Tom "Global warming", "climate change", "our deteriorating atmosphere"... The gullible warming crowd can't make up their mind what to call it. They can't prove anything and don't even bother to try. They ridicule anybody who doesn't agree. They act like the planet is about to spontaneously combust into a giant ball of fire if we don't line their pockets and give over control of our lives immediately. And then they wonder why and start reaching for reasons why they don't have public support. I don't have to wonder. People aren't as gullible as they like to think. I think you are right that if they start using that term people will be even more critical. I certainly hope so.

Bob The Global Warming strategy was the most success they had in years. Why would they back off now? In the past they use to say "Save the environment", "stop ozone problems", "global pollution", but when people kept saying "what pollution? I don't feel those effects, I don't feel any ozone deterioration effects, why should I save the environment?" (this was all the questions as a result of one thing: The environmentalist did a good job, and legislators were able to cut pollution significantly from the 60s forward). So now they needed a new sense of urgency. A New common enemy. A New threat, that they can make people afraid about. Thanks to Al Gore and others, the "Global Warming" epidemic caught on. The honeymoon as usual became over as more and more people decided to actually research global warming instead of accepting doom and gloom news. So now, they are switching to climate change. In order to avoid Global Cooling argument. All of this, is for the environment. Some rich people back this up, like Al Gore, because they make money through these companies that clean up environment. What people don't realize is that one small volcano can pump more CO2 into the air than 20+ years of car + factory emissions.

Garland Tom, which voices on AGW have you heard? Because there is a site devoted to challenging the skeptics. http://www.skepticalscience.com/ After all, this is a serious matter. Don't you think you should sort of take in as much information as possible and treat it all with a critical eye? The people who *have* assimilated all the information they can get and then treated it all scientifically agree to a very large degree that AGW is a fact. The problem for them is figuring out just how much damage AGW can cause, and when. Even now people in Bangladesh are having their drinking water salted as the ocean levels rise little by little. That is our pollution that could be killing them. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/a-journey-across-the-grou_b_145839.html "‘The term turns people off, fostering images of shaggy-haired liberals, economic sacrifice and complex scientific disputes,’ the poll results show." This is pathetic. People are so capable of prejudice that they can't even accept reasonable terminology. "“When someone thinks of global warming, they think of a politicized, polarized argument. When you say ‘global warming,’ a certain group of Americans think that’s a code word for progressive liberals, gay marriage and other such issues.”" Funny people, that group of Americans. I think of fellow humans in the third world who once again get to suffer because of our nihilistic, indulgent lifestyles. "Especially because those pushing ‘global warming’ through our collective throats are indeed all progressive liberals (what? Since when do we use progressive liberals to simply describe the loony left?) who want to use ‘global warming’ as a convenient excuse to push through radical plans they dreamed about implementing for years, decades even." I don't want AGW to be pushed down people's throats. I want them to be aware of the facts - then they would gladly swallow without any force involved. There can't be a political debate about science, and there is a scientific consensus about AGW, actually. If people were aware of that I have a feeling they would be concerned for the people in the third world who will be seriously endangered. I want plans that work, I want maximum effect for the environment with minimum effect on globalization and the current functioning of our capitalistic systems. If nature and all the human-inhabited environs of the world could handle the same levels of pollution, I wouldn't care at all. But now it is obvious that, yes, John Qs in Europe and the US have to cut back on their consumption and shift their economies a bit. In short, we have to suffer somewhat so that people who have polluted a fraction of what we have don't have to. It's not my fault that our lifestyles have effect on other people. It's not my fault that the smoke from all our BBQs and partying is drifting over to our neighbors who produce no smoke yet are suffering the effects of our indulgences. Grow up. "Mass media have tried to hide this fact from the public, but critical scientists have succeeded in sharing their views nonetheless." Then they are shot down by much better scientists, but the damage is done because the media is giving kooks and denialists (many in the media are not skeptics - people who looked at the information and reached their position scientifically - but people who hate left-wingers and are incapable of imagining a world where unlimited capitalism causes problems and skew all information to fit that world-view) more airtime than they deserve. This, of course, doesn't stop the denialists (who I cannot approach with good faith, unlike the skeptics who are willing to subject their work to peer review and scrutiny before they chant in front of people) from claiming they are martyrs facing a mob of really mean and nasty "loony leftists" and whatnot. It's interesting - people have prejudices and political paranoia towards people who espouse AGW (considered a fact by about 8/10 of scientists and an even larger segment of climate scientists) but the denialists are just regular chaps who truly care about the science and have no connections to oil companies, neo-liberal fanatics and anti-left hatred.

Garland

Bob : What people don’t realize is that one small volcano can pump more CO2 into the air than 20+ years of car + factory emissions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm

Jason Arvak

there is a scientific consensus about AGW

There is not. There exist hundreds of climate scientists who either fully dissent or retain doubt about AGW. They recently published an open letter to that effect. The claim of "consensus" is itself a political argument presented to the public in spite of its fully-known falsehood by advocates who seek to use the lie to produce the political effect of shutting down all debate and forcing their policy preferences through without discussion. This is ironic since Garland is claiming to want open and non-political debate on this subject. P.S. Links to propaganda videos on YouTube and web sites run by AGW activists are not credible as neutral arbiters of what is and is not truth on this issue.

Garland "There exist hundreds of climate scientists who either fully dissent or retain doubt about AGW. They recently published an open letter to that effect." I bothered to link, didn't I? Falsifiability. "The claim of “consensus” is itself a political argument presented to the public in spite of its fully-known falsehood by advocates who seek to use the lie to produce the political effect of shutting down all debate and forcing their policy preferences through without discussion." http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf FTA: "Among scientists, there's very little doubt. The study's authors breaks it down. Among non-climate scientists and non-publishers, there's a 77%-8% (nearly 10 to 1) agreement (the remaining 15% unsure). 8% is pretty small considering the political implications of the topic. This consensus increases among active published scientists to 89%-3%. Among active climate scientists, it's about 97%-1%. The greatest doubt is held by petroleum geologists (what a surprise)." "This is ironic since Garland is claiming to want open and non-political debate on this subject." Hey, a little faux-sedate sarcasm works too. "Links to propaganda videos on YouTube and web sites run by AGW activists are not credible as neutral arbiters of what is and is not truth on this issue." First: You obviously didn't click the youtube link. Two: You obviously dismissed the site without even looking at their MO. You didn't provide any credible evidence as to why they can be described as activists rather than people who got fed up with the BS and decided to tackle it with their brains. They made the effort to build their house, and unless you bother to make the same effort as them you can't just dismiss it and expect anyone to take you seriously.

Jason Arvak The fact that your author assumes that political bias and business interest are the only POSSIBLE reasons for dissent shows that we are not dealing with an honest or neutral researcher, but rather an unethical one who is pursuing a political agenda under a false guise of scientific inquiry. The fact that the authors of your favored site deem all disagreement to be "BS" is itself proof that they are activists who are intolerant of the give-and-take of the scientific world and prefer the certainty of politicized coercion. You fail again, Garland.

Garland "The fact that your author assumes that political bias and business interest are the only POSSIBLE reasons for dissent shows that we are not dealing with an honest or neutral researcher, but rather an unethical one who is pursuing a political agenda under a false guise of scientific inquiry." He just looked at the numbers - turns out petroleum geologists were outliers. I erred when I said my quote was from the actual pdf - it was by the man who originally linked it and summarized the findings. Do take a look at the actual pdf again. From the orginal linker: "Note this isn't a dubious petition or an Inhofe propaganda press release. It's a scientific peer-reviewed study that compares the view of the public with the view of the scientific community on the issue of global warming and the significant human contribution." FTA: "It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long- term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists." You can dismiss the above all you want without making the effort. Of course, your credibility and seriousness will take a serious hit in my eyes. "The fact that the authors of your favored site deem all disagreement to be “BS” is itself proof that they are activists who are intolerant of the give-and-take of the scientific world and prefer the certainty of politicized coercion." This is just insane - they take the skeptics head on, have a comments section and make an effort to make this about science. It's not their fault that they come to the conclusion that the skeptics are knowingly or unknowingly using BS. They don't "deem" it BS, they find it to be BS - and just because you get cross with the resulting profile of their site doesn't give you credibility when you call them intolerant politicized coercers. Once again, you don't have anything on your feet when you dismiss them or slander them. "You fail again, Garland." I'm bored as well.

Doomed What is Obama doing about it? If its so dire why are we not moving ahead at break neck speed to save the planet? Is it not a contrived "Crisis" to scare Us all into accepting more nanny state solutions? Where is the solution? What is Obama and the Democrats doing about it. These scientists have studied it for decades now. Surely they have ideas.

Tom Garland, "Tom, which voices on AGW have you heard?" Hundreds if not thousands of voices including people on both sides of the debate - that rages on even though it was supposedly over a long time ago - actually. Do you listen to the other side? I have even been to the site you linked to before. I am not going to go into details but I saw things I don't even begin to believe such as the statement the corelation between the sun and climate ended in the 70's. Riiiight. I was born at night but it wasn't last night. You talk about people having preduces while clearly having a few of your own. I think they have a word for that. And by the way, I have no connections to oil companies, neo-liberal fanatics (did you make this up?), etc. and I don't hate the left. I may think they have a mental disorder and I know they are entirely too gullible but I don't hate them.

Garland "If its so dire why are we not moving ahead at break neck speed to save the planet?" Asks the person who gladly spreads absolute bumf about how volcanoes are responsible. "Is it not a contrived “Crisis” to scare Us all into accepting more nanny state solutions?" I don't want any nanny-state solutions. Here, I want the state to act as a serious parent, grab us by the neck and tell us to stop subjecting third-world countries to the effects of our excesses. I don't want to side with the anti-capitalist left-wingers here, but I will if I have to. I say this because this is a scientific issue for all involved. If the solution is liked by left-wingers, so be it. But I just want people to know the facts and then act accordingly, and as long as the denialists are prepared to spread provenly false disinformation (showing that they don't care about people being aware of the science. but only want to spite the other side and keep on believing in the religious notion of unlimited capitalism as infallible and unproblematic) I am prepared to ignore the public and impose a solution (suggested by only credible scientists) instead. "These scientists have studied it for decades now. Surely they have ideas." Yeah, they do. But as I've said before people use the argument that changing our economies will hurt, and won't work perfectly in the goal to stop AGW - that is, the problems of tomorrow are offset by the problem of enacting a non-perfect solution today. The problem is that this argument can be used again and again, until the Maldives are gone and the billions or so in Asia who depend on a stable melting cycle of the glaciers start getting thirsty.

Garland "I am not going to go into details but I saw things I don’t even begin to believe such as the statement the corelation between the sun and climate ended in the 70’s. Riiiight. I was born at night but it wasn’t last night." Well, how's about looking at why they made that statement? Nah, too bothersome - let's just dismiss it rather than challenge it. "You talk about people having preduces while clearly having a few of your own. I think they have a word for that." I have a word for you: Yawn. I made a distinction between genuine skeptics and denialists. The latter let their positions guide their senses rather than the opposite. I made no claims as to which people are skeeptics and which are denialists. "I don’t hate the left. I may think they have a mental disorder and I know they are entirely too gullible but I don’t hate them." Ah, so you don't hate me, you "may" (smooth) just think I have a mental disorder. Yeah, I should totally listen to you in good faith. Actually no, I have no interest in talking to someone who isn't willing to extend basic courtesy and good faith. Retract or consider yourself ignored from now on - I don't have to take your passive-aggressive childishness.

Jason Arvak

I want the state to act as a serious parent

And this gets to the heart of the serious (whether you accept it as such or not) and legitimate (whether you accept it as such or not) philosophical difference between your position and that of both conservatives and moderates. You see the state as a parent ruling over unruly children that don't know what is best for them and can't be trusted to have things explained to them before directing their actions lest they make the "wrong" decision in the eyes of some self-proclaimed elite. Conservatives and many moderates see the state as an occasionally percocious child -- capable at a few things, but dangerous when left unchecked because of its propensity to indulge in behaviors that seem beneficial in the short term but which can be self-destructive or exploitative because the self-proclaimed elite may be self-serving, arrogant, erroneous, or just plain rent-seeking. It may well be that it is necessary to adopt dramatic restructuring in response to AGW. But to insist that debate and discussion over that issue be short-circuited by a politically motivated group of activists posing as the entirety of the scientific community is flatly unacceptable. And the fact that you remain incapable of responding to that objection with anything other than demonization and misrepresentation of those that disagree with you speaks to your own political and intellectual immaturity, Garland, not that of your adversaries.

Garland "You see the state as a parent ruling over unruly children that don’t know what is best for them." I said "Here". That is, on this matter I am not ready to let my fellow citizens continue behaving in a way that will have repercussions for others who do not contribute to AGW and have it bad enough as it is. Analogy: I'm not telling people to stop smoking because that's best for them (let them mess up their own lungs/environments), I'm telling them to cut back because their smoking is having a noticeable and adverse effect on others (like second-hand smoking, only worse). "Conservatives and many moderates see the state as an occasionally percocious child — capable at a few things, but dangerous when left unchecked because of its propensity to indulge in behaviors that seem beneficial in the short term but which can be self-destructive or exploitative." I see the state as a state - it can do some things (sometimes to a degree) and it can't do some things (sometimes to a degree). I think figuring what it can and can't do is a probabilistic issue. "But to insist that debate and discussion over that issue be short-circuited by a politically motivated group of activists posing as the entirety of the scientific community is flatly unacceptable." Good thing these "activists" bother to link to studies and censuses, huh? Nah, let's dismiss that as well. "And the fact that you remain incapable of responding to that objection with anything other than demonization and misrepresentation of those that disagree with you" I bothered to differentiate between skeptics and denialists. I never said that I thought that "political bias and business interest are the only POSSIBLE reasons for dissent" - I was talking about the denialists here, who describe people like me in coarse and slandering language. I also am not the one deciding which site is composed of "politically motivated activists" because I didn't like the cut of their jib - that's all you. "speaks to your own political and intellectual immaturity, Garland, not that of your adversaries." I'm afraid you didn't have anything on your feet here, either.

Jason Arvak

I have no interest in talking to someone who isn’t willing to extend basic courtesy and good faith

OMG, pot, meet kettle! ROFL. Seriously, Garland, once you stop making a ridiculously dishonest caricature out of just about every conservative counter-argument that you encounter, maybe then you can start lecturing people and giving them orders about "basic courtesy and good faith". :P

I’m not telling people to stop smoking because that’s best for them

Yet. From what I heard from a Democratic Congressional leader last week, this particular nanny-state move is planned for the near future under the rubric of health care reform. It will be interesting to see how shamelessly you reverse your position once the official party line is declared for you by the self-appointed liberal elite. Perhaps you won't though. Perhaps you will finally find that line beyond which you won't slavishly follow the leftist talking points. But we haven't seen you recognize such a line yet.

Garland "Seriously, Garland, once you stop making a ridiculously dishonest caricature out of just about every conservative counter-argument that you encounter, maybe then you can start lecturing people and giving them orders about “basic courtesy and good faith”." Isn't this the "but x does it too" argument that we've all agreed is irrelevant in all cases? Next! "From what I heard from a Democratic Congressional leader last week, this particular nanny-state move is planned for the near future under the rubric of health care reform." In what way will smoking be attempted to be curbed? "It will be interesting to see how shamelessly you reverse your position once the official party line is declared for you by the self-appointed liberal elite. " That actually depends on what step they take to curb smoking, and why. I am interested in discussing things on that level, because I don't see smokers as *teh evul*, nor do I see hippie statists behind every corner.

Tom HAHAHAHA Retract or consider myself ignored? Ignore away. It should come easy.

Doomed Asks the person who gladly spreads absolute bumf about how volcanoes are responsible. Come on. The Democrats are totally in charge. Its their game. The GOP are not even allowed into committees to make legislation. If its a crisis of worldwide proportions that the Democrats and those on the left claim why is not Obama and the democrats scrambling with a fervor to fix it??? Why are they not chicken littling us with it? They did with the economy. They did with the bail outs. They did with AIG. They did with the Swine flu. Nary a peep about Global warming. Perhaps they know something we dont???

Doomed Here, I want the state to act as a serious parent, grab us by the neck and tell us to stop subjecting third-world countries to the effects of our excesses. I don’t want to side with the anti-capitalist left-wingers here, but I will if I have to. This is exactly what a nanny state does....Tells us what is best for us. Garland the problem with your entire argument is that everyone in the civilized world realizes that the US is one of the most responsible nations on earth when it comes to pollution and global warming despite not subjecting ourselves to kyoto. Speaking of which. Why hasnt the Obama administration signed the Kyoto treaty? Might they not agree with Bush that it would penalize the US way to serverly while simply closing a blind eye to the worlds largest polluter? China. America is the solution. Not the problem and your arguments really are out of date now. Even the GW crowd realizes that the ills of the planet are not the USA's fault but rather China, India and Eastern Europe now as they emerge from the dark ages into the industrialized era.

Tom "I want the state to act as a serious parent, grab us by the neck and tell us to stop subjecting third-world countries to the effects of our excesses." Would that be the same "state" that is now spending more than all previous presidencies from George Washington to George Bush combined? Your excesses leave our excesses so far in the dirt it isn't funny. And they somehow think we can spend our way out of debt. I don't think they even begin to resemble good parents.

Doomed November 20, 2008....In a landmark speech, the next president pledges to revive Kyoto Protocol and end American isolationism over climate change We all know that Obama and the democrats condemned Bush for his stance on Kyoto as destroying the world. March 2, 2009 Globe and Mail reports......As today's editorial in the Globe and Mail notes, last week President Barack Obama proposed reducing U.S. carbon emissions by 14 per cent relative to 2005 levels. Since, in 2005, U.S. emissions were about 15% above 1990 levels, he's effectively proposing to return the U.S. to its carbon footprint of 2005 and not 1990, rather than to reduce emissions by 5%. And he's proposing to do so by 2020 - not by 2012, as it had agreed to at Kyoto. In other words the Democrats who fear mongered us with the end of the world via Global Warming led by Barak Obama who incidently voted against the Kyoto repeatedly from 1998-2004 as a state senator from Illinois....Realizes as does most other rational people "Its all a scare tactic by the left to nanny state us with punitive regulation on those evil corporations" Even Obama now realizes those evil corporations provide most of the jobs and health care in America. Time to look at other arguments.

Mike As someone who grew up in a conservative household, and is today mostly conservative, for a long time I took the global warming skeptic position by default. But then I heard the "we can't predict the weather tomorrow, how would be predict it hears from now?" argument one too many times to make me question the side I was on. (or how about this one: http://sovereignmind.wordpress.com/2009/04/24/worst-possible-sunday-interview/). I decided to research it myself. I read arguments from both sides, went back and forth, and found myself over my head, as is to be expected when one tries to become an expert at something that takes other people years of study. I eventually came to the conclusion that I either needed a degree in climatology, or I should defer to the experts. For the sake of my family and my existing career, I chose the latter. I respect the scientists that draw from their expertise to argue against man-made global warming. I hope they are right and I wish them luck at convincing their fellow scientists so that we don't spend resources fighting a problem that doesn't exist. In the meantime, as a non-climatologist, it would be irresponsible of me to pick and choose which scientists I will use to support my claims. The only responsible action for me is to follow the majority opinion among scientists. Citing a few dissenters is not enough for me to abandon the majority of scientists that agree, just because the dissenters view is more convenient for me politically. What concerns me about the debate in this thread is how quickly it became political. I don't blame just conservatives for politicizing this issue, of course. Al Gore's movie was a horrendous piece of propaganda and fear mongering, in my opinion, going far beyond the science. But how does, for example, Obama's handling of the issue have anything to do with the scientific debate? Clearly there is a scientific debate and a political debate, and I think we can all agree that the political debate should have no weight on the scientific debate. I think the most relevant piece of information is Garland's quoting of statistics on the percentage of climatologists that believe global warming is happening and is man made, which is in line with what's I have heard as well. One is going out on a pretty thin branch to question the vast majority of climatologists (and most other scientists) on an issue in their own field. So I can come to no other conclusion than that global warming is almost certainly happening, and is humans are very probably contributing significantly. Now, with that said, there is certainly room for political and scientific debate: how bad will things get exactly? What can we do about it and what are the consequences of those actions?

Michael Linn Jones In the 1930's, Harry Hopkins was testifying before a Senate committee about what was then referred to as "relief." As Franklin Roosevelt's point man on a federal response to the Great Depression, Hopkins had to overcome what was called the "conventional wisdom." A senator asked Hopkins if it were not true that eventually the economy would right itself, that in the long run things would get better (therefore negating the argument for social security, unemployment insurance, etc.). Hopkins replied, "That's true senator, but people have to eat in the short run." As Mike pointed out how quickly politics surfaces within a scientific debate, so does the common thread of fear. Shouting "fire!" while pushing people in a certain direction is quite effective in getting people moving. However, if those doing the shouting keep changing the direction of their shoving then the alarm loses its effectiveness. Twenty years ago we were told (by Al Gore, amongst others) that CFC's, those refrigerants we all took for granted, were killing the ozone layer. It was critical; the world was going to end, etc. In other words, "fire!" So, the government put the screws to refrigerant manufacturers (mainly Dupont) and voila! HFC's were developed. It was (of course) more expensive. New equipment was required and poor folks in warmer climes had to adjust. And suffer if they didn't have the means or income to switch. But....in the long run the grand adjustment was made. Now HFC's are a killer too. They are 10,000 worse than CO2 for global warming. Soomething must be done. Now. Fire!! As regards politics and science, what about politics and legislation? GW cannot be addressed without it. I live several miles from the Duke Energy coal-fired plant in Cliffside, NC that is being built. Bad thing, right? But guess what? As part of Comrade Chairman Henry Wasman's Climate legislation, Duke Energy took part in endorsing Waxman's overall plan. Which resulted in Duke getting an exemption for....the Cliffside plant. Everybody is happy but the fact remains that the CO2 gushing plant will be completed and spewing forth for years to come. Large corporations want their profits, and the Waxmans of the world want their nanny-state control. That is all we will get from the current "debate." Before dismantling the current resources of energy use, it might behoove someone to undertake a true, viable alternative such as polywell fusion technology. It's not a panacea, but would provide the energy needs for the entire planet while leaving the coal and oil in the ground. That's the long run. The short run still means people have to eat and have some control on their personal climate. Demanding (and preaching) that the evils of the First World nations must be stamped out by forcing a much lower standard of living is literally insane.

Doomed But how does, for example, Obama?s handling of the issue have anything to do with the scientific debate? Mike because it was the democrats. It was Obama himself who were saying were all going to die if we dont act now and act quickly and he has done nothing. In fact I pointed out that he has even lightened up on the guidelines Bush enacted and allowed the US to pollute even more then before. Perhaps they know more then we do huh? But even beyond that. Global Warming may or may not be happening. Whats relevant is that the worldwide proponents of Global Warming all point fingers at the USA and blame it all on the US when the facts of the matter are that the USA is exporting technology to curb emmissions and pollution. That the US is perhaps the most responsible overall in trying as safely as possible to make this world a better environment with little help from the rest of the world. I do not oppose Global Warming proponents and their ideas of making the world a better place. What I oppose is this incessant need by the proponents to continue to blame the US for everything when all one has to do is look at China, India and Eastern Europe and conclude that we are not the problem. We are the solution. Pollution is a world wide problem and has been for years. So in my conclusion I say that the democrats who were crying "Crisis" when they were out of power are now strangely silent on the whole thing. Even Al Gore hasnt popped up every 15 minutes claiming "Crisis". So why is it political? You really, honestly would have to ask the proponents of Global Warming.

Garland "Global Warming may or may not be happening." False. "Whats relevant is that the worldwide proponents of Global Warming all point fingers at the USA and blame it all on the US when the facts of the matter are that the USA is exporting technology to curb emmissions and pollution." No question the US is providing important research and technology. No question it has contributed more than its fair share of greenhouse gases either. "That the US is perhaps the most responsible overall in trying as safely as possible to make this world a better environment with little help from the rest of the world." I'm afraid that unless Obama manages to set the US on a course towards lower emissions the US' contribution will be dwarfed by its total excess output of CO2. "What I oppose is this incessant need by the proponents to continue to blame the US for everything when all one has to do is look at China, India and Eastern Europe and conclude that we are not the problem." Yes, those nations are increasing emissions. But the US total per capita is immense in comparison to their CO2 emissions over time.

Doomed Garland Late last month, some leading climatologists and meteorologists met in New York at the Energy Business Watch Climate and Hurricane Forum. The theme of the forum strongly suggested that a period of global cooling is about emerge, though possible concerns for a political backlash kept it from being spelled out. However, the message was loud and clear, a cyclical global warming trend may be coming to an end for a variety of reasons, and a new cooling cycle could impact the energy markets in a big way. Your message is outdated. As I suggested before you might want to update your message with the newest round of facts. It looks like Global warming is OUT....Global Cooling is in.

Garland "The theme of the forum strongly suggested that a period of global cooling is about emerge, though possible concerns for a political backlash kept it from being spelled out." Hot beans! I presume all their work has been presented in a peer-reviewed scientifically sound format that truly poses a challenge for people who hold a different viewpoint. Just link away, man, don't be scared. You say this kind of stuff is kept on the hush-hush, yet I always hear skeptics like you say that "some scientists and others" at "that get-together" totally dealt a harsh blow to my position. I don't listen to the MSM when I read about AGW, of course, so you can't say that the reason I don't hear about these totally credible conferences is because of this fabled censorship you skeptics always use as an excuse for your lack of attention. "It looks like Global warming is OUT….Global Cooling is in." I'm going to go fetch a glass of milk so I can illustratively snort milk out of my nose when I reread your silly little propaganda line. See, my latest batch of facts was from 2008, and it showed that all the people that should be listened to here (that is, the people who have actually done their work) smash your position to the ground 9 to 1. Then you say that the latest update is global cooling, and that you can say this because these guys at this supposed conference have somehow accumulated an impeccable body of work of such width and depth that it overturns my latest batch of data. http://www.skepticalscience.com/heading-into-new-little-ice-age.htm Here, compare your super-impressive batch of data to the *work* and *information* provided by these guys. You have a choice here - come off as yet another denialist who pretends to be a skeptic, or look into the dang issue and actually compare the contrasting voices.

Doomed Approximately 15,000 years ago the earth had warmed sufficiently to halt the advance of glaciers, and sea levels worldwide began to rise. By 8,000 years ago the land bridge across the Bering Strait was drowned, cutting off the migration of men and animals to North America. Since the end of the Ice Age, Earth's temperature has risen approximately 16 degrees F and sea levels have risen a total of 300 feet! Forests have returned where once there was only ice. Drink all the milk you want Garland. The facts are simple. Al Gore got even richer scaring YOU and people like you. Now your all running around worshipping scientists. Let me share a lil story. My ma got sick. (Ya good ole ma.)She went to the Hospital. I always thought they had a pill for everything. There was not much science could do for her. The doctors were pretty much relegated to having discussions and shaking their heads. They actually started arguing over what was wrong with my mother. They decided to throw the kitchen sink at her. Test after test after test said this and that and it said nothing. The results were analyzed by a dozen SCIENTISTS who saw the same numbers. They came up with a dozen different conclusions. Moral of my story. Scientists look at the data and they really dont know squatt. One thing we all can agree on. The earth is warming up. Duh you think? Now if past performance is any indication of future expectations all this smog in the atmosphere will cause the planet to cool. Thats a no brainer. Id much rather have global warming and hang out on the beach then have global cooling and hang out with polar bears.

Garland Everything you wrote is bad and you should feel bad. Either bother actually refuting what I've presented to you, or stop expecting to be taken seriously. Disagreeing is one thing, but you insist on throwing UNO cards at my face when I am playing Othello, calling me a sap and whatnot.

Doomed Everything you wrote is bad and you should feel bad. I Should feel bad for posting simple truths? I have dealt a harsh blow to your position? The simple truth is that this planet has gone thru significant climate events just in the last 6500 years. Significant. Long before man started polluting the planet with co2. What does the planet do when it receives an abundance of co2 and needs to cleanse itself? It cools, ices up and produces glaciers to cover up all the foilage that has stored Co2 and died. Covering up the foilage prevents its release until the co2 itself breaks down into its harmless components of Carbon and Oxygen. The planet warms and is once again healthy. Most of the scientist that I respect believe the planet is indeed warming. Its a natural occurance. Historically an ice age occurs every 20,000 years. The last one was 18,000 years ago. Its time for the next one. Mankind might just actually speed it up by a bit but its inevitable. Global warming is on the way out and trust me on this. Global cooling in on the way back. And if all else fails......do what Bill Maher does.......he blames it on corn farmers. I feel so bad for revealing scientific truths to you. My geology buddies are sitting her laughing at your post. No Im not a professor. We just love to express scientific evidence and then let them silly climate guys try and figure out what to do with the facts so they can keep getting their endowments and grants.

Garland "I Should feel bad for posting simple truths?" No, you are saying whatever comes to mind without bothering to actually test it. I can say I can juggle fifteen apples at once - that doesn't make it a simple truth. "The simple truth is that this planet has gone thru significant climate events just in the last 6500 years. Significant. Long before man started polluting the planet with co2." http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm Here's something for you. You're obviously up to the task of fisking these guys. Come on, look at what they have to say: "The usual drivers of natural climate change have shown little to no warming trend since the 70's." You and your buddies, budding scientists as you are, obviously can't have any of that silliness go unchallenged or untested. Go on and click that link. Do some work to refute that so you can make a credible counter-claim, like real scientists. "What does the planet do when it receives an abundance of co2 and needs to cleanse itself? It cools, ices up and produces glaciers to cover up all the foilage that has stored Co2 and died. Covering up the foilage prevents its release until the co2 itself breaks down into its harmless components of Carbon and Oxygen. The planet warms and is once again healthy." Except. You know. The planet doesn't have a brain or homeostatic detectors like us humans. CO2 traps heat. Making stuff warmer. How can the planet just decide to cool itself spontaneously? Glaciers can't grow bigger when it's warmer. "The planet warms and is once again healthy." The planet warms. When the CO2 disappears. Where do you go to school? "Most of the scientist that I respect believe the planet is indeed warming." Most of the scientist? What does the remaining part of the scientist think, and why do you only respect part of him/her? I'm surprised you managed to find one scientist who subscribes to your religion. "Historically an ice age occurs every 20,000 years." http://www.skepticalscience.com/heading-into-new-little-ice-age.htm The closest thing to a scientific consensus on solar prediction comes from the Solar Cycle Prediction Panel, consisting of members of NASA, NOAA, ISES and other US and International representatives. In March 2007, they released a consensus statement for the amplitude of the upcoming cycle 24. Their position: "In light of the expected long interval until the onset of Cycle 24, the Prediction Panel has been unable to resolve a sufficient number of questions to reach a single, consensus prediction for the amplitude of the cycle. The deliberations of the panel supported two possible peak amplitudes for the smoothed International Sunspot Number (Ri): Ri = 140 ±20 and Ri = 90 ±10." In other words, cycle 24 may be larger or smaller. The cycle is expected to begin in early 2008 and predictions are largely speculative until it begins. The one thing we do know is when Solar Cycle 24 begins, the warming sun will add to the global warming trend as it heads towards solar maximum, nearly doubling the projected temperature rise from greenhouse gases from 2008 to 2012 (Camp 2007). Predicting solar cycles further into the future is even more speculative. A recent paper Grand minima and maxima of solar activity: New observational constraints (Usoskin 2007) found solar variations are defined by chaotic processes, casting significant doubts on long-term predictions using multi-periodic analyses. The sun is currently in a period of "grand maxima" where activity is higher than usual. Usoskin 2007 found the termination of a grand maximum is a random process. In other words, the timing of when the sun will start cooling from it's current 'grand maximum' state is random and hence prediction is problematic. "Global warming is on the way out and trust me on this." If you and your friends told me the sun would rise tomorrow I would have stocked up on heating oil and insulation for my house. You have, seriously, only said unfounded, unsourced and therefore non-credible things throughout. Your impression so far is pathetic. "We just love to express scientific evidence and then let them silly climate guys try and figure out what to do with the facts so they can keep getting their endowments and grants." Your production of evidence so far has been... Zero. Your studying so far has led you to completely misrepresent the CO2 emissions from volcanic eruptions and has also made you viscerally afraid of clicking a link and meeting sourced statements with any kind of reasoning or references to disputing information. You and your friends should ask for your tuition fees back.

Doomed Garland you really dont know much about this stuff do you? You might begin by reading T.C. Chamberlain. Oh don't worry hes dead. He doesnt have a dog in the fight. He might just inform you as to how high Co2 levels will bring about an ice age and a cooling of the planet. I would take the time to explain it to you but you would just scour the internet to find some scientist who is dubious about Ocean currents, salinity levels and co2 saturation. Perhaps you can look at the supersaturation of lakes and see that the worlds lakes are now becoming souces of Co2 emmission rather then sequestering of Co2. This means simply that the ocean once thought to store Co2 will soon become an emitter of co2 resulting in tidal shifts. These shifts will result in the warm moist air coming up from the south that warms the northern hemisphere will no longer arrive and thus the northern hemisphere will cool and voilla..........ice age. Perhaps it wont. But one thing is for sure. I know a hell of a lot more about global warming then you do and I believe there is absolutely nothing we can do about it because every lake in the world is nearly supersaturated with co2 and as a result their is going to be a gold rush of co2 into the atmosphere creating a super shift in ocean currents bringing us into a great freeze. This planet has survived 5 billion years just fine thank you very much. Nothing so trivial as human beings are going to shut it down now.

Doomed And incidently you are accusing me of something I have never said. Your studying so far has led you to completely misrepresent the CO2 emissions from volcanic eruptions ...........I never once even mentioned this in this or any other topic. Predicting solar cycles further into the future is even more speculative.......I never once talked about solar cycles in this discussion or any discussion about AGW at Poligazette. You are projecting into this conversation every argument you have ever had about AGW. Perhaps your just cutting and pasting responses. The planet warms. When the CO2 disappears. Where do you go to school? ....Ill let this one slide as hopefully you will open your mind a little bit and go do some of your own research on just how heating and cooling of the planet really works. Hint try studying a little oceanography. Oh and incidently I don't have a problem with the website your linking. You have projected on to me the belief that I do not believe the world is warming. I do in fact believe its warming. I do however also believe that there is absolutely nothing that can be done about it. Nothing. That does not mean I am against smog and pollution controls and anything that is non punitive that will make the world a better place. I just simply responded to the fact that you and every other AGW proponent wants to blame the USA for everything.

Doomed Here, compare your super-impressive batch of data to the *work* and *information* provided by these guys. You have a choice here - come off as yet another denialist who pretends to be a skeptic, or look into the dang issue and actually compare the contrasting voices. This is the reason we are laughing at you Garland. Skeptical Science was created by John Cook, an ex-physicist (majoring in solar physics at the University of Queensland)........this was taken from his about page and written by himself about why the site your quoting was created. Okay An EX physicist majoring in solar physics. Now Im not sure what that means but many of his articles seem to go off on solar tangents. Now of course that doesnt disqualify him from being somewhat of an expert. I respect anyone who is passionate enough about a subject to do the work he has done however...... THESE GUYS....turns out to be one ex solar physics major and by his wording never even seemed to graduate from the college. I dont know. Im just saying maybe find a better source then one college drop out with a website? I dont know....Im not saying, Im just saying.

Scott unless you have any credit behind your garbage statements, don't say things like... "What people don’t realize is that one small volcano can pump more CO2 into the air than 20+ years of car + factory emissions." ...thats the problem with all of the skeptics. its easy to avoid the whole topic, probably because it wont make any major difference before you're dead. 2,500 scientists can say that global warming is happening, trying to actually see some changes, and then people like you come up with some uneducated statement that throws off people who are actually doing research. @Bob

Doomed Scott How do you account for the core samples drilled to 450,000 years in the past that showed inordinate amounts of Co2 in the samples that corresponded with an increase in global warming? Where did this co2 come from? The problem scott is that if global warming is occuring then there is absolutely nothing man can do about it. We can stop driving. Shut down the factories and guess what. Aint gonna matter because the CO2 in the lakes and ocean is ample enough to kick in the global warming which will melt the ice which will rise the oceans which will cause the oceans currents to shift which will cause the earth to cool, which will cause the glacial age, which will cause the earth to cover up and sequester the CO2 that is in lakes and forests until the carbon and oxygen can be broken down, which will then cause the earth to heat back up using solar cycles, which will cause the earth to grow back to its pre ice age condition. Lets see if this all happened in your lifetime you would be ohh say 20,000 years old when it finished. In other words. Im all for pollution controls and attempt at making this world a healthier place but there is absolutely NOTHING we can do to fix global warming. Nothing at all. Its the way of the planet to take care of itself and nothing vain mankind can do will fix it. We are stewards of the planet and I think we owe it to ourselves to maintain as healthy an environment as we can but fixing global warming? Dream on.

Scott Doomed I respect that you have at least some research under your belt but you can't say that all of it is accurate. I'm not talking about the natural cycles that earth goes through, its obvious that over the course of thousands of years that earth's temperature has gone through major changes but the global warming, or 'climate change' that scientists are talking about is related to the 1.4 degree change in the earth's temperature since the industrial revolution about 250 years ago. As for the comment on '20,000 years': that was when the last ice age occured, and once again 20,000 years is a lot different than 250. And as far as people saying "what is a 2 degree difference going to make?" WE as humans have no problem adapting to major changes but the environment we, as well as millions of species we share earth with cannot. Phytoplankton (sp?) will die off within a very limited degree change and thousands of species rely on them to survive which feed the rest of the aquatic food chain. And as far as us not being able to do anything...its proven that CO2 traps heat, its also proven that CO2 is converted to oxygen by plants. anyone with a basic understanding of how that relates to our world would understand that maybe we shouldn't increase CO2 and decrease the plants that convert it back for us?

Scott Oh and I forgot to adress your first arguement. The earth was its warmest when it was made up of over 95% CO2, 4.6 billion years ago during its formation. of course previous times in history have been warmer and yes, the earth will recover...but you have to take into account that life for humans, plants and animals even just 450,000 years ago is much different than today. organisms develop adaptations to their environment over the climate changes of thousands of years. a 250 year span for adaptations to develop isn't realistic. and i'm not sure what you meant by your comment on lakes and the ocean? if you haven't educated yourself on that process yet, the ocean and lakes absorb CO2, which acidifies the water, also killing off organisms we depend on. Currents in the water have nothing to do with cooling earth back down. Currents may change the weather we experience, making ecosystems warmer or cooler but as far as the earth magically cooling down because these currents change their course...? Dream on.

Doomed Lakes absorb co2. They act as filters for the earth. Recent studies have shown that the worlds lakes are nearing supersatuarion of co2. What does that mean. It means they can no longer hold any more co2 or scrub it from the atmosphere which means the warming that we are experiencing is being caused by less and less co2 being removed from the air. The ice age ascends trapping all this co2 within lakes until it can be broken down to its components. Its earths way. The last ice age was 18,000 years ago. We are heading for the next Ice age. So again I return to my point that there is nothing that can be done to prevent global warming. Is man responsible for the 1.4 degree shift in temperature? Perhaps. But rather it be yes or no that is besides the point. The point is simple the earth does not want mankind around. Just as it wiped the dinosaurs it will wipe us. Unless we ascend to the stars mans future is indeed bleak.

Scott So back to the point, regardless of whether or not the lakes are "full" of CO2 yet, does that make it okay just to keep driving money into the industries that produce billions of tons of it every year and cutting down massive forests that take in the CO2, all because all skeptics have a lazy "its too late" or "its natural" attitude? No. Earth, being the only planet in our solar system that can be a host for humans and life that we know of, is irreplaceable. "The point is simple the earth does not want mankind around" is quite a bold statement considering human remains have been found as old as 1.3 million years. If that was the case dont you think earth would've done something a little sooner? The manmade shift in temperature IS the point. As you stated, we are headed for a cooling period...if so, why is the temperature increasing? We're disrupting earth's process. and once again, regardless of if CO2 increasing is a natural process, why help it out? we have the knowledge to maintain our environment, yet we destroy it...

Garland "As you stated, we are headed for a cooling period…" This isn't completely easy to predict. Even if it was a dead cert the effect of our CO2 would be bigger than the effect of another Maunder minimum.

Scott I was using his statement as a counter arguement, to point out that even if he can predict the future as he says, we shouldn't be warming up during a cooling period.

Doomed yet, does that make it okay just to keep driving money into the industries that produce billions of tons of it every year and cutting down massive forests that take in the CO2, NO as I stated above.....We are stewards of the planet and I think we owe it to ourselves to maintain as healthy an environment as we can but fixing global warming? Dream on. comment 37. Additionally: I do in fact believe its warming. I do however also believe that there is absolutely nothing that can be done about it. Nothing. That does not mean I am against smog and pollution controls and anything that is non punitive that will make the world a better place. comment 34 I simply have been pointing out that scientific evidence points to a warming trend. Core samples drilled in the arctic show that CO2 build ups preceed a global warming. Of course. But where does the CO2 come from prior to the industrial age or prior to mans arrival on the planet? We know from biology that growing trees produce oxygen. Mature trees do not. Therefore it is important that wildfires burn off the mature trees and then nature replaces these trees with saplings which grow and growing trees are an abundant source of Oxygen. Did the past global warming events have a scenario where forest fires did not clear out old trees and hence the co2 was not adequately replaced with oxygen? Global warmings are followed closely by a global cooling. It is possible that this global warming is being hurried along which to me means that the first big event we have with the erruption of a massive volcanoe or a super volcano will most likely be the tipping point. The precipice.

Scott Comment 40. "The last ice age was 18,000 years ago. We are heading for the next Ice age." During planet Earth's formation there was little to no oxygen present. Plants USE CO2, therefore plants can thrive in an environment with abundant CO2. Oxygen was produced through plants. Natural fires, weather, volcanic activity, animal and human life are all contributing factors to additional CO2 or a cut in oxygen production, in turn causing natural climate change over thousands of years. (If there are not forest fires to kill off old trees that don't produce oxygen, they are still there, preventing the growth of healthy, young trees); people believe climate change is natural and it wont kill off millions of species if it hasn't before. Global warming is followed by global cooling (or ice ages) All of that makes sense. The part that people obviously don't see is the rate at which the temperature is increasing and that there ARE things that can be done about it. Over the past 250 years we've seen an increase that should have happened over a lot longer period of time, giving species time to adapt and live accordingly through generations. This time crunch is making it impossible for nature to work its ways and allow the survival of millions of species. ********************************************************** -CO2 traps heat. -Humans are producing billions of tons more of CO2 every year. -Plants reduce CO2 and create oxygen. -Humans are cutting down millions of acres of forests every year ...it is not a coincidence that temperatures are now increasing at a much faster rate than they preivously have. ********************************************************** anyone who cannot see the simple correlation between the two are either blinded by ignorance or the unwillingness to accept that we are ruining our earth.

Doomed “The point is simple the earth does not want mankind around” is quite a bold statement considering human remains have been found as old as 1.3 million years. If that was the case dont you think earth would’ve done something a little sooner? No. 1.3 million years is a blink of the cosmic eye. There have been several super volcanoes over the course of Global history. Each of these events has created genetic bottlenecks if you will which have resulted in the mass extinctions of species. Its earths way. The Eruption of Toba 74,000 years ago is one such genetic event that actually benefited mankind and allowed him to fully reach his current potential that he might not otherwise have reached. Ill leave it to you to study that event.

Scott Okay, so regardless...humans are still around, and have been for quite some time. And even if earth does hate humans, that has nothing to do with the impact humans are having on earth...?

Doomed No I didnt say Earth hates humans. Im thinking more along the lines that Earth and man are not compatible. Earth is a hostile environment and man tends to think in terms of homo centrism. Or that man is the center of the universe or the center of at least the earths focus when in reality Earth is going to do its own thing regardless of what man does to try and change that. Mankind is doomed. We will not survive unless we somehow move to the stars. That is not the Earth hating man. That is reality of the overwhelming forces of nature and cosmic awareness. The sun will burn out...Man will die. Their will be a cataclysmic event such as a very large asteroid that will kill 99 percent of all species of Earth. A supervolcano such as Yellowstone or the one that exploded in California will blot out the sun for decades creating famine of such proportions that mankind will literally die out to the tune of 90 percent decimation. Earth does not hate man. Earth simply does what it does and mankind is a fragile leaf blowing in the cosmic wind. We are a virus to the earth and the immune system of the earth will cleanse itself of the virus known as man. Man is destined for the stars or extinction. Either way this world should be focusing its resources on space exploration and not fighting wars with each other but then that just points to the stupidity of many different viruses all fighting for the resources of the same host. Truly only the strong survive.