“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.”

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

As much as is hurt, I did watch, "Inconvenient Truth" having to use cartoons to show what is happening, a bit too much. Carbon dioxide is not even classified as a greenhouse gas, first off, not enough in the atmosphere to make much of a difference, 300-600 part per million, second, it's molecule is only responsive to a very specific wavelength of UV radiation that has yet to be determined. That specific wavelength is required to resonant the CO2 molecule causing fiction that produces heat. Third, CO2 does not cause global warming, but the amount released into the atmosphere is an aftereffect of global warming, just the opposite of what Gore is stating.

For a democracy to be successful, it's citizens must be intelligent and for a country that holds the likes of Anna Nicole or Britney in high esteem, I do not have much hope.

Well it says something that the American people twice elected George W. Bush - with his folksy "I iz one of yooz" bumblings.

[SpiritAlight 1]

This is so great!

I meant to say that the scientific method is to be skeptical.

To look and/or invent theories and then try to prove them right or wrong.

It is easy to take both sides on things sometimes.

I feel the same way as many people here:

Fighting on what's to blame or that it is a natural cycle is irrelevant.

Rowing this boat together is.

So fight or row, take your pick!

As much as is hurt, I did watch, "Inconvenient Truth" having to use cartoons to show what is happening, a bit too much. Carbon dioxide is not even classified as a greenhouse gas, first off, not enough in the atmosphere to make much of a difference, 300-600 part per million, second, it's molecule is only responsive to a very specific wavelength of UV radiation that has yet to be determined. That specific wavelength is required to resonant the CO2 molecule causing fiction that produces heat. Third, CO2 does not cause global warming, but the amount released into the atmosphere is an aftereffect of global warming, just the opposite of what Gore is stating.

For a democracy to be successful, it's citizens must be intelligent and for a country that holds the likes of Anna Nicole or Britney in high esteem, I do not have much hope.

Well it says something that the American people twice elected George W. Bush - with his folksy "I iz one of yooz" bumblings.

So true.

We' re doomed.

Edited December 11, 2008 by SpiritAlight

[SpiritAlight 1]

As for temperatures in places I am aware of:

November 2-5 in Chicago I was out in a tank top as it was hovering between high 70s and low 80s F.

December 1st it snowed and was horribly cold leading up to that (under 20 F).

Other places are experiencing strange new patterns too: Florida (unseasonal cold), Pacific North West (which almost didn't have a Summer this year), etc.

There was so much snow last year from here in Chicago to Montreal and beyond.

I was in Montreal last Winter and the cars were buried. The city had nowhere to put snow even if it could keep up with plowing it!

Is it getting warmer?

Is it getting colder?

Hmmmmm...

It is getting weird.

My saying stands:

The unusual has become the usual.

Edited December 11, 2008 by SpiritAlight

[one...two...tree 2,762]

As much as is hurt, I did watch, "Inconvenient Truth" having to use cartoons to show what is happening, a bit too much. Carbon dioxide is not even classified as a greenhouse gas, first off, not enough in the atmosphere to make much of a difference, 300-600 part per million, second, it's molecule is only responsive to a very specific wavelength of UV radiation that has yet to be determined. That specific wavelength is required to resonant the CO2 molecule causing fiction that produces heat. Third, CO2 does not cause global warming, but the amount released into the atmosphere is an aftereffect of global warming, just the opposite of what Gore is stating.

For a democracy to be successful, it's citizens must be intelligent and for a country that holds the likes of Anna Nicole or Britney in high esteem, I do not have much hope.

Nick, you're arguing over different aspects of what is going on regarding Global Warming, but in terms of the science regarding climate change, the science is solid and the consensus is overwhelming. What the OP is all about is over how that science is being politicized - from Al Gore to Exxon/Mobil - there is a lot of hoopla, disinformation and hype and dismissiveness. What I hope to see is an end to this skepticism and distrust of science in general.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

I've always been skeptical of the whole global warming thing myself...it seems like a bandwagon that everyone has decided to jump on. Good to know there are so many experts who agree.

Exactly.

How dare anyone diagree with the High Priest of Global Warming...... Al Gore.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It should also be reiterated in the context of the OP article that there are (as of this date) no major scientific associations (not a single one) that reject the idea that climate change is attributable (in whole or in part) to human activities.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

It snowed in Houston and is snowing in New Orleans.

The climate has and will always change. How arrogant humans are to think differently.

[NickD 202]

I've always been skeptical of the whole global warming thing myself...it seems like a bandwagon that everyone has decided to jump on. Good to know there are so many experts who agree.

Exactly.

How dare anyone diagree with the High Priest of Global Warming...... Al Gore.

Science or junk science, this site http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ says it's junk science.

The educational background of Al Gore? From his resume, "EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: I graduated from Harvard in 1969 with a B.A. in Government. After graduating, I enlisted in the United States Army. I returned and attended Vanderbilt School of Religion (1971-72) and Vanderbilt School of Law (1974-76)."

What no science degrees? But like most legislators, sure that can make laws preventing gays from getting married, but controlling mother nature? Maybe they are a bit more egoistical than we think. Yeah the politics, ran into that when WI tried to run an extension cord from Canada to Milwaukee opposed by a so-called group of environmentalists, so we could get cheap hydro electricity in lieu of natural or coal fired plants. The idiot that started this only lives 35 miles from me. Wrote a letter to the editor that was printed where the electromagnetic radiation from these power lines considering the height of the lines is weaker than what one experiences in their own homes. Then the argument switched to cutting down trees, hey, that is a firebreak. Well the line is finally going through. Not sure if this guy is working for the coal or the natural gas companies.

Look for motives.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

As I say - I think there is an undue fixation on Al Gore, he's not very (at all really) influential outside of the US, and the theory was kicking around for years - long before he got on the bandwagon.

It snowed in Houston and is snowing in New Orleans.

The climate has and will always change. How arrogant humans are to think differently.

<ahem> The debate is about why the climate changes, not whether it does.

Edited December 11, 2008 by Paul Daniels

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I've always been skeptical of the whole global warming thing myself...it seems like a bandwagon that everyone has decided to jump on. Good to know there are so many experts who agree.

Exactly.

How dare anyone diagree with the High Priest of Global Warming...... Al Gore.

Al Gore didn't come up with the theory himself...and it's not about him no matter how fixated you are on Gore.

Edited December 11, 2008 by Mister Fancypants

[Pooky 3,347]

As much as is hurt, I did watch, "Inconvenient Truth" having to use cartoons to show what is happening, a bit too much. Carbon dioxide is not even classified as a greenhouse gas, first off, not enough in the atmosphere to make much of a difference, 300-600 part per million, second, it's molecule is only responsive to a very specific wavelength of UV radiation that has yet to be determined. That specific wavelength is required to resonant the CO2 molecule causing fiction that produces heat. Third, CO2 does not cause global warming, but the amount released into the atmosphere is an aftereffect of global warming, just the opposite of what Gore is stating.

For a democracy to be successful, it's citizens must be intelligent and for a country that holds the likes of Anna Nicole or Britney in high esteem, I do not have much hope.

Nick, you're arguing over different aspects of what is going on regarding Global Warming, but in terms of the science regarding climate change, the science is solid and the consensus is overwhelming. What the OP is all about is over how that science is being politicized - from Al Gore to Exxon/Mobil - there is a lot of hoopla, disinformation and hype and dismissiveness. What I hope to see is an end to this skepticism and distrust of science in general.

Just to be argumentative, reiterating that "the science is solid and the consensus is overwhelming" is overstating the case a little. There are far more dissenting voices being heard on the subject than on, say, the Theory of Evolution. Global Warming is a theory, and man-made Global Warming is a part of that theory. There is far more evidence to support Global Warming than there is to support the man-made element of the whole. I remain to be convinced that man is playing anywhere near as large a part of the whole as the main proponents of MMGW are stating. But, as in Darwin's baby, the science is constantly developing and being refined. I wait to see which side emerges with the more compelling case.

On the other hand, what the **** have 2,000 electrical engineers got to do with Global Warming? Squat, that's what! If the skeptics want to be seen as credible, keep the skepticism to those qualified to talk on the subject in hand. Anything else looks plain daft.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

As much as is hurt, I did watch, "Inconvenient Truth" having to use cartoons to show what is happening, a bit too much. Carbon dioxide is not even classified as a greenhouse gas, first off, not enough in the atmosphere to make much of a difference, 300-600 part per million, second, it's molecule is only responsive to a very specific wavelength of UV radiation that has yet to be determined. That specific wavelength is required to resonant the CO2 molecule causing fiction that produces heat. Third, CO2 does not cause global warming, but the amount released into the atmosphere is an aftereffect of global warming, just the opposite of what Gore is stating.

For a democracy to be successful, it's citizens must be intelligent and for a country that holds the likes of Anna Nicole or Britney in high esteem, I do not have much hope.

Nick, you're arguing over different aspects of what is going on regarding Global Warming, but in terms of the science regarding climate change, the science is solid and the consensus is overwhelming. What the OP is all about is over how that science is being politicized - from Al Gore to Exxon/Mobil - there is a lot of hoopla, disinformation and hype and dismissiveness. What I hope to see is an end to this skepticism and distrust of science in general.

Just to be argumentative, reiterating that "the science is solid and the consensus is overwhelming" is overstating the case a little. There are far more dissenting voices being heard on the subject than on, say, the Theory of Evolution. Global Warming is a theory, and man-made Global Warming is a part of that theory. There is far more evidence to support Global Warming than there is to support the man-made element of the whole. I remain to be convinced that man is playing anywhere near as large a part of the whole as the main proponents of MMGW are stating. But, as in Darwin's baby, the science is constantly developing and being refined. I wait to see which side emerges with the more compelling case.

On the other hand, what the **** have 2,000 electrical engineers got to do with Global Warming? Squat, that's what! If the skeptics want to be seen as credible, keep the skepticism to those qualified to talk on the subject in hand. Anything else looks plain daft.

Check out Real Climate's Wiki and you'll have a better understanding of who is actually saying what. The solid science behind Global Warming and overwhelming consensus among climate scientists is fact. For one, they are the neurosurgeons of brain science, they are numerous, worldwide and independent. The IPCC report was based on a panel of independent climate scientists. There is never full proof unanimity in science and there are continuing discussions and research as to the extent of how much human activity is effecting our climate, but rest assured - nobody within the climate science community is debating whether Global Warming is even happening.

[Danno 1,228]

Unlike many, I don't pretend my background in anyway leads me to draw any intelligent conclusion

on such scientific research.

However, I do know the nature of government and it is to, extract revenue by any means possible.

It's hard to imagine a more perfect threat than Global-Warming to raise income and control the lives of everyone.

For this reason I am highly skeptical.

As for the related science community, most are directly or indirectly drinking from the breast of global warming grants, how can anyone doubt this effects their findings?

Another red-flag for me is this effort to "shut down" critical opinions... usually by claiming Man Made Global warming is virtually without detractors among scientists and portraying the doubting

person as uneducated, ignorant, or part of some Throw-back culture.

We have seen the "experts" of every field wrong so many times it's hard to take things at face value.

Speaking of "experts" in other fields being wrong, did any of them predict the Price of gas would be below $2 rather than north of $5 in the future?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Speaking of "experts" in other fields being wrong, did any of them predict the Price of gas would be below $2 rather than north of $5 in the future?

The price of crude has little to do with science and a lot to do with the collective psychology of markets.

[NickD 202]

Let me try to state this in a different way, the difference between low cost energy and human work is slavery. Our technology is young, but also incredibly stupid, we as humans, take in oxygen and fuel, and spit out CO2 and that is exactly how our machines work, but far more inefficiently than we do. We are building machines that are competing with us and using our natural resources that we need to survive on this planet!

My key objections to the NERC and our own EPA is that while these organizations may have the resources to point out these problems, they are not offering any solutions to them, rather offer taxation, fines, and even shutting you down, causing your plant to move to a 3rd world country where they don't have such regulations. Is this a solution? Certainly not on a global basis.

Our corporations are based on instant profit, if two cents can be saved on a part made in China, even though tons of oil and coal have to be burnt to go there and come back, not thinking of the long term, that is what is done. Our state is equally stupid with ethanol production, using our tax dollars to feed a single SUV that could feed over a thousand families. Ha, really backfired on them when the price of corn rose from $1.50 a bushel to over $9.00, that didn't consider we live in a supply and demand economy.

I have never received help from our EPA, only told what I cannot do, and better or will be fined or shut down, try and make a profit just to stay in business, when other countries don't have that burden.

I agree, we have problems, with our automobiles, over 85% of the input energy is wasted, but what we need is solutions to these problems, never any money for that