Is Climate Meltdown similar to Shell shock? =) When did we become PC (politically correct) about GW?

Despotism and freedom clash. All middle-eastern countries don't hate America. Some countries that are run by fanatical dictators and despots do. The people are brainwashed by being forced fed political propaganda through various outlets. Why is it so bad that we are promoting democracy and freedom in the middle east? The biggest threat to freedom is coming out of this region.

We are promoting democracy. We don't force beliefs onto our own people, why we would we force our beliefs onto other nations. We are not! Freedom of voice will allow these people to live in peace but disagree through dialogue, as you and I disagree on global warming. The difference is that we aren't threatening to kill each other. We let the voting booths decide for us. We are given the freedom to disagree with our government, they are not.

We simply want to afford the people with the opportunity to stand up for themselves and let the people be heard. If their leaders continue to threaten the extermination of Israel and it's allies, it will only get worse for those people there who truly want peace. Many are to afraid to stand up to the fanatics who govern their respective countries for fear of the sword. If you don't understand that now, you never will.

So during the umpteen thousand other times the Earth's climate has swung in one direction or the other, were they also 'meltdowns'?

Well, there is apparently some asteroid that has a 1 in 45,000 chance of hitting the Earth in 2036, based on some recent news article. There are also other possible asteroids that we may not even know about that could hit us at any moment because we don't currently have a 360 degree, 24/7 observation of the heavens. One or more volcanos could erupt big time before 2100 (nobody really knows-they just guess based on models)and place a layer of particulates around the Earth which would cut down on the sun rays hitting us, therefore causing global cooling. I am old enough to remember in the 1970's that our biggest problem was going to be another ice age. To quote from an Newsweek article in 1975, which stated that the evidence for global cooling has accumulated so massively that meteorologists are hard pressed to keep up with it, "Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climate change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the artic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting artic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve." My goodness, what if those crazy humans had actually done those things back then. And apparently, the politicians were just as dumb in the 1970's as they are now. Well, not apparently, I was there, they WERE just as dumb. Other catastropic events could be some crazy world leader running amuck resulting in nuclear winter, bio-chemical flu, chemical warfare, World War III, earthquakes, etc. The thing I worry the most about is the global warming crazies convincing us to do something really stupid to 'stop' global warming and totally destroying the Earth. The temperature of the Earth only has 3 ways to go, it can go up, it can go down, and it can remain static. It is impossible for the temperature of the Earth to remain static for the rest of its existence. It hasn't to date, the long term temperature has gone up and down. Static is not a viable term used in nature over the long haul. Global warmists seem to indicate that the average temperature will just keep going up and up, which I hypothesize is also impossible since it would indicate that the Earth would eventually become a Sun which is also impossible. I know scientists don't have enough information to confirm that the Earth will only get hotter and hotter until the Sun dies, which is our final fate. Therefore, at some point, the average temperature will cool again. Sorry, but scientists have been saying forever that "THIS TIME, we really know that we're right". At the turn of the 20th century, scientists thought that they had discovered everything and were worrying about stuff to discover in the future. I think 90% of the scientists are so arrogant and think they know everything, plus they need their funding. I know, I have been married to one (chemical) for 30 years. Finally, the result of global warming is really not that big a deal, I don't see the downside. People and animals will have to adapt, they will have to move, build new cities, maybe choose to not have so many children. Some species will not adapt, some humans will not adapt. So what. This has been true since carbon entities embarked on this Earth. Cities come and go, civilizations come and go. Species come and go. Look at the past. Plus, how do we know that we have been living in the "best" temperatures. Maybe we will like the new warmer temperatures. As for me, I am going to enjoy my life, treat others with respect, and live day to day, and cherish every day and try to leave as small a footprint as I can on the Earth. I am not going to ruin my life and get my shorts in a knot over global warming so some other people can have zillions of kids who consume the Earth's resources, forcing me to live in a cave rubbing 2 sticks together to get fire.... ahhh and the cycle starts again.

That's really funny, it sounds like GWB was just doing what the IPCC is doing! What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Just as well that prediction was suppressed, Antarctica has been getting colder in the interior for years now.

I would suggest that you mention to your readers the list of scientist that feel there is either no global warming and if there is, it is due to natural phenomena. A quick search for "List of scientists opposing global warming consensus" on Wikipedia list several scientist of notable stature.
Thank You

Let me guess, Michael. Richard Lindzen, Fred Singer, and William Gray?

Wow, all you guys keep saying that there thousands of climatologists who are skeptical of global warming, yet you always name only one of these three scientists.

Then again, Dr. Fred Singer still thinks that secondhand smoke isn't unhealthy, and UV radiation really doesn't promote skin cancer. Junk science indeed.

-Mark

This is another hungry scientist looking for an increase in funding for climatology, and perhaps his own department in a future Democrat administration. Hard to know what scientists really believe since the grants and appropriations come from one side or the other. Unfortunately, the most successful prostitutes in the country are scientists selling their expert opinions to the highest biased bidder.

Did you happen to see the article that declared cow methane to be vastly more detrimental to the environment than all internal combustion engines put together?

No?

I thought not.

when has there ever been an article in the nyt that has been positive towards bush on any policy. disclaimer- my personal opinion man is not the only story here. just too many factors in the overall picture. human, geological, astronomical, and God knows what else. not in any particular order.jmho

It is humourous to watch partisans like Dr(s) Hansen and Schindell complain about being censored, when in fact a plethora of researchers release "studies" indicating that the earth is frying and we are to blame. Heck, that's all we've talked about for the last 10 years.

Maybe Schindell should check organizations like NOAA and NCAR. If GWB is censoring studies, he's doing a poor job of it. Maybe what Schindell is really complaining about is the muzzle the Federal Goverment puts on all mid level civil servants before they issue comuniques. This, of course, is good management practice, and has been done since the time of FDR.

It's all about money and power. Skeptics of AGW need not apply for research grants because that's not where the action is. The AGW gravy train would end up on an abandoned siding in Kansas if the "scientists" pushing their catastrophy scenarios were honest and simply said, "We don't know." Good news about the environment or climate does not sell newspapers or draw large TV audiences. The old expression, "if it bleeds, it leads" is as true about AGW as it is about any story.

This commentary piece that was published in the Washington Times today will give you some idea of the financial stakes involved in AGW. The more sensational you make it sound, the more money you stand to make. Drew Shindell understands this; he saw Al Gore's documentary and isn't about to miss out on this golden opportunity. After all, when have "scientists" been in the spotlight like this before?
Here is the link: http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20070219-102043-5765r.htm

Maybe what Schindell is really complaining about is the muzzle the Federal Goverment puts on all mid level civil servants before they issue comuniques. This, of course, is good management practice, and has been done since the time of FDR.

Once again the right wing can't decide what it's policy is going to be. When Oregon Governor Kulongoski suggests that George Taylor stop using the title of "State Climatologist" -- because the position does not exist and never has --, or when Virginia Governor Kaine suggests that Patrick Michaels not use his title of "state climatologist" when conducting his private consulting business for his own personal gain, then the right-wingers beat their breasts about the "witchhunt" (http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2007/02/whats_in_a_name.html#comment-3523).

When the President attempts to muzzle scientists who are attempting to perform their official duties, then "this, of course, is good management practice."

Kind of like Foley building a career of "protecting" children from sex abuse while simultaneously preying on them -- all the while under the watchful eye of GOP "moralists".

When the right wing stops telling lies, the rest of us will then stop describing them as "liars". As painful as it may be, the free ride for the corrupt hypocrites of the right wing is over.

hey brookline...why dont you go to some republican political blog and spout your hate...it is so obvious your distaste for the republican party you would never listen to what good, average, honest, thinking and informed citizens are saying what they believe or not believe about global climatic variance...in my opinion its indicative you feel that the majority of americans arent buying into the global warming doom and gloom and have good reasons why..try and have a nice day and not let your passions ruin it for you

Brookline Tom,
Schindell isn't complaining about the results of studies being censored - that is complete nonsense in light of obvious evidence. Goddard, NCAR, and NOAA are free to release the results of whatever phenomena they are charged to investigate. What the rules preclude is mid level civil servants issuing press statements that a) create new policy (which civil servants like Hansen cannot do) or b)issue policy statements which that have no bearing on thier department and infringe on the authority of other angencies. It is one thing to say the climate is warming as evidenced by a scientific study, but it is an entirely different thing in postulating economic policy that can be inferred from that study.

What Dr(s) Hansen and Schindell are complaining about is the prohibition set against thier public entry in to the political arena. How we reduce CO2 are economic hence politcal matters. They are not free as civil servants to publicly speculate on these matters, nor render thier opinion while they serve in thier current posts.

This is a common sense rule. Just think if some mid level manager at the Dept of Transportation issued weekly statements about foreign policy; or the commander of the 4th Infantry Division opined frequently on Fox News about argicultural subsidies. There are public protocols to follow, and Schindell doesn't like them. His complaint is really a strawman's argument.

This is a common sense rule. Just think if some mid level manager at the Dept of Transportation issued weekly statements about foreign policy; or the commander of the 4th Infantry Division opined frequently on Fox News about argicultural subsidies. There are public protocols to follow, and Schindell doesn't like them. His complaint is really a strawman's argument.

Just think! What would happen, JP? Do you suppose somebody above him might ask him to stop? Would you call that a "witchhunt"?

So what do YOU say, then, about the actions of Governors Kulongoski and Kaine? Witchhunt or just good common sense?

Brookline:

You are a riot, right wing liars are at issue here huh? I believe it was the leader of the past administration that was found guilty of lying under oath. Oh, by the way, I think he is also the only President actually impeached for that offense. Not that it really matters. Actually, being a hypocrite is someone who only becomes annoyingly vocal about this topic after he leaves office. Since I imagine you hold Kyoto in high regard, remember it was his administration that recommended rejection. The current Administration merely continued the recommendation.

Shindell is just another individual looking to make his mark to gain a greater piece of the real issue in the GW market, research money. My guess is that he is now the poster boy of the poor abused scientist and scientifically ignorant libs will flock to his cause and soon he will receive some sort of grant as the defender of "their" rights.

Darren