The program ends with "tune in next week for more things you can do......"

In regards to Global Warming caused by man made CO2, I dont intend to do anything. Proof of global warming in itself is tenuous and is more likely a natural cycle. Proof that CO2 has anything to do with warming at all is non existant. When will people wake up that this is a fraud started by eco nuts and perpetuated by the media, charlatan scientists and self serving politicians.

When will people wake up that this is a fraud started by eco nuts and perpetuated by the media, charlatan scientists and self serving politicians.

In just one sentence:

• "fraud "


• "eco nuts"


• "perpetuated by the media"


• "charlatan scientists"


• "self serving politicians"

"Steve" throws around incendiary, insulting, and rude phrases like this -- and then no doubt whines when he and his ilk are correctly and accurately labeled "deniers" and explicitly compared to Holocaust Deniers by the mainstream media.

Most of the world, and most Americans, rely on science and its processes, flawed as they may be, to inform the critical decisions we make about the environment, our food supply, and our medical care. The same people seem to offer the same hostile, ignorant rubbish whether the topic be AGW, the role of government in exposing and preventing BSE (Mad Cow) outbreaks, or what drugs and vaccines are or are not offered to the public.

I, for one, am glad that such boorish rubbish is finally, belatedly, being labeled what it is and has always been.

"Steve" throws around incendiary, insulting, and rude phrases like this.

REPLY: Yeah, because you liberales no nothing of this kind of behavior, do you?

and then no doubt whines when he and his ilk are correctly and accurately labeled "deniers" and explicitly compared to Holocaust Deniers by the mainstream media.

REPLY: No whining here...The Holocaust happend, Global Warming is a farce!

Most of the world, and most Americans, rely on science and its processes.

REPLY: You betcha! Science, not JUNK science at the behest of those who want us to sacrifice our lifestyles and tax dollars for a mythical boogie man....;D....

Steve, what is the problem big deal with 'doing something about it', when most of the things that are within our power actually wind up saving our pocket books thanks to being a little more efficient; a little more economic?
I believe that global warming is manmade, but even if it weren't, what is there to get on your high horse about?!? Cleaner air benefits all, even if the CO2 increase has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect.

70's predicted ice age - now predicting global warming. Steve points out one main difference is we now have computer models. Computers have no smarts - if you put garbage in, you get garbage out. They still can't tell us the weather 2 days from now due to computer models which don't work. Why should we put any credence in forecasting models looking out over decades/centuries.

It's nice to know that some people are not swayed entirely by the propoganda of politics. Its also nice to hear an expert meteorologist backquote what I've been telling my friends for months now-that climatology involves too many variables that have changed in the last 30 years to accurately and linearly project whats going to happen in the next 30. I have two questions for whoever can answer them by email:

1)How is the temperature measured in these studies? Is it from surface data or is it modeled 3d data from sea level to 200mb? Is suface urbanization taken into account in innercity surface temperature readings?

2)What is the average amount of heat radiation the planet loses on its dark side in 24 hrs? What is the average amount of heat radiation absorbed by the sun on the sunny half? What is the amount of heat radiation created by manmade industry? How do they compare percentage wise?

I still want to see those responsible for this farce prosecuted for fearmongering on the grandest scale.

Steve's phrases are incendiary, insulting, and rude" to some people because they are true and like the old colonel in "A Few Good Men" said, "You can't stand the truth."

"fraud " --- There's the hockey stick.

"eco nuts" --- There's the Greenies who spike trees.

"perpetuated by the media" --- Try ABC, CBS, NBC
(Oh well, every major outlet except FOX and all the major newspapers).

"charlatan scientists" --- There's Mann the hockey stick guy and then there's the guy who said scientists may exaggerate a little if necessary to get our attention.

"self serving politicians" --- And then there's everybody's favorite self-server - Big Al.

Way to go OIZNOP and Steve. Good Points. I must admit that I am slightly confused by the Headline Earth Segments. It seems that Katie is trying to point out the science of the issue, then chats about the hype involved in it, and then talks about the coverage of the issue. The whole what we can do part is odd. Though ACCUWEATHER has not taken an official position, it seems they lean toward wait-and-see philosophy. Maybe, she is just presenting things that are wise overall.

You know I have written multiple posts in this forum on multiple articles. The intent of these posts was for those who feel that AGW is true and accurate to present some sort of scientific evidence supporting the position. I believe that I have yet to read a single response dealing with science. Most just simply say it is obvious and that man is obviously the cause, and anyone who disputes that it obviously not enlightened. Sad.

Ok, it's the greenhouse effect huh? Well isn't it true that carbon dioxide is a relatively SMALL!! part of the Earth's natural greenhouse effect?? Is it also true that the greenhouse effect is not what controls the earths temp??? And does'nt this wonderful earth have a way of keeping it's self cool? The earths air is cooled by precipitation systems, which give air its moisture characteristics. As meteorologist I would think you would understand how the earths weather works, but since this Global Warming has so much money tied up into it you just can't wait to get your hands on it. Just like this little blonde up here getting paid to talk about something that is a total LIE. Do some research not from people who are getting paid due to this but from people who actually check all the facts and science.

You know I have written multiple posts in this forum on multiple articles. The intent of these posts was for those who feel that AGW is true and accurate to present some sort of scientific evidence supporting the position. I believe that I have yet to read a single response dealing with science. Most just simply say it is obvious and that man is obviously the cause, and anyone who disputes that it obviously not enlightened. Sad.

I wonder if you read as many posts as you write.

In the comments that accompany Katie's February 5th interview with Michael Mann, I posted a comment that included more than thirty links to "some sort of scientific evidence supporting the position." That's in just one comment. Did you happen to read it?

The peer-reviewed literature is filled with the scientific evidence you claim to seek. Have you taken any steps to familiarize yourself with it?

You began your comment with an "attaboy" to "Oiznop" and "Steve". Can you please offer some examples of their cites of "scientific evidence" supporting their position? Oh, but please -- we're all familiar with the Lindzen piece, you don't need to repeat that particular cite.

i'm curious brookline, what do you do for a living and could you please provide scientific proof of that employment? you seem desperate to dispell anyone who provides intellectual arguments to your blatantly obvious political rants

Actually, you got me on that one. Since I don't buy into the AGW, I must not really be able to read. Ha.

I have only been looking into this site since about the middle of the month so I missed the 2/5 stuff. I'll swing back there when I get a chance.

I have read literally a ton of studies about how past evidence points to AGW. And yes, they have been peer reviewed. The problem with them is that while they purport specific and precise changes in the climate, they all seem to use a wide net of gathering data. Take ice cores or tree rings for example. They can evaluate trace compounds and decay rates to precisely target a date and temperature. Then when you look at the significance of precise, you find that there can be a 10 year variation and several degrees either way. But then, the conclusion states emphatically that temps have gone up 5.4 deg. and are progged to go up another 3.4 deg if nothing is done. Note: No quotes here, I just made those numbers up as an example. Besides, depending upon who and what study, the numbers change a fair amount.

Essentially, the studies seem to show and imply peril, yet they tend to invalidate themselves for that very reason. Basic scientific method would show that you must know the accuracy to a greater place then what you report yet all of these reports don't do that.

And then there is the classic, it hasn't been this hot in "X" number of years. OK, so "X" + 1 years ago it was warmer? Who's to say that that is not the proper temperature for the Earth? And, how in the HE - double hockey sticks (Like the Mann reference?) do they know what the temp was at X + 1? And if they know, then why are they so surprised that it is that warm again?

I know, I know, it is the rate of change that is so troubling. OK, I have not seen a rate of change delineated in Paleo climatology. Besides, in evaluating the techniques used, and I have to admit they are often brilliant, I believe that it would nearly be impossible to ascertain an accurate rate relative to the manner in which they report the rates.

You see, I have a theory that CO2 conc rises occur not before a temp increase but more likely after or during the event. If you take the data and move one graph back or forth by 10 years or so, magically CO2 no longer is the driving force but just riding the wave. Big question then is why do temps go up? Need to look a the sun and water vapor for that. Actually, come to think of it, I have never seen a study showing how CO2 does the dirty work. They say it bounces energy back and there are experiments showing this to some degree, but not a true earth scale. So the results are only accurate to the degree of the accuracy in the model which is not very good.

Now why does that get no review? Because if it is shown that the cause is not due to the world's burning of fossil fuels, then there really is no big research money involved at that point since we can't do anything about it. I also think it has to do with the drive to make cars cleaner environ. wise. A worthy endeavor to be sure but the goal of the "greens" in the 70's and 80's was to curb pollution that was going to "kill the world's climates and everyone with it" as I recall. Well, catalytic converters and efficient burning motors have essentially done the job.

While that was good, and I am all for changes that are conservative and wise, I am concerned about the desire to impose taxes across the board to address the issue. It no longer is about the science and truth but more about a governmental system.

Just think, we hear that the Earth has "tipped to the point of no return". But yet, this report urges immediate changes and levies to address the problem. How does this work? If it is tipped, what's the point other than to confiscate money for some reason? What is the money for? What will it do?

The point of all this is to show that there is doubt in the information at every level. Yes a lot of very smart people have studied this but the fact is none of the data is relatable to each other. They are different observations along the same path. It is though you are driving down a road, one side is water, the other land. if you only look to the left, it would seem that you are by passing the sea, if you only look to the right, you are bypassing a desert. Both are correct, but tell a very different story about the same thing.

As far as presenting evidence to the opposite, I don't really need to. All I care about is showing where the AGW reasoning is maybe a little out of whack. Also, I've never read the Lindzen piece. You see, I bet those studies are fundamentally flawed as well. Though, I would tend to believe those pieces more because they do not often advocate action that is punitive in nature. The AGW pieces often want to punish or transfer wealth to somehow address the problem. In essence, it seems to me that while the AGW'ers have an agenda, the non AGW'ers do not other than to bring out questions.

As far as the peer reviewing being an important part of your discussion, I would like to let everyone know that as someone who has his work peer reviewed, and does peer review work, it really doesn't mean much in the whole scheme of things. Just someone else who understands the topic either agreeing or disagreeing with you. If they disagree, you don't list them, if they agree, you list them. It's really just another way to prove that you need help to make your line of reasoning.

Whew, apologize for being long worded.

30 links, eh Brookline???.....My, My, My, that sure is a lot of energy spend on digging for information to prove your boogie man exists! Energy that might be contributing to the temperature rising! When all our side needs is just one little link. Junkscience.com! And we are conserving at the same time. I'll be darned, isn't that great how that works? And we all benefit too!....Have yourself a nice day!.....;-)

I agree with Sam, everyone that is apparenlty against the whole farce that is GW or whatever the PC term is for it now, are being considered as intellectually challegened, and anything we come up with to support our theories are lame and stupid. But Tom, do you have a degree or some form of higher education in GW that makes you so much different from us?

If people can afford the higher priced items to make us more efficient, great if not well we do the best we can to protect our world. But the whole Chicken little stuff has got to lessen at some point. Everyone against the GW stick together and ride out "the sky is falling" antics.

OIZNOP:

Excellent point on the conservation. And much less wordy than some of us. Ha.

Darren

"When all our side needs is just one little link. Junkscience.com!"

LOL...thank you for giving us all a laugh, Oiznop. When the only link you can provide is JunkScience.com, you KNOW you have a losing argument.

-Mark

Who cares if its warming or not. We breathe in alot of stuff that we dont have to if we all had clean energy. It's 2007 and we still use gas, thats pretty sad. All the pollution has got to be a factor to alot of peoples sicknesses, alergies, etc, 50 years ago you'd be lucky for one kid to have athsma in a classroom, now its normal for 5-10 of them to have it to some degree.

"When all our side needs is just one little link. Junkscience.com!"

Blaming Brookline Tom on non-scientific statements? May be he hasn't got that degree in Climate Change many of you expect, but sure he doesn't take the information from Junkscience.

Ozinop, I don't know if you remember, but when this blog began to become popular, one of the skeptics said: "Check this out, it's information provided by Mr. blah blah blah, scientist at blah blah blah Univeristy." And you know what? That piece of article the skeptics were promoting in this very blog was published on JunkScience. Sure that's a reliable scientific data base, isn't it?

Emiliano

But Tom, do you have a degree or some form of higher education in GW that makes you so much different from us?

Yet another ad-hominem. What earthly difference do my credentials make? This is not a peer-reviewed journal, I am not applying for a tenure-track academic position.

I have a B.S. in E.E. from 1974. I run a technology development startup company.

Each and every participant on this board has access to the same wealth of information, and we each have access to the same generation of marvelous tools to mine it.

Some of us choose to use those tools, some of us do not.

Mike:

Give me a break, the reason we have more kids with asthma is that anytime a kid sneezes, their goofy parents run them to the doctor. The doctor trying to "protect the kids", blames an illness to make the parents happy. Take my wife, has asthma and all that stuff. Her parents and doctors treated everything as though it were a real issue. I come along tell her to toughen up and guess what, no more asthma.

You up for Nuclear Energy? Cause wind and solar just ain't productive enough yet.