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

[Accept2]

The earth is 5000 years old! Elvis didnt do no drugs! Global warming will kill us all! The Flying Saucer people will come and take us away! I'd like to see a Venn diagram of these claims. If CO2 is the problem as they claim, then why hasnt anyone proposed killing all the people in China and India, two heavily populated areas of the world. According to the corelations presented by Al Gore the problem would be solved. It seems more logical than sending money to Africa...........

[Tashtego]

The Heidelberg Appeal includes 4000 Scientists including 70 Nobel recipients who signed a statement that acknowledges "the emergence of an irrational ideology which is opposed to scientific and industrial progress and impedes economic and social development." Deliberately vague on the specific issue of man global warming, it is an appeal for policy makers to resist the hysteria and anti-intellectual, anti-progressive impulses of the man made global warming political movement.

The Oregon Petition directly contradicts the man made global warming thesis stating :
"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate"
and is supposed to have roughly 17000 signatories.

Here are 60 more Heretics in an open letter to the Canadian PM urging him to effect that "public-consultation sessions be held so as to examine the scientific foundation of the federal government's climate-change plans."

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605

It isn't hard at all for anyone who reads the news or can use google to find examples of the attacks on free speech and thought, scientific inquiry and debate. Some of the worst examples I can think of include the open letter Senators Snow and Rockerfeller published threatening Exxon and demanding it cease its encouragement of heresy; The "Union of Concerned Scientists" (hardly any of who's membership are scientists) demands for suppression of heretical publications (i.e. keep any contradictory research out of the journals) and professional excommunication of the heretics that write them. The attacks on Bjorn Lomborg, the rhetorical equation of man made climate change skepticism with Holocaust denial; And so on..
Here is a good and hopefully thought provoking article on the general subject of the illiberal and anti-intellectual arguments and repressive rhetorical techniques almost universally employed by the man made global warming fundamentalists.
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/article/2792/

[hippietim]

The first time I get some data that isn't tainted by politics, I will be willing to read it.

There is no such thing. There are compelling sounding arguments on both sides of this debate. So in the end it comes down to who are you going to believe. So most folks will just believe their party line because they are the people they are most likely to not distrust (double negative used on purpose).

One thing's for sure, anything publicly released by an oil company is not going to be worth reading/watching. They are far worse than the tobacco companies.

[Spivonious]

I heard somewhere that the world's termite population outputs more CO2 than humans do. Humans add something like 2% of the total greenhouse gases.

A 2 degree increase over the next 100 years sounds very natural and normal to me. It's been warming up since the last Ice Age.

[hippietim]

I heard somewhere that the world's termite population outputs more CO2 than humans do. Humans add something like 2% of the total greenhouse gases.

What I've read from the US DoE is that humans add well over 20% of the CO2 to the atmosphere and over 2/3 of the methane. The percentage of gases in aggregate isn't interesting per se since the man-made gases introduced into the enviroment have a longer-term impact than things like C02 or methane that are produced naturally. This is why we got rid of things like freon and other CFCs - they'll stay in the atmosphere for hundreds of years and mess with both heating and cooling as they make their way to the outer atmosphere.

[RacerX]

Mr Methane!

http://www.mrmethane.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Methane

[charvelguy]

The sun rose in the east today.. just thought I'd let you know I witnessed that observation.

[SeventhSon]

So what's your stance on gun control?

well, seeing i'm originally from TX and used to go bird hunting all the time, i have my particular stance. oh yes, as a republican, i also voted for george bush and against al gore in the 1st election. However, I had strong feelings about the Iraq war and voted for Kerry in the 2nd.

but it's evident that you see the global warming debate through right vs. left glasses. which is how i suspect most people look at this debate.

this discussion is important for me because the blurring of traditionally clear lines between junk science and valid science is threatening to lead to the teachings of intelligent design into the classroom which would be a catastrophe to our education system.

btw, tashtego, the oregon petition was disavowed by the National Academy of Science (even though it was authored by a past president). The NAS in fact issued a rebuttal. And many of the signatories were on the payroll of Exxon. The other petition is not as disenting as you make it out to be. A nice summary on both can be found on wikipedia. But the actual text of both can be found online. Regardless, these are just petitions and political statements.

Again, where is the published paper in a peer reviewed journal rebutting the global warming theory? It would be a rain maker for such a scientist. A career maker. Or where is the evidence that such a scientist that wants to publish his findings is being prevented from doing so by some "scary" mysterious global warming cabal?

Despite ample money to do so, despite ample political will to do so, despite the incredible amount of fame and fortune that would result, not one scientist has published a paper in a peer reviewed journal rebutting global warming.

[OnlineStageGear]

I was producing some serious Methane Sunday morning.

[danastas]

Man, you pull that peer review as often as Mattie Ross pulled the Lawyer J. Daggett "like a gun" in the 1969 movie "True Grit"

http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0065126/quotes

Very true. And there's a good reason why. peer review means people have looked at my bullshit closely, and agreed with it. No peer review? No one even cares to pay attention to your bullshit.

I can tell you from experience, not all bullshit is rated equal.

[xenophobe]

However, I had strong feelings about the Iraq war and voted for Kerry in the 2nd.

Scary. I'm no fan of Bush, but every time I think of Al Gore or John Kerry, I'm glad GWBush won.

but it's evident that you see the global warming debate through right vs. left glasses. which is how i suspect most people look at this debate.

You're so wrong on that. I am an independent. I see the Republicans as much a problem as the Democrats.

However, I see that the secular progressives are the ones spreading FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) on the issues of gun control, global warming, and many other subjects.

Despite ample money to do so, despite ample political will to do so, despite the incredible amount of fame and fortune that would result, not one scientist has published a paper in a peer reviewed journal rebutting global warming.

Before Global Warming theorists, Global Cooling was considered "the end of the world" stuff in the 70's and 80's with large summits, studies and groups of intellectuals who actually believed it. Scientists and nutritionists also claimed margarine and eggs were bad for you, only to later figure out, okay they're not really bad, and in fact butter may be healthier than the alternatives, and that eggs are actually good for you.

The fact is that scientists regularly make determinations based on studies and later conclude that their original results were skewed, based on improper sampling, or using models that weren't accurate or didn't factor important information that could change the results completely.

Another fact is that we have not existed long enough to know with any certainty if global warming or cooling is something that humanity can influence in any measurable fashion and 'predicting' these results and screaming end of the world is a tactic pushed by political activism, is horribly overstated and has way too many variables and factors that are impossible to quantify.

[xenophobe]

http://epw.senate.gov/repwhitepapers/6345050%20Hot%20&%20Cold%20Media.pdf

[SeventhSon]

You're so wrong on that. I am an independent. I see the Republicans as much a problem as the Democrats.

However, I see that the secular progressives are the ones spreading FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) on the issues of gun control, global warming, and many other subjects.

Whether it's left vs. right or your beliefs vs. "secular progressives", you are basically using ad-hominem techniques to try and make your point.

you are quick to label the person you disagree with as birkenstock wearing, wife beating, commie liberal who hates america, but as far as i can tell (i may be wrong) i have not done the same with you. I respect your opinions, but I disagree with them. i may have made a leap of faith that you lean to the right, but i have not labeled you in a disparaging way.

Before Global Warming theorists, Global Cooling was considered "the end of the world" stuff in the 70's and 80's with large summits, studies and groups of intellectuals who actually believed it.

Oh, this chestnut again. There were never any peer reviewed articles to this effect. http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/

The "1970's prediction of an iceage" myth is based on two media articles by National Geographic and Newsweek where the journalists got their science wrong (more so in Newsweek).

Scientists and nutritionists also claimed margarine and eggs were bad for you, only to later figure out, okay they're not really bad, and in fact butter may be healthier than the alternatives, and that eggs are actually good for you.

The fact is that scientists regularly make determinations based on studies and later conclude that their original results were skewed, based on improper sampling, or using models that weren't accurate or didn't factor important information that could change the results completely.

Another fact is that we have not existed long enough to know with any certainty if global warming or cooling is something that humanity can influence in any measurable fashion and 'predicting' these results and screaming end of the world is a tactic pushed by political activism, is horribly overstated and has way too many variables and factors that are impossible to quantify.

So find a scientist who supports the hypothesis that you outline above and will collaborate with you and Inhofe and send your findings to Science or Nature on why Global Warming is a myth...under the very reasonable motivation that a fraud of epic proportions is taking place and billions of dollars are at stake. Better yet, why can't the oil companies and Bushco find this scientist?

[SeventhSon]

http://epw.senate.gov/repwhitepapers...ld%20Media.pdf

Criticizing the media is not meaningful because they aren't scientists.

[xenophobe]

Just wow... You're one of the most closed minded people I've ever met.

The fact is that climate modeling of the earth is such an impossible task that we do not currently have the technology or intellectual prowess to complete anything remotely realistic.

It takes the most powerful supercomputers in the world years to model the explosion of a thermonuclear explosion, and not even near the resources have been used to 'predict' the incredibly vast and dynamic nature of the whole planet.

You can spin your beliefs however you wish, but climatology modeling is still science fiction.

And the fact is, many of the very scientists that are claiming global warming now were claiming global cooling a couple of decades ago.

If you had bothered to even read the PDF I posted, it is not one sided, it presents facts from both sides, as well as facts that the global warmists don't tell you.

And I guess you're also going to claim that all of the record cold that North America has been experiencing is due to global warming too. :p