I remember back in the 50s, reading about global cooling, complete with the return of the ice age, diagrams showing where the glaciers were to form, and all the same nonsence we hear today about global warming. Well, now the sky is falling, and we need posts to support it. Can anyone contribute to my post fund? Get a life!

Does it frustrate you that global warming is largely a political issue?

Don't Democrats realize that mankind contributes only about 1 percent of the world's greenhouse gases? More methane comes from volcanos above and below the ocean than mankind has produced in its entire existence. Even livestock emit more greenhouse gases than man.

Please discuss WHY the Democrats want to believe in the farce of "global warming". Why don't you discuss the fact that liberals hate capitalism and desire to have global controls on the prosperity of the great nations? The global warming mantra is simply their latest tool to try to exert global influence on the sovereignty of America. In fact, in the Jimmy Carter era, they espoused the global-cooling idea to accomplish the same goal. Silly liberals. Dangerous liberals.

I just heard on TV today that it has been over 130 years since New York has had no snow this late in the season. When did you all say this Global Warming started? Maybe the global temperature flucuates as a normal cycle. When I was a kid it was "Another Ice Age is coming." When that did not pan out junk science needed another cause to get money for "research". Now it is Global Warming!

Global Warming = Junk Science

All this hoopla is just another way to get some of my tax money. Typical liberal Democrats and uninfomed fence riding moderate Republicans.

"Democrats hate capitalism" - that is a dumb, dismissive statement and it's not true.

The way I see it if we develop new technologies that are clean and efficient, we will have addressed global warming in addition to numerous other environmental and health factors. We would have also improved the economy on the whole by creating new fields of work. And finally, we will have reduced dependence on foreign oil.

I'm not sure what anyone has to gain by ignoring the significant potential of global warming. Please explain why we should ignore global warming and what we gain from it.

I am a conservative but I have done some research into Global Warming to see what all the fuss from the Dems was about. I am still quite confident that the warming trend is just one of earth's cycles and human development only plays a very minor role in it, but this graph on Wikipedia still leaves questions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

What makes you confident that warming trend is "just one of the earth's cycles"? I have seen no evidence to support this.

If you are going to have a "Global Warming Center", you need to tell your readers about the Junk Science site and if you believe that they are wrong, have a scientist or two criticise what this site is saying. Good science does not make wild claims without real evidence. I have a PhD and am appalled at the one-sided discussion.

Ted, This makes me sure.

It is the variations from the past 12,000 years. 2004 is shown at the far left.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

One more thing - this graph shows temps from the past 150 yrs. As you can see, the temperature is increasing at the same rate that it was from around 1910-1940. Since there are now twice as many people on the earth, wouldn't the temperature be rising at a much higher rate since democrats insist that global warming is caused by human development?

Having a PhD is not make your information any better than anyone else's.

No one has responded to my previous questions. I get suspicious when someone is so adamant about ignoring global warming. I don't see the benefit of ignoring it. Just as you wouldnt ignore a terrorist threat, you shouldn't ignore this.

Right - why would someone be SO insistent that global warming is not real? The evidence does not point in that direction. Regardless, to be so against something that could be a potential disaster to the entire planet is suspicious. What other motives must someone have to be so violently opposed to acknowledging that global warming may in fact be real?

And yes, what are the downsides to planning to improve our environment overall?

If you are going to have a "Global Warming Center", you need to tell your readers about the Junk Science site and if you believe that they are wrong, have a scientist or two criticise what this site is saying. Good science does not make wild claims without real evidence. I have a PhD and am appalled at the one-sided discussion.

If you are going to have a "Global Warming Center", you need to tell your readers about the Junk Science site and if you believe that they are wrong, have a scientist or two criticise what this site is saying.

Horse manure! By that "logic", a site dedicated to archeology would have to publicize one of the Creationist 6000-year-old-earth sites, only to then debunk it. The very act of mentioning it gives such crapola far more weight than it merits.

Good science does not make wild claims without real evidence.

And your point is? Apple pie is really tasty and I think motherhood is noble. So what.

I have a PhD and am appalled at the one-sided discussion.

I don't have a PhD and am appalled at your attempt to invoke the discredited argument-from-authority logical fallacy.

If this discussion needs "another side", then by all means provide it. Surely the arguments of woodNfish, greg, and the other skeptics would benefit from some academic rigor.

Meanwhile, are you seriously claiming that the warming is NOT taking place? I'm not talking about whether or not it is anthropogenic, but whether it is or is not happening. After all, the headline doesn't say "Anthropogenic Global Warming Center".

Let me be VERY specific: are you claiming that the current warming is NOT more significant than anything observed during the history of human civilization (say for the last 6K years or so)?

Let's start there.

glutz78 totally missed the point. No one is saying that global warming is not occuring. This one is saying that from historical data we are on the rise in two cycles -- one small and one large. If you go to the site where real science is being applied to the problem junkscience.com, you will find some very interesting information which would make any educated person think twice about this whole issue. There is no real evidence that man is having a significant effect on this process. Maybe -- there is evidence. We must wait for real analysis not crazy claims.

I understand. When I say global warming, i mean man made global warming. I thought that was clear.

Still you refuse to say why you vigorously refuse to accept it. What do you stand to lose by making changes to our environment that would potentially address man made global warming?

There are five videos on this website that answer some of the science questions issued.

http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=3

glutz78 totally missed the point. No one is saying that global warming is not occuring. This one is saying that from historical data we are on the rise in two cycles -- one small and one large. If you go to the site where real science is being applied to the problem junkscience.com, you will find some very interesting information which would make any educated person think twice about this whole issue. There is no real evidence that man is having a significant effect on this process. Maybe -- there is evidence. We must wait for real analysis not crazy claims.

This from the contributor who trumpets his own PhD?

1. Kindly detail the "real science" you think is available from www.junkscience.com, along with the criteria that you use to differentiate that from the right-wing tripe that so dominates the site.
2. If you agree that global warming is occuring, shouldn't we be paying at least a LITTLE bit of attention to the question of how we are going to respond to it?
3. If you care about "real analysis", then please offer some. It should be easy for you, what with your PhD and all.

I don't need PhD to see our living space, planet, is in danger. The creek in my native village is either dried up of overflowing. Common birds like sparrows and swallows are disappearing. (This is happening in tha last decade or so and that is very, very short time for Earth's standard). It's reasonably warm in January but very cold in April. (I am talking about Europe). I don't need no Uni to understand that things are getting really serious for us and that we are indeed the cause of those changes. Only fool can say that all this is just part of a naural cycle. It is clearly not and the day is coming when we will be very sorry for our irrisponsible behaviour. But maybe human race does not deserve to survive much longer, who knows...

Hey Brookline Tom,

It would be so nice to have debates on this site without you constantly attacking people. If you disagree, then disagree. Just lay off the personal attacks. It weakens ANY argument you may have.

Just because people choose not to agree with you doesn't make them fodder for your attacks.

Just lay off the personal attacks.

What personal attacks?

I'm skeptical about his claimed qualifications, and I expressed my skepticism. I did so in a way that invites him to readily rebut my questions -- all he (or you) need do is offer evidence and/or data.

It seems that you and your brethren find it perfectly acceptable to cast epithets all about, but then get VERY sensitive when anyone dares challenge you.

If Richard feels insulted, I invite him to ask me himself for an apology. I'm not sure he needs YOU to "defend" him.

Just a follow-up to my last response to Greg...he wrote:
It would be so nice to have debates on this site without you constantly attacking people. If you disagree, then disagree. Just lay off the personal attacks. It weakens ANY argument you may have.

In my previous response, I wrote:
It seems that you and your brethren find it perfectly acceptable to cast epithets all about, but then get VERY sensitive when anyone dares challenge you.

I note that a representative example of what I refer to, in the case of Greg, was in the thread titled "The Little Ice Age and the Gulf Stream". On December 12, Greg offered a comment, to me I think, in which he wrote:

Tommy Boy,
If you had actually read my post, you'd notice I simply provided a reference link. Geez. Lighten up.
Hey Tom, shhhhh, the black helicopters can hear you!

Greg gives the perhaps misrepresentative appearance of being one of those Republicans who feel entitled to lecture anyone they wish, while feeling no corresponding duty to behave accordingly themselves.

I notice, on Greg's hyperlinked blog (the blog linked to his handle), that he is Christian. He will certainly, therefore, be familiar with Matthew 7:3-5 and its parallel, Luke 6:41-42.

Not defending ANYONE in particular. However, my POINT is that OVERUSE of emphasis elements in, say, the written word can and is perceived as being well....rude??

Read some of YOUR COMMENTS:

1. Horse manure! By that "logic", a site dedicated to archeology would have to publicize one of the Creationist 6000-year-old-earth sites, only to then debunk it. The very act of mentioning it gives such crapola far more weight than it merits.
2. If you care about "real analysis", then please offer some. It should be easy for you, what with your PhD and all.

It's these types of comments that detract from discussion, not add to it.

Is it THAT hard to answer questions, offer information, refute facts, etc WiThOuT feeling the need to belittle , berate, deride, or call into question someone else's intelligence and or qualifications...etc.

Is it THAT hard to answer questions, offer information, refute facts, etc WiThOuT feeling the need to belittle , berate, deride, or call into question someone else's intelligence and or qualifications...etc.

I apologize for offending you with my use of bold. I intended to excerpt portions of a quote that I opened my response with.

In a perfect world, my initial quote would have been formatted as an indented, italicized paragraph (or something similar). In that context, I would have then italicized my subsequent comments, conforming to the venerable tradition of using italics to indicate quotations.

Such formatting involves relatively tedious html, which I chose to avoid by simply italicizing the lead paragraph and then bolding my subsequent excerpts. I apologize, again, for offending you.

Meanwhile, you objected to the substance of my comments. Dr. Swallow introduced his qualifications himself in his initial comment, and relied on them as part of his argument. It is surely not, therefore, rude to make further reference to them. If one is going to make the mistake of arguing from authority (itself a precarious rhetorical path), one should not be surprised or offended when that argument is challenged.

I think all of us, yourself quite specifically included, "belittle", "berate" and "deride" other persons comments (as opposed to themselves).

As I've observed in my last few posts, I find it ironic that you raise your objection to my comments and not, for example, to those of yourself, woodNfish, and several of the other right-wingers here.

It seems that you are far more sensitive to the transgressions of those challenge you than to those who agree with you.

Oh, and by the way, Greg asked:
Is it THAT hard to answer questions, offer information, refute facts, etc WiThOuT feeling the need to belittle , berate, deride, or call into question someone else's intelligence...

He asked this specifically in response to this comment of mine:
By that "logic", a site dedicated to archeology would have to publicize one of the Creationist 6000-year-old-earth sites, only to then debunk it. The very act of mentioning it gives such crapola far more weight than it merits.

I quoted the word "logic", because I think the Richard's logic was seriously flawed, and I offered an analogy.

I think my analogy remains accurate. Dr. Swallow asserted that this site is biased because it does not cite and publicize junkscience. I suggest that this is directly analagous to asserting that an archeology site (based on the science of archeology) has some obligation to publicize a Creationist young-earth site (based on religion). Greg apparently feels that this comparison "belittles", "berates" and "derides" Dr. Swallow's comment. I think the analogy is accurate and speaks for itself. I followed with a characterization of both the creationist and young-earth sites as "crapola" -- a characterization I stand by when we are attempting to discuss science, as opposed to -- for example -- religion, polemics, propaganda, or similar topics.

Here, by way of example, are three representative young-earth sites: The Creation Research Society, Creation Research, and the Institute for Creation Research.

I suggest that, from a scientific perspective, the material on these sites (junk science and the three young-earth examples) is not of scientific merit. It is, in short, crapola.

None of this insults a particular person. I have not questioned anyone's intelligence. I have debunked a weak argument based on flawed logic.

I don't know how much time Greg has spent in the research community, but I'd suggest that my comments are fairly tame in comparison to the exchanges among ANY working scientists who happen to disagree with each other.

I encourage Greg and and those of his persuasion to either grow thicker skins or exercise more restraint. I'm all for increased civility, so long as it's a TWO-way street and so long as "civility" is not raised as an objection to questions of fact.

There are no sacred cows or texts here.

Who cares what Democratic Iowa caucus goers think about global warming and how did that lead to you guys fighting over who's smarter and how to debate? This was a dumb thread to begin with.