Ok lets see if you can understand this. You are young and ignorant so I will type slowly so you can get it if you try.
In 1964 we were just starting to get a grasp on global temperature. I was postulated that global warming was a prelude to the next ice age. NASA started to try to prove or disprove this theory. Silly little things like sending probes to other planets to see what was happening there. The soviets sent probes to Venus and we sent probes to Mars. Comparing notes we found that the temperatures had a correlation that seemed to work out to a guess at one degree per century. Now that is not strictly true. The Sun heats the area around the planet to about 250 degrees but it does not get that high on the earth yet. Why? Because we have 200 miles between the earth and space and 21 miles of very thick atmosphere. Heating up all that moving air helps cool the Earth. Even though the Earth and other planets temperatures average rise is 1 degree per century but the average is an average because it is not exact. When Mount Pinatubo erupted the earth took a five degree nose dive, and when Mount Ungin (not sure of the spelling) erupted the Earth took another three degree nose dive. So the Earth took a hit for eight degrees yet the average stayed at a one degree rise for the century. So in reality the rise is greater than one degree per century had we not had the eruptions.
Now the fun part. The best that NASA has been able to surmise is that man is responsible for 6/100 of a degree rise for the century.

I have been arguing the global warming sham for a while. I, like the scientist don’t dispute the fact of global warming, I dispute the unproven belief that with the evidence gathered so far does not point to man as the cause of global warming. At six one hundredths of a degree per century does not make much of an impact on the world.

The Working Group I Summary for Policymakers (SPM) was published on February 2, 2007[7]. Its key conclusions were that[8]:

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal
Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (greater than 90% likely) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations
Hotter temperatures and rises in sea level "would continue for centuries" no matter how much humans control their pollution.[9], although the likely amount of temperature and sea level rise varies greatly depending on the fossil intensity of human activity during the next century (pages 13 and 18)[10]
The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%
World temperatures could rise by anything between 1.1 and 6.4°C (1.98 and 11.52°F) during the 21st century (table 3) and that:
Sea levels will probably rise by 18 to 59 cm (7.08 to 23.22 in) [table 3]
It is more than 90% certain that there will be frequent warm spells, heat waves and heavy rainfall
It is more than 66% certain that there will be an increase in droughts, tropical cyclones and extreme high tides.
Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium.
Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values over the last 650,000 years.

The report was authored by about 600 scientists from over 40 different countries. It was reviewed by over 600 others and governments. then, before being accepted, the entire report was reviewed, line by line by over 113 different countries last January in Paris.





WWW Link

I love it when people assert that global warming has been proven to be man-made and is a scientific fact. Yes, global warming itself is a measurable phenomenon , but whether it is a natural occurrence or is man-made is hardly proven within the scientific community one way or the other and those who claim that it is are either deluded or flat out liars.

While the man-made theory has become the popular one among a large group of scientists there are still those who contend that man's contribution to the problem is minor at best. Why do we not hear more from those scientists? Because the media doesn't report on them as it's not the scary story they need for ratings.

Also, I was listening to a news story a few days ago where a Canadian scientist was describing how he and some of his fellow scientists who rebuke the man-made theory have had news media refuse to report their findings and have even received death threats for voicing their ideas.

Man-made vs natural is hardly a settled issue except in the minds of those who have financial and political agendas to feed.

go check reply #11...actually read the linked article and see that i did not assert that whatsoever



no, because they are a very minor group of fringe scientists and/or are sponsored and directed by large oil companies and the like. feel free to stick with the "10%ers" (at best) .

That is the crux of the argument, as they state it as fact, yet provide no proof. Again, scientific method is being held hostage to politics of the day. They show no cause and affect, and do not take into account (at least in the report) what affect the activity of the sun has said. But that is not really the point of this article. This is:



(Sorry the editing does not carry over).

As you can see, the report states that some areas are going to get deluged, and other areas are going to have drought. Pretty much the way the world has reacted since the inception of time to all GW and Ice age episodes. Which goes to bolster my arguemnt that the UN report, and the chicken littles of the whole GW politics are full of bull piss.

and as an american, it is your right to sit in your glass house and feel however ya want. no matter how wrong you are.

take care guy...

And that is more scary than any fear of GW. For once we have stiffled debate on an important issue, we lose the freedom to act responsibly, and most other freedoms are sure to follow.

Again, an allegation not supported with facts at hand.

Failing to jump off a cliff may mean that I will always be wrong about the experience of free fall - but I will be around to savor that decision. Sorry if I do not follow the leading GS lemings over the cliff.

i've written about it in the past in articles and responses,,,and you know it...i'm not repeating myself over and over...geeez

just a note,,,coming out of his house testimony, en route to his senate testimony, al was swarmed with reporters, mostly asking about a presidential run. he made the following points...

1) he has no intention of running (he said it in several different ways)
2) he enjoyed hearing "the other side"
3) he thought that both sides made good points
4) felt that working together and bipartisanly was the only way to go


sounded pretty reasonable to me...

Yes,it was proven years ago that we were in a global warming stage. the proof of this is that the last ice age ended 13,000 years ago, the ice has melted all around the world and that water has evaperated out of the soil that had a lush green sahara region to an arid deasert that has been growing for centuries. If man was the cause why did it happen before mankinds industrial revolution, which is the supposed cause of global warming?

It has also been proven that the Earth has gone through hot and cold cycles about every 20k years with major Ice ages happening on a scale of millions of years. We have only been studying the global climate since the late 1950's and only began to predict the climate changes in the 1970's and started to connect the dots in the 1980's so with roughly 20 years of scientific facts to go on it is hard to say that mankind is responsible for global warming. If mankind was solely responsible for global warming then why is it that we have had this happening thousands of years ago before man became the dominant species? Did the dinosurs drive SUV's and burn fosil fules?

From the Opinion Journal.com



Yea, real reasonable. Want to buy a bridge in brooklyn?

what isn't reasonable is taking 15 years or so of work and nitpicking 2 paragraphs that like you accuse me of, don't back anything up with facts, only make accusations...


The Times quoted Don Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, as telling hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America that "I don't want to pick on Al Gore. But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data." Mr. Easterbrook made clear he has never been paid by any energy corporations and isn't a Republican.

a retired prof from western washington u? a hotbed of science? he wasn't even part of their enviromental science or studies programs. and he only makes an accusation. no facts presented. and how ironic that he needs to make the point that he is the rare breed who feels this wa that isn't paid by oil or a rep.

although it is commendable to w.w.u. that they got this...

Western has long supported environmental stewardship and in 2005 was selected for a national Green Power Leadership Award. Presented by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Energy and the Center for Resource Solutions, this award recognizes leading purchasers and suppliers of renewable energy. (from their website)

back to your nitpickin...

Even James Hansen, a scientist who began issuing warning cries about global warming in the 1980s and is a top adviser to Mr. Gore, concedes that his work may hold "imperfections" and "technical flaws."

ok,,,and when haven't i conceded that their side of the debate doesn't at least have that? you really like to lower the bar for your side and raise it all the way up for any opposition, don't ya?

i don't think we need to drive this all the way into the ground, but i don't mind givin ya the bumps and keepin the topic alive, as it is a worthy subject matter.

actually guy, i don't want to get into a silly lil pissin contest with ya here...

let me just try to redirect the convo and ask you this...

do you think that it is a good idea to borrow money from china to spend on energy from unstable countries, many of which are knee deep in terrorists, and blow it all into the air till we can't breathe?

if ya do, and feel we should do nothing, fine. but i think we would serve ourselves so much better to URGENTLY redirect that pattern above. even if you think global warming is hogwash. think of it as national security, i don't care. if that ends is condusive to more than 1 agenda, fine by me.

remember when congress almost unanimously passed the clean air act? there was a "joke" that went round saying toyota hired 100 engineers and gm hired 100 lawyers. and where that my be a bumper sticker line, it holds some truth about the real crux of this problem, which isn't necessarily global warming itself, but the time , money and energy wasted on nitpicking the crap out of either side. and just look where each is today vs. then.

You should REALLY learn thread tracking 101. That was not in support of my thesis (as I already proved that with your own source), that was in response to you previous statement about algore. hey! If you want to defend him go ahead! I know you love the internet he created.

Now why dont you check out the people you slandered above - AS THEY SUPPORT YOU - or perhaps we can just say your sources are horse puckey based upon your own critique?

Nice way to argue both sides of the issue! Please dont learn thread reading 101! I like how you destroy your own sources.

a) i didn't destroy my sources. the 1st i did make fun of, granted. the 2nd i agreed with.

and if i missed something,,,big whoop,,,i'm human too and freely admit it. oh well, egg on my face...but go to my next reply, which was there before you responded. i think it's clear that my goal is to work together, not to "win the argument" here, which is your agenda?

To expose the chicken littles for what they are. So that rational people, who do not fear open and honest debate, can discuss the issues without fear of being branded a witch by the small minded sycophants.

that's fine, and i don't believe i've endorsed anything radical. like we discussed before, i believe our differences are degrees, and i don't think either of us are lookin to go far right or left here. i watched al today for a couple hours of testimony, and i heard very little that was so outrageous from him. and the lil zing barbara boxer gave inhoff was good comic relief. i think if there could be some good compromises on the nuclear issue, which seem entirely doable outside some of the rhetoric from the extremes, that could go a long way towards a cleaner and healthier planet. as lamar alexander put to gore, it's interesting that nuclear power makes up 70% of our non greenhouse gas emitting energy, yet only accounts for 20% of our electricity. (i'm paraphrasing). costs and safety concerns are going down, due to new technologies that weren't available in the anti-nuke 70's that climaxed with 3 mile island. i think the right could get some trade-offs from the lefties to develop more nuclear energy. what do ya think?

Well, so much for the IPCC report. As this link says - another hatchet job.WWW Link

sorry guy, i don't have an hour and 14 minutes to sit there and watch that. i did skim it tho, and tried to watch as much as possible, which amounted to about 15 minutes of the show. i appreciate ya trying to share your point of view, but this is more of a filibuster than a discussion.

and they surely do preach to your choir from what i see. but debunking anything? i didn't see it. i just saw a few rogue scientists in remote places giving soundbytes and a pull on the heartstrings cause someone's solar panel is too small.

sorry, i'll take the 600+ scientists from 113 different countries and a report reviewed line by line than this viral video poo-pooing it. funny how the holdouts on this issue would ridicule anyone with a minority point of view on anything else while they were in power, calling them "10%ers" and laughing at their "independent sources" as just a bunch of "fringe nutjobs." but now that they are a "10%er, they sound just like hillary clinton pointing to "vast conspiracies."

ya know, if i tried to use something like this as a source, the entire right wing would be jumping down my throat. in fact last week, i used a chicago tribune source (their washington bureau, which has a web address with the word "blog" in it). before the ink was dry on the post, the right, who apparantly just looked at the web addreess and never looked at the actual source to see that it was an "official" tribune news outlet, were like flies on sh*t. as soon as it was pointed out that they "fell for it faster and harder than i expected" they immediately acted like they never said anything.

Those 600 are greatly reduced. At about minute 50 or so, they discuss the IPCC report. What was not included was very damning to the point the publishers tried to make, and the scientists (some of them), upon seeing the hack job they did on the report tried to get their names removed. The publisher refused. They also did not deny the unauthorized editing of the report.

But more importantly is the documentary's analysis that CO2 is not causing global warming, but is a result of it. In other words, the increase in temperatures is leading to more CO2. Since man is only responsible for about 10% of the total CO2, that is not as far fetched as it may seem.

But the very damning evidence is that the rise in solar activity, and thus the reduction of cosmic rays bombarding the earth is a 1 to 1 correlation with global temperatures.

Also, if indeed CO2 was causing global warming, then the years immediately following WWII should have seen a marked increase in temperatures as the amount of man produced CO2 went sky high (reconstruction of europe and asia), yet for the next 30 years, the Global temperature saw a marked decline.

It is not a filibuster, but when you get some time, watch the whole thing. It is not about debunking global warming, as it is more about exposing the fear mongers trying to stiffle the debate on the cause of it.

Finally, I am not using it as THE source, but A source as it is a documentary (not like the crap we get from Mikey Moron) and does have some of those 600 scientists on the record basically saying the report was hi-jacked and not what was originally written.

fill me in, how many scientists objected?

Sorry, I got distracted when they stated that. I do not remember how many. But as I said, it was at about minute 50 (a little after, but I cannot remember how far after).

An interesting thing is going on at Coast to Coast AM. The host (George Noory) wants to do a round table discussion about Global Warming. He says he has plenty of scientists on the "Natural causes" side willing to participate. He's having trouble finding people on the "Caused by Man" side though. The problem isn't that there aren't pleny of the latter willing to come on as guests, it's just that none of them want to be in on a round tabe discussion. Like Gore they only seem interested in telling their side of the issue. Why is Al Gore and those on his side so afraid of open discussion on the issue?