Believers pillage and plunder the people.

Murph ain't gonna do well in die zukunft.

"[A]s I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn't help thinking that I was watching a form of treason -- treason against the planet."

Wow, its amazing to me how each side of the aisle takes such bullshit approaches to coercing people to agree with them. Don't like the Patriot Act? You're a terrorist sympathizer. Don't subscribe to every terrifying prediction of Global Climate Change? Now you're a traitor.

People who make these types of arguments do so because they aren't smart enough to debate about with someone who may disagree. Its kind of sad.

"treason against the planet"

piffle

The planet will be fine; Until the sun blows up in a 3E11 weeks.
Homo sapiens, on the other hand, will, with luck, be way more than decimated, but not extinguished.

This is stupid.

Any realistic measure to curb carbon emmissions will have virtually no effect on climate change whatsoever - and that's IF we accept the infallability of the climate change computer models.

#5, so then is it toga party time?

You're dealing in absolutes there JeffJ... No realistic measures will have any effect? so what do you propose smart guy?

#6 | Posted by Qual70

Google Copenhagenconsensus - they can explain common sense measures in preparation for the effects of a warming planet far better than I can.

Or, go to Amazon and google "Cool it".

Seriously, we are being fleeced - our standard of living WILL go down with measures like capntrade and we won't get any benefit in terms of climate change. Essentially, it's money wasted.

"and that's IF we accept the infallability of the climate change computer models."

'1896
Arrhenius publishes first calculation of global warming from human emissions of CO2. '

'1938
Callendar argues that CO2 greenhouse global warming is underway, reviving interest in the question.'

The flat earth traitors just don't get it.

Be Well.

Remind us what computers they used.

Non-seuquitur.

Today predictions about how much the earth will warm and what the consequences will be are largely borne out of computer modeling.

Oh, we get it perfectly well, Skip.

Far better than the GW alarmists, that's for sure.

"Non-seuquitur(sic)."

You can't even spell non-sequitur.

Time Magazine
Science: Warmer World
Monday, Jan. 02, 1939

Alex Jones is wrong about the fraction that won't make it; It's much larger.

I met him while watching a lunar eclipse; Dipshit thought the moon would rise in the West.

Zat is busting out his tired old line asserting his high intellect over the rest of us

"Deniers Betray the Planet"

Wrong! Deniers base their beliefs in science, and not science fiction. The truth is that the warming trend is over, and has been for quite some time. We are now in a cooling trend. Why did the Obama administration suppress a report that supports this truth? Because the Democrats want the power to exert control over everything we do.

And you libs thought the Republicans were the ones who wanted to take away your freedoms.

#16 | Posted by Republican4ever at 2009-06-30 09:04 PM | Reply | Flag: makes up shit

Apologies to Goatman, who, for some damn reason, hates poetry ...

God, A Poem

A nasty surprise in a sandwich,
A drawing-pin caught in your sock,
The limpest of shakes from a hand which
You'd thought would be firm as a rock,

A serious mistake in a nightie,
A grave disappointment all round
Is all that you'll get from th'Almighty,
Is all that you'll get underground.

Oh he said: 'If you lay off the crumpet
I'll see you alright in the end.
Just hang on until the last trumpet.
Have faith in me, chum-I'm your friend.'

But if you remind him, he'll tell you:
'I'm sorry, I must have been pissed-
Though your name rings a sort of a bell. You
Should have guessed that I do not exist.

'I didn't exist at Creation,
I didn't exist at the Flood,
And I won't be around for Salvation
To sort out the sheep from the cud-

'Or whatever the phrase is. The fact is
In soteriological terms
I'm a crude existential malpractice
And you are a diet of worms.

'You're a nasty surprise in a sandwich.
You're a drawing-pin caught in my sock.
You're the limpest of shakes from a hand which
I'd have thought would be firm as a rock,

'You're a serious mistake in a nightie,
You're a grave disappointment all round-
That's all you are, ' says th'Almighty,
'And that's all that you'll be underground.'

1983

James Fenton

Ayatollah: Election Protesters are Enemies of God
Krugman: Deniers Betray the Planet

Is it just me or do these two headlines bear a striking similarity?

Of course the Global Warming/Climate Change argument is wrong on its face. We have to remember those driving the movement don't care in the least about the climate. To them it's nothing but a tool for socio-economic manipulation.

You can't have a rational argument with them because the two sides are not discussing the same issue. One side is discussing the science of global weather patterns while the other is trying to convince us how desperately important it is that we unilaterally destroy the energy infrastructure of the western world while at the same time making damn sure we don't try to develop anything better to take its place.

Is he talking about the new research from EPA saying that the temperatures have fallen in the last 8 years straight? Am I missing something here?

" Am I missing something here? "

Posted by mysterytoy at 2009-06-30 09:35 PM

yup

Believers pillage and plunder the people.

#1 | Posted by MURPHY

Agreed.

Polar bears eat baby seals!

Live with it.

nsidc.org

2007 was the lowest Arctic ice extent ever measured, the first year the Northwest Passage opened in human history.

#18 | Posted by Zatoichi

LOL!!!

Human history goes back, what? 200 years.

LOL!!

#13 | Posted by Zatoichi

I got some carbon credits for sale.

Hey I got the koolaide

Vegetarians 'avoid more cancers'
Eating a salad
About half of the participants were vegetarians

Vegetarians are generally less likely than meat eaters to develop cancer but this does not apply to all forms of the disease, a major study has found.

"A person who does not believe in God is a person who will believe in anything."

Atheists and scoffers enjoy deriding theists for their "fear of death and the end" which is placated by a belief in God. Yet these same boneheaded atheists love to pilfer one or more of the numerous chicken little junk science schemes, doing the very thing they deride theists for doing...trying to frighten the masses into believing their "end of the world" pseudo science.

Hey Rcade, did you happen to notice dinosaurs don't exist anymore? Did you also happen to notice that 99% of all life that has existed on this planet is now extinct?

Run along now Chicken Little!

#14 ZAT

The whole eclipse thing is FF. That's no shit eh?

My whole state has yet to bust a million but I would conservatively give us 2/3 survival. And we still like each other.

Oh yeah Krugman. The World's Oceans are the BIGGEST traitors of ALL!

#25 | Posted by Eddie
Human history goes back, what? 200 years.

You are severely retarded.

Zatoichi

I can't believe you keep referencing the two worse magazines for actual scientific information, "Time" and "Science." It is pretty obvious you know absolutely nothing about global warming and the effect of man on it. Of course, you believe in Paul Krugman, who is a whore for the liberals.
"Have money will travel"

Krugman is such a pussy.

Pussy isn't the right word. To call Krugman a pussy is an insult to all vaginas across the globe, (even the smelly ones.) I prefer Dem whore.

Wurster, you are correct. Assclown is a better word.

Liberal dems -- are they not simply amazing???

Yes...Assclown.

From now on I will refer to Paul Krugman as "Assclown."

Perfect Buz

"Climate change denial???" Oh this is too f-ing funny! Now anyone who can cite hundreds of scientists doubting and denying global warming are like "Holocaust deniers!"
Thought police, always from the left. Behavior police, always from the right.
And stupid true-believers follow loyally.

hey Diablo, give us a list those denial scientists and their specialties instead of just touting what is more than likely BS.

Oh, we get it perfectly well, Skip.

Far better than the GW alarmists, that's for sure.

Of course you "get" everything, JeffJ.

Hell you should run for President and fix everything with a wave of you all knowing hands.

Hell you should run for President and fix everything with a wave of you all knowing hands.

I can prescribe a course of action for the problems that a warming planet will cause for humans that are 100-1000 times more effective, at a cost that is 100-1000 times less costly than bullshit like Kyoto.

I certainly don't have all of the answers for all that plagues this world, but on this issue my answers are ridiculously more effective in every way that what's being offered up by your beloved Democratic party.

I would prefer, if they plan to tax the United States out of existence they use a more believable pretence. Say, Alien invaders are coming to Earth to dismantle the Internet and eat your children. You know, something not so obviously a money and power grab.

Hell you should run for President and fix everything with a wave of you all knowing hands.

Some guy already did that. Now I don't have to worry about my mortgage or car payment!

Typical leftist rant. don't discuss the issue, just belittle the questioners!

"It's treason! Treason, I tells ya!" LOL. Mo' drama from the homies of Obama.

What I never understand about people who say there's no global warming is...does that mean we shouldn't strive for cleaner, more efficient energy?

What I never understand about people who say there's no global warming is...does that mean we shouldn't strive for cleaner, more efficient energy?

#46 | Posted by Mad_World at 2009-07-01 08:07 AM | Reply | Flag: Exactly!

I've no problem saying that the Global Warming crowd is lead by its own convictions and the same for the non GW crowd.

I DO have a problem with the Crap and Tax bill that does nothing significant except pull money out of my wallet and extends federal governmental control over that same life.

The "Gotta do it now" is bullshit. It is a way to get a whole lot of things passed before people "wake up" and find out that we've now entered into a era of governmental choice instead of personal choice.

HOWEVER, I agree that there is nothing wrong with finding efficiencies in procuring and utilizing energy. I do feel the limitations (nuclear? exploiting existing resources, etc.) are false though.

People in the US will adapt to whatever makes the most economic sense. After all, we ARE the "consumer nation."

hey krugman, mr. noble prize winner,

you just don't get it do you. that's the way capitalism works.

One of the high priests of the earth religion Krugman is in a sort of denial him self and as Algore (the highest priest) once pointed out: "denial is not just the river in Egypt". Never mind that climate has cooled somewhat since the 90'- this is not an issue. Confiscation of wealth and destruction of industry/economy is the only plan that the great earth religion followers have at this time. To be sure-the climate is changing and has been for about 4 billion years. There will be time that we may need to adapt to this change in a big way and the only way to facilitate such adaptation would be technology and gigantic developments in scientific research. For this we will need robust industries and economy. Forget the caves for the commoners as these orthodox evangelical nomenclatura preaches and running for the hills will not do.

Krugman is in the vanguard of left wing ding lunacy, but he's not as funny as Algore.

does that mean we shouldn't strive for cleaner, more efficient energy?

#46 | Posted by Mad_World

"Cleaner?"

Define what that means.

I can certainly get behind scrubbing the soot and other truly harmful contaminents out of emmissions...but CO2??? Get real.

"More efficient?"

Absolutely. Currently, when evaluating cost and output per unit, carbon-based energy is easily the most 'efficient' source of energy currently available.

the car is the #1 problem. big oil wants nothing done about it

This is stupid:
Any realistic measure to curb carbon emmissions will have virtually no effect on climate change whatsoever - and that's IF we accept the infallability of the climate change computer models.
#5 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

the car is the #1 problem. big oil wants nothing done about it

#52 | Posted by nutcase

That's plain bullshit.

This is a vast country.

Urban-sprawl was a predictable result.

The 'active' lifestyle requires a family vehicle that is able to cart mom, dad, 2.5 kids, Rover, gear AND be capable of towing a camper and be able to traverse competently off-asphalt.

Oftentimes, said vehicle must be capable of having lumber and dirt tossed into its bed and hauled to the next site.

This is how many blue-blooded Americans earn their stipend - hard-work with a ruggged and versatile vehicle to meet the task. But, it isn't JUST about work....said vehicle needs to be able to haul the family and gear, plus be able to tow personal recreation AND said vehicle must be competent in the snow-laden areas of the US.

Yet, this is the vehicle to be demonized. In addition to its worth to America based solely on merit; it is one of those few vehicles sold at a healthy profit.

So, we have 2 failing domestic automakers and another on thin-ice and lets try and destroy their primary source of profitable income.

That makes sense.

I remember being a teen in the early 80s and reading a NewsWeek article about "the coming Ice Age". Unlike our present day Green Religion folks, it was based on actual Science.

I remember becoming aware of the human caused global warming HYPOTHESIS in the 90s (I call it a "Hypothesis" because it does not merit the term "theory". The word "theory" implies some solid backing evidence....)

When I first read the Global Warming Hypothesis, my first thoughts were that it was interesting, and could be true, but I wondered how the theory could distinguish between NATURAL climate change (which is ALWAYS damaging to environments it occurs in), and manmade warming. My first thought was about the mini-Iceage.

Over the next 15ish years, I've ceased to regard the Global Warming Hypothesis with scientific interest, and now view it with unbridled contempt. Those who back it as preached by Al Gore RAPE (in the worst sense of the word) science. They do real damege to real people.

The moment the Global warming Hypothesis idiots earning my eternal contempt was when they raped science by trying to deny the EXISTANCE of the mini ice age in the middle ages. They've stopped doing this for the last few years, but for while they tried to make that case. RAPE of Science.

For now, I assume ALL climate change advocates are wrong unless proven otherwise, which is sad but needed. Science is impared if you can't trust the basic honesty of researchers.

To all Global Warming idiots I have a simple suggestion:

The earth has been warmer than it is now, long before SUVs. It has also been much colder. EVIDENCE OF TEMPERATURE CHANGE, EVEN RAPID AND SERIOUSLY DAMAGING, IS NOT, REPEAT: "NOT", EVIDENCE OF HUMAN CAUSED CLIMATE CHANGE. IT IS NOT, AND NEVER WILL BE. MAKE YOUR CASE "WITHOUT" POINTING TO ACTUAL CLIMATE CHANGE AS "EVIDENCE".

Having said all that, I will still grant the Global Warming Hypothesis itself the dignity of the term "hypothesis". At some level humans MUST impact their environment, and it is an important area of study. Back in the 1960s a few rivers in the U.S. were so poluted that they caught on fire. That no longer happens here, but does happen in China. Study of human interaction with the Environment is of vital importance to human wellbeing. The science of that study has been RAPED, and the rapists (Al Gore and friends...) are still brutalizing science today. There is a human cost to their stupidity, but they care not.

" in the early 80s and reading a NewsWeek article about "the coming Ice Age""

#55 | Posted by USAF242 at 2009-07-01 09:44 AM | Reply | Flag: makes up shit

1970
Aerosols from human activity are shown to be increasing swiftly. Bryson claims they counteract global warming and may bring serious cooling. =>Aerosols

1974
Serious droughts since 1972 increase concern about climate, with cooling from aerosols suspected to be as likely as warming; scientists are doubtful as journalists talk of a new ice age.

The Discovery of Global Warming Timeline (Milestones)

Eberly, that must mean YOU think Zatoichi has a greater knowledge and intellect than yourself,
and not too shallow a grasp on wisdom, which has nothing to do with either.

You would be 100% correct.

Oh yeah. Nothing is above my pay grade, and I am just a dumb fucking carpenter.

As Zatoichi, happy extinction.
Dumbass.

No people that believe that Ecology is a real earth science and use it as such is betraying the planet... :/ Krugeman is an idiot because there are also scientists at MIT that are "deniers" as well... And he is not looking at the whole science.. such as when the Earth is done "warming" it's going to start cooling...

hey Diablo, give us a list those denial scientists and their specialties instead of just touting what is more than likely BS.

#39 | POSTED BY VMA224
-----------------

I'll have a go...

Tom Victor Segalstad, Associate Professor of Resource- and Environmental Geology at the University of Oslo and expert IPCC reviewer

Robert C. Balling Jr., Professor of Climatology, Arizona State University

Anthony Lupo, Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia

James O'Brien, Director Emeritus of the Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies at Florida State University

Joseph D'Aleo, Executive Director, Certified Consultant Meteorologist

Sallie Baliunas, Astrophysicist

Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist, University of Alabama

George Taylor, Certified Consulting Meteorologist 

Hendrik Tennekes, Former Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

Thomas A. Birkland, Director of the Center for Policy Research in the Nelson A. Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy at the University of Albany

Reid A. Bryson Ph.D. D.Sc. D.Engr., Global 500 Laureate, Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research, Emeritus Prof. of Meteorology, of Geography, and of Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI
Robert Carter, Researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, Australia

John Coleman, Founder of The Weather Channel, TV Meteorologist KUSI-TV, San Diego

William Cotton, Professor in the Department of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University

Chris De Freitas, climate scientist in the School of Geography, Geology and 
Environmental Science at the University of Auckland 


David Deming, Associate Professor of Arts and Science at the University of Oklahoma

Ben Herman, Professor and former Head of the Atmospheric Sciences Department at the University of Arizona and former Director of the Institute of Atmospheric Physics


Christopher Horner, Counsel, Cooler Heads Coalition and Senior Fellow, CEI

Douglas V. Hoyt, Solar Physicist and Climatologist

Warwick Hughes, Earth Scientist

Craig D. Idso, Founder, Chairman of the Board, and former President of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change

Sherwood D. Idso, President of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change

Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist and chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland

Madhav Khandekar, retired Meteorologist, formerly with Environment Canada

David Legates, Associate Professor in Climatology, University of Delaware

Martin Livermore, Scientific Alliance, Cambridge, UK

Joseph E. Luisi, Former Chief Meteorologist for Delta Airlines

Pat Michaels, Research professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia

H. Michael "Mike" Mogil, Certified Consulting Meteorologist, How The Weather Works, LLC

Tad Murty, Adjunct Professor of Earth Sciences and Civil Engineering, University of Ottawa

John E. Oliphant, Colonel, USAF(Ret)

Gary Sharp, Scientific Director, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study

S. Fred Singer, President of the Science & Environment Policy Project

Richard C. Willson, Principal Investigator, ACRIM Experiments

That enough for ya?

These people aren't looking at it as science. They are looking at as a source of revenue. Just like so many other scam taxes. Education lottery's that go into the general funds instead of the school systems. Gas taxes that don't go to highways. It's all about selling a tax to the public by saying "Don't you care about the Earth".

Deniers Betray the Planet? A vulgar absurdity!
Not unlike Lenin's minions and useful idiots in the West these followers-environmentalists are the minions of the new-time religion. Unfortunately, this degrades the legitimate sciences of the human living environment and interjects political agenda where there should be none. However, this is not unexpected-given that we have surrendered "education" to the State

"They are looking at as a source of revenue."

LOL...and of course Algore, the government and the "greenies" are not A BIT interested in revenue....LOL.

A recent article was highlighting the fact that global warming skeptics are quickly growing in number. Among these skeptics are many scientists, like the ones GW alarmists say don't exist.

What I never understand about people who say there's no global warming is...does that mean we shouldn't strive for cleaner, more efficient energy?

#46 | Posted by Mad_World

And every single GW skeptic I know is in favor of a cleaner planet and more efficient energy. The problem is we aren't doing so great in finding that alternative source. Obama is supposed to spend even more money in that area so we'll see what happens over the next few years. But, you're wrong if you think that GW skeptics don't want a better overall planet. We just don't want to be unfairly taxed and watch our government throw billions of dollars down the toilet.

What I want to know is this. What are global warming advocates going to do and say when we hit our next ice age? Are we then going to spend billions in trying to warm our planet up?

Here's another one,

Stephen E. Schwartz - Atmospheric scientist at Brookhaven National Laboratory

His peer reviewed 2007 study concluded that "the Earth's climate is only about one-third as sensitive to carbon dioxide as the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) assumes"

How a Witch Hunt works:

My cow died.
The unpleasent women who lives next door was looking at my cow when it died.
My neighbor that I don't like killed my cow. She gave it the evil eye.
She is Witch!!! BURN HER!!!

How a Green Witch Hunt works:

A local (or global) climate is changing (real or percieved)
Nasty Humans not living a radical green lifestyle are interacting with the changing environment.
Those nasty humans CAUSED the cliamte change.
REGULATE THEM TO DEATH!!! (literally true in some cases, DDT being only the most extreme example)

There are very valid grounds to study, and in MANY cases take serious action, on environmental issues. Rivers used to catch on fire in the U.S. and still do catch on fire in some countries. WE COULD live cleaner. But the whole issue has become so contaminated with green religion, that any purposed environemntal rules and regulations needed to purged of green polution before being enacted. (I'd love to see some more trash recycling, but cap and trade is pure crap).

Human interaction with an environment is, by itself, valid reason to study the interaction. Regulation (and enforcement) is often needed to avoid flaming rivers and mass poisoning. But green religion is pure contamination of science. Green priests with science degrees rape their science in the service of their religion.

Baloney.. this bill has little to do with climate change, other than using it as a cover. This is about control and taxes.

Global warming IF its happening (and even that little fact is open to considerable questioning) is not man made.. and EVEN if we agreed that it was.. the US cannot do anything about it.

China and India have already given this the finger.. and even the most die hard global warming evangelist has to admit that sans their agreement.. we can't change anything.

So, what's the point? Taxes and Control.. the religion of the far left.. their only religion.

The flat earth traitors just don't get it

Idiot

The Nether... the only person I have a problem with so far is David Deming... that man has his head so far up his ass it's not even funny... I went to OU and had many encounters with that man... I was VERY disappointed in his debate against David Karoly (who was a Meteorology Professor at OU from Australia whose main area of study was Global Warming)... Karoly gave only partial data (like Meteorologist tend to since they usually go by records that only go back maybe 200 years or so) and David Deming used NEWSPAPER articles to debate against scientific facts...

FEAR!

You can do things your own way if they're done just how I say!

More and more the left is adopting the lexicon they so hated from the right and everyday it is harder to tell the difference between the two.

#71 | POSTED BY K8BLUJAY
--------------

I'm sure it's a fair criticism. I really don't know the work of anyone on that list, other than they are skeptical of AGW theory. My interest is purely to display the ignorance of saying there are no scientist skeptics and no peer reviewed research skeptical of AGW.

I certainly don't have all of the answers for all that plagues this world, but on this issue my answers are ridiculously more effective in every way

Then by all means, post them (summarized of course). I'm not being facetious. I'm genuinely interested in how you think the problem should be fixed or even what you think the main problem actually is.

that what's being offered up by your beloved Democratic party.

LOL I'm an equal opportunity hater. Both parties suck IMO.

FEAR!

You can do things your own way if they're done just how I say!

More and more the left is adopting the lexicon they so hated from the right and everyday it is harder to tell the difference between the two.

#72 | Posted by kanrei at 2009-07-01 11:11 AM

It's sounding more and more like the terrorist fear-mongering bullshit from the Bush admin.

Like Waxman saying that republicans are "rooting against the world."

- Deniers should have their words immortalized in stone so their descendants can share the guilt.
- John Boehner finally said something intelligent after his 20percenters stuffed the climate bill with expensive crap: "Hey, people deserve to know what's in this pile of s--t."

"LOL I'm an equal opportunity hater. Both parties suck IMO.'

Damn it, jpw! As a man who has voted Democrat for president since 1968, I have to say...No, YELL!!....ummm, you're right.

Zat,

"the first year the Northwest Passage opened in human history."

Its a well known, documented fact that during the Medival Warm Period, that the Norse not only navigated the NWP, but explored it. During this period its is believed to be much warmer than even today.

Heres a clue, it might be called a PASSAGE for a reason.

Deniers should have their words immortalized in stone so their descendants can share the guilt.
* * * * *

Sounds good to me. I'm a "denier", along with most of the free-minded people I know.

Meantime, park your car, bitch. You shouldn't need an act of Congress to save the planet from overconsumers, like yourself.
"Grandpa, what did you do to save the planet?"
"Nothing. The GOP killed the climate change bill, so I just blamed them every time I turned on the air conditioning, took a plane ride, or drove to the store, instead of walking."
"Oh. The GOP must have been pretty powerful, to make you do those things."
Retard.

Again a topic that just pisses me off. What cattle people are. We really need to clean up our act as a species, I will not debate that and for that reason the scare about global climate change is good. But anyone that thinks the US is the bad guy in this area think again and visit some other countries. China, India, Any country in Europe, etc.

For 10 year it was Global Warming. Now it is "Climate Change". Why? Because Global warming theory is really falling apart. Anyone who challenges the theories legitimately gets stomped because it isn't PC though. There are man made things going on that have FAR greater impact on climate than the CO2 emissions which is the only thing dopes want to talk about.

One thing is certain. Climate change has been going on continuously since the formation of this planet. Period. That said everyone who's pointing out all the "Global Warming" dates - why aren't you pointing out the ones in between talking about global cooling???? Wasn't that the buzz in the 70s? Global cooling since the 1940s? Think about ancient Egypt. It was far more lush and fertile then it is now. Why? The thing is there is nothing we can to do stop climate change. It is going to happen. The Earth is not static. What's man's impact? Hard to judge.

Does anyone here realize what tiny percentage of green house gasses that man is directly responsible for or that Sun activity plays a far greater impact then man ever could? You want to minimize climate change? Quit cutting down rain forests. Abolish modern farming practices. Make less developed nations follow the developed world's standards. etc. If you are really worried about Greenhouse gasses and man's impact on climate change. It's time to put population limits on countries. Say 50% lower then they are today to start? Chose breeders selectively or by lottery etc.

Some of you need to study up on some things like Chaos Theory and we can have reasonable discussion on this topic at that point.

Chaos is not a theory if you are a New York Islanders fan.

global warming, climate change, flawed sicence, its been proven its wrong, you just have the libtard media and other tree huggers wanting to make it real. a theory by its true nature is an educated guess, I would not put much faith in the educated part. more like Idiot guess

#82 | Posted by noobama at 2009-07-01 01:25 PM | Reply | Flag: idiot incarnate

People. The Planet Earth is not going anywhere. Period. We are the ones that are in danger if we are not good stewrds of "our" world. This save the Planet shit has got to stop. Save Humanity would make more sense. Even then we are a HIGHLY adaptive species. We Will Survive.

99% of all species that have existed on this world are now gone. Some by Millions of years. This is what mother nature does. She kills. And there is NOTHING we could do if this planet decided to shuck us off like we were fleas. To think we can "control" this world and its eco system is BEYOND delusional. We can only do mininal things but, in the long run The Earth wins.

The mounting extinction of species is not the result of global warming. It is however a result of the mounting abuse piled on by man. When you consider the diversity in rain forests and the often very limited area MANY species reside in within a rain forest, is it any wonder? They are home to 2/3s of the species in the world. We have watched them go from around 14% of land mass down to 6% in the last several years. I do not condone deforestation at all. It has far more impact then CO2 emissions on Climate change. Think about it.

Totally agreed about the planet not going anywhere. We could have a nuclear war and wipe out 99% of life on the planet. But give it a while and there will be a new rise of species.

You can't be guilty of betrayal without intent. If you really believe that global warming science is questionable, then you aren't betraying anyone by saying so.

Krugman is just looking to dumb down the debate with sensationalism. He mind as well be Rush.

JPW,

Normally I would be happy to address your request.

However, I am leaving in about 1/2 hour to go out of town and haven't even finished packing yet.

I provided a couple of google suggestions at the top of the thread - the book "Cool It" is a great read. It operates from the premise of - 'Okay, this IS happening, now, what do we do about it?' It also debunks several myths as well.

Anyhow, gotta run.

Enjoy the holiday, all.

Morons like you make me glad it's way too late.

"There is little doubt left in the minds of professional biologists that Earth is currently faced with a mounting loss of species that threatens to rival the five great mass extinctions of the geological past. As long ago as 1993, Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson estimated that Earth is currently losing something on the order of 30,000 species per year which breaks down to the even more daunting statistic of some three species per hour. Some biologists have begun to feel that this biodiversity crisis this "Sixth Extinction" is even more severe, and more imminent, than Wilson had supposed."
www.actionbioscience.org

#83 | Posted by Zatoichi

The subject is global warming, dumbass. You think all these extinctions are the result of man made global warming, or are you just muddying the waters further to suit your idiotic green religion?

Hey, I'm wondering, was there anyone around during the extinction of the Cretaceous Extinction holding a pity party for the world...lamenting the great crime nature had foisted on those poor creatrues?

I wonder if there were any biologists around sounding the alarm over the loss of biodiversity, and if anyone/anything really cared?

The arrogance of these schlepps, thinking that in the great scheme of things, and the vast passage of time, that their moral indignation really matters a hill of beans. Fuck off you green wheenie control freaks!

*Cretaceous era

#89 | Posted by TheOneBS at 2009-07-01 11:08 PM | Reply | Flag: one of the 23%

I lost my car keys the other day. Must be from global warming!

My grass seems a little short this month. Must be from global warming.

My refrigerator is making a strange noise. Must be from global warming.

Didn't get as big a salary raise this year. Must be from global warming.

My brakes are squeaking. Must be from global warming.

"The sky is falling, the sky is falling." Doesn't Chicken Little know it's from global warming?

Deniers Betray the Planet?
HORSE HOCKEY, ITS OBAMABOYS FAULT ANYWAY.

I know, they can call us "future holocaust deniers." Since people like me who laugh at global warming predictions of billions dying, the planet turning into desert etc are ergo denying a future mass extinction. We are deniers of a future holocaust.
Now the witch hunt can proceed.

The only aspect of Global Warming I deny is that it is caused by and therefore can be stopped by man: both of those ideas are just ridiculous to me. There have been numerous temperature changes on this planet included at least 6 previous ice ages and they predate man. Most solutions brought up by people tend to be something that other people must do or must pay for, as if paying will magically reduce CO2 emissions and they deny that a global population the size of what we have would logically be the leading cause if man caused it, yet they fight against any form of population control. If they made logical sense, I would give their cause consideration.

This thread is a typical example of the RAPE of science that supporters of the Human Caused Climate Change Hypothesis engage in.

When ever they realize they can't present a non-laughable scientific statement supporting their green religious view, they make a scientific environmental statement THAT IS NOT RELATED TO GLOBAL WARMING, and then claim that they are correct.

I've doubted HUMAN CAUSED global temperature change since about 1990, and held it utter contempt years before 2000. Thank God that the world at large is starting to realize what a lie has been foisted on them by the damnable greens.

A doctorate in a science, even environmental science, does NOT make a green into an honest man.

"since about 1990"

#97 | Posted by USAF242 at 2009-07-02 12:05 PM | Reply | Flag: won't do well in the future

The Artificial Production of Carbon Dioxide and Its Influence on Temperature

Callendar, G.S., 1938

Except, zatoichi, the temperature of the planet has not risen for a decade. BTW, did humans cause the retreat of the Ice Age by inventing campfires and cooking food? Did they cause the onset of the Ice Age, or should we blame neanderthals for that?

The reason I so passionately HATE greens, is because of the harm they do to the respect science SHOULD have.

Presenting a Hypothesis as fact, or even as theory is HARMFUL.

Issues such as treatment (or lack there of) of hazardous materials, especially in poorer countries, needs focus......

Population growth, especially in fast breeding population groups (poorer countries again....) is probably the single biggest threat to the environment today (and keeping poor people living WITHOUT a nice standard of living WILL NOT HELP).....

Smarter and more aggressive recycling (including recycle friendly packaging and manufacture) could use more attention....

Every time s so called scientist, or worse, a REAL scientist RAPES science in support of the Human Caused Global Warming HYPOTHESIS, he murders a little bit of the credibility that real environmental issues have.

There Is No Carbon Footprint.

31,478 scientists who disagree with global warming:

Oh darn, the tired, old bogus forged petition rears it's stupid head again again. LOL!

#100 | Posted by USAF242 at 2009-07-02 12:54 PM | Reply | Flag: has no functioning brain

More fun comments while I make fun of yet another ignorant dipshit who posts that stupid 'petition."

"The Oregon Petition list to which you're referring is a PR effort, not any attempt to find out the strength of the consensus among climate scientists. It makes bold headlines about how many PhD's signed their list, but they fail to mention that +95% (a generous estimate) of them have little or no experience in the field of climate science.

In contrast, the authors list of the IPCC report lists the names and organizations of each author and contributor. You can easily find the credentials of the scientists there."

"Someone did a bit of research and discovered only 3% of the signers had degrees in fields relevant to climatology (including meteorology, geology, etc.).

Why don't they exclude other signers? Because if they did so they'd have less than 1000 signers, less than a percent of the number of climatologists, meterologists, etc. in the world. The point of the petition was to create the illusion there is no scientific consensus on AGW to the public, so that's why they had to include anyone and everyone they could find."

"I also googled the names antarcticice posted and he/she seems to be correct, 'Jellinek' is a heart surgeon.
And another I just goggled at random 'Kermit L Like' is a Lt in the USAF
The simple and saddest fact is the source of the petition the Oregon institute of Science & Medicine, it is nothing more than sheet metal warehouse run by 4-5 old guy way past retirement age like Arthur Robinson."

The Nether

Let's take a look at your list one by one.

Robert C. Balling Jr., Professor of Climatology, Arizona State University

#60 | Posted by the_nether at 2009-07-01 10:11 AM | Reply | Flag

Director, Office of Climatology and Associate professor of Geography, Arizona State University
NCPPR scientific expert on global warming. (1996)

Dr. Balling wrote the "Heated Debate," published by the Pacific Research Institute and "True State of the Planet," published by CEI. He co-wrote "The Satanic Gases" with Patrick J. Michaels, published by the Cato Institute. Balling signed the Leipzig Declaration in 1995.

According to Harper's, Balling has recieved more than $200,000 from coal and oil interests over the past six years. Specific incidences include significant levels of funding since 1989 from the Kuwaiti government, foreign coal and mining corporations and Cyprus Minerals Company (totalling $72,554). (Kuwait has opposed the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). The Kuwaiti government paid for a release of Balling's "A Heated Debate" in the Middle East, a project originally funded by the Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy. The Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Science granted Balling $48,993 and the Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research granted him an undisclosed amount. British Coal Corporation gave him a total of $103,544 and the German Coal Mining Association gave him $81,780 in two separate grants. (Ozone Action, NCPPR directory)

PhD University of Oklahoma, 1979. Senior Consultant United Nations World Meteorological Organization.