and stupid; Them=Rich and more corrupt.

EaTn - so far you are the only person brave enough to attempt my little challenge. Most of the other anecdotes from our left leaning friends on this comment board are talking points from the likes of Olbermann, Maddow, Couric, Brian Williams, and other MSM talking heads. Statements like "the oceans are warming at an alarming rate" warrant only one response, and that is "how the hell do you KNOW this?" I enjoyed SCOTTYM's thorough debunking of this type of hyperbole. Good job my right leaning friends!

Walden: After spending trillions of taxpayers dollars over the last 40-50 years, helping all the impoverished worldwide; the only destructive, short-term occurrence I see happening is when one of those formerly-impoverished, smiling Despots or Terrorists nukes the US. That's us folks, into oblivion. Forget Climate 'change', it won't matter at that point.

Why I cannot abide Liberals...

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/12/18/laughing-at-the-left

Any self-respecting leftist should be ashamed of themselves after reading this. I love the first comment following the article. I think it is true -- Liberalism is a mental disorder. Big Pharma could make a fortune if they came up with a drug to combat the disorder. They could name it something cute like Liberid...

Denial of AGW is the easy way out.

By picking and choosing data we reinforce our preconcieved prejudices and insulate our comfort zone. Rationalization,right or wrong,is part of mental health.

To accept AGW as a real and present danger is to accept,1)we have been doing things badly,and 2) we have to change. This makes AGW a threat.

In order to avoid change (any disruption to our daily patterns),we seek and grasp at semi-plausible rationale to avoid an overwhelming consensus contained in a mass of data gathered over decades by the worlds leading scientists and organizations. We rationalize and compartmentalize our data feeds.

Next we must ascribe motive. To do this we must set aside clear thinking,because we must accept that thousands of people working wordwide,over many decades conspired to produce a hoax for some nefarious reason;that there is over-arching evil lurking that wants to harm us.

But if we can somehow rationalize motive,we are free to continue our prior patterns without guilt or qualms.

Quite a stretch.but pretty normal human behavior.

NN: Spoken like a true psycho-babbler. Re-read your post and then go look in the mirror.

Then re-read a post or two or three here, disagreeing with you and the Left, and coming from various perspectives. It is not Group-think. These are commentaries and data from decades of life and/or professional experience.

Even the most illiterate person on the planet has more sense than those who quote so-called science and scientists that admitted in their own words they deceived thousands of others who relied on their data. Re-read Scotty's and Walden's observations. Whether you like it or not, there is a political agenda and it is impoverishing all of us. And that's no lie, nor is it "rationalization". Like the smart illiterate would say, "it's just the plain Truth".

NN: by your own logic, you have done the same thing you are accusing the Right of doing. Picking and choosing what you believe. And the "Decades of data"??? Wow, you mean all 30 or so years of data regarding a planet that is at least 10,000 yrs old and possibly millions of yrs old... I guess by your definition it is decades... whoa just 3.

Hardly an argument. And hardly a reason to go jumping off the deep end and sending 100's of billions of dollars in to the black hole of "Global warming". Plus the new global laws they want to make saying that every married couple can only have one baby to save on CO2 emissions.

Just more government control but now going global.

Canary,we all absorb at the level we are able.

NN: and of course, your "level" is sooo much higher than ours (the plebians), eh?

Canary,are you plebian?

Nurse,it seems you have found your comfort zone.

why yes i am very comfortable with my beliefs, thanks.

As someone said earlier, it won't matter too much anyway since there will probably be a global war soon. Israel don't like what Iran is doing with the Nuclear warheads.. they will try to stop them.

I'm one of many Plebes (as we laughingly called ourselves in history class, all those many years ago) in this country and on this continent who can say with confidence, we've worked hard all our lives and asked for little in return. Yet, for our freedom, our speech and the lives of future generations, we have sacrificed much.

Unlike the 'plebes' asked to join the first Democracy in Athens as equals with the rich, in order to be part of the governing process; we, the people are now squashed by the 'Patricians' in Washingon and worldwide, as our counterparts were long ago in Rome. You 'patricians' today would like nothing better than to squash us or control us.

There are cruder and modern, liberal definitions which we will omit here. From Encyclopedia Brittanica: Plebeian, also spelled Plebian, Latin Plebs, plural Plebes,

Member of the general citizenry in ancient Rome as opposed to the privileged patrician class. The distinction was probably originally based on the wealth and influence of certain families who organized themselves into patrician clans under the early republic, during the 5th and 4th centuries B.C. Plebeians were originally excluded from the Senate and from all public offices except that of military tribune. Before the passage of the law known as the Lex Canuleia (445 bc), they were also forbidden to marry patricians. Until 287 B.C. the plebeians waged a campaign...

It's starting to look like CopenHoaxen is circling the bowl.

Has anyone heard from Clara?

I am hoping that she is happy and hale, but I have missed her voice chiming in here on the TFP party line.

Sorry to bother. By instinct, I start to take a head count this time every year.

Clara? Sometimes folks drop off line for a few days then pop back as usual. Hopefully she's enjoying the festives of the season.

Rush is in the climate news today- I just pulled this from the headlines of Fox News:

"Rush to Salvage Climate Pact"

I think the meaning here is there is a rush to salvage the climate pact. Picking out the headline only is kinda like the anti-environmentalists picking out pieces of emails and making it a fact for the entire scientific community.

Or kind of like crack scientists picking out data and results and presenting falsified reports as fact for the entire scientific community...

Charles Krauthammer, as always, says it best...

"I think Copenhagen will go the way of Kyoto, and that means nothing of importance will come out for a simple reason, the American people aren't stupid — as they said in 1999, by a vote of 97-0 in the Senate to the Clinton administration, they are saying to the Obama administration, and it's listening.

The American people will not accept an agreement where we have serious cuts in carbon emissions imposed on the United States, which will mean a serious constriction of the U.S. economy, a lowering of our standard of living, if the Chinese (who are the largest CO2 polluters on the planet) and the Indians ... do not accept limits, as they will not, because the result of that is (a) there is no effect on warming — whatever coal plant America shuts down, the Chinese and Indians are going to open [another] and so there will be no effect on the climate – and (b) it will, in effect, be a huge transfer of wealth and jobs out of the West, out of the American economy, into China and India.

Adding on to that is the Clinton proposal of a fund of $100 billion a year of which America will ultimately contribute probably a third — it always does in these international agreements — from our treasury, our money from taxpayers, directly into the treasuries of the poorer countries, the majority of whom are kleptocracies, and some of whom like China and India are lenders.

It makes absolutely no sense, and Americans are simply not going to accept that, which is why nothing of importance will we sign out there. . .

It's the same story that happened in the late '90s. If the Chinese and Indians and the others who are developing will not match our cuts, it makes no sense economically or even scientifically — [it] will have no effect on the climate, even if you accept all of the climate science and global warming as a reality.

So it has no [climactic] effect and it is [just] a transfer of wealth. It will never be accepted.

And the Chinese were clear today — they are not interested in arresting their own development on which the legitimacy of the regime depends. It is a dictatorship. It depends on a prosperous nation to stay in power. It is not going to jeopardize that in the name of the speculative warming claims, and if it doesn't, nothing is going to happen."

EaTn wrote, "SCOTTYM- I don't believe anyone knows the absolute effect of environment pollution. I know there are locations where pollution is killing folks. I know on days the Tennessee Valley is holding smog air causing issues- it's known as the allergy doctors place to be. I know you can't continue cutting down our air filtering forests while continuing increasing the output of air pollutants without something being effected."

I agree with everything you wrote there.

The problem is, you've accepted as fact that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant. It isn't, and there is zero evidence to show otherwise. It is a perfectly natural, and in concentrations below 10,000+ PPM, harmless gas. It is also the very root of the food chain on this planet. Our current CO2 concentration is around 390 PPM. About 12 of those parts per million are from anthropogenic sources, all the rest is generated, perfectly naturally, by the rest of the biosphere. Our contribution is dwarfed by the flux of CO2 into and out of the oceans as the warm water moves toward the poles and the colder water moves toward the equator.

Many on the left would like us all to start thinking of CO2 as a pollutant, some of us are not so naive.

More atmospheric CO2 WILL increase crop yields, feeding our growing population, and will continue to increase the total mass of the biosphere. Plants love the stuff, probably because most of them evolved when the atmospheric concentration was a full order of magnitude higher than it is today in our CO2 starved world. You heard me right, most plant species would die off rather quickly if the CO2 concentration drops below 200 PPM. If we are on the edge of biological collapse, it is due to a lack of free carbon for the plants to use.

It's a lucky thing for the biosphere that we humans came along to release a little extra carbon from it's lithospheric prison and help fertilize the Earth.

Is it just me, or are Liberals acting like lemmings right now and walking straight off the proverbial cliff? Health care, climate change, what else? I absolutely cannot wait until November 2010.

ScottyM wrote "I generally find that "conservative" ideas usually do not have the unexpected side effects often associated with progressive ideas. "Conservatives" usually see those types of problems coming from a mile away and actively avoid them."

Yes, conservatives are generally content to sit and try to preserve the status quo. Anything that is new results in sticking their head in the sand. Lets see..womens rights, civil rights, unions, workplace safety, Clean Air Act, Social Security, eight hour workday, voting rights, FDA, Medicare, Child Labor Law, minimum wage, etc. etc.

Where were conservatives historically on these issues? Did conservatives see these issues "coming from a mile away" and attempt to see their value to society" Very rarely. Of course the above is just a short list of progressive ideas passed over the protests of conservatives. Modern society would still be living in the Stone Age thinking the earth was flat and the Sun revolved around the Earth if we were content to accept the status quo.

con⋅serv⋅a⋅tive-------- disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

I conducted my own global warming test, right here in my own kitchen.

I have this very well insulated mug, capable of holding about a quart of my favorite beverage, iced tea.

Now I don't have an ice-maker, thus I have to manually dispense my own ice cubes, so I am very conservative with my ice. Between fill-ups, I stick my mug in the refrigerator until I am thirsty. Sometimes, I go 24 hours at a time before I want some tea.

I keep my refrigerator set at around 30 degrees all the time because I like COLD milk. This assures that my milk is always ice cold.

It's amazing. Whenever I put my ice filled mug in the refrigerator, where the temperature is 30 degrees at all times, the ice never melts.

I've yet to have experienced my mug overflowing from the effect of melting ice. I have experienced all liquid in my mug freezing, thus making more ice than was in the mug prior to putting it into that environment.

So, according to the laws of science, if ice is maintained in a constant environment where the air temperature never rises above the freezing level, then how can it melt?

It's 30 degrees in my refrigerator. If I were to put it in my freezer, that would be closer to the constant temperature observed in the arctic regions where all of this ice is supposedly melting. Ice would REALLY have a hard time melting in that environment, wouldn't it?

Uh...I don't get it, or do I?

Something came to mind recently when pondering this issue. On April 14, 1912, the Titanic hit a wandering iceberg, apparently a very natural phenomenon at the time, and long before melting ice was blamed on man.

Melting and refreezing of water is a natural occurrence and it always has been. Icebergs, floating, detached, and melting are nothing new or unexpected.

This farce known as global climatic change, or whatever connotation that may morphed to describe it in the future, has been hijacked by a bunch of people who are using it to scam people out of money, and nothing will convince me otherwise. There's always a money trail.

When twice in a week, Al Gore is cornered by reporters who have legitimate, pertinent, and pointed questions to ask the man, and his response is to have armed United Nations Security guards seize cameras and threaten people with arrest, you know doggone well that the only thing getting hot, is Al Gore, under his collar.

To think that he came "this close" to being elected President of these United States...is scary, to say the least.

hotdiggity,

I like the way you go straight for the ideology attack and studiously ignore any actual facts about the climate. You are one sharp cookie, and a sharp debater, as a matter of fact, I'd say you may be a masterdebater.

You seem to be a bit confused.

womens rights=My wife makes more cash than I do, but I do more laundry. She votes too. Sometimes I even let her wear pants.

civil rights=WWWAAAYYY off. Maybe you should look back at who was opposing the Civil rights movement. Maybe you should explore the roots of the KKK who used to hang blacks and Republicans.

unions=They are doing a GREAT job of killing this country's ability to compete in the global economy.

workplace safety=I work for myself, I'd never ask an employee to do anything that I would not do myself. YMMV.

Clean Air Act=OK to a point, 'til it gets used as a hammer to destroy our entire industrial culture and sets the clock back to 1262.

Social Security=Steal from young to give to old, nice.(I'd prefer NOT paying for YOUR grandma. In traditional families, the children look out for and take care of their OWN elders./// Oh well, we're progressives, we'll make everyone who earns a living pay to put my grandma in a home and I will not be bothered.)

eight hour workday=slacker

voting rights=Vague, for whom?

FDA=Alphabet bureaucracy. A good cause, ruined by hubris and corruption.

Medicare=The single most expensive entitlement program ever devised.

Child abor Law=Spellcheck? Are you talking about young trees?

minimum wage=Have you noticed what happens to the 16-24 year old unemployment rate when the minimum wage goes up? If you have, why do you think that happens? If you haven't, you should check it out.

"con⋅serv⋅a⋅tive"------- disposed to preserve existing:

conditions///Like the freedom we currently (and more-so in the past) experience in this country.

institutions/// Like our system of government which is designed to protect the rights of individuals against a tyranical government.

etc/// Like all the other things that our forefathers fought and died to secure.

or to restore traditional ones/// Not the tyranny that man has existed beneath for the last couple of thousan years.(Until the U.S. came along.)

and to limit change./// To stop the collective from jumping off the cliff of despotism, poverty, and death.

Idiot- 1. an utterly foolish or senseless person. 2. Psychology. a person of the lowest order in a former classification of mental retardation, having a mental age of less than three years old and an intelligence quotient under 25.

alprova | On: December 18, 2009 at 9:59 p.m.,

Yeah, what he said.

"More people from Florida and California are moving here because of the (governmental/regulatory/tax) climate."

With a shout to EaTn.

alprova | On: December 18, 2009 at 9:59 p.m. Excellent.

I believe Al Gore suffers from "Global Personality Change". Thinking about the Al Gore we knew 20 years ago and the Al Gore we know today, I can't believe it's the same person. Could it be Demoncratic Possession?

SCOTTYM wrote that progressives "stifle innovation and progress". Uhhh, are you aware of the "progress" in the word progressive?

Here's a definition of progressive for you-- pro·gres·sive- 1. Moving forward; advancing. 2.Proceeding in steps; continuing steadily by increments: progressive change. 3.Promoting or favoring progress toward better conditions or new policies, ideas, or methods.

Here is a definition that would fit better with someone who would attempt to "stifle innovation and progress".

con⋅serv⋅a⋅tive-1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

Does that not more correctly fit your term of someone who would "stifle innovation and progress"?

SCOTTYM said "civil rights=WWWAAAYYY off. Maybe you should look back at who was opposing the Civil rights movement. Maybe you should explore the roots of the KKK who used to hang blacks and Republicans".

Uhh, Scotty I would of thought it was obvious to you who was hanging blacks and Republicans...persons who fought change, (see definition of conservative I posted). Of course with a lot of help from the good southern churches also. I don't recall my original post having anything to do with Republicans or Democrats as you infer. I was talking about a persons mindset. You do know the difference I assume?

Ohh, here is another definition just for YOU- : pomp·ous-having or exhibiting self-importance; arrogant.

hotdiggity,

Do you just not get it, or are you playing games?

I have no way of knowing if you are stupid, or merely misinformed. Such is the darkness of the intertubes.

At this point I'm at a loss.

You win the ideological battle.

Where is that science again?

Could Woody be right? (It's a religion?)

I don't want the federal government enforcing a religion upon me. And, therefore, I will not tolerate a religion being forced upon myself or others.

A nice clean line.

I like the details. That is where the interesting stuff is. Your animosity toward facts should not be my problem. I make no grand claims. My only crime is to doubt the Wizards of AGW.

Sue me.

Discovery will be fun.

hotdiggity wrote,

"Uhhh, are you aware of the "progress" in the word progressive?"

Uhhh, yes, uhhh, I, uhhh, am aware that uhhh, lots of low I.Q. people say "uhhh" a lot. It entertains and mesmerizes others of uhhh like mind.

It's the part of the progressive lexicon that turns me OFF immediately. The stupidity shows like a neon sign.

POTUS and Axlerod, the "uhhh" team.

Top-o-the-world, right?

Good posts Scotty, Walden, and Likeminded. Shows what really independent thought looks like, mixed in with facts instead of fantasies and false ideologies.

Just a note: (for your lovely wife and all women everywhere who have survived the femi-nazi's onslaught the last 4 decades); Susan B. Anthony and many other good women who protested not only the lack of voting rights for themselves, but for minorities (Blacks) at that time in history, were definitely not the "Progressives" of today or of Hitler's Regime in Europe in the thirties and forties. Most of them were conservative people and Christians. No "good Christian churches" as Hotdiggitydiggity pointed out, ever supported the KKK.

These kind of comments are proof that our educational system has failed. It does not teach anyone to think and read/view critically, much less to do objective research. It is a system designed to pump out automatons who will say and do whatever their Gov't wills them to do. (or you won't get that plum job). Check back a few years from now and we will see just how far this will take us and who will comply with the 'Neo-Progressives" commands. Pity, great pity.

Plenty of people over the last 2000 years until today, USE His Name as a front for their heinous activities. Those types are kin to the Left/and sundry Ideologies today who never cease their efforts to undermine all that is good and decent and true in our nation(s). They are kindred and spawn of an old, old enemy. What we have here today is nothing new and was predicted in ancient times. I for one, am glad I'm not an ignorant follower of any human or government. It's not worth it to be on the wrong side of anything, much less history.

To Lightnup, wherever you are. Have a not too busy, yet wonderful Christ-mas and holiday. You and your family and kin. Come back soon, your presence and comments are missed.

Ditto, I'm sure, for all those having a too busy time during this season. Inspector, you know you and your poetry are missed also. <@

For obvious reasons, I've avoided this threat for days now, but, like someone slowing down at a car wreck, I couldn't resisit taking a peek this afternoon.

canaryinthecoalmine writes, "Good posts Scotty, Walden, and Likeminded. Shows what really independent thought looks like, mixed in with facts instead of fantasies and false ideologies."

I agree that these posts demonstrated independent thought: independent of facts, independent of supporting evidence, and independent of the views of almost every expert in the field. This cartoon likens those of you who insist that global warming is a hoax, to those who believe that Elvis's death and the moon landing were also hoaxes. I think that is a supremely unfair comparison.

There is far more evidence that global warming is real.

Just for the record, I thought I'd share some words from people who ACTUALLY know what their talking about.

• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:

“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level. Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (IPCC defines "very likely" as greater than 90% probability of occurrence) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

• American Meteorological Society:

"Indeed, strong observational evidence and results from modeling studies indicate that, at least over the last 50 years, human activities are a major contributor to climate change." (February 2007)

• American Physical Society:

"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (November 2007

• American Geophysical Union:

"The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century." (Adopted December 2003, Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007)

• American Association for the Advancement of Science:

"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (December 2006)

• Geological Society of America:

"The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries." (October 2006)

I couldn't fit them all on my last post:

• American Chemical Society:

"There is now general agreement among scientific experts that the recent warming trend is real (and particularly strong within the past 20 years), that most of the observed warming is likely due to increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, and that climate change could have serious adverse effects by the end of this century." (July 2004)

• U.S. National Academy of Sciences:

"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)

• International Academies of Science:

"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring." (2005, 11 national academies of science)

Since you quoted me Dear Ollie, I will quote myself back at ya:

These kind of comments are proof that our educational system has failed. It does not teach anyone to think and read/view critically, much less to do objective research. It is a system designed to pump out automatons who will say and do whatever their Gov't wills them to do. (or you won't get that plum job). Check back a few years from now and we will see just how far this will take us and who will comply with the 'Neo-Progressives" commands. Pity, great pity.

Now give us up-to-date 'facts', including many scientists, geologists, metereologists, physicists et al, who disagree with your 'experts facts'. And really try, dear chap to research ALL sides of the spectrum as some of us have, in order to form our opinions. And remember, with the god Science, the jury is always hung and always out until, the fat Lady sings. Or the final evidence comes calling. Which ever you prefer. See ya in a few years/decades, then you can be sure-or not.

OllieH,

Appeals to authority are all you have there. You have shown ZERO evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The Warmers have none, therefore they insist that because a few people at the top of various institutions say AGW is a fact, that that makes it so. This is idiocy of the highest sort. It is evidence of the dangers of group-think.

The fact that you started with the IPCC, which is totally discredited as a scientific organization, only adds to the obvious lack of understanding on your part. The additional fact that all of these quotes are 3-5 years old, and therefore are seriously out of date, doesn't help. The science keeps moving, try to keep up.

Most of the organizations you list are on the gravy-train. No AGW=no gravy.

You also seem to not realize that most of these pronouncements were based upon data that has now been shown to be fraudulent. The IPCC is a very clear example, the "work" of Jones, Trenberth, Mann, et al, are at the very center of the IPCC's "science" claims, and it is all a sham.

Many other scientists deferred to the "experts" on AGW because they assumed the whole edifice was above-board and that the usual scientific standards were applied. They were not, we have irrefutable evidence of this fact.

Try again when you come up with some actual evidence that humans are causing a catastrophic change in the climate, I won't hold my breath.(Though I should as the exhalations of all of us have been declared a dangerous pollutant by Obama's fat girlfriend at the EPA.)

I found a mistake in the math. . . canaryinthecoalmine | On: December 18, 2009 at 9:23 a.m.

"Us=Poor and stupid; Them=Rich and more corrupt." . . Should be,

Us=Poor and stupid; Them=StillPoor + more corrupt.

Unless you've been to the polar ice caps, unless you've looked at all the data collected for the past 100 years, unless you even know what you're looking at when you see it, and unless you've compared the studies of thousands of scientists who have devoted their careers to this issue, you haven't done you're own research.

So, to make claims that you've done your own independent research and come to your own critical analysis of global warming is ludicrous.

We all look to authorities for their expertise and guidance. To not do that, or to assume that your conclusion is more valid than theirs, is not only folly, but arrogant folly.

I am not an expert on many things. So, just as I would look to the analysis and views of economists to help me understand the economy, I look to scientists to help me understand the impact and causes of global warming. This does not make me an automaton, it makes me smart. Smart enough to know my own limitations, smart enough to seek out credible sources of information, and smart enough to realize that I do not know everything.

Apparently, the deniers of global warming are unencumbered by such considerations.

So OllieH, what you're saying is that the "smarter" one becomes, the more likely they are to fall for proven fraudsters involved in a grand delusion of apocalyptic group think?

The subject is not nearly as complex as you've been lead to believe. It is a million more times complex that that, and this simple fact is why any claims of climactic omniscience is quackery.

CO2 is not pollution. If you start from the assumption that it is, you will end up defending some silly suppositions, as many AGW zealots are beginning to realize.

Finally, if one were to actually research the sparse data we have concerning ice mass and extent in the Arctic over the last 100 years, one would find that the things the AGWers claim are very far from verifiable facts. Much like many other claims they make.