Global Warming has been cancelled. Sorry.....

[Bert]

I'm urging everyone to watch neither, there are much better sources of information out there than oil industry funded political action groups and out of touch politicians.

[Tashtego]

This is a great topic and these are facinating times (in the Chinese curse sense.) I think we are witnessing mass hysteria on scale never before seen. It is very like the European witch hunting days on a global scale. Devils and witches among us, any weather conditions at all attributed to Man made (U.S. being the Man) 'climate change.' On the one hand I can applaud some of the goals of the witch hunting doom shysters, what's not to like about energy conservation and alternative power R&D after all? On the other hand the intolerance and heavy handed supression of heretical views by the global warming fundementalists is discouraging. It indicates that people in the developed world have not advanced intellectually very much since the 17th century. It is also discouraging to see people who otherwise appear to be very intelligent immediately resort to ad hominem attacks on any who dare contradict the gospel of U.S. car made global warming.

Here is a list of some heretical scientists. Each more greedy than the last for US oil company (and only US oil company) dollars and rubbing their evil mad-scientist hands together at the prospect of the coming world wide climate disaster!

Tim Ball at the University of Winnipeg,
Robert Balling at Arizona State,
Sallie Baliunas at Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics,
Bob Carter at James Cook University in Australia,
Randall Cerveny at Arizona State,
John Christy at the University of Alabama,
Robert Davis at the University of Virginia,
Christopher Essex at the University of Western Ontario,
Oliver Frauenfeld at the University of Colorado,
Wibjörn Karlèn at Stockholm University
Christopher Landsea at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

David Legates at the University of Delaware,
Henry Linden at IIT,
Richard Lindzen at MIT,
Ross McKitrick at the University of Guelph,
Patrick Michaels at the University of Virginia,
Dick Morgan at the University of Exeter,
Tim Peterson at Carleton University,
Roger Pielke Jr. at the University of Colorado,
Eric Posmentier at Dartmouth,
Willie Soon at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center,
Roy Spencer at the University of Alabama
Boris Winterhalter at the University of Helsinki

[ABSOLUT CHARVEL]

i think the oil company is taking a bum wrap for global warming, when in fact it was caused by Aqua Net and Krylon from the '80s.

[eddie_van_earache]

i think the oil company is taking a bum wrap for global warming, when in fact it was caused by Aqua Net and Krylon from the '80s.
Today 05:49 PM

Classic

[Stinkbug]

Global warming is true!!! I have proof. Everyday in the morning when I go to work it is noticably cooler than when I come home in the evening. I was facinated by this and so I did some research. Turns out some weeks are warmer than others and (yup you guessed it) some months and years are warmer than others. Hmmm...I am sensing a pattern...could it be that some decades are warmer than others...how about some centuries are warmer than others... We can (should) all agree that global warming does happen at some level depending on your frame of reference. That isn't really the question here...the question is why. Here is one possibility, if we know the sun has the power to heat the earth in a matter of hours then it is reasonable to assume that a slight increase in solar activity could cause a global shift in temp. The severity and duration of this activity would dictate if the impact was for a week or a decade or more. I am going to go out on a limb here and boldly state that the Sun is the only significant source of heat for the earth...meaning there isn't another source of heat that is any where close to the suns ability to change the temp of the earth. So lets say I am right (go ahead...I like it when you do that...I'll wait...ok thank you). We know that global warming does occur at some level and we know the sun is what heats the earth. These are thing that we can easily prove to be true. Maybe the real question is are there other factors that influence HOW MUCH the sun heats the earth? If there are other things, are they capable of being altered by man? If so are these factors capable of having more impact that fluctuations in the sun? These are the questions I would like to see answered (not by politically biased or commercially financed opinion, but with real data). As long as this is a political debate instead of a scientific one I am afraid none of us can trust the sources on either side of the argument. So while it is fun to argue about it, ultimately we are all arguing opinions so you might as well argue over who is the best guitar player.

[Strat God]

I find it interesting that Al Gore's flick keeps coming back to GWB and the current administration for not taking action on Global Warming....

Somehow I don't think Global Warming is a politically-charged topic.

We are innocently stupid like Gallileo was about the planets and stars through a telescope. Back then, they knew nothing.....today, we know nothing about the climatic cycles of the earth. Humans haven't been around long enough to measure these cycles.

15,000 years ago (a blink in time) there were no humans and it was an Ice Age - the most recent of countless Ice Ages. We know because or core samples taken from ice packs.

Global Warming? It's gonna happen whether we are here or not IMHO.

[xenophobe]

You know, right after each ice age, global warming is a huge concern. And you know what else? It gets a lot hotter, hotter and hotter until *gasp* it starts getting cooler again until everything freezes over and the cycle starts again.

If enough people piss in the Atlantic Ocean, in 1000 years, it'll get saltier too.

Honestly though, recorded temperature history goes back a while, but in the past 3.5 billion years, the comparative statistical sample rate is like obsessing over a handful of sand and ignoring the beach. If you really want to know the real truth about global warming, go to a psychic and get your palm read.

[SeventhSon]

Funds go to all sides of the debate. Maybe you should investigate whats going on with funds for the other side, because that is scary..........

Do tell? Who is this "scary" entity that is funding the Nobel laureates who looked at the research and publicly support the science that asserts global warming is happening and that it's caused by humans?

If you have no background in science or scientific research, I suggest that you familiarize yourself with the concept of peer review: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa...eerreview.html

The video you cite was paid for by ExxonMobil. Ted Patterson is a known shill on their payroll. Also, he is not actually a climatologist. I challenge you to find an actual climatologist who agrees with your position and give us a link to his/her published research.

btw, here are the nobel laureates that disagree with you. can you cite a nobel laureate who supports your position? Do you not find that strange?

* Philip W. Anderson, USA. Physics 1977
* Kenneth J. Arrow, USA. Economics 1972
* Julius Axelrod, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1970
* David Baltimore, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1975
* Georg J. Bednorz, Switzerland. Physics 1987
* Baruj Benacerraf, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1980
* Hans A. Bethe, USA. Physics 1967
* J. Michael Bishop, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1989
* James W. Black, UK. Physiology/Medicine 1988
* Konrad E. Bloch, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1964
* Nicolaas Bloembergen, USA. Physics 1981
* Thomas R. Cech, USA. Chemistry 1989
* Stanley Cohen, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1986
* Elias James Corey, USA. Chemistry 1990
* John W. Cornforth, UK. Chemistry 1975
* James W. Cronin, USA. Physics 1980
* Paul J. Crutzen, Germany. Chemistry 1995
* Jean Dausset, France. Physiology/Medicine 1980
* Hans G. Dehmelt, USA. Physics 1989
* Johann Deisenhofer, USA. Chemistry 1988
* Peter C. Doherty, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1996
* Renato Dulbecco, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1975
* Christian R. de Duve, Belgium. Physiology/Medicine 1974
* Manfred Eigen, Germany. Chemistry 1967
* Gertrude B. Elion, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1988
* Richard R. Ernst, Switzerland. Chemistry 1991
* Leo Esaki, Japan. Physics 1973
* Edmond H. Fischer, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1992
* Ernst Otto Fischer, Germany. Chemistry 1973
* Val L. Fitch, USA. Physics 1980
* Jerome I. Friedman, USA. Physics 1990
* Donald A. Glaser, USA. Physics 1960
* Sheldon L. Glashow, USA. Physics 1979
* Herbert A. Hauptman, USA. Chemistry 1985
* Dudley Herschbach, USA. Chemistry 1986
* Antony Hewish, UK. Physics 1974
* Roald Hoffmann, USA. Chemistry 1981
* Godfrey Hounsfield, UK. Physiology/Medicine 1979
* David H. Hubel, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1981
* Robert Huber, Germany. Chemistry 1988
* Jerome Karle, USA. Chemistry 1985
* Henry W. Kendall, USA. Physics 1990
* John Kendrew, UK. Chemistry 1962
* Klaus von Klitzing, Germany. Physics 1985
* Aaron Klug, UK. Chemistry 1982
* Arthur Kornberg, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1959
* Edwin G. Krebs, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1992
* Harold Kroto, UK. Chemistry 1996
* Leon M. Lederman, USA. Physics 1988
* David M. Lee, USA. Physics 1996
* Yuan T. Lee, Taiwan. Chemistry 1986
* Jean-Marie Lehn, France. Chemistry 1987
* Wassily Leontief, USA. Economics 1973
* Rita Levi-Montalcini, Italy. Physiology/Medicine 1986
* Edward B. Lewis, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1995
* William N. Lipscomb, USA. Chemistry 1976
* Rudolph A. Marcus, USA. Chemistry 1992
* Simon van der Meer, Switzerland. Physics 1984
* R. Bruce Merrifield, USA. Chemistry 1984
* Hartmut Michel, Germany. Chemistry 1988
* Cesar Milstein, UK. Physiology/Medicine 1984
* Mario J. Molina, USA. Chemistry 1995
* Ben Mottelson, Denmark. Physics 1975
* Joseph E. Murray, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1990
* Daniel Nathans, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1978
* Louis Neel, France. Physics 1970
* Erwin Neher, Germany. Physiology/Medicine 1991
* Marshall W. Nirenberg, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1968
* Christiane Nusslein-Volhard, Germany. Physiology/Medicine 1995
* Douglas D. Osheroff, USA. Physics 1996
* George E. Palade, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1974
* Max F. Perutz, UK. Chemistry 1962
* John Polanyi, Canada. Chemistry 1986
* Ilya Prigogine, Belgium. Chemistry 1977
* Norman F. Ramsey, USA. Physics 1989
* Burton Richter, USA. Physics 1976
* Richard J. Roberts, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1993
* Martin Rodbell, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1994
* Heinrich Rohrer, Switzerland. Physics 1986
* Joseph Rotblat, UK. Peace 1995
* F. Sherwood Rowland, USA. Chemistry 1995
* Bengt Samuelsson, Sweden. Physiology/Medicine 1982
* Frederick Sanger, UK. Chemistry 1958, 1980
* Arthur L. Schawlow, USA. Physics 1981
* Glenn T. Seaborg, USA. Chemistry 1951
* Herbert A. Simon, USA. Economics 1978
* Richard E. Smalley, USA. Chemistry 1996
* Michael Smith, Canada. Chemistry 1993
* Jack Steinberger, Switzerland. Physics 1988
* Henry Taube, USA. Chemistry 1983
* Richard E. Taylor, USA. Physics 1990
* E. Donnall Thomas, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1990
* Samuel C. C. Ting, USA. Physics 1976
* James Tobin, USA. Economics 1981
* Susumu Tonegawa, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1987
* Charles H. Townes, USA. Physics 1964
* Desmond Tutu, South Africa. Peace 1984
* John Vane, UK. Physiology/Medicine 1982
* Thomas H. Weller, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1954
* Torsten N. Wiesel, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1981
* Robert W. Wilson, USA. Physics 1978
* Rolf M. Zinkernagel, Switzerland. Physiology/Medicine 1996

As to why there even appears to be disagreement on the topic...
From http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686

"Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case."

I am not a climatologist, but neither are you or xenophobe or anyone else who posts here. So in the absence of actual experience in the subject, i have to throw my hat in with scientists of reputation who peer review the research performed by climatologists. And they clearly are of one voice on the matter.

[SeventhSon]

Honestly though, recorded temperature history goes back a while, but in the past 3.5 billion years, the comparative statistical sample rate is like obsessing over a handful of sand and ignoring the beach. If you really want to know the real truth about global warming, go to a psychic and get your palm read.

Just curious. Are you a scientist?

[Accept2]

Along time ago, one of the greatest scientists who ever lived preached against a science that said the earth was the centre of the universe. All other scientists believed the "faith" that he was full of shit. In the end they locked him up for the remaining 20 years of his life so that he would not poison other people with his dangerous ideas. After all, disagreeing with what other people think is a no-no even today in a suppoedly free country. They said, "The debate is over, look all the other scientists agree, why cant you." Lets not even get started on the scientific consensus in the 50s that the duck and cover method was perfect protection from a nuclear blast. Im sure many of the fossils on your list agreed with that as well. Most times in science its the unpopular science that becomes scientific fact because the popular beliefs are based on rationality, and rationality is not science, its conjecture and theory. If these guys had absolute proff of what they preached they would be able to prove it without a shadow of a doubt. Instead they preach the mission is over, we know all the answers. The other side says we dont know all the answers..............

[danastas]

Seems to me a lot of you haven't even watched Inconvenient Truth so to dismiss it out of hand is silly. Ignore the Gore stuff, you're telling me that entire shelfs of the Antarctic falling into the ocean, as well as the Arctic ice breaking up, is not a sign of Global Warming? That will definitely have huge huge consequences. The air is warmer, the sea is warmer, temperatures are rising fast. EVERYONE agrees on this.

The fact that it's happening more rapidly thanANY previous climate change lead people to suspect this has been brought on by human activity. Many scientists for many years were skeptical about those who based their theories on carbon gas emissions, as they should've been. A good scientist is a skeptical one. In the last few years, the most well qualified naysayers have completey changed their tune and gone over to the other side. They see it now and agree with the research.

Even the President has recognized Global Warming.

We're no longer in the age of, "Trees are our biggest polluters."

[Accept2]

No one is argueing about climate change. Even the other movie from the other side acknowledges it. To claim that climate doesnt change would be stoopid.........

[Tashtego]

A few points.

I am no longer impressed by the Nobel prize as an indication of the excellence or competency of the recipient; the Arafat award being the most obvious illustration of how compromised the selection process is by politics.

Why are there so many physiology/medicine recipients on the list and why should anyone pay attention to what they think about climate studies? Economics is relevant how? The physics & chemistry recipients would be opinions to consider if they were all researchers in topics related to the subject but they are not. Some must be, I did not check them all, but the ones I did had no particular competency in climate studies so I don't really care what their opinion is here. But, if I want to know more about plutonium isotopes...

Even if there are good counter points to the last two why does anyone think that such a list is a definitive argument for man made climate change? I'd much rather read scientific counter arguments to the points raised by the very large number of climate scientists who are not going along with the gospel.

[danastas]

Right, I think I acknowledged that. The point I'm making is that it's changing faster than ever before. That's what has people worried.

Also consider that even the doomsayers and their models have been completely unable to account for recent events. They never anticipated some of the disasters that have already occurred. The simple fact is it's impossible to anticipate all the ramifications of human emissions. They completely ignored the pooling of water on the Antartic ice sheet, and they never expected those pools to bore into the ice, creating a swiss cheese effect which eventually allowed huge chunks (US State size chunks) of the continent to fall into the ocean.

[danastas]

One could say that because these scientists, from whatever field, are bound by peer review (i.e. part of their job is to review the work of people outside of their field) they have some expertise in making sure that the process through which an academics research has been conducted and published is on the up and up, even if they are completely ignorant of the science itself. They can at least see how the work is being received in the larger community. That may not be worth much, who knows, but it is something. It's much more trustworthy, in my eyes, than the lone wolf who is being paid by lobbies from either side.