They both put me to sleep. ZZZzzzz....

I like Hillary's new proposal to ban driving, breathing and farming in the US. Also her idea of reducing oil imports by killing off the American oil companies. Maybe she can have Gore be her VP again?

After watching those excerpts I see that Keller resorts to marginalizing and demeaning characterizations…For a so called professional this is really bad form.
This is symptomatic of the entire AGW issue as it clearly highlights the difference between the two groups. One is a call for science and discussion while the other is a call for unquestioning belief! That is not science that is religion.
There seems to be no room for rational discussion. The two sides are far apart. Unfortunately one side lacks the ability for civility with those who disagree and refuses to attempt to find a common ground from where rational thought can triumph.
That behavior is so very sad for all humankind.

Keller's defense of the predicted cooling in the 1970's is pathetic. He uses the current natural warming trend, which he blames on human activity, to explain why the predicitons of a new ice age were wrong. We could use the same argument to dismiss global warming.

Mann's hockey stick graph was thoroughly discredited and yet Keller still believes in its conclusions. Incredible!

Keller claims the "science is settled" which is yet another clue to his prejudice favoring AGW. Science is never settled, especially in a field like climatology which is in its infancy. Keller does not have an open mind into which new information is welcome and that makes him a very poor scientist.

I like Hillary's new proposal to ban driving, breathing and farming in the US. Also her idea of reducing oil imports by killing off the American oil companies. Maybe she can have Gore be her VP again?

REPLY: That's real good, Bankrupt the Oil Companies, and have the Government take them over, and ration it all. Just like with her friend Hugo the Clown. Really smart there, Madam Hillary

Redefeat Communism. Say NO to another Clinton.

RE: The Duquesne Symposium: Gee Dr. Keller, 1000 Scientists working on this, eh? What about the rest of the scientists out there??? Where are they??? Or do they not matter??? And far be it for any one to suggest that the sun is warming the earth! Heaven forbid. I could sure use some of that warmth right now. I am freezing!!!!

Dr. Keller comes to a debate about Global Warming vs. a preeminent scientist - and starts with a comment that "the scientific debate is over." This is very disrespectful to both the opponent and the host, and makes him sound like a broken record.

I will be waiting to see the interviews.

Reply: They start next week. There were a lot of questions and i believe Katie was able to ask a lot of them, so it may be a 2 or 3 part series. Brett

But, I am with Ted, just stating your opponent is wrong, is not a counter point.

Back to tuning in to see if other viewpoints, othwe than the extreme right-wing platitudes re represented fairly on this Blog, just to find out that no is the answer. No one else is tuning in because this has become a haven for the disturbed Republicans, who drown out any discussion with nonsense and weak attempts at comedy, when the issues are serious and the solutions are daunting. The fact that these comments continue to be published is the main reason the readership of this Blog has narrowed.
Enjoy your cozy little narrow-minded Blog. I sure miss Laura.

(Reply: How would you know that the readership has narrowed? Are you basing it on the comments? Because if you are, that is just a small percentage of our total viewership on this blog since a majority of readers do not post a comment. Also, people no matter what their views on AGW are, are allowed to voice their opinion, as long as it is within the guidelines that we have established here at Accuweather.com. I do not weed out the comments in favor of the skeptics or deniers, we just happen to have a higher percentage of deniers who comment on the blog. I am sure some of the deniers who regularly read and comment on this blog feel that too many of my posts show the pro agw viewpoint. I appreciate the comment though, and I have no problem posting it unedited. Regards, Brett.

Oh, and the statement that "Dr. Keller has resorted to margenalizing and demeaning..." to then be followed by "so-called professional" and other truly demeaning statemtns about him and Ms. Clinton, clearly demonstrates my point about the hypocracy of the Neo-Con and his bad behavior. But don't criticize him or he'll scream the loudest. Just like most bullies, he can dish it out..., but, oh, who really cares?

David,

The difference between this blog and others (like realclimate) is that it is not censored. I have been fully or partially censored at realclimate every time I go over there - as soon as they realize I am raising difficult issues. They are genuinely not interested in any viewpoints other than their own.

Accuweather and Brett should be applauded for providing the only truly Democratic forum, particularly in a hysterical political climate where doing so is somewhat risky.

Perhaps the lack of censorship provides a more accurate sampling of what most people really believe?

That was not even a good tease. How can it be settled science. There are many who are still investigating the question including those who think it is settled. If they are 98% certain global warming is man caused, that leaves at least 2% uncertainty. When have we ever accepted that the science is settled with a 2% possibilty it is wrong? Science is not belief, Science is Science!

Wow��looks like David is feeling the heat. I agree with the others that Dr. Keller was out of line for a scientist but probably was true to form for an alarmist. Attack, demean and insult first then if anyone's interested throw out a few loose facts to see if they "float"! Voila concensus!!

David,

No one else is tuning in because this has become a haven for the disturbed Republicans, who drown out any discussion with nonsense and weak attempts at comedy, when the issues are serious and the solutions are daunting.

David,

Lighten up. Have you seen some of the comments made here by Mark, Brookline Tom, and Steve Bloom? You should try debating against them sometime. Nonsense, BS, or silence is the prevailing method.

What site is taking the AGW debate seriously? You care to debate a thought. I will gladly. I prefer not to get into any banter as I have with BT, but he's a special case, I like to see how much BS can come from an individual in such a short amount of time.

In any event, I know the subject fairly well and at least offer a decent challenge. Name the topic and let's agree to be civil in our exchanges. I won't BS you, and expect the same.

What do you say?

regards,

Steve

uh Brett..............

Pro AGW vs. Deniers ???

This sounds like climatological racism to me.

Pretty obvious what you line of thinking is........

Reply: Oh really? Come on! I was trying to be brief and to the point. Ok, I should have said those who believe that man's actions are responsible for global warming vs. those who deny that that man's actions are responsible for global warming. Sorry.

"Global warming racist" that's a new one!

Another report on the IPCC: For David, Andrew and such

http://homepages.tesco.net/~kate-and-david/2007/Holland(2007).pdf

Excerpt;
BIAS AND CONCEALMENT IN THE IPCC PROCESS: THE
�HOCKEY-STICK� AFFAIR AND ITS IMPLICATIONS
by David Holland
ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT
VOLUME 18 No. 7+8 2007
The climatic �hockey stick� hypothesis has systemic problems. I review how the
IPCC came to adopt the �hockey stick� as scientific evidence of human
interference with the climate. I report also on independent peer reviewed studies
of the �hockey stick� that were instigated by the US House of Representatives in
2006, and which comprehensively invalidated it.

Enjoy

Sorry Bret, I just had to vent. But one does get the impression that the few deniers that comment are the only ones reading. I'm glad I am wrong, because in general, this column is pretty good. I don't comment often as well.

Reply: No problem David. We welcome your comments anytime. Have a good weekend!

It would be helpful, if these clever deniers spent more time looking for solutions, even patches, for GW whether they believe it is AGW or natural GW. The scientific debate should not be whether it exists or not, but how best to manage it. More importantly, it should also be an honest policy debate. It won't be as long as Bush, or a "conservative" crony is President. It will be when Clinton, or the like is, and frankly, I can't wait. The amount of damage being done to the earth's environment daily is attrocious.

One final comment: Not only does the US excessively use fossil fuels, and is no longer an industrial producing nation, but we are almost totally responsible for the growth of the Chinese and Indian economies that disregard the environment and give us toxic toys, questionable foodstuffs, Iranian nuclear power and weapons, annoying and unintelligible telemarketers and "customer service operators," etc. And we all have to inhabit the same Earth. Amazing!

David,
You comments are obviously heartfelt. One can appreciate that and understand it comes from lack of discipline. I trust it is due to normal youthful lack of self control rather than a zealot’s ire from another’s disbelief in your dogma.
Some of us have been lucky to see a few “The Sky is falling!” prognostications before. So history and a track record of “We are still here” gives us a feeling that we need to know all we can before we take the leap of faith that youth, inexperience and ignorance seem to do so easily.
My indignation of Dr. Keller lack of manners comes from shear disappointment in the behavior of an educated man. A debate especially about science has no place for that behavior. My pointing out such deplorable and inexcusable antics is not demeaning. It is a statement of fact of his actions. I pointed out that fact that his behavior was wrong. Don’t denigrate me because of his actions. There are times to act like a gentleman, this was one of them and he failed.
Again, please understand that politics should have no role in the subject of AGW. Science not rhetoric is needed.
The problem one sees is the continuing papers submitted by the AGW that always seem to rely on papers of dubious quality, science, or fraud. When questioned the response seems to lack substance, or science. The response seems to be just a litany of AGW dogma that would only satisfy the simplest minds (Basically politicians and those who knowledge in science is less than the mice in my lab.)
Politics should have no place in this debate. Your labels of right-wing are humorous because you know nothing about most of the people on this blog. Many are democrats or independents who just want to know exactly where our money is going to be spent.
My grandfather always said. “Politicians will always spend every dime you give them to get themselves re-elected. So be careful what you give them!”
That was from man who voted straight Democratic for 75 years.
So many on this blog want to see how our money is trying to be used…and more than few of us smell scam, nonsense, and ulterior motives that are best left unaccomplished.
There are more than a few shades of gray in this topic. Read, learn, listen, and for heavens sake think for yourself.

David: You say that there are people .."who drown out any disscusion with nonsense"...and you say they are motivated by their political ideology or affiliations-Fair Enough. Then I will take it that you believe that Mr. Keller is a Republican Extremist as you put it,since he insists the debate is over and there is no more need for any discussion. And just for the record, there are new people who are coming to this forum looking for alternate viewpoints whether they make sense or not because it is all part of making an informed choice about the issues, to be able to know the opinions from all sides. And I should know- I'm one of those new people!!

Dear Interested, thanks for reading my comment. Your point is well-taken, but Science per se, does not require 100% concensus. In fact, when scientific studies are performed, all that is needed to prove a hypothesis is the statistical porbablility that the results were not chance. If it is true that only 2% disagree, then that is well within that statistical probability.
However, one cannot run studies on environmental warming. There just isn't enough experience and AGW has never occurred before. So, we have models and grafts, developed by smart guys, from observations that have been available for thousands of years, provided by nature and flegling technologies. These models and grafts point to a very disturbing set of findings that implicates, but does not prove, that Man is at least partially reponsible for this present pheomenon.
Because we cannot PROVE that Man is responsible, we have to agree with it or not, based on a preponderence of evidence. (Similarly, we can't PROVE there is a G-d, we just believe it by the preponderence of evidence). And I agree with the concept of AGW and want to see policy developed to combat it.

Dear Ted,

Don't patronize me. Besides, you don't know who I am, my age or what I do. You might be surprised to know my age and that I have obtained great success and income from what most people would fell is a noble pursuit. Am I am not a politician, obviously.
One thing for sure, my comments are heart felt, based on belief in the preponderence of evidence and based on ideology that we all live on the same planet and are reponsible to each other to make our world better. Thank you for the "youthful exhuberance" comment. I'm hoping to maintain that indefinitely. Oh yes, and I am likely older than you!

Well said Ted. One of the most frustrating things is that as soon as you question AGW you're labeled some kind of right winged nut. The ignorance shown by many in the AGW crowd is frightening.

Just an opinion on the debate and this Blog;
Brett hosts what I would consider one of the most credible blogs available.
This credibility is due in part to his � UNBIASED � position.
We should never know his actual position on the subject.
Obvious bias is why so many of us distrust realclimate.

We owe Brett and Accuweather a great deal for providing an uncensored forum such as this.
When the science is finally settled, It would really be interesting to know however.
Thanks.

Not only does the US excessively use fossil fuels, and is no longer an industrial producing nation....

David,

The US is actually one of the most efficient countries in the world. The ratio of carbon output to industrial output is less than 50% of China and 30% of Russia. This is known as carbon intensity. See figure 6.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html

If you want to just mindlessly bash on the United States, then moveon.org is the place for you. On the other hand, if you are actually interested in joining a conversation with people who are not afraid to think for themselves, this is a good place because it is censorship free.

Our children are being educated that the quality of life is inversely proportional to CO2. But I was alive during the first half of the last century and I remember war, genocide, starvation, drought, disease. Half of China and India was starving to death when I was a child. Stalin and Mao killed 50 million people. CO2 is the product of a healthy world economy which has greatly reduced starvation, war and disease. And the US has been the key player in these changes.

I'm so tired of this alarmist nonsense. The world is much safer and saner right now than it has been at any time in the past.

"Many are democrats or independents who just want to know exactly where our money is going to be spent."

LOL. You actually typed that with a straight face, Ted? LOL.

Virtually all of our fellow deniers watch Fox & Friends in the morning and have an Ann Coulter book waiting for them on their nightstand every evening. Don't be disingenuous.

Oh, by the way, everyone -- if you wonder why the citizens of Florida don't want drilling off their coast, click the link to see why:

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSN0822954120071110

Brett
it seem clear that Global Dimming is being ignored by scientist on both sides of the debate.
There is no theory behind this one, no disputes, so could we have an article to explain the concept in full? Simon: I will try to do that.

Once AGW solutions are initiated the cooling effects of current airborne industrial dust/pollution will no longer be there to shield us from the true levels of solar radiation. Hilary Clinton should come up with a better plan. Dr Singer voices concerns but has not gone into detail while no one seems to know too much about it on this blog.
Todays climbing co2 concentrations will still be airborne to meet clear skys proposals in 2050 if emission are actually cut only to meet a temperature rise of 3-4 degrees.

Mark,
You couldn't be more wrong. I was teaching GW fifteen years ago as a theory. My thoughts and fears then were much the same as peoples today. Because of my concerns I did a ton of research. The more research I did the less I believed in AGW. We've reached the point now where only stories that fit into AGW are reported, while anything that counters it is ignored. A perfect example is record low levels of sea ice in the Arctic all over the news, while reports of record high levels of sea ice in the Antarctic ignored. Do you really believe that polar bears are suffering because of AGW? What happened to all the Hurricanes? One of the cornerstones in the global warming theory was that Antarctica would warm. In fact, it's cooled. If you dig deep enough you'll find the truth.

Dr. Keller's apparent harshness in the clips reminds me of the time at Columbia University, when the University President talked harshly at President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, and I bet those complaining here