Global Warming: The debate is still on

May 19th, 2007 Urban Conservative

We’re being told by the main stream media (and Al Gore) that the global warming debate is over and that there is a consensus among scientists saying that you and I are the cause. However, what they are not telling you is that debate is not over. The fact is that many scientists who were once global-warming apologists are now skeptical of global-warming and its causes.

An increasing number of climate scientists now believe the cause of global warming is caused by natural reasons and that man’s contribution to the greenhouse gases is so small that we couldn’t change the climate if we tried.  Additionally, no matter how many billions of dollars are wasted trying to reduce greenhouse gas, man will not be able to affect global warming one way or the other.

So, now why is DiCaprio still warning us that we face extinction from global warming? Yo, Leo…I bet you didn’t know that the average temperature in April 2007 was 51.7 F. This was -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the 47th coolest April in 113 years.

Technorati Tags: global warming, global warming debate, al gore

Rating: 2.5/5 (63 votes cast)

Did you enjoy this article? If so, please subscribe to my blog!
  • larkinhuey
    The following is copied from Barack Obama is a Lying, Stupid, Big-Eared Nazi with permission of the author.

    The kook scientists who brought us all those scientific “facts” like dwindling resources, global famine, and the depletion of the ozone layer are the same kook scientists who brought us global warming. That scam is another of the many lies that Barack Obama is a part of and the most recent batch of prattle being championed by scientists whose funding requires selling the public on it. And they did it!

    They sold it to the public and Barack Obama is its champion. It’s also the latest in an endless line of meaningless prophecies that are important only to them so they can continue to get those lucrative research grants from the federal government. If you thought scientists were ethical, think again. They go for the money just like everybody else.

    Those same guys warned us about global cooling in the 70s. I remember it. The dire warning from those mad scientists stated categorically that the cooling trend on planet Earth was so strong that there was no way it would reverse itself anytime soon. The term “soon” must be a matter of perspective though, because by the middle of the 1980s, it had become global warming.

    Then all the kook nut-job liberals reversed course and jumped on board with the new panic. Liberals love panic. That gives them a chance to write new legislation to solve the panic, and the new legislation usually takes a few more freedoms from us. That’s what liberals do. Remember now, only liberals believe in global warming. Now, is there any doubt in your conservative mind that liberalism is indeed a mental disorder? Mine either.

    Biologist George Wald is a fringe nutcase leftist from that long past era. That crackpot warned us in 1970 that civilization will end before the turn of the century unless we take immediate action against all those inordinate problems that were plaguing mankind. And we gotta do it now!

    Does that remind you of nationalized healthcare or the stimulus package? Gotta do it now! If we don’t, unemployment will hit eight percent. Guess what. We did it “now” and unemployment went above that eight percent ceiling and now it’s over ten. We didn’t fix any of those other problems either. We learned. And by the way, I don’t recall anyone working on any of those problems that were threatening mankind during the Wald era either. We’re still here.

    How about the dwindling resources myth? We’ll be out of gold by 1981, out of silver by 1985, out of oil and natural gas by 1992. And then there’s the disappearance of the Great Barrier Reef in Australia. We’re even causing the demise of the Green Tree Frogs! These are the same government-paid scientists who came up with global warming.

    Paul Ehrlich, the guy who “taught” Al Gore about global warming, predicted there would be a major food shortage in the late 70s, and millions of Americans would starve to death. Further nonsense from that same babbling lunatic stated that our population will decline to 22.6 million during said famine, and that England would not exist in the year 2000.

    Another scientist from the same era stated that by 1995, 80% of animal species on Earth would be extinct and that we would suffer a severe temperature increase between 1990 and 2010. I’m still waiting. The Slave Liberals really believe that crap! I pity them.

    Those leftist instigators of absurdity are referred to by sensible people on the right as Eco Fascists. Barack Obama is one of them. They love to lie. He loves to lie. They lie for money and he lies for power. Those scientists are paid by the government to generate fear in the populace. That’s their sole purpose in life and how they get their funding for research, if you can really call it research. It gets better though. If fear doesn’t work, the scientists will wave the saving-the-planet flag. They do that a lot.

    But people still listen to the morons! That’s the part I don’t understand. All the other doomsday predictions from those same guys proved to be nothing more than rhetoric, but people still fell for the global warming hoax, and some people still believe it, or they say they do.

    In truth though, only one thing is important to those political hacks hiding under the “scientist” disguise, and that’s money. The almighty dollar that continues to roll in from the Obama administration motivates many climatologists to look in one direction only. Follow the money and you’ll find the scientists.
  • AmerAnon
    Very well put,
  • 2bluestarmom
    Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore Over Global Warming Campaign
    John Coleman, now a weatherman at San Diego's KUSI, writes on his station's Web site that Al Gore is ignoring the faulty research behind global warming.

    The very professor who mentored Al Gore, changed his mind.....
  • davidwwalters72
    <<It's being taught in are classrooms as if it where actually true>>
    mike.....i was a geology major 35 years ago, and global warming was taught as part of our curriculum. IF the gulf stream's flow is restricted,
    cooling can actually occur in certain areas....
    Just to keep the facts straight! ;)
  • mike
    DO you know whats going on. It's being taught in are classrooms as if it where actually true. Global warming is just that 30 years ago it was gonna be global cooling now it's warming. Wake up yupees this is america we dont want to be like the socilisezed countrys of europe. We enjoy are freedoms and are rights. We dont want to, not work and get everything handed to us like health insurance for free like the socilized countrys do. Yupees are falling for this global warming stuff because it's taught in the schools and will belive what there told if it's told enough
  • boby
    The problem with global warming is it doesn't matter weather it's true or not.  We should be taking steps in protect the environment no matter what the out come of the global warming debate.  If it's not true doesn't mean it's ok to drive cars that get 12 miles per gallon or dump toxic waste into the ocean.
  • amber
    I the near future global warming will become the biggest politcal  and economic issue ever . When it does you conservatives will finaly come to the party and claim you have been there all along.
  • davidwwalters
    <<So, now why is DiCaprio still warning us that we face extinction from global warming? Yo, Leo…I bet you didn’t know that the average temperature47th coolest April in 113 years. in April 2007 was 51.7 F. This was -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the >>

    When you have non-experts like UC mixing up weather and climate data as interchangeable notions, it is no wonder lay people become confused....
    only in America is such corporate backing going into climate change denial!
  • Zoltaen
    Everyone, everywhere in the entire world has taken 'Global Warming' to be completely verified. The only country which believes there is some semblance of 'debate' is the US, and this debate is only amongst people who have no scientific training, certainly no climatology training.
    Even if you all think Global Warming is liberal propaganda, work with the balance of probabilities. According to the major independent government report commissioned in my country and recently released, if we take the full measures to fix carbon emissions by 2050, that is, carbon emissions to neutral, would mean that instead of the economy growing by 73% by that time, it would grow by 72%. That's not a big difference. I'm willing to sacrifice 0.5% of the economy by 2050 to allow cleaner air, cleaner water, no reduction in rainfall, and no increase in heat which would drive millions from their homes (just in my country). Why aren't you willing to do that, just in case?
  • David W. Walters
    What is the definition of "Climate" and "Weather"?
    Are they the same thing? 
    Can you have spikes in temperature extremes and still have global warming or global cooling?
    Get back to me after you study this some more, ok?
  • Norrish Hall
    You know how you can tell when a liberal isn't being truthful?
    When he wears a coat in winter and complains about global warming.
    Global Warming is like "Y2K"...remember that one. 
    They told us the world was going to collapse and all the computers would stop working.
    Now they want to say that all the melting ice caps are due to carbon gas emissions.
    The world is constantly changing.  It's just the natural cycle of nature.
  • ML Smith
    Gobal Warming - "Think Green"
    ML Smith

    C'mon guys. What are you thinking? Don't you know that the "Green Movement" is our environmental Superman? I don't get it. Hey, Reaper. About the "warming," don't you think there is a chance...just a small chance, that things get a little warmer when you have people 
    living on the planet? Besides, all of you are missing the bigger picture, and if I were any one of you, I'd be scared potiless about nature's position on all of this crap you're hacking away at.

    My fear of nature is born of awareness that the human race has no respect for it's power. That is a frightening fact, when you consider that nature is easily the most destructive force on earth. But I have even greater fear of people, like some of you, who think they understand it and like to tinker with its idiosyncrasies. Naturalists scare me the most. They are uniformly bogus in their exploitation of the media, showing us how they are saving the planet. Fashion is all the difference for these environmental hypocrites, and I must say they look like the real thing in their khaki shorts, stylish safari hats, designer boots and black socks that give them an air of scientific eccentricity. And of course, they've all read Ayn Rand, Flux, who has been published enough times to carve out an entire forest with all the paper used to print those exhaustive monologues.  

    Global warming, global cooling...what's next? Well, for starters, how about global deletion?
    To all of the liberal "green" people and environmental/naturalists, get ready. We are all going to pay the price for your shortsightedness and outright stupidity.  

    Naturalists claim to have a profound respect for the environment, as anyone can see in the pleasure they take digging for beetles, bounding through the woods in relentless pursuit of the silver winged monarch, which they torture and kill for their prized collections. Their deep appreciation of wildlife is evident as they torment sleepy owls who do not wish to pose for photographs at 3:00 am. Never satisfied with wildlife either, they invariably find ways to foist themselves upon local inhabitants, who find it necessary to bring out their collections of human skulls to get these nature boys to leave.
    Camera crews document every scripted move of these made for TV adventurers. Personally, I don’t know why they ever come out of their air conditioned trailers. I guess I’m just a wimp when it comes to the outdoors.
    There are also quite a few magazines that glorify these brave men of the bush who do not share my cowardice. They all seem to have names like Thornhill, Williamson and Hammertoe, and they write brilliantly about things like the mating habits of the palmetto beetle, which people of the southeastern part of the country know better as a giant cockroach bigger than your grandmother’s orthopedic shoes. Photographs of dragonflies that dwarf Bell helicopters are intriguing, but I would avoid them unless the seating was extremely comfortable.
    Of course, all of these naturalists claim to be part of the “green movement.” This growing environmental awareness movement is well meant for the most part, but its propensity for conferences where environmentalist quacks bask in the limelight is unfortunate. The “green movement” raises millions of dollars at rock concerts and other promotional events, but that money is like a pea on the plate of a starving man. It is clearly not enough to buy nature’s forgiveness for what we have done to the planet.
    I love the new catch phrase “think green.” How nice. While we are thinking global warming away, the environmentalists are “thinking green” as they pollute faraway places with their oil burning Land Rovers, littering pristine rain forests with trails of soiled toilet paper and then returning home to drive their Lincoln Navigators through the countryside. So you see, from my perspective, the “green movement” is a sham - a cheap substitute for the massive resources needed to reverse the damage to an eco-system that is in grave danger of collapse.
    Can you think of any reason why I should not fear nature? I would have to be a complete moron not to fear something that powerful. If it ever comes down to it, nature will do a tap dance on the “green movement” and its puny efforts to save the planet. It can be all things at once. On any given day, it can be the lovely garden in front of your house or the tornado that hurls that house into the next county. In our thoughtless plundering of the environment to acquire “more” we have slapped nature in the face too many times. We continue to trample on nature’s possessions as if they belonged to us. It is not difficult to imagine nature enraged when we murder its forests to make room for condominiums. How many of you live in condos? Where do you think they originate?

    It is now payback time, and I am afraid to say that I do not see the “green movement” having any impact on the accelerating erosion of polar ice caps, the increasing frequency of natural disasters, depletion of ozone in our atmosphere or extinction of plant and animal life vital to the equilibrium of the environment.
    Can we save ourselves? We seem to be content to watch, in a collective stupor, as our civilization teeters on the brink of catastrophe. Are we fools? All the “green” people and beetle digging naturalists in the world cannot save us from our own stupidity. We do not need men in khaki shorts chasing butterflies. What we do need is all of the resources we can muster to throw at this threat to our future.
    The “green movement” is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to apologize to nature and offer up insignificant sacrifices to appease it before it destroys us all. We have caused nature to become very angry, and bad things tend to happen whenever anger of any kind is not resolved. In this case, we are talking about unbridled violence. I have never seen a tsunami firsthand, but I comprehend enough to know that it is just one enraged response to the basic human condition that is characterized by selfishness, greed and the obsession with immediate gratification.
    Staring down the barrel of nature’s ultimate response to the trashing of this miraculous planet, I do not feel too confident about any of the rhetoric that is floated by people who claim to have the answers. I guess I would have to say that I am sickened by it because I know that in all truth, words alone will kill us.
    I am haunted by a question that causes me great pain to ask. Will our grandchildren and great grandchildren live to see the beauty of a forest? ¨

    ML Smith
  • quantum_flux
    Bill Williamson:

    I don't know if it is adviseable to actually "read" Ayn Rand's Objectivism because she repeats herself too much.  Just get the book on tape from your local library, boom done in 6 hours.  It's taught me some things that I consider to be instructive and wise.
  • quantum_flux
    Ouch!  I hate fox news, and I'm certainly not a Reganite.  I think of myself more as a Darwinist or Nihilist or something, I don't know.  My apologies for making blanket statements without looking at the evidence though, that must come from watching Fox news and seeing too many idiots giving their opinions.
  • Bill Williamson
    Quantum_flux is brilliant!  Evidently there is a curriculum at universities that prepares individuals to be politicians.  Perhaps he is referring to law...?  Interestingly, those who score highest on the LSAT are physics and hard science majors.  Regardless, many elected representatives have wide and varied academic disciplines and to make blanket statements regarding the qualifications of the nation’s legislators is erroneous.  About as erroneous as the statements about global warming.

    Perhaps Quantum_flux is a reference to the measurable amount of brain activity occurring (in quantums).

    Go watch Fox news and misapply Ayn Rand and Adam Smith some more (if it was even read at all) you twittering Reganite.
  • Reaper
    Argh, the link above is clipped so it won't work. Lemme see if it'll work this way...
  • Reaper
    1) Here's my source, which explains it better than I can:

    3) Global warming will be bad, but global cooling, which the source above states as a possibility, will be worse. Millions may lose their homes to global warming, but billions may lose their food to global cooling. Rivers and harbors could dry up, forcing a ludicrous amount of coastal relocation.

    Discussion is fun, but taking legal action with deleterious effects on global economic stability is irresponsibly short sighted at this juncture. That is what "we" don't want to see.
  • quantum_flux

    (1) Global warming is not an event that occures on the time-span of less than a year, but rather 100's to 1000's of years.

    (2) Yes, the Earth has warmed up since the end of the last ice age that the Earth was in. Ice ages go through 40,000 year cycles or so, due to the things that I've mentioned above.

    (3) I didn't say whether global warming would be bad or not, but I can say that it will significantly effect people living near sea level elevations if the polar ice caps melt. Sure, maybe rich communities could build large sea walls at large expense, but it will be devastating to some developing nations.

    (4) Whether global warming will cause a warmer themocline leading to El Nino conditions or a cooler thermocline (due to circumpolar currents) leading to El Nina conditions is a matter that I'm not so informed about.... thank you, I'll look into it.
  • Reaper
    quantum: there is a legitimate question as to whether greenhouse gases are actually having an effect. You may have heard that so far this year, global temperatures have dropped .7 degrees, while greenhouse emissions have reached another record high. According to apocalyptic global warming theorists, this is pretty paradoxical.

    Then there's another notable argument that someone above mentioned: the earth warmed up quite a bit in the complete absence of our human greenhouse emissions.

    The whole position of skeptics is that curbing our economic growth through eco-legislation is irresponsible when there is such a huge question mark over the issue. Can we honestly even say that global warming will be bad? Can we say that the earth doesn't have a negative feedback mechanism that hasn't activated yet (there actually is one that I know of: circumpolar currents)? Can we even unequivocally say that greenhouse gases are increasing the temperature of our planet? The answer to all of those questions is no.
  • quantum_flux

    It's not the natural cycles, it's the DC-offset of those cycles that scientists are confirming with their studies.
  • quantum_flux
    Arthur Ross:

    First of all, Al Gore is a politician and he has nothing to do with
    science, certainly he isn't a climatologist. Politicians on both sides of
    the political spectrum don't take any courses in physics or science at all
    and hence they just parrot whatever slogan gets them elected.

    Are the climatologists at NOAA in on it too?

    Or how about the USGS?




    As far as I know, the ice ages occur due to the frequency of Earth's axial
    wobble, the tectonic shifting of the continents changing the thermocline of
    the ocean, the release of volcanic gases from volcanoes, and the solar
    cycles of the sun. Then there is the secondary feedback mechanism due to
    the release of water vapor, methane gas, and carbon dioxide into the
    atmosphere from surface topology sources such as melting glacial ice cover
    and various soil chemical properties being oxidized/reduced by sunlight.

    There are so many factors involved that it is very complicated stuff that
    is generally being worked out at present, so it is not surprising that you
    haven't gotten many exact replies regaurding your question of how the Earth
    has warmed up since the last Ice Age.... I can tell you that it obviously
    has warmed up since the last ice age, which no scientist disagrees with.
    Then it is also true that we are releasing on the order of millions of
    barrels of burned petro-oil into the air every year (actually, don't quote
    me on that "millions" figure, you probably know that figure from ecconomic
    charts better than I do), but it is generally accepted that CO2 and CH4 as
    well as unspent hydrocarbons absorb the sunlight heat in our atmosphere.
    I'd say, in my best guess, that it is a safe bet that global warming is a
    real threat, even with the release of light blocking aerosols into the
    atmosphere from both natural and manmade sources. I'm not a climatologist
    though, more of a chemistry/math guy so I'm going off of what the general
    consensus of the experts ever since the time of Carl Sagan's first climate
    models in the 1980's has been. My belief is that global warming is hardly a
    hoax from the scientific point of view, and to call it that is to belittle
    the work of scientists in general.
  • toe
    there are some in the extreme left wing that thrive upon conspiracy theories- i am sorry, biggs, but all indications are that you are the right wing version of this. again, chill out. nobody is coming to get you. just settle down and try some rational thought for a change- you might find it refreshing.
  • toe
    wow, "biggs", you need to take a chill pill.
  • Ross
    I have emailed 34 prominent climatologists, including the reverend gore, asking them to explain to me how the earth warmed 16 degrees F since the last ice age.

    I also asked them to explain all the cooling/warming cycles throughout the history of the earth.

    How did the gigantic glaciers melt that formed the Great Lakes?

    All of this before the first car or steam plant?!?!?!

    I got NO responses....because they know they are pushing a hoax.

    If Al Gore truly believed in man made global warming and continued to live the lifestyle he does....he is the most self centered, brutal monster on earth.
  • Bill Williamson
    Here is the real deal. Them liberals at Starbucks tell you that the earth is warming up. Tell them to wipe their ass with a fuckin owl!

    Man if global warming is happening then why are winters in Wisconsin so cold? I say, "Explain that Mr. Nobel Laureate! Just because you got a Phd. from fancy university doesn't mean that you know anything about what's going on in the real world."

    The liberals want everyone to think global warming is real because they t want American to fail so that we can be taken over by China and they can fulfill their hippie communist dream. Terrorist fist bumps and lattes all around!
  • Reaper
    Hey Josh, you hear that global temperatures have dropped about .7 degrees Celsius this year?

    Did you know that cooling is unquestionably far more damaging than warming?

    Did you know that curbing our carbon footprint could, in fact, help hasten an age of global cooling?

    No? Well, let's spend billions of dollars and sacrifice our economic stability to make the earth colder anyways. AL GORE AND LEONARDO DICAPRIO DEMAND IT!
  • Josh
    This post betrays your ignorance on the topic. The fact that one month in wherever-you're-talking-about is cooler than the average for the century is not evidence against the overall trend of climate change. It does suggest however that you're willing to look at historical temperatures and trends as evidence. If you do this, you'll find that you're on the wrong side of the issue.

    I hope you at the very least stop being a roadblock to this potentially problematic situation so that we can get on with the challenge of doing something about it.
  • Steven
    Hello, I'm a Penguin that lives in the Arctic. I have friends that are Polar Bears and we have a lot of problems here. We now have a new problem which is the disappearance of fish. This will cause our species to go extinct if we don't act now. Our other problem is that the ice and snow is melting, causing us to drown. We need to find a solution to these problems fast. Also, Global Warming is a cycle of the world, it happens once in a while, but we are making it go threw the stage faster than what it should be.
  • Steven
    Global warming is an issue whose existence will likely always be debated. Personally, I feel the existence obvious. Throughout my life, the winters have become more sporadic and seem to follow seasonal patterns less and less every year. Each year the summers seem hotter and contain more and more destructive storms.

    Perhaps this is just my own misconception, though. If it is, I can honestly say I
    will not regret my misconceptions in the future. Some people seem to believe global warming preventions hurt business. I believe this to be false due to the entrepreneurship it provides in new eco-friendly technology. This kind of technology will only create more jobs and help our economic situation.
    So other than global warming filling the media with somewhat annoying ads and texts, we will only prosper from the actions taken to prevent global warming.
  • Ross
    The CO2 growth rate over the past decade was about twice as fast as that found in the 1960s. Yet, all four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data that show the past year(2007-2008), global temperatures have dropped precipitously.... an average of between .65 and .74 degrees Cel.

    How is is possible for the carbon dioxide rate to double over a decade and earth's temperature go down? Answer, because man made global warming is a hoax. The earth has warmed some 16 degrees Far. since the last ice age. Most of that warming was before the internal combustion engine or the first goal plant was built. It was not caused by La Nina as some scientists are trying to say now...If that is the case, why was El Nino not part of the warming of the 1990's?

    Did the invention of the Model T cause the glaciers to melt that formed the Great Lakes...of course not. So what caused such GIGANTIC glaciers to melt thousands of years ago? Again, the answer is not is natural temperature changes that the have ALWAYS occurred.

    One thing these scientists are correct about...the debate is over. The earth has always heated and cooled several degrees. Case Closed.
  • Travis
    I suggest everyone here read Climate Confusion by Dr. Roy W. Spencer. He explains the actual science behind the theory of Global Warming. He talks about the history, the inner workings of the climate, the models that scientist are using, all the aspects of global warming, and the effect of climate policies on the poor. The conclusion from this book is that the minimal increase in carbon is most likely due, since 1940, to human activity. With only 38 molecules of 1000 molecules of air being carbon it is hard to award man-made carbon emission with the about 1 degree rise in temperature. He goes on to explain that the models that scientist are using aren't good enough yet to factor in ever variable so most of their findings and predictions have no merit even though they make headlines.
    What I don't understand is three things. Methane is a green house gas too. This gas is much more prominent in our atmosphere than carbon, yet it gets no recognition. Is that because almost all of it distributed naturally? It makes me feel that Global Warming is being pushed down my throat as my fault because I breathe and I drive a car. I'm a terrible person for doing both (at least that is what they are trying to get me to feel). Also, what is wrong with a temperature rise? You don't have to be a historian to know the earth was most prosperous during the medieval times (also known as the medieval warming period) and that was when the earth was its hottest. Greenland was green! We would have longer crop growth and more places people could live. And finally, as humans we weren't emitting hardly any carbon into the atmosphere really before 1940. Keeping this in mind, the hottest period of time, in our recent history, was the 1930's. What can explain this? Carbon couldn't have been at fault.
    I just think that our climate and weather is so complex (if you read Climate Confusion you would know) it is very unrealistic to predict and make assumptions based on our faint knowledge of how all the different parts of our climate system work together. Give it a few years, based on our last winter I bet there is a global cooling theory that hits the main stream media.
  • Quantum_Flux
    I challenge you to find one legitimate scientist who says that millions of barrels of CO2 production isn't having some sort of weather effect on the Earth. The thing that isn't fully understood is the percentage of the global CO2 rising is caused by humans vs volcanoes.
  • QuickRob
    "because weather or not"

    Ahh, that is the question!
  • davidwwalters
    i have watched this debate for years........and how the deniers keep changing the it seems to be "Man Made Global Warming" opposed to just global warming. But watch out before you too get yourself "painted into a corner"........because weather or not it is man made or not.......prudence will dictate action(like we have always done with "ACTs of GOD" like flood control)
  • WAX
  • davidwwalters
    "..........but stop scaring the kids."-mike
    but we ought to scare them with terrorist?
  • mike

    We all want clean air and clean water. When Al Gore testified before congress, why did he not bring a scientist or 2 with him? Why does he tell our 6 year old kids that when they are 12 or 15, New York and Florida will be under water? (Oprah called him " America's Noah" for Christ's sake.)

    Do you really believe that our planet has a termostat that can be turned up or down by Albert Gore based on human carbonic input into the atmoshere? We have stars that expand, contract, expolde, cosmic winds, the temerature on Mars is up .5 degrees farenheit in the last 100 or so years.

    Come on Sam, I want my George Jetson Car and I think by now that we should be able to beam ourselves wherever we want to go and all that, but stop scaring the kids.
  • Travis
    I obviously don't know how old everyone who commented on this blog is but, if they were old enough they may remember that in the 1970's the same people who are saying we are going to die because of global warming said we will be victims of the next ice age. The fact of the matter is in 2004 the EPA came out with some "real facts." Natural gas systems, animal waste and gas, landfills, coal mining, manure management, and wastewater treatment account for moer then 80% of the methane gas (green house gas) released into the enviornment. The idea that man, Americans, are responsible for green house gases and altering out climate and temperatures is just insane.
  • oh damn...if the daily galaxy said it...well, it must be true!!
  • thekossack
    Not in recorded history has this been possible. is the planet melting tells me warming is going on. Is it just easier to stick your head in the sand?
  • Rob Young
    Yah and I Believe in People having Sex with Aliens.
    Yah Right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Shuv Global Warming up your Ass. Until you Prove it!!!
  • Tom O'Malley
    Ya, and the sun revolves around the earth, and the earth is flat. Right?
  • Silaretal
    As an interlude: The IPCC report that everyone is gobbling up wasn't a "consensus" at all. Each scientist who contributed only contributed to their own small section, not to the report as a whole. There was no big scientist meeting where everyone read the whole report and agreed that it was acceptable. As a consequence, many of these scientists have asked that their independent findings and names removed from the report.

    Why do we need new laws? Why do we need our freedoms stepped on even further? If you want to save the planet, buy a hybrid, but don't tell me I have to.
  • Mike
    I have to agree with you, around here our summers are usually in temperatures reaching from 99 - 120 degrees farenheit. This summer has been in the range of 85-101, we had one freak day of 115. I don't oppose alternate fuels sources and I'm sure pollution is not good for the lungs etc, but I don't think we're gonna go extinct due to melting polar ice caps etc.
  • QuickRob
    I really don't get why US conservatives reject the idea of global warming. It's been accepted by conservatives, anarchists, socialists, centrists, liberals and libertarians in Ireland and the UK, so why not in the US? It strikes me that since the consequences of global warming require state intervention, conservatives reject the theory because it is simply inconvenient.
    Well, to put it plainly to you:
    your desire to save the planet from this frightening "climate crisis" makes you want the government to make new laws. these laws have the distinct possibility of damaging our economies, and a small possibility of actually helping to save the planet...if it even really needs saving.
    So, you clamor for laws, politicians love to pass laws and make people happy, so they pass these laws. New restrictions are made on trade, the energy marketplace gets turned upside down by government interference, and we hand the government additional ways to regulate our lives.
    Thanks for nothing, buddy!
    And for your CLAIM that the anarchists are supporters of this new push towards global governance wrapped up in deluded, nonsense environmentalism...I FIND THAT LAUGHABLE!!!

    What anarchist worth his weight in dirt would ever support new laws and regulations???????? Do you know what an anarchist is?
  • QuickRob
    "But that's simply not true. As far as I know, there is only one scientific society which rejects the theory of anthropogenic global warming - the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (which, as the title shows, may have an industry bias)."

    That is false.

    How to Argue With a Global Warming Enthusiast

    As for the general topic, the list of scientists (including very well-respected climatologists) which opposes the hype-science surrounding global warming is a big list. See Wikipedia:

    As for the entire debate: global warming debate is certainly NOT OVER, there is CLEARLY NO CONSENSUS AMONG ALL SCIENTISTS about any of the major tenets of "Gore's Version of Global Warming".

    Commenter #1 if you need better newspapers to link to, try this link to a credible Canadian publication:

    Try this link for an even larger collection of links to the numerous doubts and controversies in the so-called "science" of global warming, which involves sophisticated computer models with very little external reliability or validity. ever hear the phrase "garbage in, garbage out"?

    Anyone who suggests the science is settled obviously doesn't have any background education in science. That's the only clearly defined fact in this whole conversation.
  • Pidge
    "actually, more scientists say "global warming" is natural, or not even actually occurring. But you liberal slices of shit control the media, so we never hear about it."
    But that's simply not true. As far as I know, there is only one scientific society which rejects the theory of anthropogenic global warming - the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (which, as the title shows, may have an industry bias).

    I really don't get why US conservatives reject the idea of global warming. It's been accepted by conservatives, anarchists, socialists, centrists, liberals and libertarians in Ireland and the UK, so why not in the US? It strikes me that since the consequences of global warming require state intervention, conservatives reject the theory because it is simply inconvenient.
  • John
    actually, more scientists say "global warming" is natural, or not even actually occurring. But you liberal slices of shit control the media, so we never hear about it.
  • sean
    "I just believe what I believe because I believe it." LOL..... keep on believing but it wont make it any more correct! Found the skeptical scientists article interesting but as has been pointed out above the IPCC report and scientists supporting the believe of human influenced global warming do hold a landslide majority view even if all the scientists are not agreed. Not to say that science should be democratic!
  • Cass - thanks again for stopping by. You can rant and rave on here anytime. The truth is that most of the readers on this blog are extreme liberals!! They usually come here to call me names, kind of like your friend, was it Carla? hard feelings though. I don't take it personal. I just believe what I believe because I believe it.
  • Cass
    I'm appalled that the Global Warming Debate is still even going on. I read one of your (liberal) commenters saying no one knew about Global Warming until 2006, and just had to shake my head. I've been hearing and reading about it for probably a decade. And the conclusion has always been the same thing you pointed out in this post: weather is cyclical. I could explain why that is any number of ways, but it's really not necessary. The thermometer speaks for itself. Record highs, record lows are not the issue, the overall pattern is the issue, and the overall pattern says: cyclical.

    Oh. Sorry. I'll put away my soapbox now. But I've been looking forward to getting back here all day, LOL~!
  • Marlia
    Sam - nothing is wrong with conserving energy at all. It's when the dems and media politicize it daily when it becomes a sore topic.
  • Sam
    I've driven through Timaru, in NZ, the village whose newspaper you give greater authority to than the UN's IPCC, and I wouldn't hang my reputation on that brain trust. If you want a decent last ditch attempt at claiming pollution doesn't harm the environment, look up The Great Global Warming Swindle on Google Video. Of course, it has also been dismissed by most credible sources, but it is interesting.

    At the end of the day, what is so bad about making energy more efficient and developing new technologies? Or are you just following conservative dogma.
blog comments powered by Disqus