[ShortcutToMoncton]

I repeat again: where did the other 99% of the data go? If they only have 1% of it, who stole the rest??

greg

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I repeat again: where did the other 99% of the data go? If they only have 1% of it, who stole the rest??

greg

The other 99% is fiction. Nothing stolen, just lies. 99% = Lies. 1% is real.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Nothing the scientists are saying have any facts to back them up. All their conclusions are based on assumptions.

The irony is mindboggling

[ShortcutToMoncton]

:d :d

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

1. You have two papers here, neither of which contains the full paper. I cannot see where either of these abstracts claims that D-O events are found in the Holocene. In fact, the Röthlisberger paper specifically does not:
Uhhhhhh...do you know what that means? It means that the data set doesn't include the Holocene, but runs from it up to the last glacial maximum (LGM). How can you possibly post this as "evidence" of D-O events in the Holocene is beyond me.

You're really stuck on this greg. I'm not claiming there were or are D-O cycles in the Holocene. There are aspects of climatic events that run similar to historical warming events. We know this because of the discovery of climate cycles and their affects on the environment. Again, I've asked you why you insist on arguing this with such tenacity. Are you really stuck on the argument that there are no commonalities between the warming of our climate in the last 500+million years and warming in the Holocene? Really?

The Bond paper furthermore does not say that D-O cycles are present in the Holocene, but notes instead that another cycle seems to be in sync with D-O cycles when they can be found. Once again, neither of these papers "proves" what we were talking about – the existence of D-O cycles in the Holocene as an explanation for current climate trends – but instead hint at other cycles which may be present and which may be related to D-O cycles found within the glacial period(s). Hmmmm, nothing there that changes our current explanation of current climates however.

I did not claim D-O cycles are present in the Holocene. You're really stuck on this though greg so in fun, let me ask you; if the cycles enjoy a periodicity of 1,470 years, where did they go?

A Pervasive Millennial-Scale Cycle in North Atlantic Holocene and Glacial Climates
Gerard Bond, * William Showers, Maziet Cheseby, Rusty Lotti, Peter Almasi, Peter deMenocal, Paul Priore, Heidi Cullen, Irka Hajdas, Georges Bonani

Evidence from North Atlantic deep sea cores reveals that abrupt shifts punctuated what is conventionally thought to have been a relatively stable Holocene climate. During each of these episodes, cool, ice-bearing waters from north of Iceland were advected as far south as the latitude of Britain. At about the same times, the atmospheric circulation above Greenland changed abruptly. Pacings of the Holocene events and of abrupt climate shifts during the last glaciation are statistically the same; together, they make up a series of climate shifts with a cyclicity close to 1470 ± 500 years. The Holocene events, therefore, appear to be the most recent manifestation of a pervasive millennial-scale climate cycle operating independently of the glacial-interglacial climate state. Amplification of the cycle during the last glaciation may have been linked to the North Atlantic's thermohaline circulation.

2. With regard to the article, it doesn't say that D-O cycles are found in the Holocene at all, and in fact you quoted this! This part does not deal with the Holocene; neither D-O cycles or Heinrich events are identified in the Holocene. The farthest they can be said to extend is to the Younger Dryas period.
This part deals with Bond's work in solar variability within the Holocene. This is a different topic which focuses on a different time period (ie. within the Holocene). You seemed to have confused the two, demonstrating once again that your lack of careful reading of this subject material leads you to make incorrect assumptions.

You're either misreading me or misreading Bond's studies. One of the two. Yes, Bond focuses on solar variability because due to the regularity of the discovered climate change cycles, it had been long thought that the events matched similarly-paced solar activity. The problem was, there was no known solar process or orbital disturbance to explain the periodicity of the D-O events. the challenge is finding the driving mechanism for the events. You might know, these concepts are still very much in debate no matter how certain the folks at Greenpeace seem to be.

It has been found for example that Gleissberg solar cycles (~210 and 87 years, respectively) are close to prime factors of 1,470 years and when superposed, the two such frequencies could result in variability that repeats with a 1,470-year period. "An intermediate-complexity climate model with glacial climate conditions simulates rapid climate shifts similar to the Dansgaard-Oeschger events with a spacing of 1,470 years when forced by periodic freshwater input into the North Atlantic ocean in cycles of ~86 and ~210 years."

Soooooo...once again, more proof that "climate is variable but there may be patterns of some sort." The patterns haven't been identified in any convincing fashion, or with any convincing regularity, or within the Holocene period. Hardly "proof" that D-O cycles are causing the current warming trend, as your original Singer/Avery article stated.

Can you quote where Singer, Avery, or myself made the claim that there is proof that D-O cycles are causing the current warming trend? I like it when you try to take some offensive here, but just where is the proof that man's cessation of C02 emissions would have any affect at all on Global Climate change? HUHH?!? PROOF!!! egadz man. You're way too emotionally attached to this non-point of yours greg.

You've posted a "quote" – not a peer-reviewed paper – by an important but noted anthropogenic climate-change skeptic. Congratulations. They are out there. They have good ideas, too.

Yeah, I wonder what they base their conclusions on greg. Could it be the exact same evidence "noted anthropogenic alarmists" are using? I love the lingo by the way. It makes everything sound so nefarious. After all, humanity hangs in the balance right? Give me a friggin' break.

But this debate is about the science, not about what some important guy thinks. What has Izrael published recently regarding climate change? What is his scientific evidence in presenting the claims that he does? (He's a big name, so I assume he has some.) I've said time and time again: presenting "numbers of scientists who agree" is simply not a valid argument; that's why Singer and any number of bogus scientists have been able to get attention. You have to show that their opinions are backed by work within the field.

There is no paper, report, abstract, study, or "zinger" that would get you to acknowledge that anthropogenic alarmism is hotly debated in the scientific community. Hotly. If you don't acknowledge this, this is perhaps not the topic I can discuss with you.

I'll say it again and for the last time. I am not a climatologist. I've been priveleged to view much of the information provided by the ministers of doom. It is all around us. I'm not interested in those who pay cash to pollute. I'm not interested in the ministers of doom because statements like "may" and "suggest" are turned into "is" and "is". Furthermore, what is the argument? That I pollute more and need to stop? No one would know this. That we need to listen to the ministers of doom because they are all above board and honest and any dissenting opinion is wrong? Certainly not. There are many scientists, credible scientists who are not in the business of "denial" for the sake of it. They are not in the pockets of big oil and they are not bent on throwing all of humanity down on a high-stakes game of "you're wrong, I'm right!" This is what zealots do. Scientists quietly go about their work using terms such as "may be" and "suggest" and people will decide based on their studies and others will run around half-cocked for attention and someone to blame for nature.

I'm decided. That's what I'm telling you. I've decided that I will casually read material as it comes up and try to ignore the screaming, argumentative zealots when I can. There are simply too many of them and too many blogs feeding them for me to compete. Yes, I'm taking my ball and going home.

[Buckaroo]

I don't have time to disscuss it now, but later when I get back home from work.


IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily - The Soros Threat To Democracy

Report: NASA scientist who accused Bush Administration of censorship received $720,000 from George Soros...

This is the guy that claimed he was being censored by Bush, yet he was getting aid and money from the left wing.

[Kevin]

Being a shill is big business now a days.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Being a shill is big business now a days.

If you have a problem with Buckaroo's shilling, the polite thing to do would be report it to the mods, not drag it out in public

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

If you have a problem with Buckaroo's shilling, the polite thing to do would be report it to the mods, not drag it out in public

I think he was referring to the guy I posted about. The NASA shill.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Ever the optimist eh? Stiff upper lip.

Hey you're back, does that mean you have time to discuss it now? We're waiting.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Heh heh, I love the hate that Hansen gets in "skeptic media." He's a pretty massive target nowadays, huh.

greg

[Uncle Skeleton]

The funniest part isn't even that Buckaroo's source is some righ-wing wingbag's blog. The funniest part is that the blog isn't even about Hansen or climate change, it's about Soros, whoever that is. Hansen is just an off-hand comment in the blog, the rest is about illegal immigrant "uprisings" and secret military trials. And what it does say about Hansen: he recieved media and legal support, not a pay-off. I don't even get what the problem is supposed to be. Why wouldn't a media engine give media support to a source that backs up their position? Isn't that what the blog itself is doing, donating media support to further its own argument?

Meanwhile, the "discussion" Buckaroo promised when he gets home from work apparently amounts to this:

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The funniest part isn't even that Buckaroo's source is some righ-wing wingbag's blog. The funniest part is that the blog isn't even about Hansen or climate change, it's about Soros, whoever that is. Hansen is just an off-hand comment in the blog, the rest is about illegal immigrant "uprisings" and secret military trials. And what it does say about Hansen: he recieved media and legal support, not a pay-off. I don't even get what the problem is supposed to be. Why wouldn't a media engine give media support to a source that backs up their position? Isn't that what the blog itself is doing, donating media support to further its own argument?

Meanwhile, the "discussion" Buckaroo promised when he gets home from work apparently amounts to this:

Hey, at least give me a chance to read the article or whatever. I just didn't want anyone to miss out on it.

[Buckaroo]

Here comes the global warming taxes, thanks to Democrat Rep John Dingell.

Plan Uses Taxes to Fight Climate Change - washingtonpost.com

Do I need to say any more?

WASHINGTON -- Dealing with global warming will be painful, says one of the most powerful Democrats in Congress. To back up his claim he is proposing a recipe many people won't like _ a 50-cent gasoline tax, a carbon tax and scaling back tax breaks for some home owners.

Feel free to discuss.

[BadKosh]

Isn't that Democrat Rep John Dingell-Barry?


Sorry..... Too easy.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

If you have a problem with Buckaroo's shilling, the polite thing to do would be report it to the mods, not drag it out in public

I was referring to the person in the article. But I saw what you did there.

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

I think he was referring to the guy I posted about. The NASA shill.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Here comes the global warming taxes, thanks to Democrat Rep John Dingell.

Plan Uses Taxes to Fight Climate Change - washingtonpost.com

Do I need to say any more?

WASHINGTON -- Dealing with global warming will be painful, says one of the most powerful Democrats in Congress. To back up his claim he is proposing a recipe many people won't like _ a 50-cent gasoline tax, a carbon tax and scaling back tax breaks for some home owners.

Feel free to discuss.

Is this your way of saying you're not going to discuss your last link-and-run after all? Thought so. Maybe you'll discuss this one... doubt it. This is why Kevin thinks you're a shill (j/k, really this is why that joke is so funny).

from this one:

Some of the revenue would be used to reduce payroll taxes, but most would go elsewhere including for highway construction, mass transit, paying for Social Security and health programs and to help the poor pay energy bills.

wtf? This proposal is going down in flames.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

But I saw what you did there.

I'm glad someone did

[BadKosh]

Global warming MUST BE WRONG! Bush agrees that we must do something.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Global warming MUST BE WRONG! Bush agrees that we must do something.

I am not one of the "Global Warming is wrong" people myself. I am more of a, if it's going to happen, nothing we can do is gonna stop it.

I do think some of the theories are based on ideas that the hole is something that is new. We have no idea how long it's been there.

The earth is doomed anyhow. Save the people.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

The earth is doomed anyhow. Save the people.

The Earth is not doomed. If we (humans) kill off ourselves the Earth will keep right on spinning on its axis. Then in about 4 or 5 billion years the Earth will be consumed as our star dies off. But, I am pretty sure the earth will be okay up to that point (assuming it doesn't get hit by a massive asteroid or some other inter-planetary object). Yeah, I'm not too worried about the earth. Go Earth!

[Kevin]

Well that's your opinion anyhow. We will just agree to disagree.

This one sucks, and was ruined long before we knew how to test such things.

I am looking forward to the second version.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Well that's your opinion anyhow. We will just agree to disagree.

It's my "opinion" that the Earth will keep on spinning if all humanity dies off? Really?!? You think that statement is an "opinion"?
How would humanity wiping out itself cause the planet to stop spinning? How would humanity wiping out itself lead to the destruction of the planet? The planet existed before humans appeared on it and has continued to exist after millennia of human conflict and warfare, construction and destruction. I'm pretty confident that what I stated about the viability of the planet in a post-human world is not an "opinion" but a logical projection of likely circumstances.

You've got me stumped with this post of yours.

<edited>
Ahh, it all makes sense now. You edited your post to add, in your typically sly way, suggestions of religious overtones to your point. Yes, I get it now. You think the world will be destroyed because of the second coming of Christ. Gotcha! And as for your "second version" of this world, I am assuming you are referring to living in the heavenly Jerusalem among God's elect, as promulgated in the Bible. Good for you.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I do think some of the theories are based on ideas that the hole is something that is new. We have no idea how long it's been there.

You seem to be confusing the concepts of "global warming" and "ozone hole," which are not really directly linked (unless you include "man" into the equation of course...).

greg

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

You seem to be confusing the concepts of "global warming" and "ozone hole," which are not really directly linked (unless you include "man" into the equation of course...).

greg

I thought I read that although man has caused the thinning of the Ozone above us, and maybe a slight increase in the size of the ozone hole, the ozone hole at the poles may be a natural occurance, just maybe made worse by man.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

The Earth is not doomed. If we (humans) kill off ourselves the Earth will keep right on spinning on its axis. Then in about 4 or 5 billion years the Earth will be consumed as our star dies off. But, I am pretty sure the earth will be okay up to that point (assuming it doesn't get hit by a massive asteroid or some other inter-planetary object). Yeah, I'm not too worried about the earth. Go Earth!

Don't forget the possiblity that 90% of all life on Earth could be wipped out because of a Gama Ray burst from a pair of stars that go Supernova within the Milky way. That is if the burst is pointing at the Earth.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

You seem to be confusing the concepts of "global warming" and "ozone hole," which are not really directly linked (unless you include "man" into the equation of course...).

greg

Don't jump to conclusions. He just said "the hole," he's probably talking about some christian thing, like a hole in hell that lets the heat up into our world. That's what usually ends up happening with that guy: he says something that sounds relevant but turns out to be something that only affects him; if you try to ask how it applies to you, he jumps down your throat for it.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Don't forget the possiblity that 90% of all life on Earth could be wipped out because of a Gama Ray burst from a pair of stars that go Supernova within the Milky way. That is if the burst is pointing at the Earth.

Don't forget that the only reason we care about the environment is because we need it to survive. 10% of life surviving is fine by the Earth, it's only us humans that are conerned about it.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Don't jump to conclusions. He just said "the hole," he's probably talking about some christian thing, like a hole in hell that lets the heat up into our world. That's what usually ends up happening with that guy: he says something that sounds relevant but turns out to be something that only affects him; if you try to ask how it applies to you, he jumps down your throat for it.

Oh, I can see that you're not going to make it to the next version of Earth....

greg

[Uncle Skeleton]

I'm already there, greg

[ShortcutToMoncton]

*White Goodman glare*

...touché

[Buckaroo]

Ok, this is exactly on topic now.

As I have always said, Al Gores fictional movie was BS.

CNN Meteorologist: ‘Definitely Some Inaccuracies’ in Gore Film | NewsBusters.org

CNN Meteorologist Rob Marciano clapped his hands and exclaimed, "Finally," in response to a report that a British judge might ban the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" from UK schools because, according to "American Morning," "it is politically biased and contains scientific inaccuracies."

"There are definitely some inaccuracies," Marciano added. "The biggest thing I have a problem with is this implication that Katrina was caused by global warming."

I'll keep an eye out for other interesting articles and keep you all up to date. There was another interesting story, as soon as I find it, I'll share it with everyone.

[Buckaroo]

I found it:

Separating climate fact from fiction�-�-�The Washington Times, America's Newspaper


This week is especially challenging for citizens trying to separate fact from fantasy in the climate debate. From the excited rhetoric of United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's high-level event in New York, the pontifications of Ted Turner at the Clinton Global Initiative or politicians pandering for the green vote at President Bush's leaders summit, the public is in dire need of self-defense strategies.

The most reliable tool is simple skepticism. "I don't believe you; prove it" is an appropriate response to Al Gore and his climate campaigners. But such a charge is politically incorrect when applied to climate change so most people need something more passive, a climate change propaganda detector.

Here's what will cause alarm bells to ring on a properly tuned detector:

• Activists claiming natural events are unnatural, or normal events abnormal. This guarantees that claims we are seeing more extreme events are always right. The "warmest/wettest/driest/snowiest/windiest" actually means the most extreme in the official record, which for most of the world is less than 50 years. Such a short time interval guarantees records will be set all the time.

• Speculation and exaggeration presented as unbiased fact. It's revealing to compare U.N. and other political pronouncements about climate with the scientific research that supposedly backs them. Conditional words — "could," "may" or "possibly" — that appear in the science papers vanish when the issue becomes political. Ban Ki-moon's assertions in May are classic: "The recent report of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) emphasizes that the science on climate change is very clear, that the warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and that this is happening because of human activities." IPCC scientists concluded no such thing, but the secretary-general's exaggerations draw more attention to his cause.





And another good article:


Global Warming Insanity? - Commentary: The Post Chronicle

Now that NASA has corrected its US temperature records, the hottest year on record is no longer 1998, but 1934. Five of the ten hottest years since 1880 were between 1920 and 1940 - and the 15 hottest years since 1880 are spread across seven decades. This suggests natural variation, not a warming trend.

Plant and insect remains found at the base of Greenland's ice sheet indicate that, just 400,000 years ago, the island was blanketed in forests and basking in temperatures perhaps 27 degrees F warmer than today.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

And another good article:


Global Warming Insanity? - Commentary: The Post Chronicle

Now that NASA has corrected its US temperature records, the hottest year on record is no longer 1998, but 1934. Five of the ten hottest years since 1880 were between 1920 and 1940 - and the 15 hottest years since 1880 are spread across seven decades. This suggests natural variation, not a warming trend.

Plant and insect remains found at the base of Greenland's ice sheet indicate that, just 400,000 years ago, the island was blanketed in forests and basking in temperatures perhaps 27 degrees F warmer than today.

Welcome back everyone to page 14 of this thread! Should we take it on good authority that this is the 1% of supposed data that is real?

[BadKosh]

Until all the contradictory data has been analyzed do we REAL KNOW what we're talking about? So far neither side hs proved anything. Unfortunately, politicians around the world have jumped the gun while clueless (a trait that MAKES them politicians) but still nothing concrete. The GW crowd says we MUST do something to reduce the output of the west (and reduce their economies), while the anti-GW crowd says its a farce. I do notice its the idiots who are jumping the gun here. We should be developing ways to stop large asteroids from striking earth, and developing ways to contain biohazards so we don't all die of some horrid illness.

[Buckaroo]

Chilly reception for debate offer :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Steve Huntley

Al Gore dosen't want his lies to be shown to be lies. He refuses to debate his BS with others. He knows his BS is BS. He proves it every day when he flies around in private jets, drives big SUV's and eats hamburgers like their water. He's a Liar/Politician. He lies for a living.


The issue is a bit more complicated than that. What Bast wants is for Gore to debate one of three authorities who dispute the former vice president's assertion that global warming is a crisis that requires an immediate, hugely expensive response potentially damaging to the U.S. and world economies.

One of the Heartland experts is Dennis Avery, an economist, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and co-author, with Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia, of the book Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years. As you might guess from that title, Avery sees global warming as a natural phenomenon in which "there may be a human factor but if so it's small." He describes the warming as "moderate" and says there's been no warming since 1998. "Where's the crisis?"

When you talk with Avery, he cites numbers on carbon dioxide and temperature change and dates of previous warming periods, such as during Roman and medieval times. A layman like me soon finds himself in deep water, and you know someone on the other side of the issue will cite other sources, such as a U.N. panel on climate change that says most of the warming since the mid-20th century is likely due to greenhouse gases.

[Buckaroo]

I agree. I also beleive it is a good idea to drive smaller more efficient autos and use less resources, not because of global warming, but because of reducing our dependence on foreign oil. There is nothing wrong with conserving, it's just the GW Waco's want it forced on everyone to destroy the economy for a BS reason and they don't want to live by those rules. They still want to burn as much fuel as possible. I say, lets ration it. That would be fair. Make Gore walk his ass off, then he'll sing a different tune.

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Until all the contradictory data has been analyzed do we REAL KNOW what we're talking about? So far neither side hs proved anything. Unfortunately, politicians around the world have jumped the gun while clueless (a trait that MAKES them politicians) but still nothing concrete. The GW crowd says we MUST do something to reduce the output of the west (and reduce their economies), while the anti-GW crowd says its a farce. I do notice its the idiots who are jumping the gun here. We should be developing ways to stop large asteroids from striking earth, and developing ways to contain biohazards so we don't all die of some horrid illness.

[ebuddy]

Dearest Buckaroo and BadKosh;

- Your evidences regarding this issue are going to go unread.
- You can provide no "zinger", no data to squelch the fear-mongering cries of the zealot.

You are poopy-butt stinkee faces!

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Dearest Buckaroo and BadKosh;

- Your evidences regarding this issue are going to go unread.
- You can provide no "zinger", no data to squelch the fear-mongering cries of the zealot.

You are poopy-butt stinkee faces!

Whatever!

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

I agree. I also beleive it is a good idea to drive smaller more efficient autos and use less resources, not because of global warming, but because of reducing our dependence on foreign oil. There is nothing wrong with conserving, it's just the GW Waco's want it forced on everyone to destroy the economy for a BS reason and they don't want to live by those rules. They still want to burn as much fuel as possible. I say, lets ration it. That would be fair. Make Gore walk his ass off, then he'll sing a different tune.

If using less oil would destroy the economy, what does it matter if it's "because" of global warming or "because" of people like you conserving? The outcome is the same, isn't it? Or does the economy not get destroyed if you have happy thoughts about the oil conservation? If that's the case, why can't the liberals' happy thoughts about carbon taxes do the trick? I'm just not following your reasoning at all.

[BadKosh]

OK, So lets make a pile of laws which limit our economy. Then when inflation rises and there are no jobs then what? China will make everything, and the 3rd world nations will continue to burn off forrests for drug fields.

[Monique]

For those who think the film is based on lies, just prove it. And it would be better if your data did not come from big oil companies.

Also, I guess you guys who do not believe in preserving our environment would prefer for everyone to generate as much garbage as possible, take off those mufflers and polute the air even more. Polute the water as much as possible so that the fish would become poisonneous. Make sure there are no place on earth that is not covered with garbage.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Monique 

For those who think the film is based on lies, just prove it. And it would be better if your data did not come from big oil companies.

Also, I guess you guys who do not believe in preserving our environment would prefer for everyone to generate as much garbage as possible, take off those mufflers and polute the air even more. Polute the water as much as possible so that the fish would become poisonneous. Make sure there are no place on earth that is not covered with garbage.

Sounds like Communist China to me.

[tie]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

OK, So lets make a pile of laws which limit our economy. Then when inflation rises and there are no jobs then what? China will make everything, and the 3rd world nations will continue to burn off forrests for drug fields.

Absolutely, I agree with you. Right now, I can't understand our national policy. We have individual states like California making their individual laws and climate initiatives, but nearly nothing at a national level. We (the US) are strongly opposed to any mandatory international agreements. But if you don't have agreements, then you get exactly this crisis of the commons, in China's favor and against the US. We need agreements that bind the US and China equally.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

[url=http://www.suntimes.com/news/huntley/589551,CST-EDT-HUNT05.article]One of the Heartland experts is Dennis Avery, an economist, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and co-author, with Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia, of the book Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years. As you might guess from that title, Avery sees global warming as a natural phenomenon in which "there may be a human factor but if so it's small." He describes the warming as "moderate" and says there's been no warming since 1998. "Where's the crisis?"

When you talk with Avery, he cites numbers on carbon dioxide and temperature change and dates of previous warming periods, such as during Roman and medieval times. A layman like me soon finds himself in deep water, and you know someone on the other side of the issue will cite other sources, such as a U.N. panel on climate change that says most of the warming since the mid-20th century is likely due to greenhouse gases.

Hah!

Dennis Avery? We've already been over this, extensively. He's a joker.

greg

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Hah!

Dennis Avery? We've already been over this, extensively. He's a joker.

Apparently he's not been convinced by anyone in this thread that those who a priori reject the work of Singer and Avery are somehow more qualified than they on this topic.

[Kevin]

I think a lot of people in here are in for a big surprise.

And not the fun cake type.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

I agree. I also beleive it is a good idea to drive smaller more efficient autos and use less resources, not because of global warming, but because of reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

There's a zillion reasons why we should better manage our resources and do everything we can not to pollute. Man made "global warming" just isn't really one of them. Not based on real science.

The problem is that the "left" is more passionate about it than the "right" and they think that in order to get action they have to lie and/or distort the truth to make things more dramatic. Their heart is in the right place (most of them, who aren't doing it to make a buck themselves like Gore) but the "ends justify the means" way of doing things always fails in the end.It's the same thing they've done with the Iraq war and abortion (the whole coathanger campaign).

Don't get me wrong...the right does the same thing on issues they are passionate about. The difference is, they don't have the majority of the mainstream media and Hollywood to toot their horns. They also don't have phony "awards" (like the Nobel Peace Prize) to bestow acclaim on liars and nuts.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The problem is that the "left" is more passionate about it than the "right" and they think that in order to get action they have to lie and/or distort the truth to make things more dramatic. Their heart is in the right place (most of them, who aren't doing it to make a buck themselves like Gore) but the "ends justify the means" way of doing things always fails in the end.It's the same thing they've done with the Iraq war and abortion (the whole coathanger campaign).

Don't get me wrong...the right does the same thing on issues they are passionate about. The difference is, they don't have the majority of the mainstream media and Hollywood to toot their horns. They also don't have phony "awards" (like the Nobel Peace Prize) to bestow acclaim on liars and nuts.

Nail on the head. But you are right, both "sides" do it. That is why I am all for getting rid of these "sides"

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Apparently he's not been convinced by anyone in this thread that those who a priori reject the work of Singer and Avery are somehow more qualified than they on this topic.

Heh. Not reading any other argument but the one that supports your own view will do that to you, I guess.

Those who, on the other hand, investigate the work of their opponents, and realize that they're industry-backed frauds who aren't published scientists and who clearly state complete lies in their argument...well, they tend to take the resulting arguments with large grains of salt.

greg