A report from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado finds that Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007. But didn’t we hear from the same Center that the North Pole was set to disappear by now? We all deserve apologies from the global warming fanatics who wanted to reshape the world in their image and called those who objected to their wild theories ignorant deniers. They were so convinced the world was ending and only they could save it, yet now they have been exposed as at best wildly idealistic and at worst frauds. They should have to do public penance for their hubris. I suggest they sit on blocks of melting ice and ponder their limitations. Either that or let the polar bears deal with them.
I may be accused of being a broken record, however if you go to http://spaceweather.com/ and put it in your favorites, you can check your sunspot activity daily. We are in a solar minimum. We have one lonely sunspot and if you go back several weeks you can see the pattern. If the sun does not snap out of the minimum, we will continue to cool down, notwithstanding El Nino and La Nina. Are we going to have another ice age? We don't know this any more than Al Gore knows islands are going to sink into the sea.
Arn
We might have a "little ice age" for the next 20-30 years.
Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska is leading the charge to block the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gasses, and today she got some support from across the aisle: Three Democratic senators signed onto Murkowski resolution to bar such regulation.
The Democrats, the Associated Press reports, are Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas. Murkowski's resolution says a rule submitted by the EPA to regulate greenhouse gasses "shall have no force or effect." Thirty-five Republicans co-sponsored the measure.
"We should continue our work to pass meaningful energy and climate legislation, but in the meantime, we cannot turn a blind eye to the EPA’s efforts to impose back-door climate regulations with no input from Congress," she said in introducing the resolution. The Alaska senator warned of "severe consequences to our economy" of such regulation, saying businesses would be forced to cut jobs.
Robert Dillon, a Murkowski spokesperson, told Hotsheet that "this isn't about health issues, this isn't about the science, the issue here is whether the EPA should be regulating greenhouse gasses under the Clean Air Act."
He said it was important to "remove the threat to the economy of EPA regulation and focus on what has to be done."
Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, quickly shot back at the resolution.
As the Anchorage Daily News reports, Boxer called the effort an "unprecedented move to overturn a health finding by health experts and scientific experts in order to stand with the special interests."
Originally posted by fierobear: Boxer called the effort an "unprecedented move to overturn a health finding by health experts and scientific experts in order to stand with the special interests."
LMAO! Barbara Boxer is calling out legislators for supporting special interests?
By Rick Moran In a stunning admission, the scientist responsible for publishing the part of the 2007 IPCC report on global warming in Asia says he knew the evidence for the disappearing Himalayan Glacier was suspect but allowed it into the report in order to put pressure on governments to take action.
This story is getting huge play in Great Britain - not so much here in America. David Rose of the Daily Mail pens this piece:
The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders. Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research. In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report's chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action. ‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.' It turns out that the prediction about Himalayan glaciers disappearing by 2035 was based on two interviews with an obscure Indian scientist and a World Wildlife Federation's report - that botched the math in figuring glacier shrinkage: The WWF article also contained a basic error in its arithmetic. A claim that one glacier was retreating at the alarming rate of 134 metres a year should in fact have said 23 metres - the authors had divided the total loss measured over 121 years by 21, not 121. Money quote from the article: "In fact, the 2035 melting date seems to have been plucked from thin air." It's not like reputable scientists didn't try to warn off the IPCC about this ridiculous assertion about Himalayan glaciers. Several scientists wrote to Lal and his group pointing out that the statement had not been peer reviewed and was based on bogus data. Lal's group ignored or dismissed all such claims. Once again, we have clear evidence that the IPCC report from 2007 from which all recommendations on what to do about climate change flows, is seriously flawed not only in fact, but in the way it was compiled as well. The scientists went against their own guidelines time and time again to include information that was not properly vetted. Nor did they follow their own rules about including valid dissents from the majority. IPCC Chairman Dr Pachauri - under a cloud as a result of conflict of interest charges - dismissed an Indian government study last year refuting the glacier evidence as "voodoo science." And why not? Pachauri has numerous business interests in India getting rich off the claim about Himalayan glaciers. This is the most humiliating news yet for the IPCC. One wonders how much longer the chairman - and perhaps the organization itself - can survive given all the recent revelations.
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration on Monday proposed a new agency to study and report on the changing climate.
Also known as global warming, climate change has drawn widespread concern in recent years as temperatures around the world rise, threatening to harm crops, spread disease, increase sea levels, change storm and drought patterns and cause polar melting.
Commerce Secretary Gary Locke and Jane Lubchenco, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, announced NOAA will set up the new Climate Service to operate in tandem with NOAA's National Weather Service and National Ocean Service.
"Whether we like it or not, climate change represents a real threat," Locke said Monday at a news conference.
Lubchenco added, "Climate change is real, it's happening now." She said climate information is vital to the wind power industry, coastal community planning, fishermen and fishery managers, farmers and public health officials.
NOAA recently reported that the decade of 2000-2009 was the warmest on record worldwide; the previous warmest decade was the 1990s. Most atmospheric scientists believe that warming is largely due to human actions, adding gases to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas.
Researchers and leaders from around the world met last month in Denmark to discuss ways to reduce climate-warming emissions, and a follow-up session is planned for later this year in Mexico.
"More and more people are asking for more and more information about climate and how it's going to affect them," Lubchenco explained. So officials decided to combine climate operations into a single unit.
Portions of the Weather Service that have been studying climate, as well as offices from some other NOAA agencies, will be transferred to the new NOAA Climate Service.
The new agency will initially be led by Thomas Karl, director of the current National Climatic Data Center. The Climate Service will be headquartered in Washington and will have six regional directors across the country.
Lubchenco also announced a new NOAA climate portal on the Internet to collect a vast array of climatic data from NOAA and other sources. It will be "one-stop shopping into a world of climate information," she said.
Creation of the Climate Service requires a series of steps, including congressional committee approval. But if all goes well, it should be finished by the end of the year, officials said.
In recent years, a widespread private weather forecasting industry has grown up around the National Weather Service, and Lubchenco said she anticipates growth of private climate-related business around the new agency.
While most people notice the weather from day to day or week to week, climate looks at both the averages and extremes of weather over longer periods of time. And understanding both weather and climate, and their changes, are vital to much of the world's economic activity ranging from farming to travel to energy use and production and even food shipments and disease prevention.
Atmospheric scientists have long joked that climate is what you expect and weather is what you get. But greenhouse warming is changing what can be expected from climate, and researchers are seeking to understand and anticipate the impacts of that change.
Actually, I don't think it's a matter than they don't get it. They know exactly what they are doing. They're trying, with everything they've got, to keep alive one of their favorite, pet projects - Cap and Tax. It would be the largest tax increase in history AND would give them control of a HUGE chunk of our lives - energy. Not to mention manufacturing, personal habits, households, and the list goes on.
This isn't about good science, it's about control over your life and the economy. They're Marxists. It's about central control of EVERYTHING.
What I meant is that they don't get the fact that we are not buying their story. I hope they get snowed in real good in D.C.
Agreed. I hope those politicians get buried in their homes/offices.
Of course, some wise-ass will point out that's just a storm. "Real indications of global warming" is that it's 3 degrees "warmer than normal" in Butt-crack Alaska. Yeah -29F instead of -33F
What I meant is that they don't get the fact that we are not buying their story. I hope they get snowed in real good in D.C.
Oh no, I'm sure they're getting that we aren't buying it. That's why they keep turning up the wick. Haven't you noticed that every time news breaks about some other bit of made up crap they try to pass off as science and proof is proven to be crap, they break lots of new stories about some other disaster that's coming, some other agency being formed, some other bureaucracy that's going to regulate something - always some new thing they try to shove down our throats? It's no coincidence. They're trying to ignore the scandals, they're trying to ignore the bad science and they're trying to ignore public opinion. It's just more propaganda.
DeMint Slams Gore and 'Warming' Hitting D.C. Tuesday, 09 Feb 2010 11:26 PM Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., is using the snowstorm hitting Washington D.C. as an opportunity to make some points about former Vice President Al Gore and climate change.
The conservative senator took to Twitter on Tuesday amid reports that the area is due to receive another 10 to 20 inches of snow this week, according to The Hill.
DeMint tweeted: “It's going to keep snowing in DC until Al Gore cries ‘uncle.’”
Other conservatives have echoed DeMint's sentiments that the snowstorm should poke holes in evidence backing global warming.
The South Carolina senator was not the first Republican to use the snowstorm to make a political point, according to The Hill. Rep. Lynn Jenkins, R-Kansas, said that absence of votes in the House is a plus for taxpayers.
quote
Inhofe Family Builds Igloo 'Gore's New Home' Wednesday, 10 Feb 2010 10:37 AM By: Jim Meyers
The family of Sen. Jim Inhofe, a vocal skeptic regarding man-made global warming, had some fun at climate change crusader Al Gore’s expense by building an igloo near the U.S. Capitol.
The Oklahoma Republican’s daughter Molly Rapert, along with her husband and four children, built the igloo over the weekend as Washington was hammered with a fierce blizzard.
The family posted a cardboard sign on the igloo’s roof reading “AL GORE’S NEW HOME” on one side and “HONK IF YOU [HEART] GLOBAL WARMING” on the other.
Sen. Inhofe, the ranking Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, told Roll Call newspaper that his family’s ironic tribute to Gore was “really humorous.”
The senator even posted several photos of the igloo on his Facebook page.
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 02-11-2010).]
In the intelligence world, the best way to learn about an enemy is to debrief a defector from the enemy camp. The political world works the same way, making the observations of Rep. Parker Griffith, who switched from Democrat to Republican in December, illuminating.
quote
“I began to realize that the Obama administration, along with the leadership of Nancy Pelosi, was a very, very far left-leaning group [that] really wasn’t concerned about what a moderate or a conservative had to say,” Griffith tells Newsmax.
As a prime example, Griffith cites the healthcare bill, which he says had very little to do with improving healthcare.
“The healthcare bill was a bill that became less and less about healthcare reform and more and more about ego and a trophy for a certain person or a certain committee,” Griffith says.
Back in September 2008, environmentalist Robert Kennedy Jr. wrote an article raising the alarm about global warming and the resultant lack of winter weather in Washington, D.C.
On Monday, Feb. 8, as the nation’s capital dug out from under a ferocious snowstorm, The Washington Examiner reran an article from last Dec. 21, published as Washington was struggling to dig out from under an earlier snowstorm.
“Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who flies around on private planes so as to tell larger numbers of people how they must live their lives in order to save the planet, wrote a column last year on the lack of winter weather in Washington, D.C.,” wrote The Examiner’s Online Opinion Editor David Freddoso.
He quoted from the article written by Kennedy, a lawyer specializing in environmental law, which ran in the Los Angeles Times: “Recently arrived residents in the northern suburbs, accustomed to today’s anemic winters, might find it astonishing to learn that there were once ski runs on Ballantrae Hill in McLean [Va.], with a rope tow and local ski club.
“Snow is so scarce today that most Virginia children probably don’t own a sled.”
He reminisced about ice skating on a Washington canal, “which these days rarely freezes enough to safely skate."
“Meanwhile, Exxon Mobil and its carbon cronies continue to pour money into think tanks whose purpose is to deceive the American public into believing that global warming is a fantasy.”
Freddoso observed on Dec. 21: “Having shoveled my walk five times in the midst of this past weekend’s extreme cold and blizzard, I think perhaps RFK Jr. should leave weather analysis to the meteorologists instead of trying to attribute every global phenomenon to anthropogenic climate change.”
Last weekend’s snowstorm paralyzed the Washington area, knocking out power to thousands of homes, closing schools and businesses, and shutting down the federal government.
Dulles International Airport near Washington received a record 32.4 inches of snow, and a town in Maryland close to D.C. was blanketed by 40 inches.
Another snowstorm walloped Washington on Wednesday. As of 2 p.m. that day, the snowfall total for the season had surpassed the 54.4-inch record set in 1899, and it rose to 55.6 inches by 4 p.m. in the city and to 72 inches at Dulles.
"So the results of three different peer-reviewed papers show that over a period of 36 years, there is no reduction of OLR emissions in wavelengths that CO2 absorb. Therefore, the AGW hypothesis is disproven."
Lorne Gunter: They're finally admitting the science isn't settled
Posted: February 17, 2010, 8:00 AM by NP Editor
Lorne Gunter
Why does Climategate matter? Who cares whether the climate data on a computer at some obscure English university has been deliberately corrupted?
In one form or another, I have had to answer these questions from dozens of readers in the three months since thousands of e-mails and computer files were leaked from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia.
There are plenty of ways in which these disclosures have been crucial, but the principal change has been the uncertainty creeping into the remarks of former True Believers. Some of those who for years have insisted the science is “settled,” are now admitting we don’t know all we need to before making trillion-dollar policy decisions.
Consider the remarks Phil Jones, the former head of CRU, made last week to the BBC. Prof. Jones, who has stepped down from his directorship of the CRU pending official investigations into the leaks, told the Beeb there has been no “statistically significant” global warming since 1995 — that’s the past 15 years!
It’s true, as some climate alarmist sites have pointed out, that what Prof. Jones said in full was that the warming since 1995 is almost significant, but not quite. The “trend (+0.12 C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level.”
Admittedly, that is not the same as a complete about-face by Prof. Jones, but neither is it meaningless. When was the last time you recall an alarmist such as Phil Jones admitting there was any doubt at all about warming in the last decade and a half?
Haven’t we had it drummed into us ceaselessly that the past decade has been the warmest ever recorded? Prof. Jones’s admission to the BBC then is very significant.
If, instead of bleating for the past 15 years that the sky was about to burst into flame, major climate scientists had been saying the Earth was warming, but not to a statistically significant level, would you have been as worried as you were? Would there have been a Kyoto accord? A Copenhagen summit? Carbon trading schemes? Green taxes? Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth? David Suzuki’s call to throw politicians into jail if they fail to try to stop climate change?
In his BBC interview, Prof. Jones also conceded that the Middle Ages may well have been warmer than now, another key concession given that the CRU has for years denied the existence of the Medieval Warm Period. If the MWP can be made to disappear, then the warming that has occurred since 1900 would be abnormal and therefore something to fear. But if there was an even greater warming 1,000 years ago — before SUVs, coal-fired power plants and industrial carbon emissions — then the current warming might well be part of a nature cycle and therefore unremarkable.
Prof. Jones even admitted the science of climate change is far from settled. “There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties.”
Nothing scientific had changed since the Climategate leaks. No new data or discoveries have been added that would make the former CRU director change his tone so dramatically. So his new willingness to concede doubt must be solely the result of the embarrassing leaks last November.
That’s one of the ways in which Climategate matters: It has made the alarmists far more willing to admit the science isn’t settled.
It also matters because CRU is not just some no-name English university with one of thousands of environmental studies programs in the world. The CRU is one of three main sources of UN climate data.
Think of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as a three-legged stool supported by the CRU, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Kick out one leg and the stool topples, taking everyone standing on it with it.
Reliance on one of these Big Three climate records has been repeated in hundreds — thousands — of academic studies, on everything from the calving of icebergs in Antarctica to the behaviour of Alberta bark beetles, the prevalence of sub-Saharan droughts to disappearing snow on hip Euro ski slopes.
So Climategate also matters because if one of the most critical sources of climate data is suspect, then the conclusions in all the scores of studies based on that data are suspect, too.
This morning I'm working out and while channel surfing, I come across Dr.Richard Somerville (Climate Scientist) being interviewed on ABC NOW. He is standing in Central Park, against a 4 foot deep snow backdrop, talking about man-caused global warming. I must admit that I don't know when it was recorded, but I am inclined to think it was recent due to the large piled of snow behind the Dr and the ABC reporter. The gist of the whole thing was that Man-Caused Global Warming is still a fact; the other side is bought and paid for by special interest. The science is proven, but he then admits that science is always evolving and getting better. He says that the science was settled over 30 years ago!
The average person couldn't understand the science, so it is up to the media and the education system to explain the science to us.
He claims that the warming is still going on; despite the fact that there hasn't been any warming the last 15 years. His indisputable proof is that the Stratosphere is cooler.
He also said that the media could help more by pushing the agenda, rather than questioning the science.
Who would have thought that the farther out into space you go, the colder it gets????
I just finished watching a great documentary on "Global Warming". The link to the video is below.
The Cliff Notes:
According the ice cores, tree rings, bog samples and many other direct observations, the earth is warming naturally
We came out of the "little ice age" in 1875. That was also the coldest the earth has been in 10,000 years. That also happens to be when we started recording meteorlogical data. If you use the coldest temperature of the last 10,000 years as a baseline, then all of your numbers will be skewed towards global warming.
There is no "hockey stick" in temperature tracking. Global Warming
With publication of "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, the hunt was on for the "missing link." Fame and fortune awaited the scientist who found the link proving Darwin right: that man evolved from a monkey.
In 1912, success! In a gravel pit near Piltdown in East Sussex, there was found the cranium of a man with the jaw of an ape.
"Darwin Theory Proved True," ran the banner headline.
Evolution skeptics were pilloried, and three English scientists were knighted for validating Piltdown Man.
It wasn't until 1953, after generations of biology students had been taught about Piltdown Man, that closer inspection discovered that the cranium belonged to a medieval Englishman, the bones had been dyed to look older, and the jaw belonged to an orangutan whose teeth had been filed down to look human.
The scientific discovery of the century became the hoax of the century. But Piltdown Man was not alone. There was Nebraska Man.
In 1922, Henry Fairfield Osborn, president of the American Museum of Natural History, identified a tooth fossil found in Nebraska to be that of an "anthropoid ape." He used his discovery to mock William Jennings Bryan, newly elected to Congress, as "the most distinguished primate which the state of Nebraska has yet produced."
Invited to testify at the Scopes trial, however, Osborn begged off. For, by 1925, Nebraska Man's tooth had been traced to a wild pig, and Creationist Duane Gish, a biochemist, had remarked of Osborn's Nebraska Man, "I believe this is a case in which a scientist made a man out of a pig, and the pig made a monkey out of the scientist."
These stories are wonderfully told in Eugene Windchy's 2009 "The End of Darwinism." But if Piltdown Man and his American cousin Nebraska Man were the hoaxes of the 20th century, global warming is the great hoax of the 21st. In a matter of months, what have we learned:
* In its 2007 report claiming that the Himalayan glaciers are melting, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change relied on a 1999 news story in a popular science journal, based on one interview with a little-known Indian scientist who said this was pure "speculation," not supported by any research. The IPCC also misreported the supposed date of the glaciers' meltdown as 2035. The Indian had suggested 2350.
* The IPCC report that global warming is going to kill 40 percent of the Amazon rainforest and cut African crop yields 50 percent has been found to be alarmist propaganda.
* The IPCC 2007 report declared 55 percent of Holland to be below sea level, an exaggeration of over 100 percent.
* While endless keening is heard over the Arctic ice cap, we hear almost nothing of the 2009 report of the British Antarctica Survey that the sea ice cap of Antarctica has been expanding by 100,000 square kilometers a decade for 30 years. That translates into 3,800 square miles of new Antarctic ice every year.
* Though America endured one of the worst winters ever, while the 2009 hurricane season was among the mildest, the warmers say this proves nothing. But when our winters were mild and the 2005 hurricane season brought four major storms to the U.S. coast, Katrina among them, the warmers said this validated their theory.
You can't have it both ways.
* The Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University, which provides the scientific backup for the IPCC, apparently threw out the basic data on which it based claims of a rise in global temperatures for the century. And a hacker into its e-mail files found CRU "scientists" had squelched the publication of dissenting views.
What we learned in a year's time: Polar bears are not vanishing. Sea levels are not rising at anything like the 20-foot surge this century was to bring. Cities are not sinking. Beaches are not disappearing. Temperatures have not been rising since the late 1990s. And, in historic terms, our global warming is not at all unprecedented.
Dennis Avery of Hudson Institute wrote a decade ago that from A.D. 900 to 1300, the Earth warmed by 4 to 7 degrees Fahrenheit, a period known as the Little Climate Optimum.
How horrible was it?
"The Vikings discovered and settled Greenland around A.D. 950. Greenland was then so warm that thousands of colonists supported themselves by pasturing cattle on what is now frozen tundra. During this great global warming, Europe built the looming castles and soaring cathedrals that even today stun tourists with their size, beauty and engineering excellence. These colossal buildings required the investment of millions of man-hours – which could be spared from farming because of higher crop yields."
Today's global warming hysteria is the hoax of the 21st century. H.L. Mencken had it right: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed – and hence clamorous to be led to safety – by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
[This message has been edited by Arns85GT (edited 03-02-2010).]
Climate change crusaders insist that the earth is warming largely due to the emission of greenhouse gases by motor vehicles and factories.
But Thomas Jefferson wrote about global warming back in the early 19th century, before there were any emissions from cars, coal-fired power plants, and other developments of the Industrial Age.
In a letter to Philadelphia physician and professor Nathaniel Chapman dated Dec. 11, 1809, nine months after he left the presidency, Jefferson wrote: “The change which has taken place in our climate is one of those facts which all men of years are sensible of and yet none can prove by regular evidence. They can only appeal to each other’s general observation for the fact.
“I remember that when I was a small boy, say sixty years ago, snows were frequent and deep in every winter, to my knee very often, to my waist sometimes, and that they covered the earth long. And I remember while yet young to have heard from very old men that in their youth the winters had been still colder, with deeper and longer snows. In the year 1772, thirty-seven years ago, we had a snow two feet deep in the Champain parts of this state, and three feet in the counties next below the mountains . . .
“While I lived at Washington, I kept a Diary, and by recurring to that I observe that from the winter of 1802-03 to that of 1808-09 inclusive, the average fall of snow of the seven winters was only 14½ inches, and that the ground was covered but sixteen days in each winter on average of the whole. The maximum in any one winter during that period was 21 inches fall, and 34 days on the ground, the minimum was 4½ inches fall and two days on the ground . . .
“Williams in his history of Vermont has an essay on the change in the climate of Europe, Asia and Africa.”
It’s clear, then, that the earth was warming during Jefferson’s time. It’s also clear that the climate change could not be attributed to man’s activities.
"So the results of three different peer-reviewed papers show that over a period of 36 years, there is no reduction of OLR emissions in wavelengths that CO2 absorb. Therefore, the AGW hypothesis is disproven."
Not so fast to do away with the AGW Smoking Gun! Here's a scientific critique of the paper (which purports to disprove the AGW hypothesis) cited by "fierobear" from "AmericanThinker.com" :
Not so fast to do away with the AGW Smoking Gun! Here's a scientific critique of the paper (which purports to disprove the AGW hypothesis) cited by "fierobear" from "AmericanThinker.com" :
I'm of the opinion that anthropogenic global warming (or climate change, if you prefer) is a real threat.
A "carbon tax" might not be a bad idea--if it were offset by other tax reductions--say an across-the-boards reduction of income taxes.
Some think that there should also be a "nitrogen tax", since there is also a nitrogen cycle that contributes to global climate change.
A carbon tax and a nitrogen tax, offset by other tax reductions: I could sign up for that.
I expect all you climate change "contrarians" are going to try to kick my a** for posting this ...
You are a brave, brave man.
I am also in the camp that thinks climate change is a real threat, though I should say I have no real idea what exactly is causing it, I just think that polluting isn't helping.
Pollution has no bearing whatever. Remember that global cooling and warming has been happening during recorded history long before the industrial revolution. The shear volume of lies told by the GW folks is indicative of lies, more lies, and still more lies.
The sun drives our climate. It is that simple. It creates air movement in conjunction with the rotational force of the earth and the movement of the axis.
Carbon is less than 1% of atmospheric content. Water vapour is the single largest component (aside from nitrogen) of our atmosphere and even it cannot warm or cool the earth.
One thing that I think about. Think of this as an X-Y graph. Y being average temperature in °F, X being time in years. We have a few data points on a graph that stretches millions of years, how can we (based on those few points) extrapolate the graph and assume that global warming is real? What if it's like a sin wave (for those geometry people, Y=sin X, graph varies from +/-1 on Y axis) and it goes up and down +/- X°C over the years. If we extrapolate from a point on a postiive slope (a place on the graph we may be right now), we would assume the temperature is going to go up and up and up, but in reality, it's just in its natural cycle and will go back down eventually.
I think the concept of global warming has the potential to make many people rich, that's for sure.
Pollution has no bearing whatever. Remember that global cooling and warming has been happening during recorded history long before the industrial revolution. The shear volume of lies told by the GW folks is indicative of lies, more lies, and still more lies.
The sun drives our climate. It is that simple. It creates air movement in conjunction with the rotational force of the earth and the movement of the axis.
Carbon is less than 1% of atmospheric content. Water vapour is the single largest component (aside from nitrogen) of our atmosphere and even it cannot warm or cool the earth.
Arn
I totally get that's what you and many others believe, and you may in fact be right. I guess my point has always been that pollution is bad for the environment and the will to switch to greener technologies is a good thing for the environment, be it locally or globally.
Like I said I'm not convinced that man is causing climate change, in fact I am suspicious of anyone claiming they KNOW exactly what is going on. It's usually good to debate and hear both sides IMO.
Just as an aside, how many people here believe that climate change is in fact happening, no matter what the cause?
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 03-09-2010).]
Watch out for the GREEN POLICE 
