What will be the average global warming for first decade of 21st century?

Interesting. Similar to a question I posted a couple weeks ago, though bringing in a different source and a much longer time frame. Will be interesting to see how these compare.

I will see if i can find your question pixel

Ahh, pixel, your question is already suspended.... Nice question both of you...
ken

Global Warming Theory has ‘failed consistently and dramatically’
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=bc1bbad9-802a-23ad-4547-af3df032e569

Climate change is constant. Global warming caused by mankind is a myth.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=C9554887-802A-23AD-4303-68F67EBD151C

@chatarra:
Great link - Lord Christopher Monckton is brilliant.

When I was in school (early 70's - you decide which century), I fell for the global cooling theory in a big way. At that time, it was believed by many that the amount of air pollution we were generating would start to prevent the suns rays from penetrating the earth's atmosphere, which would quickly cause a global ice age. It made the cover of Time magazine and many news outlets were actively reporting on the phenomenon. Obviously, we have not entered an early ice age and now I am very skeptical that we are causing global warming.

@Isonomia
Even if we do not share ideologies, I want to thank you for creating this (and other) questions.
It is great to see a new member who is so active. Kudos!

Extreme Alaska Cold Grounds Planes, Disables Cars
Thursday, January 08, 2009
By Steve Quinn, Associated Press
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=41663

Funny that some people still don´t understand that global warming does not mean that it gets real hot everywhere throughout the year.

Funny how the Algores of the world change their meaning of "global warming" as the situation changes.
Woops....sorry, I guess the term is now "climate change."

"Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age"
http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/106922-earth_ice_age-0

Pew Poll: Global warming ranks dead last as priority...
http://people-press.org/report/485/economy-top-policy-priority

Last year was the eighth warmest year on record, according to the National Climatic Data Center. The world's temperature in 2008 tied that of 2001 according to the center, a division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The ranking means that all of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 1997.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hRlyPqtO9N4jswg9LJYsBxcVmwzwD95OEUSG1

It shouldn’t come as any surprise that Inhofe’s comments are loose with the facts. The 52 scientists he refers to prepared the 2007 IPCC report’s “Summary for Policymakers,” but the report itself was “a synthesis of thousands of scientific papers” and was built on the work of “2500 scientists over six years.” As for Inhofe’s discredited 650 skeptical “experts,” some of them actually support the theory of manmade global warming.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/01/22/inhofe-global-warming-prevailed/

I'm Melting! Melting! Oh, What a World! What a World!

It must be true...even the psychotic are convinced:
'Last year, an anxious, depressed 17-year-old boy was admitted to the psychiatric unit at the Royal Children's Hospital in Melbourne. He was refusing to drink water. Worried about drought related to climate change, the young man was convinced that if he drank, millions of people would die. The Australian doctors wrote the case up as the first known instance of "climate change delusion."'
http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/green/articles/2009/02/09/climate_change_takes_a_mental_toll?mode=PF

funny, seriously.
a psychotic seems closer to the truth than you are.

@krujis - I'm with you, but we seem to be in the minority here.

Let's look at it this way, if we do turn out to be wrong (and I don't think for a second that we are) we'll still have helped improve the world's long term energy security (and probably created a lot of jobs and entirely new markets in the process). If the deniers are wrong and we still do nothing, that's when the trouble starts.

Frankly, I could live with the consequences of being wrong here.

For some reason people always feel the need to believe that the world is ending. Whether it's global cooling, global warming, the Heaven's Gate cult, Y2K, or climate change there is always a group of people who are absolutely convinced the sky is falling. The problem is that these people actually control the US government now. Convincing people that climate change is a natural occurrence is like trying to convince the Heaven's Gate cult not to drink the Kool-Aid.

richie,

Let private companies take care of alternative energy sources. There is no reason for the government to be involved.

@pullover - I think the question of public vs private on researching alternative energy sources is a different issue. I certainly didn't mention anything about government and I'm worried you may have missed my point. But on that, I agree with you that the solutions will probably come from private enterprise (even if we might differ on the question of how much encouragement they should get from the state).

Your comparison of environmentalism to the Heaven's Gate cult is just silly though. The argument in support of man-made climate change isn't an article of faith - it's science and, whether you agree with the consensus or not, this isn't a debate you're going to win by calling us nut-jobs.

richie,
I know you didn't say anything about government funding I was referring to the Democrats who run the government now. Also, I get your point I just hate all government subsidies.

The comparison to Heaven Gate is valid in that you have a about the same chance of convincing either group that they are wrong. There is no "consensus" about manmade climate change. There is a lot of science that disagrees with the climate change fanatics. I don't feel like repeating myself so here is a link to a question where we have had a long debate about this:
http://www.hubdub.com/m20988/When_will_Manmade_Global_Climate_Change_next_be_disputed_by_a_major_media_source

"Consensus" may have been a slightly provocative word to use in this context, in the sense that part of the scientific community isn't convinced. "Majority view" would have been better.

That aside, I'm disappointed you stick by the Heaven's Gate comparison and use phrases like "climate change fanatics". If you find it frustrating that we don't come round to your point of view, try looking at it from our perspective. I'm convinced by the argument that we're contributing to climate change and so are the vast majority (though not all) of the scientific community (not to mention governments, the UN etc) - imagine how frustrating it is for *us* that we can't convince *you*, the minority.

I'm willing to keep having this debate with people, but you weaken your argument hugely by pretending my views are just groundless dogma. They're based on science - even if it's science you don't happen to agree with.

@richie
they will never see the point. they are so restricted to defending their imaginary "freedom" that they just do not see that they are harming themselves, us and their and our descendants. it is already happening. all around us.

they don't even want to agree that a Hummer is a car which excessively pollutes. pollutes the air that the people around him (and he himself) is breathing. no. it could restrict their freedom to drive a Hummer if they would agree. so, better do not agree. better drive the Hummer. drive the Hummer until we all suffocate. but we were free.

@kruijs, I have never suffocated in a hummer, have you?

lets see...

1. freedom to buy any car i want...imaginary?
2. freedom to drive the car when i want...imaginary?
3. freedom to keep my thermostat on high (BTW obama does)...imaginary?
4. freedom to leave the porch light on...imaginary?
5. freedom to leave a light on when i'm not at home...imaginary?

i could go on and on. if the tree huggers want the govt telling them what to do more power to them. i choose to not bow down to the fear mongering of tree huggers and the govt. in fact i'm going out and start my hummer right now. not going any where..just gonna let it sit their and idle. then i'm gonna build a fire and burn all my recyclable trash cause driving it to the recycle center would pollute the air. i'll let y'all know how many people i suffocated. :O)

@dieseldog & @notablenotices - Wow. Do you really think that's how this works? If so, you should try reading up on climate change before you rubbish it.

Than maybe you'll be able to exercise some real "freedom" - making choices based on the best available information and a desire to leave a habitable world for your kids, rather than on rhetoric ("tree-huggers") and just doing the exact opposite of what 'Big Government' wants you to do. Incidentally, going by your comment Dieseldog, you seem to care a lot more about what your Government wants than I care about mine. I look at the environment as a personal responsibility - something I would have thought would chime well with Americans.

My concern with the Warm Mongers is that they want to limit my choices in a quest to pursue their own choices. And worse, spend my hard earned tax dollars in a vain effort to save the world. Vain because climate change is a naturally occurring process, whereas anthropomorphic global warming is known to have a growing list of detractors. Earlier it was mentioned that the UN even concurred. To me, that is reason enough to believe that the opposite is true.

Personally, I have no issue with conservation or looking for ways to use less energy, I actually applaud federal mandates that have given us vehicles with higher miles per gallon. This is one of the few areas where I feel that government issued mandates have had a positive effect. But I have a huge problem with the politicization of the green movement. Now, if I am not willing to give up big trucks, comfortable thermostat settings, the freedom to leave my porch light on, then I am less of a citizen of the world.

Warm mongering is largely an attempt by the liberals to give the populace a reason to fear for the end of the world. But by having the "Al Gores" of the world in power, then we can still be saved. (in balance, I feel the same way about the term "terrorism" - a way for the right to convince the populace to keep them in office)

Personal responsibility is on the decline in America. Evidenced by the election of 2008. Now the motto of the USA is not What can you do for your country, but what can your government do for you? In the meantime, our government will be working hard to keep the world from burning up and then take big credit when it doesn't happen.

@richie_edinburgh:

Maybe you should read some context - I obviously was replying to a posting that I thought was absurd, and having fun with it. No, I will never blame Hummers for suffocating the general population. LOL Hope that clears it up!

@dieseldog:

Exactly!

They want to tell us what kind of light bulbs we can use (I will never buy CFLs), how much water a toilet can flush at one time (and some tree huggers want to tell us when we can flush them or how many squares of toilet paper can go down at a time...), what kind of bags we can get for groceries (and make us feel bad for not re-using them).

They tell us we are evil if we don't use public transportation, don't buy "carbon credits" with our plane tickets, or run gas powered lawnmowers. In the best traditions of Mikhail Gorbachev and Charles Manson, they tell us that their precious "environment" is more important than our life, liberty or pursuit of happiness.

@chatarra,
thanks for you contribution as it is well balanced and honestly written, and also shows that you really are an intelligent guy.

To point out some things before others do it:
1) "citizen of the world", have you looked into your passport? :-P
2) "Warm Mongers" Why are you giving names? that something only we do because we have no arguments.

But seriously, because others don't even care to show their own thoughts but bash into one direction right away, people like me are tempted to do the same in the other. I feel your concerns and I can follow them. It is a "movement" more than a conviction nowadays. And that is the problem in itself. Although more people are aware, the awareness isn't true anymore.

Anyway: You should keep in mind that the "green movement" is older than two years since a guy named Al jumped on it. In the beginning it was not a a reason to fear for the end of the world. And actually, it still is not. If you have this impression than I agree, that is disproportionate. But there will be effects on all day life around the globe.

I think this diversion in two positions is more extreme than over here in Europe. We don't have to decide to be either red or blue as I often think you over there are doing.

@notable
"their precious "environment""
is your's too.
and it is the base for all life, not your ours.
and it is more important than "liberty" or pursuit of "happiness" if it comes down to leaving a livelihood for others: you should not soil the playground of your children and leave some toys for them. don't be so selfish.

* "not your ours", errr, I mean, "not only ours"

And again: What "freedom" are you talking about? You live and rely on something called "Civil Code", which tells a lot of stuff you ought not to do (by threat of punishment - wow, how do you find that?)

More name-calling. Nice.

Listen, I agree with you 100% that this shouldn't be a political or ideological issue. From my perspective, the politicisation of environmentalism has come largely from the right, but that's really not important. This is about science - and science doesn't care about your freedom, or mine, or who happens to be in the White House.

Of course we owe it to ourselves to be sceptical about the received wisdom and I've changed my own position on climate change in the past. But when you weigh majority scientific opinion, with the very compelling evidence in support of anthropomorphic climate change and the disastrous consequences for all of us if the received wisdom happens to be right... Well, then your assertion as fact that "climate change is a naturally occurring process" (which is, let's not forget - based on a minority scientific view) begins to look rather callous.

I'd love for you to be able to carry on driving big trucks and leaving your porch lights on, if that's the way you want to express the values of your remarkable country (no sarcasm - America is wonderful). I'd love to be proven utterly wrong and to have been suckered in by a lot of coincidental figures and mistaken interpretation of the facts. I'll even join in having a good old laugh at myself.

In fact, what I’d really hate is be *right* about climate change.

So, if you’re serious about de-politicising this debate, prove it and start now. Drop all the lazy “tree hugger”, “warm monger”, “liberal elite” rhetoric and think objectively about what you’re risking, just to avoid making some relatively modest lifestyle changes.

It’s your “precious environment” too and it has a direct impact on your life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

(how nice it sounds when a native speaker writes down what are my thoughts)

Nicely put, richie. I couldn't have said it any better myself. :)

yeah, what richie said.

Wow. I can't believe it. Here we have richie, kruijs, sqlman, and conspiracy all agreeing that "Of course we owe it to ourselves to be sceptical about the received wisdom". It seems your "received wisdom" is that mankind is causing climate change. So we all agree. I'm a skeptic and so are all of you. Now I guess it's a question of whether or not the government should change peoples' lives, spend taxpayers' money, institute intrusive policies, and increase taxes (all the while pushing us further towards socialism) based on a theory that even all of you are skeptical of.

@potato

"Now I guess it's a question of whether or not the government should change peoples' lives, spend taxpayers' money, institute intrusive policies, and increase taxes (all the while pushing us further towards socialism) based on a theory that even all of you are skeptical of."

maybe they should take every families first born too. </sarcasm>

"spend taxpayers' money, institute intrusive policies, and increase taxes ... further towards socialism" - wow, what are you talking about?

everyone should make up his mind about what consumption means. and if it's worth it.

well, seems that you understood quite ..... nothing.

It’s true, I believe we need to keep re-assessing our position on these things in light of new facts, more convincing arguments, etc. I don’t think anyone who *doesn’t* have a sceptical approach - ie, who's prepared to continually question their own position, as well as that of others - really has any right to express an opinion.

Pullover, given your earlier comments on how we’re basically fanatics who can’t be convinced by reasoned argument, I’m surprised you seem to have misunderstood me so fundamentally. Either that, or you’re deliberately making a very dishonest point.

kruijs,
Sorry man, I really don't have time to give you a US policy lesson.

richie,
It seems like we are on the same page here. I am skeptical and (as you have previously stated) so are you. Then three of the most liberal people on this site agreed that they too are skeptics. If I have misunderstood anything please explain.

@Pullover - Taking the broad view that received wisdom in general should be open to question and re-examination does not make me a ‘climate change sceptic’. Far from it. If you don’t understand that people can form better, more informed opinions by questioning their own beliefs, then I’m afraid we’re both wasting our time here.

But I won’t be drawn into a semantic argument about the nature of scepticism.

I repeat my challenge - unless you’re prepared to put politics and ideology aside, I’ll just leave other people to decide which of us has “drunk the Kool-Aid” as you put it earlier.

richie,
Ok. Let's drop the word "skeptic". You just wrote, "people can form better, more informed opinions by questioning their own beliefs". Doesn't that mean that you question your own belief that climate change is manmade? And if so, do you think that policy should be guided by questionable beliefs?

This is not about politics or ideology. It is about science and policy.

Pullover. Seriously - we need to move past this, because it's getting silly. I'm not sure I can be much clearer.

Yes - I'm open to questioning all of my beliefs. I think that's healthy. Are you prepared to entertain the idea that you might be wrong.

And yes - I think we should be making policy based on the best available scientific information, as agreed by the overwhelming majority of the scientfic community. Maintaining the status quo would be to base policy on the views of a minority. We spent years doing nothing, based on the same fraudulent argument you're putting forward now - that ship has sailed.

@Kruijs,
Someday, my friend, I would love to share a heated debate over a home cooked meal.
Since we live on opposites of the pond, that is an unlikely option.

To point out some things before others do it:
1) "citizen of the world", have you looked into your passport? :-P
2) "Warm Mongers" Why are you giving names? that something only we do because we have no arguments.

1) I have never had a passport, so the answer, unfortunately, is no.
2) OK - I agree about using names, but when I read that term recently, I was intrigued. I have been wanting to use it somewhere and felt it was a good place for insertion.

And I agree with you about our ( USA) news (and opinions) being politically motivated here. The red and blue camps have dug in their heels and although I long for a third party, there is no way one can succeed. I would vote libertarian, if they could find a way to pursue a strong military. I am politically a rather schizoid person & I admit it. I am fiscally conservative with a desire for a strong military. At the same time, I am socially liberal. But I digress. . . .

@Richie,
"...So, if you’re serious about de-politicising this debate, prove it and start now. Drop all the lazy “tree hugger”, “warm monger”, “liberal elite” rhetoric and think objectively about what you’re risking, just to avoid making some relatively modest lifestyle changes."

If all that were at stake were making some relatively modest lifestyle changes, then I could see your point.
However, as a lifelong capitalist, I see it a bit differently:

The America's Climate Security Act of 2007, also more commonly referred to in the U.S. as the "Cap and Trade Bill", was proposed for greater U.S. alignment with the Kyoto standards and goals. The current bill is almost 500 pages long, and provides for establishment of a federal bureau of Carbon Trading, Regulation, and Enforcement with mandates which some authorities suggest will amount to the largest tax increase in the history of the United States.

As George W. Bush said of the Kyoto Protocol:
"This is a challenge that requires a 100% effort; ours, and the rest of the world's. The world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases is the People's Republic of China. Yet, China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. India and Germany are among the top emitters. Yet, India was also exempt from Kyoto ... America's unwillingness to embrace a flawed treaty should not be read by our friends and allies as any abdication of responsibility. To the contrary, my administration is committed to a leadership role on the issue of climate change ... Our approach must be consistent with the long-term goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol#United_States

@potato,
you don't have to. democracy works over here in old europe quite the same way as in the US. you know about the current position of the former german cancellor? look it up, you'll be surprised.

but why there is more political pressure now, is actually due to people like you. if you aren't aware of it: the climate change (of which global warming is a part) is a thing which is around for at least 20 years already. and nothing changed regarding the habits of the people is developed countries. far from it! and I must admit: I like the conveniences of modern life. I do not drive the car with the best mileage/gallon myself. but I know I should. I try to take care of it next time I'll buy a new car. I try to take care by switching my electricity provider to one which offers "green" electricity. I try to buy products "made in europe" instead of china - for various obvious reasons, and believe me: that is not easy.

and what makes it even more harder is the doubt on it all - is it true? does it help? is it enough what I can do? we well not know, because we'll all be gone by the time it get real rough. all? no, not all. robamichael could still be around. so, for the sake of robert; think!
;-)

Now that you have read what you wanted into my comments, I will get back to what I was saying. These "environmentalists" have NO qualifications to offer - one was a General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the other a mass murderer. Al Gore has NO qualifications either. We can go down the list - many of the loudest mouths have the same to offer - hollywood personalities, politicians, etc

So we get told not to use one kind of grocery bag - then we are told the other one doesn't biodegrade except in sunlight. We are told not to use regular light bulbs - then urged to be careful with the other kind for fear of letting mercury loose on the environment. They say we have to use less water per toilet flush - just flush more times. They tell us they want California cars to be "zero impact vehicles", which is only laughable.

The environment is being used as a tool to give them excuses to control our choices - hence the statements I made about liberty. If people really want to be part of the solution, they should study to be scientists and engineers to discover and create new, less damaging alternative products that people will want to use instead of the older ones. They could be in some banking or business positions to figure out how to finance, produce, deliver, and market these products.

Instead, we have meddlers who call them selves "environmentalists" who simply lobby there favorite politician, or become one themselves, to pass laws that take away our choices, replacing them with a one-size-fits-all "solution". This is not being part of the solution. It is only making the problem worse, and taking away our liberties, as I said, in the name of "caring".

@chatarra - Rightio then. By all means treat this as a political issue. I'm sure the rising sea will stop as soon as you tell it you're a lifelong capitalist.

Good luck with that.

Okay - I'm out.

Let me know when you're ready to stop blaming your Government and the liberal boogeyman for your own inertia. Because while you're convinced this is just about someone trying to spoil your fun, you're not going to see there are more important freedoms than being able to buy a certain type of car.

@Richie,
The politicians are heavily involved because they want to use our tax dollars to fix this issue.
LOTS of our tax dollars!
In that regard, it is a political issue. Are you suggesting that I turn to socialism to stop the rising seas?

Good luck with that.

I remain skeptical of the dire consequences of AGW because the environment is not a static model. Our environment is a dynamic model that changes for various reasons, and has frequently changed during the history of the planet.

My skepticism is based on personal experience. As I posted in this thread, 11 weeks ago, in the 1970's, there was a fear of global cooling, based on the brown cloud of pollution preventing the sun's rays from heating the earth. The theory made sense to me and to Time magazine, which had a cover story on the horrors of global cooling.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
However, as we all know now, it never came to pass.

There will always be an audience for alarmist rantings. Notice the never ending popularity of scary movies.

richie - my govt (USA) wants to restrict the things (and others) i listed above. theres arguements on both sides of GW. theres already a question with points and counter points on GW. global warming IS NOT an exact science. its all based on estimates and puter models. i see you like to use "kids" in your point of view. i want kids to have the same freedom i had-have. what do you tell a kid when he says...daddy why can't i leave the light on for mommy so she can see better when she gets home after dark? well son 20 years ago a bunch of tree huggers said the earth was gonna melt. so now if you leave the light on i get fined by the govt. its fine if its as you say.."I look at the environment as a personal responsibility." then you have the freedom to do as you please. i DON'T want the govt telling me how i should do things is my point.

But when you weigh majority scientific opinion, with the very compelling evidence - how many recalls of medicine-pills have there been because the "majority scientific opinion" said it was safe to take? BTW after the govt (FDA) approved it.

you seem to care a lot more about what your Government wants than I care about mine - darn right i care what the govt wants me to do or not to do. if tree huggers choose to let govt run your life thats fine with me. what happens when these "personal choices" you decide to make becomes law? their no longer "personal choices."

Maintaining the status quo would be to base policy on the views of a minority - so only make changes when the majority favors it? is that what your saying?

well nobody suffocated in my neighborhood last night. guess i'll repeat the process again tonight and see what happens. tonight i think i'll also go feed some cows a large pot of beans.

chatarra - great point about the global cooling of the 70's.

riche - don't know if you was around when the question about taxing farmers by the number of cows or pigs they have was posted. i tried to find it but couldn't. any ways some tree hugging group wanted to tax farmers cause cow farts is causing-contributing to global warming. you see how this could lead to the govt restricting freedoms? once you let them start they won't stop.

(dieseldog still doesn't get the point.)

first: hu? medicine pills are scientifically approved? each pill is equally researched as the climate change phenomenon? what? come on that was a joke - you can not think that seriously!

second: Someone was talking about "end of the world scenarios". well "once you let them start they won't stop" sounds quite hysterical too.

third: Last try to explain: Look, to have some respect, take a little care and and use what is endless is a more economical way could be done unsolicited. but obviously, there still are people to which their misty-eyed sense of their "freedom" this seems to be the exactly opposite. and because it is widely not done on a voluntary base, incentives must be introduced. if that doesn't work either, measures should be made obligatory.

robert will thank us for that. :-)

As much fun as it is to sit here and keep writing comments denying the Deniers, most of the sport of it has been taken out for me; it's become about as challenging as playing tennis against a man with no arms with which to hold a racquet. Those scientists who don't believe in man-made climate change are very limited in number, and that group is getting smaller every day; the lay people will soon follow, as they did when scientists pointed out that the earth was neither flat nor the center of the universe, or that, yes, evolution really *is*, or that cigarettes are bad for one's health. The fact of the matter is, Deniers have--willingly, in some cases--had the wool pulled over their eyes by those with an enormous financial stake in the whole thing; such individuals and corporations have decided one of the best tactics is to convince unlearned folks that them that pesky environmentalists is jest a-wantin' to take away y'all's freedoms. They do that because A) it works, and B) convincing ordinary people to help them so their CEOs can buy a third Gulfstream isn't as effective a tactic.

It's common sense, guys: one simply cannot keep pumping an increasingly large amount of pollutants into a closed system and expect good things to come of it. Use yer freakin' noggins, fer cryin' out loud. :)

Here's a great story I just found: a real scientist--a gentleman with a PhD in astrophysics from the University of Oxford--is convinced that climate change has nothing to do with human activity. "Okay," thought I. "I'll read it, and see what the man has to say." But then--in just the second paragraph--there's this: the good doctor is the former chief executive of the oil and gas firm Talisman.

Oh, yeah, his word will be unimpeachable. I mean, as a former CEO of an oil company, the fact that his pension and millions in stock options will likely shrink if anthropogenic climate change is proven real can't possibly have anything to do with his flies-in-the-face-of-all-logic-and-reason opinion, can it? Jeez, talk about an incentive...

http://news.scotsman.com/uk/Global-warming-is-not-our.4966808.jp

Algore, inventor of the internets, claims GW is caused by carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.

hahahahhahahahhahahahaha

sorry, I just lost my temper for a moment.


so, f_o_f,

please name me the "pollutant"s you know.

No, sorry, I apologize for my last post. I'd take it back but that would unnecessarily cover my feelings.

This is getting far too silly. For those who are interested in what pollution means: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollutant

This is just a waste of my time. I'm not going to argue with you about such dumb statements. I've met a few people here who just have another opinion but with whom I can discuss and who can explain in a civil way, with comprehensible arguments, why they see things like they do.

And there are the trolls.

kruijs, if losing your temper causes you to hyperventilate, place a bag over your mouth and nose and breath in, breath out, breath in, breath out, breath in, breath out, breath in, breath out, breath in, breath out, breath in, breath out... you'll feel much better with a little higher concentration of carbon dioxide in your blood.

sqlman,
You seem to like accusing all the scientists who disagree with you of being on the take but what about the grants the scientists who agree with you receive. I know I asked you on another question but you didn't respond so I'll ask you again. Do you know of any credible experts who agree with you and have never received a grant?

Personally, no, I don't know any working scientists who haven't received a grant. But do I know of any credible scientists who believe in anthropogenic climate change who earn all or most of their livelihoods shilling and covering and obfuscating and twisting the data for corporations with long and sad track records of environmental disdain and destruction? Not a one.

You know, you make it seem as if this is a personal vendetta of mine when you say things like, "You seem to like accusing all the scientists who disagree with you of being on the take." But you know as well as I that it's not just me those (often pseudo) scientists disagree with; it's the half million or so scientists around the world who've taken the time to study the unfiltered facts, countless reams of data, anecdotal evidence, and--last but certainly not least--even just a modicum of common sense.

Hey guys, did you know that if you drive your SUVs really fast into a brick wall it will make loads of pollution and upset Al Gore and the rest of us environmentalists.

It's your goddam right, and us frickin' hippies are trying to take it away. Go show us who's boss.

[really can't be bothered getting involved in the Climate Change debate again on another website with people who's "Best Category: Sport", Worst Category: Science" - think that is indicative]

sql,
Who are these half million or so scientists? Can you back that up with any credible sources? Are they really experts or are they plastic surgeons, landscape architects, hotel administrators, and traditional chinese medicine doctors like Al Gore used to cite as "experts"?

@potato,

Maybe you'd be puzzled but I'm not depended on Al Gore. I've been aware of this issue before, like many others outside the US (and many in the US too). But Al Gore made the topic popular in the US and it eversince got harder to deny - and that's why his name drives you mad. Al Gore made a show out of it, and it helped to sensibilize many american citizens who weren't aware of the coherences. Al Gore is a popstar just like Barack Obama. No, I don't need no Al Gore.

Now to your post:
And about these "plastic surgeons, landscape architects, hotel administrators, and traditional chinese [sic!] medicine doctors"...

well where did you copy/paste that allegation from? To make it short:
--> Full quote:
"President Clinton and others cite a letter signed by 2600 scientists that global warming will have catastrophic effects on humanity. Thanks to Citizens for a Sound Economy, we know now that fewer than 10 percent of these "scientists" know anything about climate. Among the signers: a plastic surgeon, two landscape architects, a hotel administrator, a gynecologist, seven sociologists, a linguist, and a practitioner of traditional Chinese medicine."
--> A statement by Malcom Wallop
--> Malcom Wallop is a Former Republican Senator
--> is a friend of Dick Cheney
--> is founder of The Frontiers for Freedom group
--> The Frontiers for Freedom group is supported by Exxon
--> "The company [Exxon] spent hundreds of thousands of dollars last year supporting advocacy groups that seriously question the science of global warming or that it's even happening,"

The moral of the story:
You, potato, tell us to not trust our sources because they are biased and untrue. To prove it to us, you use a quote from some guy which is payed by Exxon.

Now that makes perfect sense,

The GW doomsday prophets will fade into obscurity like all the doomsday prophets before them. Friends chided me for not buying into the global ice age and then global famines and then nuclear holocaust and then ozone holes and then Y2K and now GW soon to be replaced by Climate Change soon to be replaced by some new doomsday conspiracy theory.

If we invented cars with pure oxygen emissions and used them for the next 100 years some crazy doomsday prophet will scold us for increasing oxygen levels in the atmosphere depriving plants of food, or they'll claim we're screwing up the sun's rays and they'll make us feel better by selling us Oxygen Offsets, and a very profitable and popular Blue Movement will take the public and politicians by storm... everyone will want to go Blue.

During the early years of the Blue Movement it will be declared a scientific consensus and dissenters will be ridiculed for political incorrectness, but gradually it will come to light that not ALL scientists are convinced and the Oxygen Offset Blue Movement fad will fade away.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, I'll continue enjoying my SUV.

The Prince of hypocrites: Charles embarks on 16,000 mile 'green' crusade... aboard a private jet
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1145127/The-Prince-hypocrites-Charles-embarks-16-000-mile-green-crusade--aboard-private-jet.html
Prince Charles was accused of hypocrisy last night for using a private jet on an 'environmental' tour of South America.

The prince will travel to the region next month in a visit costing an estimated £300,000 as part of his crusade against global warming.

He will use a luxury airliner to transport himself, the Duchess of Cornwall and a 14-strong entourage to Chile, Brazil and Ecuador on a 16,400-mile round trip.

Aides insist it is impossible for the prince to complete the ten-day official visit using scheduled flights as he will undertake almost 40 engagements.

They also stress that he will offset his carbon emissions.

But last night critics seized on his choice of transport. Labour MP Ian Davidson, a member of the Commons Public Accounts Committee, said: 'It would be hard to make this up.

'To hear that the Prince of Wales is flying to South America to save the environment and taking 14 staff on his jet at hideous cost just for this trip is the height of the absurd.

'At a time when the greed of bankers is causing much adverse comment I would have thought that Prince Charles would have had more sense than to be so financially and ecologically wasteful.'

News flash - these enviro types only care about changing and controling your life style - they live by different "rules"

The 'green' crusade is sooo yesterday... get with the program Prince... now it's the 'blue' crusade and I have some oxygen offsets for sale on eBay.

Ha - I know a guy who works for BIG OXYGEN ... I don't trust anything he says

kruijs - so pills just fall out of the sky? their devoloped in a lab the same as GW. i would say pills are researched more than GW. its you who don't get it. its all about science and the reliabilty of the science.

Someone was talking about "end of the world scenarios". well "once you let them start they won't stop" sounds quite hysterical too. - its not me saying the world is coming to an end..its tree huggers like al gore. after you live in the USA you tell me that the govt hasn't growin, taxed more things, made more laws, etc every year they have been around then tell me its hysterical. GW IS JUST ANOTHER REASON TO LET THEM GAIN MORE CONTROL.

there still are people to which their misty-eyed sense of their "freedom" this seems to be the exactly opposite. and because it is widely not done on a voluntary base, incentives must be introduced. if that doesn't work either, measures should be made obligatory. - yea like those misty-eyed tree huggers who want to try and scare me into thinking the earth is melting cause i drive a hummer and cows fart. then if i don't "voluntary" fall for their BS they want the govt to force it on me. didn't hitler try that? you know to force his beliefs on others. did that make hitler's beliefs true?

kruijs is that wiki site legit like say the one you used saying theres 600+ detainee's in gitmo?

sqlman - you like to say anybody who has a counter view to GW is on the big oil payroll. only people you list are legit. your just as blind to the opossing view as the rest of us. but you think thats ok. is that the same as your alleged success's of the UN you listed that wasn't true? when they was proven not to be what was your excuse? was it big oil who rewrote history? The fact of the matter is, "BELIEVER'S" have--willingly, in some cases--had the wool pulled over their eyes by those with an enormous financial stake in the whole thing.

all GW believers - why don't you tell us where the next drought will be? the next flood? how many hurricanes we'll have and where they make land fall this year? you can't do it and you know you can't. what you do know is those things will happen, then you can say GW caused them. thats hardly scientific. if your science can tell whats gonna happen 10, 20, 50 years from now why can't it tell us whats gonna happen this year? lay out some short term benchmarks to back your science up. its easy to say in 100 years this or that will occur, then say anybody who disagee's with you just won't look at the "facts." i haven't seen anybody respond to chatarra's global cooling scare in the 70's. hmmmmm!

well nobody suffocated in my neighborhood last night. guess i'll repeat the process again tonight and see what happens. tonight i think i'll also go feed some cows a large pot of beans. i talked 2 of my neighbors into joining me tonight. this might catch on and soon millions of us will destory the earth well before the tree huggers predicted. oh the poor misty-eyed tree huggers will be wrong yet again. :O)

you guys start to bore me.
f_o_f: *plonk*
notablenotices: thanks. for that article. and for the others you do not post.
dieseldog: I could write a long text again, just like you did. but to make it short. it's definitely you who doesn't get my point. and you are welcome to respond to me that I don't get the point. we're running in circles.

Running in circles, indeed. I'll simply say this and exit this discussion: you will see. Oh, how you will see...

kruijs,
Thank you for posting that quote! I couldn't find it so I just wrote down what I remembered. I already know that anyone who dares to disagree with you is an evil, self-serving, right-wing, crooked, old, senile, jackass who is paid by the evil corporations to destroy the world in an attempt to gain a monopoly of the interstellar oil industry. It's so obvious.

And I LOVE that you wrote: "is a friend of Dick Cheney" like that is the worst possible sin imaginable.

Embryonic stem cell study promises cure for global warming

By Scott Ott
Examiner Columnist | 3/10/09 4:39 AM



News fairly unbalanced. We report. You decipher

Hailing a new era "when science is restored to the proper side of the political aisle," President Barack Obama on Monday promised miraculous cures for a wide range of ailments when he signed an executive order expanding the scope of Bush-era federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

As he directed more tax dollars to such studies, the president said stem cells from embryos could be at the forefront of the battle against man-made global warming.

"Every human embryo in the hands of a scientist means one less potential source of carbon dioxide emissions," Obama said, "And because stem cell research could take decades to produce any useful result, it promises to remove millions of humanoid exhalers from the toxic CO2 stream. This could produce an even greater net benefit to our climate than abortion does."

The president explained that such research is important to his administration for two reasons...

1) "Because stem cells become what ever you need them to be, and so we Democrats feel a real sense of kinship with them, and,

2) Stem cells also offer hope that one day, when [Vice President] Joe Biden tells a paralyzed man to "stand up, Chuck"...he might actually do it."

Meanwhile House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said he, too, is hopeful that stem cell research will "halt the plague of global warming."

"If we can replace the defective brain cells that cause people to embrace assumptions first, then race to formulate supporting theories regardless of the evidence," Rep. Boehner said, "perhaps we can bequeath to our grandchildren a world in which no one will ever again stand outside in a blizzard during a decades-long cooling trend, and worry that the melting polar ice caps will flood Manhattan."

Examiner columnist Scott Ott is editor in chief of ScrappleFace.com, the family-friendly news satire site, and anchor of ScrappleFace Network News (SNN), seen on YouTube.

@Erik - heehee... that's awesome!

Mountains of ice invade beachfront Michigan homes
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/03/10/gallery.michigan.ice/index.html