Well, regardless of whether global warming is valid or not (I tend to side on the side of "not") that is a rather asinine response to claims of global warming.

I agree with Dave.

And one degree makes a big difference in an area that's around 32 degrees. You know, the temperature at which those loony liberals claim that "ice" turns into "water".

Small changes have huge impacts at the margin.

Greenland people. Carbon neutrality. Won't anybody stop their Hummer for a second and think of the children?

She's a Jackass. Adam's apple, people. The girl's got an adam's apple! I love that new knowledge.

Hey Dave, why don't you go read ANY SCIENTIFIC STUDY EVER DONE ON GLOBAL WARMING not financed by Exxon Mobile, and then maybe you'd "side on the side" that makes sense.

Sam: are you deaf or merely an idiot?

Why the shouting?

Why the assumption that the only science I've read on the issue is funded by Exxon-Mobil?

Your arguments are as bad as Coulter's. At least she's easy on the eyes. Your yelling is just juvenile.

Coulter easy on the eyes? Maybe in Appalachia.

Yeah, I'm sorry Dave, but Coulter's only marginally easier on the eyes than Greta Van Susteren.

I still find the comment hilarious, though.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder as they say.

Coulter easy on the eyes? Maybe in Appalachia.

Huh, I was thinking more along the lines of "maybe if you've been legally blind since birth." (And being legally blind in one eye, I'm allowed to make such jokes, don't you know?)

That aside, I'm not sure who is the bigger idiot: Ann Coulter, for all the nonsense she spews, or the idiot in the bookstore who willingly pays her for it.

(P.S. I voted for Bush and support the war in Iraq, lest any wingnutters start going off on a liberal rant against me, proving yet again that their partisan blinders come before independent thought)

Not wanting to seem overly scientific, but even I can see the sun is hot and the temperature of the sun goes up and down -- Global warming. The lefty loons just want you to assume the sun isn't there, global cooling big time.

Once the global wamrming nutjobs get over the fact the sun controls the planet's weather, then we can talk. I saw Dr Grey recently do a stand up about al gore and his idiodic movie, had the crowd on their feet laughing their asses off.

Just for you Bill.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#

Clearly, the entire scientific establishment is left wing.

Wow, thanks for that link David! Rock on! Spike!

It's funny how, when Citizen Gore speaks about Global Warming at Stanford and around rest of the country, many academics and the top technology executives fill the room, applaud and donate. All idiots? I think not. The heads of Google and Yahoo and the leading scientists present. Well, they're not exxon-mobil or enron... they cannot be that smart.. It's also funny how MANY alarming (or, perhaps, "idiotic") articles the New York Times and many other news sources have reported for years.

There's quite a different between the ill-informed and those who have the information and digest it in such an implausable way. The later, in my mind, are idiots.

I guess there might be a way to dumb this down so even an idiot can understand. Admittedly, I'm no Al Gore or Scientific genious. However, I have a few dozen environmental science and policy credits behind me... so here it goes.

-- Yes, the sun is in control. However, the earth naturally has "protective elements" in its atmosphere. Perhaps you can analogize it to a natural form of "sunblock" existing in our ecosystem. Now, when you wear sunblock, what happens? That's right.... your skin doesn't burn. But, what happens when you forget sunblock or wash it off in a UV 10 index? That's right, you burn.

Good, now lets move to the next step. Everybody ready? Just to recap to those falling asleep, we're looking at climate change factors outside the heat of the sun.

Okay, now that we've explained the extremely complex principal of sunblock, let's look at the atmosphere. The atmosphere is like a thick "membrane" against the sun. Human's excessive "Carbon" exhaust breaks down elements in our atmosphere and mitigates the protective layers. Due to man's "footprint," the earth cannot regenerate itself fast enough to protect this membrane against man's impact (sorry, Karol, and women's). Throughout the industrial age, a miniscule period in the earth's long history, we've managed to throw carbon and other pollutants into our atmosphere and harm the earth's ability to restore.

Now, to put this all together, this membrane is very important. It is like sunscreen on a constant UV 10 index. Without it, the earth will burn and temperatures will rise. Moreso, ice in polar regions will melt. "Carbon Neutrality" is a concept whereby you agree to mitigate your emissions with environmental benefits that reduce carbon (i.e.: The mega-yacht show in Monaco is providing a wind farm to New Zealand. Wind farms do not emit carbon).

Now, I suppose this would work in reverse. The same membrane would prevent global cooling should such be the case. However, considering the rate of melting and the increase in global temperatures, global cooling isn't really a concern. Global warming CERTAINLY is.

------------------------------
Message sent from sat com sitting on the dashboard of my HUMMER headed for higher ground.

bill:

There's something called "the atmosphere" that sits between us and the sun. I assure you that it really exists, and is not just some "idiotic" notion dreamed up by "loons".

May we all someday be as ugly as Ann Coulter

I think it's a shame people are discussing her appearance at all. Who the fuck cares that Ann Coulter and John Edwards are attractive and that Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore aren't?

Alan Greenspan and his second-in-charge, Roger Ferguson, looked downright atrocious; would sensible people really have preferred to have George Clooney and Jessica Alba setting monetary policy?

Well, then why does any discussion about Ann Coulter inevitably come down to a debate about whether or not she's hot?

Maybe we should be more concerned with things like her espousing a foreign policy of converting Muslims to Christianity at gunpoint and promoting terrorist attacks against Americans, and then refusing to back down, even after 9/11.

When Greenspan and Ferguson would speak they could have a direct impact on just about everybody in the US. Nobody cared what they looked like because they were too interested in what they had to say. In contrast, Coulter, Edwards, Limbaugh and Moore all being raving idiots, people try to grasp on to something other than what they are talking about. Inevitably, that leads to their appearence. Apparently, some people find Coulter attractive. Good for them. Personally, I never thought anybody other than vampires would be attracted to her. I mean, have you seen how long her neck is? Geez. I would imagine she is like the vampires' idea of a wet dream.

Anybody ever heard of the Petition Project? Started in the late 1990s, it has collected signatures from over 17000 scientists who dispute the Global Warming hypothesis. It was begun to convince the US to not adopt the Kyoto agreement.

http://www.oism.org/oism/s32p31.htm

ccs178:

That's an impressive number and all, but it doesn't say what *kind* of scientists they are. How many of those scientists work in completely unrelated fields?

toby gave me a good laugh. Thanks, I really needed one. Not only is your explanation akin to to a bad school house rock, you have totally got the entire concept of global warming wrong. What you are explaining is ozone depletion that was supposedly caused by cfc's. I stronglky recommend you people with "opinions" on global warming stay away from scientific discussions.

Here's reality: the earth has warmed one degree in the last 100 years. Why? the reality is that nobody really knows for sure. World population has dramatically increased, which may have had an effect on surface temp. There is more industrial activity that could have, through direct contact with heat sources, increased marginally the surface temp in populated areas. It's also true that the earth's orbit is not constant and we are currently orbiting closer to the sun than any time in the last few hundred years. Don't think that matters, go pay a visit to Mercury.

Currently, there is no evidence that there will be any further warming of the earth. Since we don't know what caused the one degree increase, that mainly happened in the mid-1900's, we can't predict any trends for the future. What is clear is that surface temps are currently holding steady and therefore we know that the earth in not in a warming cycle. If it happens, it happens in bumps and spirts.

It is also true that earth temp is not constant, and change is the norm. We are supposed to be getting close to the next ice age (the hysterical doomsday claim of these same scientists in the 1970's and 80's), which would be far more destructive than a warmer planet. I'd rather have a few feet higher sea level than a 500ft high ice sheet cover Manhattan.

Lastly, if we just assume for the sake of argument that the earth is experiencing a warming cycle, for any reason, there is absolutely no evidence or even a strong theory that supports human activity, other than increased population and all that goes with it, as having any impact whatsoever on the earth's temperature.

As for what the Science Mag article says, it is well known that science journals are left-leaning and mostly publish articles that support thier worldview - that western capitalist humans are evil and will cause the dstruction of the world. For them to limit their study to peer reviewed science journal articles clearly shows their bias.

The sourcing of the Petition Project is excellent because it shows the mindset of the majority of scientists on this issue. Supported by over 20,000 scientists, it is the largest statement of its kind I've ever seen. That is powerful.

If one of you doomsday-scenario types can show me one shred of actual evidence that global warming is happening and that it is proven to be happening due to human activity, I'll buy a round of beers for everyone here. Just remember, that's evidence, people, evidence. Not hyperbole or conjecture or hypothesis or opinion. Evidence. Produce it before I buy one beer or agree to negatively impact our entire world economy and way of life.

Well, Joe, I assumed you were at least intellectually honest enough to actually go to the site and read it, but you can trust I won't be making that mistake again.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

During the past 2 years, more than 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the Global Warming Petition.
Signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists (select this link for a listing of these individuals) who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth's atmosphere and climate.

Signers of this petition also include 5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences (select this link for a listing of these individuals) make them especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth's plant and animal life.

Nearly all of the initial 17,100 scientist signers have technical training suitable for the evaluation of the relevant research data, and many are trained in related fields. In addition to these 17,100, approximately 2,400 individuals have signed the petition who are trained in fields other than science or whose field of specialization was not specified on their returned petition.

ccs178:

No, I did read it, Chris -- and I saw that the website was a mess and their board includes an associate professor and a physician (not a physicist).

Robert Hornak:

"Just remember, that's evidence, people, evidence. Not hyperbole or conjecture or hypothesis or opinion. Evidence."

How is evidence any different any different than hypothesis backed by facts (i.e. exactly what the global warming model is)? What sort of evidence are you looking for, in something as complex as climatology? A note saying, "Dear Earth. We did it. Sincerely, Humanity."?

A note would be nice Joe, but I'll settle for something like measurable trends that indicate a steady progression of warming. Then I'll need some real hard evidence that human activity iss playing any part in this, not half'baked computer models designed to show changes based on so-called greenhouse gas emissions.

Let's realize that the greenhouse theory is a theory. Not a fact. Evolution is still a theory, but one supported with tons of evidence. Still there's that missing link so we still call it a theory. Greenhouse effect is a theory with no actual facts, just computer simulations that make huge assumptions about the behavior of our envirnment.

So, shall I assume you have no actual facts at your fingertips? Maybe you should do a little research.

Oh, and fyi the head of petition project is a former head of the National Academy of Sciences. A little more prestigious than the college professor who authored the SciMag article.

Oh, and if you get that note, Joe, it should come from the earth. Something like "hey, you're getting me hot under the collar!"

Something from an SUV driving, Jet plane abusing, limosine liberal like Al Gore won't cut it I'm afraid.

A mess? Man, you are stretching. The information is well organized. I found the information you wanted in less than a minute. If you couldn't find it then you didn't look.

As for their board...so what? Do the literally thousands of physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists that have signed on no longer count because one of the board members is only an associate professor?

Two things:

1) I mostly agree with Robert Hornak. As for science mags leaning one way or the other, I can't say for sure. But what I do know is that there is supposedly many, many, many scientists who have evidence countering the claim of global warming. These scientists just don't have the flashy sales pitch. And some might not be vocal because it could ruin their careers (see Galileo and heliocentrism).

2) Ann Coulter, the Lenny Bruce of our time...with the added benefit of being hot.

Shawn, there was a piece recently in the WSJ on the topic of science and global warming. That is where I learned about the near persecution of anyone with the gall to dare call out the global warming spokespeople in the scientific community for their lack of any real evidence.

You just can't get around the fact that this is just a theory, a hypothesis that can't be substantiated in any way. They don't even know for sure if the planet is actually warming, much less warming due to anything we inconsequential humans are doing.

Even the idea that the earth has warmed one degree is open to debate. In 1888 Krakatua erupted in one of the worst volcanic events in modern history. The ensuing cloud that covered the planet caused a cooling effect that lasted for a few decades. This kind of change is normal. The planet has been supporting life for over 500 million years with all these ups and downs.

Preach it, brother! Like I said, I mostly agree with you. The only point of contention I had was the assertion that all science mags are left-leaning. I think it's more peer pressure than politics...like the WSJ alluded to.

Now, this is funny: http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/wfc/TMW06-21-06.jpg