[Bluesman]

Round about the 8th grade I did a science project on the coming climate change that was to destroy mankind as we knew him. Yes as far back as 1973 we were taught of the doom and gloom of the coming climate change. So I studied and I gathered all the info from all the top scientist of our day. By the time I was finished with my project I was a scared ****less little dude. Oh you bet I was I had all the "Facts" from all the "Scientists"
I was so excited to be the one to let man kind know about this coming doomsday. I worked my butt off I had the visuals and all the reports and the day of the science fair it was perfect........................................... ..

MY REPORT OF THE COMING ICE AGE THAT WAS TO DETROY ALL OF MANKIND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Needless to say as I got older I was a relieved but also a tad disappointed that my first place project was in the not so distant future to be discovered as NOT TRUE the facts were all wrong, How could this be 34 years later and I am still waiting for the ICE AGE but no not so fast now.

GLOBAL WARMING is new disaster what a CROCK. And to think I once as little dude trusted these Scientists with my science project. Oh well I still got an A

[Shotout]

Don't despair! it's still coming! See first the 2% additional CO2 we've added to the atmosphere and all the cow flatulance has to heat things up enough to melt the ice caps (watch for the Coke a Cola Bear on a boogie board), then while those of us in GA are enjoying our new, not so salty, beach front property (heck with peanuts man we got condos for rent now!) the ocean currents will change and then it will get cold and those of us in GA, now land locked again (dang where'd I park that combine?!?), will freeze to death (no really warm coats you see) as we watch the glaciers move down out of Tenn and S.C. The only consolation will be even if we can't take the cold like the Yankees at least we will have the pleasure of knowing all that is scraped clean How's them horse apples Sherman!
I know this to be true, cause Big Daddy Gore told me so. Come on sing along. Oh you better not toot, ya better not poot cause the ice is coming to town...

Round about the 8th grade I did a science project on the coming climate change that was to destroy mankind as we knew him. Yes as far back as 1973 we were taught of the doom and gloom of the coming climate change. So I studied and I gathered all the info from all the top scientist of our day. By the time I was finished with my project I was a scared ****less little dude. Oh you bet I was I had all the "Facts" from all the "Scientists"
I was so excited to be the one to let man kind know about this coming doomsday. I worked my butt off I had the visuals and all the reports and the day of the science fair it was perfect........................................... ..

MY REPORT OF THE COMING ICE AGE THAT WAS TO DETROY ALL OF MANKIND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Needless to say as I got older I was a relieved but also a tad disappointed that my first place project was in the not so distant future to be discovered as NOT TRUE the facts were all wrong, How could this be 34 years later and I am still waiting for the ICE AGE but no not so fast now.

GLOBAL WARMING is new disaster what a CROCK. And to think I once as little dude trusted these Scientists with my science project. Oh well I still got an A

[fizzissist]

Thought someone might like this editorial in our local paper...
All problems should be made 'tradable'

Posted: 6/28/2007

Having contemplated the carbon credit proposal, I am struck with the sheer brilliance of the concept. It appears that if we trade carbon emissions as a commodity, then somehow we are addressing the source of the problem and remediating it. And I thought that to reduce the increase in CO2 we need to reduce the emissions of CO2.

If I am wrong and carbon trading is actually a viable method of reducing the CO2 increases, then I propose that we carry it to the next logical level, "disease credits." Countries with rampant disease such as malaria and AIDS could trade disease credits with healthier countries. By doing so we wouldn't have to actually do anything about disease but we could all feel better about it.

And what of "poverty credits"? Countries with many impoverished people could purchase "poverty credits" from countries with fewer impoverished people. I haven't figured out what they would pay with however.

It seems that if we can make all of our problems a tradable commodity, then we will have no problems at all. I am now going to speak to my kids about "chores around the house" credits.

Chris De Witt, Reno


http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar...0301/1100/OPED

[mrtool]

Thought someone might like this editorial in our local paper...
All problems should be made 'tradable'

Posted: 6/28/2007

Having contemplated the carbon credit proposal, I am struck with the sheer brilliance of the concept. It appears that if we trade carbon emissions as a commodity, then somehow we are addressing the source of the problem and remediating it. And I thought that to reduce the increase in CO2 we need to reduce the emissions of CO2.

If I am wrong and carbon trading is actually a viable method of reducing the CO2 increases, then I propose that we carry it to the next logical level, "disease credits." Countries with rampant disease such as malaria and AIDS could trade disease credits with healthier countries. By doing so we wouldn't have to actually do anything about disease but we could all feel better about it.

And what of "poverty credits"? Countries with many impoverished people could purchase "poverty credits" from countries with fewer impoverished people. I haven't figured out what they would pay with however.

It seems that if we can make all of our problems a tradable commodity, then we will have no problems at all. I am now going to speak to my kids about "chores around the house" credits.

Chris De Witt, Reno


http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar...0301/1100/OPED

Your logic works for me! The only way to reduce Co2 or any other pollutant is to REDUCE it! Duh! Every time I hear reports about trading credits I wonder about the intelligence involved. Who with any modicum of smarts can be convinced that trading credits helps in any way? Thank you for putting the truth on the table!

[totally_screwed]

MY REPORT OF THE COMING ICE AGE THAT WAS TO DETROY ALL OF MANKIND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Needless to say as I got older I was a relieved but also a tad disappointed that my first place project was in the not so distant future to be discovered as NOT TRUE the facts were all wrong, How could this be 34 years later and I am still waiting for the ICE AGE but no not so fast now.

What a shame that it was all journalistic hype!

newsweek 1975 - cooling world
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/ic...olingworld.pdf

Please direct me to any peer reviewed science predicting an ice-age!
None have been found!

At the time, there was no scientific consensus, because the science of climatology was in its infancy. The cooling during this period was caused by the aerosols of sulphate & etc. liberated in the post-WW2 industrial boom.

There is no comparison between your claims and the state of the science of climate change in the early 21st century.

The science concerning the global warming is overwhelming and unequivocal.

The IPCC state that they have very high confidence [>90%] that the evidence points to the warming being anthropogenic in origin.

[russeller]

I have a 1908 Almanac that describs the 8 planets in our solar system. It has to be true because it's in print. I have a later Almanac however that disuputes this since Pluto was discovered in 1930, also indisputable because it is in print in a scientific document.....but wait...... what will the 2008 Almanac say ??... now that Pluto has been declassified officially, now just a dwarf planet.... so, what changed ? Reality ? ... or only some mens perception of reality ? Global warming enthusiasts are having a difficult time accepting the reality that global temperatures are actually declining. The missing polar ice has returned to nearly it's full ' pre-crisis' measurements. They obviously have not been shoveling the mid-west snow this year either. Maybe when Al Gore finally puts it in print they will accept it as fact. The only thing slowing the process down is that he hasn't figured out how to take credit for fixing the problem. Now thats going to be one damn powerful movie .....

I think I'll wait for the book...........

[pdl61]

The science concerning the global warming is overwhelming and unequivocal.

The IPCC state that they have very high confidence [>90%] that the evidence points to the warming being anthropogenic in origin.

You may very well be right. I dont think so, but you may be right. However, every single american can lower their foot print to zero and it wont make a bit of difference. NONE. China's co2 release is now equal to our and by 2017 will be 5 to 6 times ours. We either can get use to it and adapt, or invent technology to remove the co2.

[sergizmo]

You may very well be right. I dont think so, but you may be right. However, every single american can lower their foot print to zero and it wont make a bit of difference. NONE. China's co2 release is now equal to our and by 2017 will be 5 to 6 times ours. We either can get use to it and adapt, or invent technology to remove the co2.

Don't forget India. But hey they aren't western so it's ok.

The science is "overwhelming" because of grant money. Simple as that. Scientists who preach to the choir also get face time on print and on TV.

To those that say global warmaing is fact, what about global and oceanic temps going down significantly in 2007? What about the increased temp measured on other planets, no humans there. Or what about the strong link between solar activity and temperature. Naw, the sun couldn't possibly have anything to do with temperature on earth.

Face it people, weather and temperature on Earth is unstable and unpredictable. Always has been and will be. The Earth has gone through many ice ages and hotter periods before man even existed. There are probably hundreds of variables to consider when it comes to climate, and we account for very few of those.

Serge

[fizzissist]

it's gonna snow here tonight.

[midnite2336]

Just some food for thought. I recently seen on TV that the EPA found that since 2002 the earth has been cooling and that it has been covered up as it does not fit todays politicaly correct views. You hear so much information for warming predictions, that some glaciers are melting and then some say some glaciers are advancing. Also read that co2 is not the warming gas they say it is. Also that cows are a major maker and releaser of methane which they say is a warming gas and some farms in some states are feeding a special feed to help reduce the gas. Yet on the other hand methane is a usable gas that could be used to help the energy situation and one of the biggest prducers of methane is landfills. I have not heard one person even mention this energy source. They are all over the country and easilly converted into a methane source. I knew a fellow in upstate N. Y. that owned a small landfill and he had a company come in and they told him that there was enough methane gas produced to heat the town next to it for a hundred years. But no one is talking about this energy source.

[edgarinventor]

midnite2336 said:

Just some food for thought. I recently seen on TV that the EPA found that since 2002 the earth has been cooling and that it has been covered up as it does not fit todays politicaly correct views. You hear so much information for warming predictions, that some glaciers are melting and then some say some glaciers are advancing. Also read that co2 is not the warming gas they say it is. Also that cows are a major maker and releaser of methane which they say is a warming gas and some farms in some states are feeding a special feed to help reduce the gas. Yet on the other hand methane is a usable gas that could be used to help the energy situation and one of the biggest prducers of methane is landfills. I have not heard one person even mention this energy source. They are all over the country and easilly converted into a methane source. I knew a fellow in upstate N. Y. that owned a small landfill and he had a company come in and they told him that there was enough methane gas produced to heat the town next to it for a hundred years. But no one is talking about this energy source.

Easy... Because it's smelly, and because it empowers people.
No Statist, ah, crud, no Fabian Fascist, likes that!

[zappafan1]

totally_screwed: The problem with the concept is that the real culprit(s) determining Earth's climate are the Sun and water vapor, NOT Co2. The entire hoax of AGW began about 1982 at the U.N. by a guy named Maurice Strong, who then, combined with Algore, postulated the means for the U.N. finally seeing a way for a global tax; something they've been trying to do for at least 30 years. Co2 is ubiquitous, and transcends all borders.

The problem with your "peer reviews" is that those doing the reviewing are predominantly those who have received grants to find what? ..... AGW. The climate models will never be accurate because off the fact they can be tweaked to conclude whatever one wishes; Mann's "hockey stick," where one could input random numbers and see the same result, is but one example.

All in all, the average Earth temps have only risen .01 degrees between 1998 and 2010, even though Co2 levels have risen. Another theory, somewhat backed up by current research and Earth core studies, is that temps rise first, which then releases Co2 from various sources, most notably the Earths oceans.

With an open mind, check out the archives at SEPP.org, or climate depot. It will take a few days to absorb the information.... then come back for a rational discussion.

[cjmerlincnc]

Ahh the words peer 'reviewed science'. Thats the whole point of the arguement.

We, the ordinary Joes,the public, say all this "global warming is our fault" stuff is b*ll*cks and the science community say, (very stiff upper lipped voice) 'It's the facts, all the scientists have evidence for it. Evidence to the contrary isn't peer reviewed, so there'.

The simple truth is, due to the problem of grants being hard to come by for the scientific community and goverments eager to obtain more money from the public, it is a bandwagon that could benefit both parties.

Now they use computer modelling software to predict things and throw in a few values and fiddled with the figures until they got an answer they liked, ie the one to provide the golden egg from the proverbial goose.

All those scientists wanting more money say 'aye', the steps to the bandwagon are this way. All those left behind we'll have to call them names like "Maverick, Nutter, layperson".

Those peers my friend, are ON the bandwagon.

Those scientists you may call "Maverick" are those men and woman who have integrity and honour but unfortunatly very little power.

[totally_screwed]

Ahh the words peer 'reviewed science'. Thats the whole point of the arguement.

Now they use computer modelling software to predict things and throw in a few values and fiddled with the figures until they got an answer they liked, ie the one to provide the golden egg from the proverbial goose.

Here you are using a computer, which means that you use technology. Technology uses science. Science is theory, research is done to prove or disprove theory. If the research provides evidence that does not match the theory [it happens] the theory has to be modified [if appropriate] or discarded completely. A theory is tested by whether it can predict previously unseen behaviour. Naturally, research is done to look for the predicted behaviour. The theory is confirmed or confounded as a result. Science is an iterative process.
This is briefly how science works.

In this respect, climate science is no different from the science of semiconductors that underpins the electronics in the PC or Mac that you are using.

Climate models are part of this. Climate models are quite different from your expressed opinion.

The fact that models have difficulty in modelling ice-melt is because the mechanisms are still not properly understood. Currently the models underestimate melting by a factor of three or so. If it was merely a matter of a little tweaking here and there, then where would the problem be?

Model modification requires SCIENCE! This is why you are wrong!

Very briefly, climate models calculate the climate by incorporating the known behaviour of the various components of the atmosphere and hydrosphere.

I suggest you read the following, it is an introduction:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ions/#more-442

The following includes more information about climate models.
Spencer Weart's "Discovery of Global Warming" (AIP)
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html

All of these lead to peer-reviewed science.

The rest of your post was not worth commenting upon. No substance, just rant. Why not check your facts first!

[xyzdonna]

Here you are using a computer, which means that you use technology. Technology uses science. Science is theory, research is done to prove or disprove theory. If the research provides evidence that does not match the theory [it happens] the theory has to be modified [if appropriate] or discarded completely. A theory is tested by whether it can predict previously unseen behaviour. Naturally, research is done to look for the predicted behaviour. The theory is confirmed or confounded as a result. Science is an iterative process.
This is briefly how science works.

In this respect, climate science is no different from the science of semiconductors that underpins the electronics in the PC or Mac that you are using.

Climate models are part of this. Climate models are quite different from your expressed opinion.

The fact that models have difficulty in modelling ice-melt is because the mechanisms are still not properly understood. Currently the models underestimate melting by a factor of three or so. If it was merely a matter of a little tweaking here and there, then where would the problem be?

Model modification requires SCIENCE! This is why you are wrong!

Very briefly, climate models calculate the climate by incorporating the known behaviour of the various components of the atmosphere and hydrosphere.

I suggest you read the following, it is an introduction:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ions/#more-442

The following includes more information about climate models.
Spencer Weart's "Discovery of Global Warming" (AIP)
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html

All of these lead to peer-reviewed science.

The rest of your post was not worth commenting upon. No substance, just rant. Why not check your facts first!

Hi totally_screwed,
I spent most of last night reading Spencer Weart's site.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html
Fascinating and highly readable. Thank you for the citation. Of particular interest was the presence or absence of carbon 14 in the measured CO2. This was used to determine whether or not the carbon was from fossil fuels or not. For a non-scientist such as myself the evidence he has is quite understandable and intriguing. It's a massive amount of information.
Thank you,
xyzdonna

[jhowelb]

Hi totally_screwed,
I spent most of last night reading Spencer Weart's site.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html
Fascinating and highly readable. Thank you for the citation. Of particular interest was the presence or absence of carbon 14 in the measured CO2. This was used to determine whether or not the carbon was from fossil fuels or not. For a non-scientist such as myself the evidence he has is quite understandable and intriguing. It's a massive amount of information.
Thank you,
xyzdonna

Only interesting to you, it is pseudo-science only intended to make you think you understand and it is a massive amount of koolaid. Bon Appétit!

The problem with the models is the modelers! They are liars looking to line their own pockets!

Your crap STILL ain't selling!

[cgosnell]

The problem with you analogy is similar to the use of CMM's in the shop. If the CMM gives you answers you like, you don't question it. BUT, if it shows your parts out of tolerance, the first thing that happens is the questioning of the measurement method.

The biggest issue with computer modelling is the testing/verification of the output. AFAIK, the systems now can't even predict hurricane paths 3-5 days out, much less climate change 100 years out.

YES, the planet is warming. NO, this is not a bad thing.

[uscra112]

This whole sordid story reminds me of the Flagellents of medieval Europe. People who convinced themselves that they needed to be beaten bloody because the world was so sinful. They even beat themselves with flails that had little fishooks in the ends to make it bloodier.

The evil twist to the modern story is that so many people like AlGore figure to make money off of it. Next they'll be selling indulgences - OH WAIT - they already are!

I'm a 63 year old engineer who has made a 40+ year career in measurement of things, and I have to ask:

IS the planet warming? Really ? Even NASA now admits that the planetary temperature has been COOLING for the last ten years or so.

Glacial cores reveal that CO2 rise has always FOLLOWED warming trends.

Current measurements of total snow/ice pack in Antarctica reveal that it is INCREASING. (This may also be true of Greenland, but I have no data.)

Sea levels are DECREASING. (Though not by much.)

Temperature averages cited by the GW faithful fail to correct for the loss of hundred of reporting stations in the old Soviet Union that went off-line when it collapsed.

Calibration of thermometers was (by modern standards) quite haphazard up until the end of the 19th century.

Solar output has been on the rise for many years, but appears to be peaking now. (Hence the recent drop in termperature.)

And I can go on, and on, and on, and on. But I won't. It is impossible to change a man's religion by argument, because his religion depends on faith, which is commonly defined as being ABSOLUTE BELIEF WITHOUT PROOF.

If these people would just KILL THEIR TELEVISION, and start the READ, they'd get it, but they won't. They think The Discovery Channel is real science and real history. They have not a clue that it's as thin as tissue paper, and all too often flat out wrong.

[drw]

The rest of your post was not worth commenting upon. No substance, just rant. Why not check your facts first!

Your kind of rant usually comes more from a socialist than a scientist. "Global warming" isn't about science, it's about wealth redistribution. Some folks just can't accept that socialism fails wherever it's tried, so when a cause comes along that makes for a reason to rally against the success of non-socialist systems THAT'S the bandwagon to jump on.

How much has sea level risen? Not much? Doesn't seem to fit your ARCTIC ice melt model? Perhaps the Antarctic ice growth doesn't fit your global warming model either.

All the money thrown at global warming research has resulted in a reasonably good fix on global mean temperature. Any idea how that has changed in the last 10 years?

[dhayden]

[Climate models are part of this. Climate models are quite different from your expressed opinion.

The fact that models have difficulty in modelling ice-melt is because the mechanisms are still not properly understood. Currently the models underestimate melting by a factor of three or so. If it was merely a matter of a little tweaking here and there, then where would the problem be?

Model modification requires SCIENCE! This is why you are wrong!

Very briefly, climate models calculate the climate by incorporating the known behaviour of the various components of the atmosphere and hydrosphere. ]

When Science is settled, there is ONE model. NOT models. there are some 20 differing models of climate change, some of which disagree by a factor of 20 or more. This is not settled science.

a good book to read is CO2 and Climate change available from The Energy Advocate http://energyadvocate.com The newsletter, The Energy Advocate also puts some man caused climate change nonsense to rest.