As much as I believe in learning spelling in school...or at least typing.

Global warming is a religion, that's all. There is no such thing as man made Global Warming. Years from now, the earth will cool and we will be hearing from the tree huggers about global cooling.
The whole thing is a scam to keep the grants coming in from the government.

The world is gonna end, we are all gonna die! Isn't it terrible? It's a tragedy of biblical proportions!
and its all true...true I tell you true!

now...worry about it...buy a hybrid car....change your light bulbs....don't drink bottle water...wear sandals and hug trees...

and, if you do all of this maybe just maybe it will be all right...


nope...
the world IS going to end
we are all going to die
and there's not a damn thing you or anyone else can do about it

it's called propaganda
they say something that is basically true...then they twist it and convince you that it is something you have to worry about.

See my full response to this tripe under his other posting - apparently he doesn't understand threading, either...

The concept of Global Warming did not come from the private sector. My understabnding is the Jet Propulsion Lab was studying the atmosphere of Venus. Trying to understand the planets high surface tempatures. The tempature should not be 850F. The location of the planet is at a point where the temps should be sustainable for life. The carbon levels in the atmosphere of Venus are extremely high. This anomaly is what started reseach into the effects of high carbon levels on atmospheres.
Science is not a religion. Religious concepts don't change.The religious books are complete. Science will never be completed. Science is simply a methodical approach to finding facts. The facts are published and may be challenged by other members of the scientific community.The scientific community world wide seems in ageement with Global Warming. Politics is another story. The great irony here is that during the Bush administration the Department Of Defense published a report on the greatest security threat to the United States in the comming decade. No it wasn't terror, but Global Warming. While President Bush was stating that there was no global warming problem. Political realality, someone should study that!

What worries me about this debate is the assumption that Human activity is the cause. So maybe the globe is warming - where is the ironclad evidence that human activity is responsible?

Does increased CO2 cause warming - or does warming increase CO2? Put a coke bottle in a warm car - leave it a while and measure the CO2 increase.

Is there another possible cause for global warming, besides human activity? Can you scare enough people to make a career in it?

Remember, Iceland used to be green and Greenland is covered in ice? The idea that climate would be constant if it weren't for those meddling humans is out there. Climate change is a misnomer - if it stopped changing - now that would be news.

Here, SonOfPete provides us with another classic example of how the Climate-Change denialists work. Maybe we should change the title of this forum to "How Climate Change Denialists Work" - they're giving us so many good examples of how they work to convince us:
1. that the climate isn't changing so we don't need to do anything, and when that didn't work,
2. that it's not caused by people so we don't need to do anything, and when that didn't work,
3. that it will be beneficial so we don't need to do anything about it, and when that didn't work,
4. that the effects will be small so we don't need to do anything about it, and when that didn't work,
5. that it's natural, so we don't need to do anything about it, and when that didn't work,
6. that the science is not sound, so we don't need to do anything about it, and when that didn't work,
7. that someone is making a career out if it, so we don't need to do anything about it, and when that didn't work,
8. that there is uncertainty...
and so on - leaving no straw ungrasped.

Notice that they can never, ever point to a peer-reviewed, published scientific paper that claims that climate change is not real. Never.

But let's assume that SonOfSam is not in the employ of an oil/coal company (there are many denialists who are employed by oil/coal companies or their PR arms). Here's a question for him:

If you had your new house studied by 100 expert home inspection specialists, and 97 of them were over 90% sure that your gas furnace was leaking carbon monoxide and would kill you & your family one night, would you ask "Which night, exactly? And at what time? And which of my kids will it kill, exactly?" I don't think you would really ask those questions, would you? But you (and your denialist buddies) demand certainty -"ironclad evidence" - from the scientists.

Here's a bulletin - 97% of climate scientists are over 90% certain that climate change is real, and that it's human-caused, and that it is a large and growing threat to humanity. In the world of real science, that *is* certainty. Read this: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html

Here's another: CO2 causes warming, which releases more CO2, which causes more warming, etc - that's called "positive feedback". When we hit about 450ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, we will be into runaway climate change, where positive feedback makes it impossible to control climate change. After that, all bets are off, probably for several thousand years, until Earth can reduce CO2 naturally. Unless we wind up like Venus. By the way, we're at 392ppm as of June 2010.

And by the way, Iceland did not used to be green, and neither did Greenland. Norse communities on Greenland failed as soon as supply lines from Iceland were cut, probably by a very small change in climate (much, much smaller than what we are causing) combined with political and religious turmoil in Europe. Icelandic communities came close to failing, too. Our civilizations are very fragile.

Read this:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html

1.I'm a heretic then? Burning me at the stake might release too many carbon emmissions...

2.No, I'm not working for BP. Notice I'm not calling you names Kempton or accusing you of anything underhanded?

3.I'm old enough to remember the ice age we were told to expect, what percentage of "certain" were those scientists? BRRRR...

4. No, three will do.

SonOfPete - You're not a heretic, unless you consider your views to be religious rather than scientific - and they are not scientific.

I actually said "Let's assume that SonOfSam is not in the employ of an oil/coal company..." How is that calling you anything? By the way - you failed to answer the question.

I am also old enough to remember when there was some thought that we might be entering an ice age. Apparently, better than you do. That was in the mid 1970s, when climate theories were barely developed and computers powerful to accurately model the atmosphere did not exist, yet. So they were not certain. Some books were written at the pop-sci level, and some papers were published, but the research since then has not borne out the "cooling" theories - quite the opposite.

By contrast - and this should concern you deeply - the IPCC (the international body of scientists that reviews and reports on climate research) has consistently UNDER-estimated the severity of climate change. In other words, when predictions have been compared to observed and measured reality, the reality has been worse than expected. Temperatures are rising faster than predicted. Ice is melting faster. Sea levels are rising faster. CO2 levels are rising faster.

Sorry, folks - that's the facts.

Antarctica is the biggest its been in years. If its anything its global cooling

DAMN girlfriend!

Yup! James...

One of the few smart things I've read on this discussion forum. Keep going.

I dont think the world is gonna end soon
i thinmk its a myth

If you have A paper that needs to be reviewed...post it. What is the evidence that you are going to provide for your peer review? This is total bull...socialist scab!

That is so true. In fact in the 60s there was a concern with global cooling, and scientists everywhere were paid to solve that problem. Personally, I think we as a people can and should use resources more carefully, and respect nature. But as far as us "causing" global warming, I do not believe the propoganda around the topic. The kyoto accord was the telling sign, "write us a blsnk check, and well solve global warming" says the politicians. :)