A very well written unresearched article in my opinion. The question is not whether or not there is global warming, but whether human being are causing it particularly through c02 emmissions.aThis is highly debatable. In fact over 400 scientists met in New York just last week denouncing that that c02 is the cause. BBC also aired a documentary last year with numerous climatologists all saying that it was a hoax. I am not a born again christin, nor a right wing republican. I do however question Mr. Gore's assertions, particularly when he has no problem with a 30,000 dollar electric bill that he had on his residence last year. Just a wee bit hypocritical in my humble opinion.

Not only is their considerable debate on this issue still, I find it amazing that so many of the folks that do claim that global warming is being caused by carbon dioxide emissions to say that the debate is over, it is not by a long shot.

I personally believe that most of this is being perpetrated by people that want global government, particularly by people such as Maurice Strong, I wonder if you have researched him! As he is one of the world's leading proponent of it.

You know, if I had seaside property I would be worried about the environment too.

It sure would be nice if we could get past the global warming debate and start to focus on the real issues at hand. I never understood what the harm is in caring for the planet and slowing down our consumption of resources. I certainly don't want to be closed minded about having an open discussion concerning global warming. But at some point the discussion should lead to a pursuit of factual knowledge. So, what if global warming didn't happen? Well then there is no harm. And, what if it does? Then, I think we all know the answer. I am not willing to take the risk of being wrong. Too much is at stake for future generations.

The Evangelical Christian right has no part in the questioning of anthropogenic global warming. The term is used in this article as a feeble attempt to denigrate the opposing view. When I came to that point in the article I stopped reading because the author had destroyed his credibility.

Sarcasm Alert: I counted 24 instances of the word "warming" in this article, and 8 instances of the word "Christian." Anthony, will an essential part of the "final solution" be the development of an eco-friendly gas chamber?

It might have been a good article, if you hadn't launched so many personal attacks against the Christians. People are generally not influenced by articles that attack them on a personal level.

The main problem with this article = putting aside all the petty technical ones - is that the author has no idea what he's talking about. He doesn't understand where the objections to the global warming movement come from, the basis for those objections or who the actual people objecting are. Instead of addressing the real issues he sets up the straw man of some sort of bizarro Christian anti-science conspiracy and attacks that as if it really existed, when it does not.

Real opposition to the global warming movement comes from people who are concerned about issues of national sovereignty and individual liberty and scientific empiricism. For most the problem is not with global warming as science, it's with the politicization of the issue, where it is being used as a power grab by internationalist interests and where it has become an absolutist religion where no dissent or even scientific inquiry into the issue will be tolerated.

Dave

I'm guessing there are atheists, Christians (I personally know whose company is trying to get funding for wind-generated turbines he helped develop), Jews and Buddhists who have good ideas that would wean the US from its dependence on oil. This is a goal that would be good for the US from a foreign policy (and because the US is an empire, global) standpoint, and arguably good for the world ecologically.

Unified efforts require unity.

I'm glad I generated the discussion with this piece. The point was to get past the science debate where we examined very small factors and argue over 1/10 of a degrees. I wanted to examine the idea that it seems ridiculous to argue against conservation and that is it corporate America, using the Christian right as their prosititues per usual, leading the march against it and I'm not finding anyone really repudiating that.

Like it or not the Christian Right is tied in with this argument. Their anti-stem cell, anti-global warming, anti-science stances have been ruining this planet ever since Gallello. If you don't believe me google the environmental policy of the Bush Administration, also known as "The Dominion Theory."

The interesting thing in these comments that I did not see was a counterpoint. The writer is insulted, the article called inflammatory, but this is where the substance stops.

"national sovereignty and individual liberty and scientific empiricism."

National soverignty? individual liberty --- to what? pollute? Scientific emperiricism? Well, I guess I go back to our old friend Gallello. The world is flat! The world is flat!

On one final not, Christian right, i'm sorry. I'm sorry ever Republican pimps you out every four to eight years. I'm sorry you ignorantly come out and vote time and time again and get nothing in return. I know you had high hopes for G.W.; he seemed like one of your guys. And then all of a sudden no gay marriage ammendment, no overturning Rowe v Wade; what happened?

Good job guys, good debate.

*note, *every

Still getting use to this online posting stuff. Really appreciate the comments again guys. Thanks for reading.

Anthony,

the church of Global Warming is no different than any other faith based control mechanism. Its goal is to centralize as much power as possible. The tenets of the 'faith' are unimportant. It could be global cooling as was proselytized in the early 70's. Or it could be CFC's which is an older theory not thrown out there so much these days. The actual beliefs are unimportant as long as they cause fear and action.


Here is an overly optimistic quote concerning the Skeptics Conference:

"This is their chance to speak out," said Bast. "If 400 or 500 'skeptics' from around the world assemble in New York City, it will be difficult for policymakers and journalists to ignore us."

I think the media was able to ignore them just fine.

Irene,

I missed your comment and wanted to address it. On the unity aspect you are absolutely correct. Only when we get everyone on board will we truely work towards making the planet healthy.

I am actually a Christian, believe it or not, and I know there are many Christians doing phenominal things to help the environment and people. The "Christan Right" and the "Evangelicals" are referenced -- in this piece -- as they are in the current political climate; as the fantatical group led by Fallwell and all his kooks, screaming from the pulpit and Bob Jones "University."

Again, while it is true that all need to be involved in the battle to save the earth, when a group regularly preaches that science is constantly wrong and uses terms likes scientific empiricism (why can't a process like evolution be so complicated and powerful that God created it?), they are harming the rest of the population by holding back advancement.

This article is a crock. The AGW proponents have based their claim on four points.

1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
2. Since 1880 CO2 has been going up and so has the temperature.
3. Ice Core studies have shown that CO2 and temperature go in lock step for the past 400,000 years or so.
4. There are no other possible reasons for the warming.

Although the first point is true, the other ones have been shown to be false.

2. From 1940 to 1975 even though CO2 was increasing, the was a global cooling.
3. Better Ice Core studies have shown that temperature goes up first and then 2-8 hundred years later, CO2 goes up (ocean heat up and give off CO2). Cause cannot follow effect, it must preceed it.
4. Sunspot activity impedes cosmic rays from reaching earth. Cosmic rays have been shown to cause cloud formation. Therefore when there is a lot of sunspot, there will be fewer clouds and higher temperatures.

I have never hear any evangelicals talk about these things. This is just a left wing strawman attack. CO2 is not pollution, but a trace gas absolutely essential for life. In fact as science looks for possible life on other planets they look for the presence of CO2.

It's a complete waste of time to formulate a logical rebuttal to rantings of a true believer, but we're all still here I suppose. Naivety and ignorance abound throughout the article but let me just touch on a couple of points.

"And if this threat is scare propaganda, what exactly is the endgame for the left?"

Are you f-ing blind? What IS the sole goal and the very definition of the left?.... Getting government in control of the individual and industry. Does the 'answer' to global warming achieve those goals? Put your two brain cells together and even you can figure it out.

"when you ask a global warming non-believer this general line of questioning they will most likely launch into some 'pseudo-scientific' diatribe about warming cycles and how the earth has always been heated in small increments, ect. "

Translation: Opponents to catastrophic warming want to discuss scientific facts and I being the high priest of the religion of the environment will hear nothing of this heresy. There's nothing 'psuedo-scientific' about the 400ft rise in sea lvl since the last ice age (only 18K years ago), the 15 degree warming over northern Europe in 50 years when coming out of the Younger-Dryas, or any of the other comparisons one can make to put this 1 degree in 150 years and 5 inches of sea level rise in perspective. Those are scientific facts.

Then there's calling CO2 a pollutant (in which case the word pollutant is meaningless because it includes literally everything), gratitous personal attacks against christians, and the world's biggest strawman (congrats). Unfortunately, I'll leave the rebuttal to those with more time and patience for this nonsense.

Ok so environmentalists that are trying to get the world to adhere to emissions stardards are really just trying to create conditions where its possible for the government take over big business? Yeah...its funny you should mention the rantings of a "true believer."

Here's an idea: We could Bush's disgusting war and use the multiple trillions saved to give corporations massive tax cuts. I bet that would stimulate the economy and help save the environment.

It's about a frame of mind that is destructive.

Tony -> ...trillions saved to give corporations massive tax cuts.

At least you agree corporations are paying massive taxes.

Please get this right: CO2 is an essential trace gas, not "pollution". It makes up nearly 4 tenths of 1 tenth of 1% of our atmosphere by volume, and 95-97% of that small amount is due to the natural carbon cycle on our planet -- the one that feeds us. CO2 doesn't become uncomfortable for human beings until it's about 5X its present concentration, and doesn't become toxic until it's about 12X its current concentration.

This is also not some sort of battle between evangelical Christians and Science: it's a battle of political scare-mongering vs reasoned debate. The science is far from "settled", and depends largely on the climate models we have -- which we *know* have serious flaws. Even some of the underlying math for those models may be fatally flawed: the original solution of the differential equations for a semi-transparent atmosphere assumed an infinite thickness for the atmosphere (because that made the equations manageable). Recent efforts to rework those equations with the proper boundary conditions have turned up some very interesting results - they get rid of the discontinuity at the ground that the current equations have, and provide a much better match to the observed data, both for our own atmosphere, and even for Mars' atmosphere. The problem with them? They also show that CO2-driven warming rolls off much faster than current models predict. If accepted, that would probably result in billions of $$ less funding for climate research...

At least? I am supply sider when it comes to my economic beliefs and your assumption that I am some leftest radicale goes to the heart of the problem with the perverted form of conservatism that is the norm today.

Emission standards are vital as we expand into a global economy but these standards MUST NOT be only for the United States. This is a global issue and the playing field must be level.

Now what has George Bush done to level the playing field for American Corporations in the global economy? He outsources defense contracts! He does the hulla dance with the shieks begging for oil!

Barry Goldwater would spit in George Bush's face. Conservatism is about small government that stays out of the way of the capitalism economy, and allows the corporations to generate the stimuli that moves the American Economy.

George Bush just spends spends spends and hides behind the guise of some minimal tax cuts or some garbage rebate. Ron Paul is a true Republican and yet he got pushed to the side as some loon while Romney and McCain claimed to be part of the "Regean Revolution." Ronald Regean wielded American economic power like a battle ax; he didn't have to invaded countries and occupy regions to prove American machismo.

Back on topic, there is so reason we can't maximize capitalism and environmentalism. Think about the money and the industry possible with green energy sources. Money generated in America that stays in America.

Everyone equated enivornmentalism to more government agencies when in reality all that's necessary is to give tax breaks and other benefits to corporations meeting various green requirements. It is also vital to acknowledge the problem so we can focus on research to make those green technologies cheaper to the general business consumer corporations.

Tony,

your fevered comments come across as one who has truly accepted the church of Global Warming. So yes I will be suprised by any rational statements you make.

You need to realize there are plenty of Skeptics that are rational. Perhaps you should consider some of the comments before dismissing them out of hand.

Just because I don't go to your church (of Global Warming) doesn't mean I'm going to hell.

"Ok so environmentalists that are trying to get the world to adhere to emissions stardards are really just trying to create conditions where its possible for the government take over big business? "

No, read what I said. I was referencing what the left had to gain, not environmentalists. They are not one and the same although environmental controls = government controls so they often work together.

Re #16:
"At least you agree corporations are paying massive taxes."

Corporations pay zero taxes;their customers pay their taxes for them.

***

This debate will be over soon. With oil heading toward $150-$200 a barrel--and running out anyway--the next argument will be about perspiration pollution and personal warming as we walk and bike everywhere we go, and farm our lawns.

Ok, lets say you are all right and global warming is a huge, fake, leftist conspiracy to turn us all into socialists. Where does that leave us? Should we just let companies pollute at will? If global warming is fake then it really shouldn't matter so I guess let's just let it ride.

I feel I did my argument an injustice by coming across as imflamitory as I did. It obviously deflected from my main point as none of my detractors have addressed it.

Once again, I stated that ok, maybe global warming isn't happening, but polluting the air still causes so many adverse effects to the environment that the conservation and emissions regulation movements should be supported, even if you're not doing it to specifically stop global warming.

By arguing against the policies that global warming activists are touting you are hurting the earth in some environmental way, even if the wound is not specifically caused by warming.

Agreed that pollution is a bad thing and should be controlled. The problem is, should CO2 really be defined as pollution? If global warming is not occurring, CO2 is NOT pollution, and trying to control it wastes much money that could otherwise be put in to controlling real pollutants.

And there is as much money in controlling CO2 as there is in not controlling CO2, the only question is, who gets it? Somebody is getting paid to create CO2 scrubbers, and ethanol cars (and ethanol, there's a fiasco...), and 'carbon credits,' not to mention the fund raising that is possible with such a scary issue. Both sides stand to gain financially if the global warming argument goes their way, so please don't put the greed just on one side of the equation.

Tony,

Very few (if any) skeptics deny that the earth is in fact in a warming cycle.

What we question is the degree to which human activity contributes to that warming. We also question many of the predictions for the near and intermediate future as to what deleterious effects (if any) warming will have.

Too much of the "science" associated with the issue is "junk" science, and unfortunately gets a lot of exposure in the media, leading to stronger conviction on the part of those of us already questioning.

When Al Gore predicted enormous increases in sea levels in a few years, he was refuted even by the scientists who most ardently support the concept of anthropogenic GW.

I am all in favor of a major effort (along the lines of the man to the moon project) to develop alternative fuels, for example. Development of non-carbon based fuels WILL reduce the pollution we DO have, but more importantly, it will release us from our bondage to the Arabs and the likes of Hugo Chavez.

Our dependence on foreign oil is hazardous not only to the atmospheric health, but to our economic health as well.

The GW-skeptics on here accuse the GW-believers of being dogmatic and inflexible. Yet I do not detect much flexibility in the skeptics' comments, either.

Clavos and Maurice are not very open to the possibility that they might be mistaken, even though their whole argument is that there is no proof of human-caused warming - not that there is definitive counter-evidence.

Possibly both sides should be open to some sort of "truth" that resides between the two extremes.

"Clavos and Maurice are not very open to the possibility that they might be mistaken, even though their whole argument is that there is no proof of human-caused warming - not that there is definitive counter-evidence."

I never touched on the issue of definitive counter evidence.

There is ample evidence to support the cyclicality of GW, including ice cores, historical data showing much warmer temperatures at latitudes far above present day areas, sunspot activity, etc.

I'm sure Maurice has plenty of evidence to which to point, as well.

Our effect on the environment is far from benign. Many of the practices that fall under the heading of "going green" will benefit the planet whether or not GW itself turns out to be an exaggerated threat.

The fact that this issue divides along political, rather than scientific, lines makes me somewhat skeptical of both sides.

I do think, however, that the believers have basically already won the argument, in terms of ongoing and future public policy. So you can keep yelling. But even conservatives, led by John McCain and former Democrat Joe Lieberman, are starting to turn up in the believer camp.

To summarize and put things in basic terms, CO2 can remain in the atmosphere for upwards of a hundred years. Each successive year of continually increasing amounts of emissions builds on the hundred previous. If emissions aren't counterbalanced by sinks, the system is thrown out of equilibrium, resulting in changes to temperature, humidity, ocean alkalinity, and so on. Water vapor on the other hand, while being a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, is cycled through the atmosphere in a period of days.

As human emissions of CO2 have risen and continue to rise, the climate system is responding. The oceans, having not reached a saturation point, actually absorb about 50% of all human CO2 emissions. If this were not the case, the rise in atmospheric CO2 would be markedly greater than what has been observed to date. However, the continued rise of atmospheric levels of CO2 illustrates that the natural sinks can't keep up with global emissions. Rising temperatures illustrate that the negative feedbacks can't either.

The scary part being that at least two studies in respected peer-reviewed scientific journals (Science and the Journal of Geophysical Research) have found that the ocean's ability to absorb additional amounts of CO2 is slowing.

It's never been about the consensus but about the underlying scientific data that supports it. The issue with the skeptical crowd is the absence of a viable alternative explanation. At least they've given up the ghost of attempts to say there is no warming at all. However, criticisms abound with generic references to natural cycles with no specifics. If current warming trends cannot be attributed to manmade global emissions (the elephant in the room), to what can they be attributed? It's not solar cycles or galactic cosmic rays or orbital obliquities and eccentricities or tectonic plate shifts or volcanic activity or 1,500 year cycles (that are about 600 years off schedule) or ocean currents or dust storms, so what is the culprit? Still waiting for the skeptic crowd to provide a cogent and supportable argument that withstands scientific scrutiny over any reasonable period of time. None has been forthcoming.

I wish this discussion hadn't gotten sidetracked into arguing the merits or questions about global warming. That's not what the article is about, and at this point I think it's largely a distraction.

People are so fanatical about the issue on both sides that no progress is likely to be made arguing over the scientific issues themselves. We're way past that point.

What seems relevant to me is the discussion of how to deal with global warming if it is the threat some believe it to be, and how to address those people who want to use it as a political issue to advance an agenda which may be more harmful than global warming itself.

Dave

Climate Change, Dave, is a fact of life on Earth. That is, the climate is GONNA change, sometimes it will trend warmer, and others colder. The core of the REAL debate is whether human beings can have a deliberate, as opposed to accidental, impact, and whether the accidental impact carries influence greater than the margin of variable change in nature.

Only an incredible optimist can assume that, if you do JUST THE RIGHT THING, the climate will remain static. It's a bit like assuming that if you pray the right way, and hard enough, the Black Death will miss your village in the thirteenth century, or that assumption that burning the heretics will cause god to have pity on your nation and withold the earthquakes.

The climate IS changing, it has always BEEN changing, it will right up to the end of the planet.

What does the Left gain from it? How about what the Soviet Union failed to achieve in seventy years of supporting "Progressive Elements" world-wide? To enforce a Global Climate control, you must have Global Government, and to do so efficiently requires a Global Government that can ignore such minor inconveniences as personal liberty and personal property for a GLOBAL collective "good" enforced by a recognized "Elite" in the manner of Plato's Priest-Kings with what devolves to a form of absolute power-the power to determine the distribution of wealth, the power to assign work or consign workers to the bin, the ability to decide who eats, who starves, and who lives where.

What seems relevant to me is the discussion of how to deal with global warming if it is the threat some believe it to be, and how to address those people who want to use it as a political issue to advance an agenda which may be more harmful than global warming itself.

Which, Dave, is precisely what Winston Apple was trying to do a couple of weeks back. You shot him down.

I wish this discussion hadn't gotten sidetracked into arguing the merits or questions about global warming. That's not what the article is about, and at this point I think it's largely a distraction.

That's true on at least one side of the equation.

As I mentioned in my previous post, the skeptical crowd always resorts to discussions about politics, religion, conspiracies, and the like, because they can't sustain a viable argument within the scientific arena. This is why the primary voices of skepticism originate from "think tanks" and other political and economic minded organizations. (Did you see the list of sponsors of the "climate change conference" in New York??)

Substantial discussions of reactions and resolutions can only bear worthwhile fruit based on a concurrence that there is a valid problem with which to deal. The skeptic crowd pretending it doesn't exist by screaming as loud as possible to any media outlet that will hear them while being unable to establish a solid argument within the scientific arena is counterproductive.

But, then again, their interest has never been in actually solving the problem at all.

Dave Nalle, with whom I tend to agree more than to disagree, says:

"I wish this discussion hadn't gotten sidetracked into arguing the merits or questions about global warming. That's not what the article is about, and at this point I think it's largely a distraction."

To me, that is a problem. The merits should not be considered a distraction. Whether man-made carbon dioxide emissions and other human activities cause global warming and, if so, what can realistically be done about it, should be the central focus. The religious fervor with which advocates on all sides advance answers to these questions and pose solutions does not further the debate. Nor does the rather generous use of adjectives in the principal article advance the discussion. Both are distractions, and harmful ones.

Of course people generate lots of carbon dioxide which, allegedly, causes global warming. We, like all mammals, exhale more carbon dioxide than we inhale. There are lots of us, and mass genocide would be one answer; a very bad answer, obviously. Many of us eat meat, which has to be produced and the production of which causes substantial methane emissions. So, let's all stop eating meat? Unfortunately, there are environmental problems with vegetable production as well, and lots of resources previously devoted to the production of vegetables for eating (e.g, corn) are now devoted to growing vegetables for ethanol production as a substitute for gasoline. Apparently, ethanol is not all that environmentally friendly and the price of corn has gone way up -- not a good thing for folks for whom corn is a major part of their diet.

There are lots of easy answers. Turn down the heat and wear sweaters? Turn down the air conditioning and dress more appropriately for warm weather? (Where does that hot air exhausted by an air conditioning system go, anyway?) Drive a smaller car and take public transportation when possible? Walk? Ride a bicycle? Easy answers, but not what most of us are likely to do.

There are also lots of feel good answers. Go to a global warming concert, buy carbon credits, etc. Please be generous when the hat is passed. Right.

Unless and until the fanatics and religious zealots on both sides of the isle calm down, put aside ideology (and theology), and dispassionately reflect on the elementary principles of cause and effect, whatever problem there may be with "man made global warming" will not be ameliorated.

Dan Miller

I'd love to know where all you people who think global warming is fake got your PHD's from. It's pretty amazing that you think you know enough about the science to debate even NASA.

I guess I focused on the greater scope of this debate, rather then the nuts and bolts, because I lump the people who argue against global warming in the same boat as those who argue against evolution. It's kind of like trying to argue with people who insisted the world was flat. I'm sure they, at the time, had some real "scientific" evidence to back that up also.

I yearn for the days when the Republican party focused on the Goldwater ideals of small government and lower taxes rather then trying to play scientist.

People complain because this has turned into a partisan debate. Well it only turned into that because the Republicans are the only ones currently causing these problems. While the left is annoying about many an issue, at least most of those issues are rooted in things like civil liberties and the like.

The republicans are the ones taking ridiculous stances so they can pander to their Christian Right voting base, so they are the ones who deserve the heat.

Remember the days when we elected Republicans to end wars (Korea and Vietnam) and to cut government spending? Remember when those were the issues they fought for? Well that was before they realize how easily manipulated the Christian right was and sold their souls for votes.

Its frighting how anti-science this country has become. And we wonder why our economy is crumbling, the euro and yen are destroying us, and we're losing our status as a world economic power. I guess thats what we get for electing a President who proudly admits he doesn't read books or newspapers.

This country will only be saved when we can find a person who combines the democratic social consciousness with the republican economic sense. Instead the democrates are atrocious economically and the republicans are trying to turn us into a theocracy. And the whole time both parties manipulate the people so much that they actually believe they know something about science when they are regergitating someone else's findings. Amazing.

There's another, "underground" perspective about global warming, that involves mental telepathy and a mental set of 'special' historical palm trees. The mental set shows the trees when they were baby trees. Each tree in the set is located in a specific region of the earth, and there has been a sort of stampede into those sub-tropical regions causing catastrophes and wars -- the trees are located in areas considered to be topo-graphically hazardous yet have a mild climate.

I think the title of this article is very telling, "Global Warming: Is There Really Even A Debate?" Perhaps it should be entitled, "Global Warming: Has the Debate ever Occurred." The answer is a simple, emphatic, "no", despite the fact that Gore and company have claimed "the debate is over" for 15 years or more.

The article itself was completely off the mark as it set the stage as "science" against the "fringe right/evangelicals." Did I miss something? I thought, Richard Lindzen of MIT, the premiere Climate Scientist of our time (and dozens and dozens of other climate scientists) were actually scientists, not members of the Evangelical clergy. If any side of this issue acts with blind faith and religious fervor, it's clearly those pushing the warming agenda on extremely weak science and even weaker climate models. What is also very telling in a number of posts is the confusion over "pollution" and "global warming", two mutually exclusive phenomena. Clearly the result of greenwashing and posturing by extremists, who have done everything possible to create new jargon, such as the phrase "Global Warming pollution" and "CO2 pollution." Basically, that's an oxymoron, but it has become accepted vernacular these days. A lie repeated often enough becomes accepted as the truth, and clearly, that's an excellent example of the practice. You now have people confusing real enviro issues (clean air and clean water with global warming). Truly astounding.

The real problem here is attacking a fictitious threat (man-induced global warming) and spending trillions to fix this non-existent threat. That said, where you will find common ground on both sides is the pursuit of alternative energy sources, which will move us towards energy independence. Clearly, both sides of the issue would be happy with that outcome if we could wean ourselves from the petroleum addiction. However, that's where the commonality ends. One side is hell bent on spending ridiculous sums on carbon sequestration, carbon trading schemes, etc., all of which have no tangible benefits other than making people "feel good" fighting a phantom boogie man. You might as well flush the money down the toilet. Personally, I'd rather take those dollars and point them towards clean air and water if you want to make a difference in enviro quality. For the record, my background is not climate science, although I've studied it as a hobby since the early 1990's - I'm a Mechanical Engineer, which requires an understanding of the physical sciences and an application of real science in real life - not speculation about pseudo science in a netherworld.

So, again I ask the question. If global warming is not real that we can just pump whatever we want into our atmosphere and nothing will happen? I mean you really, seriously believe that?

In that case why don't we just revert back to the industrial revolution and burn black coal in our plants?

"So, again I ask the question. If global warming is not real that we can just pump whatever we want into our atmosphere and nothing will happen? I mean you really, seriously believe that?"

Tony, you're not paying attention.

Not one of the skeptics who have posted on this thread has said anything remotely like what you say here.

Not one.

Tony, reread Stormy's comment. It's the most cogent thing on here, including your original article.

The question is not and has never been whether global warming is real. The question is how best to keep the air, land and water clean, provide for public safety and expand energy independence.

The problem is that the global warming promoters have chosen to use this issue as a lever to pursue an agenda which is about political power and social engineering rather than addressing our real environmental and energy issues.

Dave

It's interesting to note the comment policy here forbids personal attacks, including attacks against groups. I guess if you're a Christian that doesn't apply.

This commentary is so misinformed on so many levels I could almost write a book to fully document all that is wrong with it. First and foremost, CO2 is NOT a pollutant. It is an atmospheric trace gas essential for plant life. Secondly, there is overwhelming evidence that CO2 is not the cause of global warming. Third, there is overwhelming evidence that there is no global warming at all.

I will have to assume that the author is completely oblivious to the large cooling that has happened over the past year, along with the fact that the snow and ice pack over North America and the Arctic is at its highest level in over 40 years. It's also safe to assume he is unaware of all the other evidence against man made global warming, including the ice core data that shows CO2 concentration is a function of temperature and not the other way around. In other words, temperature in the long term record has gone up hundreds of years before CO2 did, and temperature subsequently fell hundreds of years before CO2 concentrations did.

As for motive on the part of global warmers, how about research dollars, new job opportunities in the bogus field of man made climate change, and the Nobel prize, no less. More importantly, the globalization/nanny state/socialist movement others have mentioned. What better way to gain power than to scaring people into buying in to global warming so they will agree to numerous new rules and restrictions, with the US and it's citizens at the whim of other countries? By the way, ask the developing countries how they feel about getting saddled with treaties like Kyoto.

Finally, the cost of believing in the global warming religion is not zero. Given there were so many absurd ideas put forth in the commentary it's hard to pick a winner, but the zero cost assertion may be it. The estimated cost of Kyoto alone is in the trillions.

Do some research next time before you just decide to spout more insults at a particular group.

"It's interesting to note the comment policy here forbids personal attacks, including attacks against groups."

Actually, Chris, the comment policy only prohibits attacks against other posters on this site.

It does not forbid attacks on groups, politicians, movie stars, pundits, etc.

I'd also like to note, Chris, that this was not an attack on Christians. It's an attack on a group that thinks they have a monopoly on Christianity and is determined to enforce their personal views on everyone else by way of polluting the Constitution with their theology.

Not that it should have any bearing but I am actually a Catholic (who many on Christian right have stated publically they feel are not Christians, but thats a debate for a different day).

Really I dont even like the terminology of attack. My effort here was to show that the Christian right is constantly used by the right wing for that party's own political purposes when in many cases they have no real interest in the issue.

In my opinion these people are the furthest thing from actual Christians. They hate everyone who is not like them (gays, people of any other religion ect) and attack all that does not fit into their personal ideology. Sounds a long way from the core teachings of love that are supposed to be the base of christianity.

I present you two tiny but powerful Italian words:

Cui bono?

#35: I think 'Marcia L. Neil' must be an AI bot. Everything she/it writes is perfectly correct in terms of grammar and syntax, but makes absolutely no logical sense.

Tony -- I was a real Christian when *hangs head in shame* I voted for Bush in 2000. Jesus said, "I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." We're all works in progress, you know? I had, and still have, a long way to go in the shrewdness department.

Here's what I know for sure: "...the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God." You might be mad as hell at "single issue" Christian voters who are used by politicians who make promises they have no intention of keeping, but no amount of ranting is going to change the minds of manipulative and conniving politicians. You have to change the minds of the people--some of them truly good people who think they're doing the right thing--who are voting IN these pond scum specimens. Ranting and making yourself sound like a dang New Atheist is going to make Christians dig their heels in further.

To convince someone you've got a way of thinking that will serve them better, you've got to find common ground. Stick to one issue at a time (golly, he says he wants to school me about global warming, now he's going on about evolution and...and gays...) There's so MUCH that has you angry at the Religious Right voting bloc (by the way, that includes pro-life Catholics) that you haven't had time to narrow down your focus and do proper research on any single issue. This is evidenced by the fact that most of the criticism you've been getting about your views on global warming is from people who don't even identify themselves as being Christians.

I understand what you're trying to do--it's just that you're going about it in the wrong spirit, and on the wrong issue.

Irene... you did WHAT in 2000??!??

God said to look for him in the burning bush, not the son of Bush!

;-)

"I think 'Marcia L. Neil' must be an AI bot. Everything she/it writes is perfectly correct in terms of grammar and syntax..."

Not quite.

Topographically is not hyphenated.

"So the question finally evolves to the point where the root understanding, the true motivation behind the debate, can be discovered."

Tony asked that question about his opponents. It's always easy to question your opponents' motivations. He doesn't think of asking it about his own side. Doug answered it dead-on: it's about control. That's why environmentalists are called "watermelons": they're green on the outside, red on the inside.

State-centered economies don't work. The Soviet communist experiment failed; so did European socialism. Market economics took center stage for about ten years, then global warming came along. Tony, surely you've noticed that all the same groups who supported industrial policy in the name of economic growth now support it for green causes?

I can't help noticing that the anti-GW comments on this thread are far better argued than the original article. Also, the only person who seems to be conflating religion and climate change is Tony.

Not quite.

Topographically is not hyphenated.

Unless the bot had reached the end of the line and discovered that 'topographically' was too long to fit.

I'll try copying and pasting 'Marcia' into the comments box and get back to you...

Nope. 'Topographically' fits comfortably. Go figure.

My experience with the comments box is that it moves the entire word to the next line, rather than splitting and hyphenating.

Mine too. I need to stop 'The Mystery of Mad Marcia' from bugging me, don't I?

Hmmm.

Global warming belief = left = smart = good.

Skepticism = right = christian = stupid = bad.

Bush! War for oil!

Gee, this must be the millionth time some self-nominated faux intellectual has tried to paint evangelicals as typical right wingers (therefore anyone to the right of say Stalin must be a flat earther) in a Herculean strawman effort. The scrotal torsion alone from this kind of spin could sterilise an elephant.

B.O.R.I.N.G.

Can you think up anything original? Could it possibly be THAT hard?

Besides, you forgot to include references to NASCAR, fried chicken, trailer homes, and a handful of other redneck attributes that are usually standard for this genre. I'm docking points.

Crapping on Jesus and his adherents isn't going to make the CO2 go away, that's for sure. There are two scientific issues involved with global warming.

One is the proliferation of greenhouse gases that have changed the atmosphere in such a way as to increase the earth's temperature. The second is "global dimming" caused by particulate pollution of the air. The net effect so fare of the global dimming has been to prevent the rise in temperatures that the greenhouse gases would cause.

The bottom line here is that the bio-sphere is much more sensitive to tampering than we have realized hitherto, and that a lot of real changes will be needed to prevent a searing of our lives in the oven of our own pollution.

One can argue that believing in a messianic redemption makes one not care about the environment. The argument here would be "Jesus is gonna' clean it all up anyway - why should we bother?"

This is a nice Christian argument, fit for those who cannot see that man is a partner to Creation, and all the areas where G-d allowed slack in that Creation, where bad things and mistakes can happen, and where the Evil Inclination can rule (like the inside of just about every bank on the planet), are there for us to attempt to correct.

To put it differently, this is the reason to attempt to correct the problems in the environment, as G-d's partners in Creation, and not to regard it all as G-d's problem. A good steward does not think that way. A Jewish approach to all this is tikkún 'olám repair of the world. This is the approach you have just read in this comment.

But there are others who need to be blamed in the issues of pollution, both gaseous and particulate. There are the corporations, for whom it does pays not to give a damn, and most important, there are ourselves. When we pour paint into the drain, or use chemicals to attack weeds and insects, we ourselves pollute G-d's green earth that is supposed to provide us with life. When we drive from one shopping mall parking lot to another, we do the same thing, polluting the air with gasoline, lead, etc.

So, looking in the mirror would be a better solution than crapping on Christians....

The issue with the skeptical crowd is the absence of a viable alternative explanation. At least they've given up the ghost of attempts to say there is no warming at all. However, criticisms abound with generic references to natural cycles with no specifics. If current warming trends cannot be attributed to manmade global emissions (the elephant in the room), to what can they be attributed? It's not solar cycles or galactic cosmic rays or orbital obliquities and eccentricities or tectonic plate shifts or volcanic activity or 1,500 year cycles (that are about 600 years off schedule) or ocean currents or dust storms, so what is the culprit? Still waiting for the skeptic crowd to provide a cogent and supportable argument that withstands scientific scrutiny over any reasonable period of time. None has been forthcoming.

Tony, Stormy, Well?

Dave #29 - Don't you ever get tired of being wrong? The title of this article is an effort to stir up an argument of the merits or questions about global warming. It is nothing to do with how to deal with global warming if it is the threat some believe it to be.... It is an in your face; of course its true; now what are you going to do about it kind of article.

I just have to point out some of the errors helpful environmentalists have made in the past:

DDT - turns out it is the best solution for preventing malaria. Thousands died because of its ban. Now being used again.

Asbestos - reviled by some but recognized as the best fire retardant and absolutely safe when used properly.

Super Fires - last season we experienced forest fires that man caused by not allowing controlled burns. These files were so immense they could be seen from outer space.

CFCs - This is the fairy story that first caused me to look at GW fanatics as memebers of the Church of Global Warming. Once again we lose the use of a valuable product.

Jehovahs Witnesses believe blood tranfusions are bad. Jews don't eat pork. Catholics eat fish on Friday. Members of the Church of Global Warming believe our cars are evil.

We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart. H. L. Mencken

Michael S,

I wrote the piece; I'm not one of the skeptical crowd.

"The issue with the skeptical crowd is the absence of a viable alternative explanation."

Indeed. Let's use your logic -- Phil sees tracks in his yard. His claim is that these are from aliens. Bob sees the tracks. It's up to Bob to prove to Phil that his hypothesis is incorrect by offering an alternative. Given that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, it's up to Phil to prove he's right.

Skeptics don't have to submit a #$#% thing. It's not up to skeptics to prove you wrong. It's up to you to prove yourself correct. Everyone in the USA is affected by the law, which is premised on reasonable doubt. It's a foundation of our existence. Except of course, subjects you care about? Invariably, failing the proof test, the typical alarmist argument then shifts to the precautionary principle, which is a half-witted, muddled up corruption of Pascal's Wager foisted upon the rest of us by those who simply can't understand that it's not the same thing (in Pascal's Wager there is no downside.)

***

Tony -- as noted in #54, what passes for logic and thought in your reality? Do you really think that all you have to do is make accusations and silly claims and the rest of us are to do your homework for you and prove things to you? Are you really this lazy?

Maurice,

Just a couple of words about asbestos, Maurice.

Bruce Vento.

He died eight years ago of mesothelioma, a cancer you get from exposure to asbestos.

In 2003, his widow Susan wrote a piece about her late husband, including how he died.

She wrote in part:

Rep. Bruce Vento, a popular high school science and social studies teacher who went on to serve the people of St. Paul, Minnesota for three decades as a State Representative and Congressman, died on Tuesday, October 10, 2000 from what the press widely reported as "lung cancer."

On October 13, 2000, the Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation (MARF) issued a statement clarifying that the cancer which took Vento's life was not lung cancer, but malignant mesothelioma.

While lung cancer is usually associated with smoking, mesothelioma is caused by asbestos exposure. The tumor aggressively invades the lining surrounding the lungs, heart or abdomen.

Vento did not smoke but was exposed to asbestos from his work as a laborer in his youth. Weeks before his death, he filed a lawsuit against 11 companies that allegedly supplied or installed asbestos products at job sites where he had worked as a state-paid laborer as a youth.

According to press reports that I heard on MPR and elsewhere, he had worked only one summer exposed to asbestos. It was enough to kill the man.

You have enough sites cited above that you can see just how dangerous the stuff is for yourself.

Have fun!

After you've had a good think about which is worse - death in a fire or death from asbestosis or its related diseases - think carefully about all those other substances you complain have been removed from the market by "helpful environmentalists" in the past "by error".

Ruvy,

fire is dangerous. Used properly it is not.

Asbestos is dangerous. Used properly it is not.

Eating pork is dangerous. Prepared properly it is not.

The point of my post #57 is the correlation between religious superstition and the Church of Global Warming.

The point of my post #57 is the correlation between religious superstition and the Church of Global Warming.

Maurice,

Go to the link in my comment #55. Read the transcript and pay close attention. There is no "church of global warming". There is a reason that global warming does not appear to have an effect, and it is discussed carefully in the link on "global dimming".

Then, when you are done, go to the links I gave you in comment #60. I've done plenty of work in the past concerning asbestos and its dangers - enough to know that it is a substance that kills.

#47 Dr.Dreadful, you son of a pun! Cents of Twain from a Christian: If we protected the natural world long enough to examine its bounty, we'd probably find what we needed to cure most (many? all?) diseases and feed the world without disrupting ecological balance. It's possible the world really is a gift from a benevolent Creator, who for some reason allows Evil to exist. He's designed elements in nature to counter the corrupting influences on creation, and given us the intelligence to find them. George Washington Carver, a biologist who considered the needs of people AND the land when he developed hundreds of agricultural alternatives to the soil-depleting cultivation of King Cotton, was a modern-day pioneer in this kind of work. (A Christian, he was a vocal critic of the theory of evolution, by the way. Whether you agree with him on this point or not, his views on origins certainly were not an impediment to his biological research.)

Integrated Pest Management develops agricultural applications of the remarkable interplay between plants and "pests." Western Medicine (which, give it its due, has kept a lot of people alive with synthetic cures) is finally recognizing the validity of some Alternative Medicine, wisdom gleaned from nature by "primitive" cultures. We've just begun exploration of solar-, wind-and water-power for modern energy needs.

Not every technological advance has been harmful, at least in the short-term; however, those who take the long view are looking to nature for ways to address energy, health, and food needs. Global Warming is a small and, YES, debatable subset of a host of other ecological and sustainability issues that are harder to ignore. This sturdy old world (it's at LEAST several thousand years old, after all!) will probably take a little more abuse while we work--in a hurry and TOGETHER--to find and develop sustainable and natural alternatives to short-term solutions. Those who have other priorities will come around if there are cheaper natural alternatives ready to use.

Yeah, there are those who, protecting their mammoth industrial rice bowls, THWART this research. I don't imagine most of them care about anyone, including God, except themselves. Let's sic the Atheists (some of whom respect Evolution's Nature as a god-replacement) on THEM.

I think you are wright irene about global warming

from

heather

Aaah, Irene,

I'm rapidly becoming a fan of yours, yet I often disagree with your ideas; what a quandary!

Nonetheless, you write eloquently and with good humor, (#63 is a prime example), so I read every word.

And, this time, I find little with which to disagree, therefore will not even mention my quibbles; which you can probably surmise anyway.

Like Maurice, I have differences with congregants of the Church of GW, and like you, I agree we should stop abusing and especially, should seek alternative means of powering our industry and our selves ASAP.

Among those currently investigating and experimenting on a large scale are the holders of the most "mammoth industrial rice bowls," the energy companies.

Given that they naturally have the greatest expertise in that science, I think this is good, and should be supported, whether with grants or, preferably, with tax breaks for directed R&D focused on alternative renewable fuels; especially hydrogen, which I think shows the greatest long term promise.

Ruvy in Jerusalem, Jews as well as Christians need to remember Messiah might not get back for a thousand years or more. Maybe even the resettling of Israel will have to be put on hold while Jewish brainpower is fully exploited to address Global Warming/Dimming. Maybe what happened in 1947 started the first of what will be many modern (perhaps peaceful?) advances of the Jews toward their Zion. Moses and the Jews spent years wandering in the desert around Mount Sinai before they were allowed to settle the Promised Land.

If global warming will damage England as much as the Global Dimming link claims it will, imagine what it will do to The Rose Blossoming in the Desert.

Heather, thanks, but I was actaully wishy-washy on global warming. I said that though it is debatable, we need to move full-speed ahead on energy alternatives anyway. If the conclusions drawn in the study on Global Dimming (Ruvy's link in #55) are true, there is an explanation as to WHY the debate on GW continues. The development of alternative energy sources cannot be delayed.

Clavos, that's for sure there are many good-hearted and cerebrally endowed (and experienced!) workers in the traditional energy industry. I guess the biggest problem I see is: who is going to coordinate all this effort? Who is going to make sure the money from the grants and tax breaks end up going where they're supposed to go? (The UN? NEVAAAH. Just kidding, sort of.)

Something for smarter people than me to figure out. Trying to eliminate some of the grass-roots bickering is the way I try to help out. I am fueled by your encouragement and Dr. D's daily dose of puns.

Irene,

There are many things I don't talk about here at BC. Among them are efforts to develop alternative fuels and ways to end pollution. There is a lot of technology out here looking for funding for massive applications that can end forever dependence on fossil fuels for use in running automotive vehicles.

Petroleum will still be necessary to manufacture plastic boxes to hold non-food items (like the guts of a computer), and as a lubricant for engines, but much can be done to do away with it otherwise.

Also, try to remember that silicon abounds here in the sand and rocks.

Finally, as a matter of religious doctrine, while only G-d knows when the time for the messianic redemption will be right, it is believed by many many rabbis to be likely finished by the year 2030 (5790 according to the rabbinic calendar). If this doesn't occur and the reading of the Talmud has been wrong all these centuries, it is believed that messianic redemption will occur by the year 6000 on the rabbinic calendar - 232 years from now.

I'm glad to see that Clavos is coming to appreciate your writing, as I do, even if, like me, he doesn't necessarily agree with what you say.

G Alston:

The problem is that we have seen a 1.5 degree F rise in just over 100 years, which is quite substantial. If it's natural and not due to the rise of GHGs (the elephant in the room), the cause should stick out like a sore thumb. Simply stating "it's natural" under the pretense that no specifics are necessary to explain it is a cop out.

By your analogy of tracks in the yard, no one is pointing to aliens. They're pointing to the 4x4 sitting just off the yard with muddy tires every day. And your response is either, "Tracks just happen," or "I don't know what caused the tracks, I just know it definitely can't possibly be that muddied up 4x4!" When the tracks keep happening with increasing frequency, at some point, you better find out where they're coming from and stop ignoring the truck.

"I guess the biggest problem I see is: who is going to coordinate all this effort? Who is going to make sure the money from the grants and tax breaks end up going where they're supposed to go?"

That, of course, is the crux.

The facile answer is the government. I have problems with that, which I have enumerated frequently on these threads, but it may well be the only answer.

And after all, the young NASA DID put a man on the moon per Kennedy's vision...

Irene,

Regulating the tax cuts for clean energy is easy. Since we are spending nearly 275 million a day in Iraq we could stop building little Iraqi children schools and start worrying about our own citizens and economy by creating a government division to to enact this process. We could go a step further and eliminate the IRS and the Federal Reserve (since they are arguably unconstitutional anyway) and replace them with a much smaller organization that investigates the companies clean energy claims and then awards the incentives based on a merrit system. Even better, the government could contract out private companies to do these investigation pumping more money into the economy. Lots of options, lots of ways to make it work, especially if we start using American tax dollars for the benefit of Americans instead of Iraqis. The only necessity would be total transluceny on the level of public reporting stating which companies received the incentives and which critera they met.

Tony,

I have a problem with your idea of letting the government administer the allocation of funding, given that the government is easily the most corrupt and inept organization in the US.

These are the same people who misdealt with the Katrina aftermath, and who run Medicare and the Department Of Homeland Security. They involved us in Vietnam, and now in Iraq.

While I don't see any other organization we could turn it over to, turning it over to the stumblebums in the government is truly scary.

We shouldn't be coordinating efforts to find renewable energy. There are a half-dozen possible energy sources that kind of work (not that well) on a small scale. We don't know which of them, if any, will be successful on a large scale. For the time being, we need to have lots of uncoordinated efforts.

I think solar energy is our best answer, by the way. But we haven't found an efficient way to store the power from it. I hope we figure it out, because it's so readily accessible. But I wouldn't want to see government or the private sector invest all of their effort into it, because wind power makes a lot of sense too. So does geothermal, and the power of the mighty atom. Et cetera.

In the case of NASA, we all pretty much agreed where the moon is. We had a fairly specific goal in the 1960's. Beyond that, you've got the fundamental difference between left and right. The left thinks that global warming is so important that the government should be in the forefront. The right, even those of us who are skeptical about global warming, think that energy is so important that we need to keep the government away from it.

I think that Tony and Winston are both trying to make a valid point. They're trying to bridge the gap and say that this is a win-win issue. But they have no idea how to talk to the right, or even what the right is thinking. I mean, religious nuts obeying corporate puppetmasters? It's hard to believe that Tony is serious when he says that, but that's how he reads the politics of GW. It's like Bart Simpson learning Spanish during his flight to Brazil. He's trying to speak our language, bless his heart, but he doesn't even know what language it is.

I'm sure that my description of the left sounds alien to the lefties on this site. And I'm sorry about that. Part of the problem is that I don't understand you; part of it is that I think you're wrong. But I can bridge the gap this much: your religious nuts scare us the same as ours scare you. You ignore the hippie nature-worshippers at your table, but they freak us out. We don't even notice the (few) anti-science people on our side either, but I guess they terrify you.

It's more than that, though. We're always going to walk away when you start talking about multinational coordination. You're never going to listen to us when Exxon sponsors our conferences. We both need to figure out how much of this barrier is bad communication and how much is legitimate difference. We also need to figure out how much of the GW debate is blind distrust on our side, or bandwagon mentality on yours. Maybe then we can start talking.

Clavos, every time I type something, I see you've stated it first and pithier. Jerk.

I do the same thing, Baronius; I'm forever reading down a thread to a particularly juicy comment that begs to be answered, and jumping on it only to discover after mine is published, that someone else already did, better.

Nonetheless, I'm flattered, my friend.

I don't have to bridge any gaps to the right. If you think George Bush II is a republican then go read a book on Barry Goldwater and learn something about what conservatism truely is.

I don't feel the need to define myself by standing on one side or the other. I am a supply sider who feels that the democrates get it right on issues pertaining to civil liberties, equality, and this time around the war; post invasion obviously as they buckled to their knees at the alter of public opinion before this mess started.

The truth is I can be very far to the left on some issues and to the right on others (mainly economic) but that's because I don't feel the need to adopt every single standpoint of a particular group.

When I spoke of allocating tax breaks it was not aimed at finding alternative energy. The tax breaks would be given to companies that adapted their facilities and operations to meet a variety of green standards. A oompany may not meet admissions bonus standards but may receive a break because of their methods of waste disposal.

But no.....you can't be open to ideas you didn't hear first on Fox news. GOD forbid! .

Well said Tony. I agree wholeheartedly with your above post. The conservatives of the day are imho much more akin to totalitarians, with big government deficit spending to the extreme. The PNAC document sums up very well what these neo-cons are really about. It has nothing to do with individual rights, the constitution, or behaving in a civilized humane fashion towards their neighbors. The homeland security state, is nothing more than the erection of a legal police state, where all citizens are monitored via gps systems 24/7, and presumed guilty until proven innocent. How far we have fallen.

Clavos, every time I type something, I see you've stated it first and pithier.

Hmm... 'pithier'. Comparative form of the word 'pithy'. Now - who uses that word...?

Jerk.

Ah yes.

;-)

instead of "pithier," i use "more pithily," as it sounds hilarious.

You're jutht pithing into the wind, Doc...*





*(Funny how so many folks who proclaim themselves as liberals know all this arcane stuff from the FNC.)

Funny how so many folks who proclaim themselves as liberals know all this arcane stuff from the FNC.

Not funny at all. The owner of the gym I belong to insists on piping Fox News into the place 24/7.

Staff have on occasion ventured to change the channel, but he makes them change it back again as soon as he finds out.

You'd think I'd be immune with my iPod and headphones, but oh no. He has the closed captioning switched on.

No, it's not at all funny...

Well, if it's that traumatic, Doc, perhaps you ought to consider changing gyms...or political philosophies.

Or, maybe, getting fat.

Hobson's choice...

Ruvy,

I've read your links. The info is slanted and misleading. I don't believe it.

I've read the bible and still don't believe in god.

I guess you could call me a skeptic....

BTW you made the bold claim there was no Church of Global Warming...

Maurice,

I took a quick look at your link. On it, I picked up this quote:

"We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing -- in terms of economic socialism and environmental policy." (emphasis added)
-Timothy Wirth, former U.S. Senator (D-Colorado)

Wirth also served as Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs in the Clinton administration. He is currently president of the UN Foundation.

He is not a scientist, but he obviously IS a socialist, prepared to use GW, whether or not it is a valid scientific theory, to advance his socialist goals.

No matter the protestations of the believers; the issue of GW transcends mere environmentalism. It is clearly a political issue as well.

and a business issue, clavos. don't forget the money to be made.

Absolutely right, zing.

Clavos,

excellant point. I think all of us care about Mother Earth and want the best for her. I ride my motorcyclel instead of my car so I can consume and polute less. I reuse my RV antifreeze each year when I winterize my RV. I don't have the eco-groovy house that George W. Bush has but I don't squander resources like Al Gore either.

My main problem with environMentalism is the emotionalism involved. My wife gave me crap about not recycling my beer cans. We lived in Detroit at the time and the recycling program was not up and running so they would just haul the cans to the dump. My emotional wife was still upset!

Lets be rational about these emotional issues.

Dread, if I follow this conversation, Bill O'Reilly uses the word "pithier" too? I didn't know that. I've never seen his show.

One of his catchphrases - as you'll see if you follow the link - is 'keep it pithy'.

We lived in Detroit at the time and the recycling program was not up and running so they would just haul the cans to the dump.

There was something like that in Michael Moore's book Stupid White Men. He describes following a sanitation crew when they picked up the recycling. They drove to the landfill and simply dumped it there along with all the other trash.

Maurice,

I didn't post the stuff about the messianic redemption because i wanted you to believe in G-d. What you believe is your business.

I did post the stuff about messianic redemption for Irene's information, though.

I posted the links about global dimming because they provide clear reasons for the theories of global warming not seeming to have effect. You don't want to believe them, you don't have to. In the end, its your skin cancer, not mine. As for the asbestos, if you are so skeptical, work with the stuff and see what happens to your lungs. But it's a true capitalist's proposition when you gamble with your health. You can't "socialize" the loss. YOU get to die, not the society around you.

I realize that you are not davka an evil person, and it is the emotionalism of some environmentalists that pisses you off. It pisses me off, too. I am not a tree hugger by any means. But, when you learn about the Jewish Sabbath, you learn lots of lessons about the environment, even if you do not mean to. And being that I do try to observe the laws of the Jewish Sabbath, I do know how a person is not supposed to, among other things, even kick a rock around. G-d's universe is to be left untouched, and the Jew is supposed to contemplate it. That is the purpose of the laws that Jews (and not non-Jews) are required to observe.

Just something to think about.

This is somewhat funny.

BTW I posed this earlier. Was it 'lost' on purpose?

I have one of those toilets in my apartment (mandated by EPA), Maurice.

It doesn't really take six flushes, but often requires two, and sometimes three.

My wife and I laugh our asses off at the idiots in the government every time it happens.

I posted one post the other day and then return to....holy cow, all heck breaks loose and the discussion moves to religion!! Back to the topic at hand....

Michael S wrote:

"The issue with the skeptical crowd is the absence of a viable alternative explanation."

That's incorrect. You're putting all of your eggs in a trace gas called CO2 which comprises less than .04% of the atmosphere. I'm putting my eggs in an extraordinarily powerful, variable star called the sun. It's apparently a fairly strong influence seasonly as well as daily, considering the temperature in my backyard can vary 40 or more degrees in a day. I'll give you a list of scientists as long as a bad Woody Allen movie who agree with "it's the sun, stupid."

Tony wrote:

"So, again I ask the question. If global warming is not real that we can just pump whatever we want into our atmosphere and nothing will happen? I mean you really, seriously believe that?"

Tony, you have a very static view of the atmosphere. That is, everything that enters the atmosphere stays there until the end of time. Here's a novel idea for you: CO2 is absorbed by plant life (remember photosynthesis in your 9th grade biology class?) and is also absorbed/released by the oceans. As far as pumping "pollutants" into the environment, hell no...I never said I was for that. As far as CO2 emissions, I'm not concerned, nor should you be. For those promoting solar, well, that's just swell. We can cover Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky and New York State with solar panels...and power, I don't know, maybe 1/3 the country. SUPER!! I say let's go nuke. You'll save yourselves from the dreaded and scary (and harmless) CO2, and the rest of us will be happy with clean domestic energy

Dave Nalle wrote:
"Tony, reread Stormy's comment. It's the most cogent thing on here, including your original article."

Thanks Dave...I always aim for cogent! Glad I attained it for a change!

Great points, stormy. BTW great name for this thread.

Here is an interesting (and short) article about the disappearance of harlequins. Here is a classic quote from a scientist that uses a familiar argument:

"Arguing about whether we can or cannot already see the effects," he said, "is like sitting in a house soaked in gasoline, having just dropped a lit match, and arguing about whether we can actually see the flames yet, while waiting to see if maybe it might go out on its own."

Clavos

...laugh our asses off...

I think I get the pun here.....

Maurice...thanks for posting the link to the article re: the disappearance of the harlequins.

This is actually a perfect example of biologists (non-climate scientists) automatically throwing their credentials/weight on to the climate alarm bandwagon. If they would stick to their research in an unbiased fashion, they should be determining if the extinction was actually due to varied climate. End of story. But no, their activism comes through as they automatically imply that man is responsible for climate change, which in turn is causing the extinction of the harlequins. That's where I have a profound problem with this nonsense. If these biologists want to debate anthropegenic global warming with someone who similarly does not have a climate science background, I'd be happy to take them on. My background and education is Mechanical Engineering, which provides me a much better understanding of the physical sciences than they have. Yet. I'm sure these folks are included among the "thousands of scientists" who believe we're adversely affecting the climate. One problem - they have absolutely no credibility in that field (less than me, if that's possible!). Thanks again for posting however, it was an interesting article. For the record, I am pro amphibian and unlike the scientists in the article, I did not have the stomach to dissect them in high school!!!

Stormy,

I am an electrical engineer and have been designing semiconductors for 26 years. Even with my (supposedly) keen scientific mind I have been led down the path you are describing. That shows me that the media has done a good job of mixing these issues all together.

Thanks for the pragmatic slap in the face.

Maurice...thanks for the note. If you are an engineer, it's probably your nature to question things. I'm not about to say that we're not affecting the climate at all, but I am willing to say it's minute in the scheme of things. If you take some time to look at the issue from a scientific perspective, it's clear that Climatology is in the dark ages. Most of the issue is politics, not science right now. For instance, the reporting today of the ice shelf that just collapsed in Antarctica. The reporting of this is quite clever, or very naive. At the end it happens to mention that this shelf is part of the Antarctic penninsula. A little research and you'll find that the penninsula has warmed significantly, but it comprises about 5% of the continent - Antarctica as a whole has not warmed -in fact, it's cooled as a whole by one degree since we began measuring temps there about 50 years ago. You won't find the media reporting that minor fact. It would be like saying the U.S. is warming, when in fact just Florida was warming and the rest of the country was cooling. Extremely deceptive. I think the right word would be propaganda. Use your engineering abilities of query and you might be surprised at the nonsense that abounds....this has become a religion of sorts and barely resembles science anymore. Scientists that are skeptics are labeled as heretics and their reputations are attacked severely (they are shills for the oil/gas industry, etc.), when in fact they are just seeking the truth. When one side of an argument can only make personal attacks against the other because they can't effectively debate the issues, it reeks of desparation. I'd start my search for truth with Richard Lindzen of MIT. BTW, he pointed out that the car he drives isn't nearly as nice as those driven by the global warmers. If he wanted to make a fortune he'd switch sides on the debate. That's where the $$ are. Later!

Stormy,

Richard Lindzen has been discussed at length on these threads.

Interesting of you to mention that ..this has become a religion of sorts and barely resembles science anymore. Scientists that are skeptics are labeled as heretics....

That is the very reason I posted my link to The Church of Global Warming which contains a list of heritics.

I'd really love to hear how the warming skeptics explain the phenomina of all those countries that lined up to sign and ratify the Kyoto treaty except us. I guess we members of the "church" of global warming are not the only one's fooled. In fact, the governments of Australia, Canada, The entire EU, India, and even the freakin' Russins have all been duped by this leftist conspiracy.

Wow guys! You have to have one hell of a marketing plan to dupe the heads of the world's most industrialized nations.

Even the People's Republic of China claims that they are striving to reduce emissions even if, because of the economic ramifications, they are not.

Some countries jumped right in, others declined because of economic reasons, but the good old US of A is the only nation to actually deny that the problem even exists.

Maurice,

Thanks for the link! I missed that when it was posted earlier. There is a lot to it!!

As for the "scientists", I've spoken and emailed with about a dozen climate scientists. You generally won't find (with very few exceptions) any of them purporting the hysteria we see that's being fueled by "activists."

My online debates with some folks generally ended with them incapable of countering my arguments when they got to the end of their 3-fold Sierra Club or Greenpeace leaflet, which was generally filled with easily refutable rubbish. Out of frustration, their last post would normally be, "you must work for the oil and gas lobby." I don't work in that area and never have... but I love science and I love truth. These folks are incapable of critical thought, scientific inquiry and thinking for themselves - they've been completely greenwashed. I'm very pro-environment, pro-alternative energy (for energy independence reasons)... but, I'm against wasting trillions to fight a fictitious monster, when that money could be better spent on genuine environmental issues (Geez, I'm beginning to sound like Bjorn Lomborg). Thanks again. BTW, if you're interested in a bit of satire from 10 years ago (and yes, I believe that site is actually funded by the oil/gas lobby!!!!)

"Wow guys! You have to have one hell of a marketing plan to dupe the heads of the world's most industrialized nations."

Not really. It's never hard to sell a government official on a new reason to tax and regulate. (money and power)

Stormy,

funny link! I have read a little about Bjorn Lomborg. Not a bad guy to mimic.

BTW bare links are frowned on at BC.

If you have questions about html code you can go here

Tony, you shouldn't take offense to any of this stuff. I'm finding some of the discussion interesting.

As for your comment regarding the nations that piled on to Kyoto, that's an excellent and valid question. Again, Kyoto was about politics and little to do about science. Even the adherents of Kyoto admitted that compliance with it would have virtually no effect on the climate. A combination of "bandwagon effect", "political correctness", "peer pressure", etc. led to Kyoto ratification. Now, here's a trick question - who killed Kyoto for the U.S.? Yes, officially it was Pres. G.W. Bush, but many environmentalists will tell you it was Pres. Bill Clinton. The bottom line is that Clinton wanted to play the Kyoto game and "look good" by participating in Kyoto (which was political), but he understood the detriments it posed to our country economically. Good for him - a very smart guy. He demanded certain things in the protocol, including credit for carbon sinks (forests, etc.) and India/China participation. Europe was aghast and realized that the U.S. would basically have to make no sacrifices with carbon sinks being counted. That terrified them as they saw Kyoto as a means to give them an economic advantage over us - with carbon sinks, they were screwed and we would be rewarded - they said "no way." In hindsight, it looks like they didn't need Kyoto to get that economic advantage anyway! When Clinton left office, they actually came back to us wanting us to just play ball and offered something similar to what Clinton had requested. Bush said fahgetaboutit, we're out.

CO2 is not a pollutant....95% of it is naturally ocurring....plant life thrives on it....if you removed all greenhouse gasses (e.g., CO2, Methane, CFCs, etc.) except water vapor (which, interestingly, you can't tax), you'd still have most of the greenhouse effect intact (actually, about 95%...I love that number). This is much ado about nothing...except research dollars, high salaried cushy environmental jobs and another means for gov't to tax. It's a win/win for everyone, except for you and me.

All the best....Stormy

How many times have we seen the word "unprecedented" when this subject is discussed in recent years?

from the Washington Post:

"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."

Wait a second...Huh. Upon further review, that article is from November 2nd...1922. Yeah, as in 86 years ago and counting.

But wait, there's more....

"A considerable change of climate inexplicable at present to us must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been, during the last two years, greatly abated."

"2000 square leagues [approximately 14,000 square miles or 36,000 square kilometers] of ice with which the Greenland Seas between the latitudes of 74° and 80°N [roughly NNE of Jan Mayen] have been hitherto covered, has in the last two years entirely disappeared."

"The floods which have the whole summer inundated all those parts of Germany where rivers have their sources in snowy mountains, afford ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened ..."

hmmm, extracts from a letter by the President of the Royal Society addressed to the British Admiralty, recommending they send a ship to the Arctic to investigate the dramatic changes.

The letter was written....in the year 1817. Must have been those blasted SUVs back then. I'd say the current nonsense is...well...unprecedented.
P.S. Maurice...thanks for the tip on using links!!

No offense taken at all. I am actually really happy that my first post in the politics section of this magazine got such a passionate response. That was really the point.

To read arguments from the intelligent people on this site and having real, fact based discussion, gives me faith that not everyone in this country has given in to mass apathy.

Tony wrote: "To read arguments from the intelligent people on this site and having real, fact based discussion, gives me faith that not everyone in this country has given in to mass apathy."

I concur!! Definitely some independent thinkers on here of varying opinions. It's a good thing and the result is civil debate/discussion. I haven't participated in a global warming discussion on line for a number of years. Became a bit disenchanted with the erosion of the discussions into questioning my lack of a degree in Climate Science (it's basically a hobby and my engineering background generally provided greater science grounding than my attackers!)...and then the inevitable attack that I was working for the oil/gas industry or lobby (which I wasn't). It was frustrating. That hasn't happened here so I'm pleased!

I have been guilty of being overly glib concerning this issue. But now this is super, super serious!

im old greg!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It looks as if climate change is too complex for today's democracies. Reading the article and the comments at the same time I see that we have a very similar global warming debate in Europe. It has a different focus, even a different tone, but at the end of the political process there is equally nothing.

For the EU the current American governments skepticism has became a political identity building tool in world politics. However, there is almost no rational debate on the issue in Europe, either. The EU is promoting the Kyoto Protocol, which has proven that is very costly and does not reduce the level of carbon-dioxide emissions. (Not only the US, but China, Russia and India, other main emitters besides the EU are not participating in this trading system). Promoting solar energy in Germany is great for German industrialists who produce the stuff but as useful as if Canada would switch to solar energy.

I believe that today's electorates are used to much narrower focused debates where they can spot the lobby groups, their own interest and gather the basic facts. Although climate change has no meaningful pub