What a waste of our time. You can't even be accurate on the weather, why are you creating a stir over global warming. Concensus is not a scientific approach to declare it valid, and I am not convinced we are more a cause than the fact we have cycles in weather. Gathering information on how many degrees we have warmed or cooled does not seem valid when science has been so off the mark on such things as how old the earth is or how it magically came into being without an intelligent designer.

Don,
I think you are mistaken. Paleo Climate has been a fascinating study ever since people were able to decode tree rings. Now scientists can use ice core samples, oceanic micro flora, and sediment as well as tree rings to attempt to know what our climate was like many centuries ago. There are limits to the accuracy of thier findings -and much of thier work is dependent on very complex statistical analysis of the data. However, once you remove the politics from this field of study, it is quite fascinating.

I have noticed Accuweathers two week forecasts, here in Michigan, have been off by about twenty degrees at times when the 14th day actually arrives. I usually track their fourteen day forecasts just to see how accurate they are. If these people (the so called climate experts) at accuweather can't give an accurate forecast fourteen days out, how can we take them seriously about climate 20 years from now? I mean 30 years ago we were supposed to be in and ice age right now.

Now I'm a skeptic too of GW, but I feel the earth is warming to it's own natural cycle (no, I don't have scientific data to prove it, but's my opinion and I'm sticking to it). I know that the earth is warming, and my heating bill looks nicer so I'll except what we have. But I feel the need to defend some of the hard working scientists out there that are trying to figure out something they maybe don't understand entirely.

If I remember correctly from my younger days learning about science...correct me if I'm wrong. Science has about 7 steps...problem, theory, solution, etc. It's nearly impossible to truly know how the earth began and when. The only way to fully know is to have been there, and unless you are several million years old that's going to be tough. I believe that God created the earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th there's no data to prove it, but my faith in God tells me that that is what happened. Other people feel that it the Big Bang or whatever. The point is none of us were there so we don't know. The same can be said that no one fully knows how the dinosaurs died. We've got an idea, but we don't actually have all the proof for it either. Even some of the earlier laws of gravity, and whatnot were thought to be 100% right, but that lasted until they could be disproven. So in defense of the scientists that are trying to prove global warming exists and how to slow it down, until someone can come up with a better idea or another window opens, they are sticking with what they are finding. Maybe it's a waste of time, but it's not our time that's being wasted. Yes, GW is partially about the politics, but EVERYTHING involves politics.

Forecasting the weather that's another ball of wax. And I'm guessing there is a bit of a scientific approach to it. It's hard to be right when you've got different models showing different things, and it's not like we can control the weather. In my small town, we always laugh and say if you don't like the weather...wait about 10 minutes and it will change. And accuweather isn't all that bad in fact they can get at least a little closer than some of the other groups out there. I know I can't do any better, but if someone else can....I'm sure everyone would like to know.

... or how it magically came into being without an intelligent designer.

I appreciate Don's helpful tip-off about how much time his own rant merits.

I, for one, appreciate the comments of Dr. Alley -- as well as his generosity in providing information for us here.

If I remember correctly from my younger days learning about science...correct me if I'm wrong. Science has about 7 steps...problem, theory, solution, etc. It's nearly impossible to truly know how the earth began and when. The only way to fully know is to have been there, and unless you are several million years old that's going to be tough. The same can be said that no one fully knows how the dinosaurs died. We've got an idea, but we don't actually have all the proof for it either. Even some of the earlier laws of gravity, and whatnot were thought to be 100% right, but that lasted until they could be disproven. So in defense of the scientists that are trying to prove global warming exists and how to slow it down, until someone can come up with a better idea or another window opens, they are sticking with what they are finding. Maybe it's a waste of time, but it's not our time that's being wasted. Yes, GW is partially about the politics, but EVERYTHING involves politics.

Forecasting the weather that's another ball of wax. And I'm guessing there is a bit of a scientific approach to it. It's hard to be right when you've got different models showing different things, and it's not like we can control the weather. In my small town, we always laugh and say if you don't like the weather...wait about 10 minutes and it will change. And accuweather isn't all that bad in fact they can get at least a little closer than some of the other groups out there. I know I can't do any better, but if someone else can....I'm sure everyone would like to know.

Now I'm skeptical too, but that's opinion.

Did any of you "can't even predict the weather" people notice that earlier note in which Laura (summarizing a real-life climatologist) said climate is much more stable (and therefore predictable) than whether changes day-to-day over a local area? You can't predict the weather, no, but--at least until about ten years ago--you could accurately say what the average temperature and precipitation would be month-to-month and year-to-year. That makes plenty of sense to me.

Well the average temperature in Michigan for February is right around 30-32 degrees for highs, for the past three weeks its has been around 20 degrees or below for highs. OH NO, CALL AL GORE IT'S GLOBAL COOLING!!!!!!

Well, how cold was January? How about December? How about last year?

Honestly, I don't really care, I live in Michigan and I really don't like winter so I am doing my part to increase my carbon footprint. I have two SUV's and I usually mow the lawn and fill my tank on ozone action days, heres to my contribution to making my part of the world warmer!!

Now skeptics' argument is: It's 10, 20 or whatever below average.

Why don't you look, as Boris said, at last year's Winter. Or how about December 2006? Or what about The Alps right now? The list could go on and on.

Emiliano

I honestly don't know why people who honestly don't care would even be commenting on this site. Tends to undercut whatever argument you're trying to make--which is what? Global warming is a good thing, or it doesn't matter, or it's a joke? I don't think apathy and selfishness are funny. Maybe I don't have a sense of humor.

Boris,

You'd rather that Laura only lets pro-AGW people post? Often "skeptics" help prevent widespread panic caused by these doomsday scientists. I, for one, am a total AGW skeptic. Yes, I do believe we have a lot to do with prevention of extinction of animals and pollution. I just don't buy this "we are overheating the world" bunk. We are on a planet which is a crust over a layer of molten liquid to who knows what in the middle, even scientists don't know exactly, although they have "theories". I do believe in pole shifting and I do believe in the continental drift. Our climate is always changing. Ice core samples are good in all, but I don't think they prove as much as scientists want to think. I don't see where they take microscopic organisms into consideration on the air pockets. Algae offsets CO2, so if you have algae in the ice, which there WILL be, then guess what? There will be a lower CO2 level. Asphault and cement trap heat and make things seem warmer, but dig under them and there is cool dirt. Things change, but not at the rate that the scientists are using to get funding. If I remember from my history classes, Egypt used to be lush in plant life, was it ancient Egyptians causing Global Warming while creating pyramids that changed to desert? NO!! Next, it will be something else to panic about.

I wasn't objecting to skepticism, I was objecting to the attitude that it's cold outside and I'd like it be warner--which, I don't know, sounds ignorant to me, even in jest. Africa's desertification is also partly man-made, by the way. Anyway, what the many, many scientists who agree that warming is becoming worse and worse and should be slowed as much as possible are trying to suggest is that we take steady, deliberate action now so that we don't panic later. This is not about overreacting, it's about acting--doing somethihng to meet challenges, inside of holing up in our SUVs and trying to joke or ignore away the problem. Now, excuse me if I draw comparisons skeptics might consider alarmist--but what if more money had gone into AIDS research five years earlier? Would that be panic, or judicious use of resources that might have saved millions of lives? What if the US had let in boatloads of European Jewish refugees during World War II, on the then-unproven assumption that Hitler was doing very very bad things to them? Or what if Chamberlain hadn't said "peace in our time" and instead England had attacked Germany two years earlier? Panic, or foresight? Experts are paid to make predictions, and leaders are paid to act on all available knowledge. That's what we're talking about here.

What about December 2006? It was below normal in the western half of the US and it was above normal in eastern half of the US. What does that prove? Now it's colder than normal in the eastern half of the US and warmer than normal in the western half. Is Global Warming regional and for short periods of time? I guess it must be Global Warming when it's convenient. Like when it hits 60 degrees for a week in January in Michigan. But, all of a sudden the Global Warming Police disappear when it's 20 degrees the following week.

... all of a sudden the Global Warming Police disappear when it's 20 degrees the following week.

Hmmm. A little while ago, Andy (was it the same "Andy"?) wrote (http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2007/02/whats_in_a_name.html#comment-3492):
I've got a suggestion for you read your Bible, God spells out exactly how the world will end and it's not by man made carbon dioxide emissions.

I don't recall any references to "Global Warming Police" in the scriptures that Andy cited in support of this claim about the Bible.

So Andy, if we have nothing to fear from carbon dioxide emissions -- because the Bible says so -- than surely we also have nothing to fear from "Global Warming Police".

If that's the case, then why take cheapshots like this? I ask because some might accuse you of "proof-texting" -- lifting passages from the Bible when they support your biases and prejudices, and ignoring those same passages when they do not.

Sorry, that's not "proof texting", something the liberals in this country have taken to a new level. Most of whom wouldn't even know what a Bible looks like, much less find a specific passage in the Bible. That's why I posted a link to the Bible website, because most liberals wouldn't even know where the book of Revelation is. The chapter I gave you is specific about the destruction of this earth. You read it yourself, it's not just one specific line of text (like most liberals use to back up their baseless arguments) it's an entire chapter dedicated to this topic.