Global Warming

[Just Sold]

I agree.....Here is the USA Today report: http://www.usatoday.com/weather/clim...-warming_x.htm

[LIforrelaxin]

I am all for helping the enviornment......but until until Politics stop getting in the way there isn't much headway to be made.....

[ossipeeboater]

this isn't the first time the earth has warmed up, not saying we shouldn't try to make common sense descisions to cut back emmissions on stuff but nothing will stop the natural warming and cooling actions.

[Paugus Bay Resident]

For instance, how can they know what the temperature of Lincoln Nebraska was 400 years ago?

Agreed, and what about a 1,000 years ago? I've read some theories from credible (IMO) sources that speculate this is a cyclical thing. So, maybe the cycle started earlier? Who knows.

[Airwaves]

I've tried to ignore these threads, but when I see posts comparing the conditions on earth several thousands years ago, or even 1-thousand, or 2-hundred years ago, to the conditions of today, I have to wonder what the folks suggesting that, this is the way things are, are thinking!

Let's start with the most recent comparison,

1806, 200 years ago. There were CO2 emissions from trees (Ronald Reagan's killer trees speech), there was smoke pollution from burning the trees. Cow and Horse manure fermenting...

0806, 1,000 years ago, Pretty much the same sources as in 1806.

0006, 2000 years ago, ditto

2006. We all contribute, do I really need to make a list?

The Arctic, Antarctic and Greenland Ice Caps are melting at a rate never scienticially documented prior to now.

There is much information available now documenting these changes.

It will take political leadership to change things, unfortunately that leadership is not happening from EITHER party, and never will! The folks on both sides of the political spectrum that are warning us are being called "disgruntled, quacks, etc"

Can you remember your history when the accepted belief was that the Earth was flat? That the Earth was the center of the universe? etc. The folks that told us that those "facts" were wrong were also called quacks and even heritics!

A country, a world, that can't see 50 years into the future? That is what we have become!

What is America today? American Idol contestants get more votes than are cast in the election of the leader of the free world!

I won't live another 50 years, but my neices and nephews will. Your children will. What are we going to leave them?

One of the things that always amazed me, and I know I will be flamed for this, is the attitude in NH that everything is okay, "Live Free or Die".

That is a political statement, originating in the birth of our country. It does NOT mean "anything goes" especially regarding the quality of life of residents.

NH relies on a substantial tourism trade that focuses and promotes a prestine environment. How many times have folks on this board lamented the deterierating quality of the water of Lake Winnipesaukee? When I was a child growing up on the lake during the summer months, we use to lay a rubber pipe into the water. That pipe provided us with all of our unfiltered drinking water. I can tell you that I never NEVER suffered ill effects, not even diahrea!

It certainly would be in the best economic and environmental interest for the state to take a leadership role in preventing global warming and anything else that is a threat to the environment!

Just my humble opinion...flame away

Please forgive spelling errors

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

One of the things that always amazed me, and I know I will be flamed for this, is the attitude in NH that everything is okay, Live Free or Die.

Proper text for Live Free Or Die:

The motto was part of a volunteer toast which General Stark sent to his wartime comrades, in which he declined an invitation to head up a 32nd anniversary reunion of the 1777 Battle of Bennington in Vermont, because of poor health. The toast said in full: "Live Free Or Die; Death Is Not The Worst of Evils." The following year, a similar invitation (also declined) said: "The toast, sir, which you sent us in 1809 will continue to vibrate with unceasing pleasure in our ears, "Live Free Or Die; Death Is Not The Worst Of Evils."

A little different in its original text than "everything is okay".

http://www.state.nh.us/nhinfo/emblem.html

http://www.seacoastsearch.com/nhlinks/people/johnstark/

[Lakegeezer]

Its obvious we are in a warming period, and one that could last for decades or longer. However, I haven't seen any study that shows what would happen if greenhouse gas levels were reduced, or how much reduction would be required to stop the climate change. Sun cycles and volcanos contribute too. If everyone started using solar, wind and nuclear power to charge electric cars and heat homes, would the climate stop warming? Would it even slow down? Is changing to cars that get 50 MPG enough? There are political reasons for getting away from oil, but the alternatives are not here yet, nor are the models that predict the climate results.

[Waterbaby]

with all of the talk about global warming, greenhouse effect,etc. going on...... seems to me it has to be every country (and their inhabitants) in the world working together to do something about it and the likelihood of that is slim to none, IMO....... and with that said, i hope this isn't just another "jump on the bandwagon" thing that our politicians have going, to appeal to the "treehuggers" or "green" people in this country. do i think there is global warming going on? yes. and i base this on my own experience - wednesday was an absolutely, totally, gorgeous day here. mid-70s, dry, breezy, bright blue sky with white puffy clouds. the kind of day that used to be the norm, 20-25 years ago and even 10-12 years ago. THAT is what made me start to thingk there is something to all of this talk about the above. what can we do about it? i don't know. i DO know, however, that i am doing what i can -- recycling, composting, getting paper instead of plastic at the grocery store, asking that my meats (even at the grocery store) be wrapped in butcher paper instead of the plastic trays and saran wrap..... i don't know what difference my little bit is going to make, be it in 5, 50, or 500 years, but i'm trying.

just my rant, sorry for the lack of punctuation and proper capitalization - for those who know me you know i don't usually do this but i had to get this out. off of my soapbox now.

[Airwaves]

The biggest point.....BIGGEST POINT... of my post is to say

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE RELIES ON TOURISM. TOURISM IN NEW HAMPSHIRE RELIES ON ITS PRESTINE BEAUTY!

New Hampshire "Tree huggers" are bad because they protect the very economic engine that keeps New Hampshire viable!

The " Greens", Hell, they should be shot along side the tree huggers while chained to a Christmas Tree (largest tree left in NH without those annoying tree huggers and Greens.

Is this limited to the United States? Nope, Is the United States the country the world looks toward for leadership. Maybe, maybe not. The United States has not signed the Kyoto Treaty.

So, want to breath some clean air and swim in clean water? Why come to NH? As I have said, I used to be able to lay a rubber pipe 10 feet into the water and drink without any problem.

Anyone want to try that now?

Would elimination of reliance on fosil fuels change anything at this point? Maybe, maybe it's too late.

What are you going to tell your children and grandchildren that YOU did to change things?

[JPC]

I haven't seen anyone mention that the global warming issue was important enough to merit a news segment by Charlie Gibson. I don't understand the science that goes in determining temperature levels in past history. So, I'm not going to ask to see the detail reports/data that were used to come to the global warming conclusions. I trust that the scientists know what they are doing and that global warming warnings are not a scare tactics.

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Can you remember your history when the accepted belief was that the Earth was flat? That the Earth was the center of the universe? etc. The folks that told us that those "facts" were wrong were also called quacks and even heritics!

Perhaps, some day, the question will be, "Can you remember your history when the accepted belief was that humans caused Global Warming?"

Some interesting reading:

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/extinction.html

and also

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/extinctheory.html

Note: Read "The common ground", Number 1, about global climatic change, just for giggles...

[jbess]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

What is America today? American Idol contestants get more votes than are cast in the election of the leader of the free world!

This pretty much sums up the problems of our Country today!

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by airwaves

What is America today? American Idol contestants get more votes than are cast in the election of the leader of the free world!

Originally Posted by jbess

This pretty much sums up the problems of our Country today!

Sound bites like this are part of the problem. There is plenty of mis-information around global warming. Now that it is becoming a political issue, the spin doctors are hard at work for political gain. The truth is no longer important.

I agree with the intent of jbess's post; voters are part of the problem today. The US got what it voted for and so can't complain. However, the sound bite implying that more people voted for american idol than the president is nothing but spin. There was clearly more votes, but not more people voting. The voting systems could not be more different. With american idol, people voted with telephone and text messaging. They were allowed to vote as many times as they wanted to, within 2 hours. Most fans vote at least several times, the crazies vote 100's of times. In the US system, most people (except those in Florida and Ohio) get to vote only once.

Much like the speed limit discussion, I fear that the spin doctors will use mis-information as a control tactic, yet focus on new rules that have no impact on the real issue.

[jbess]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

I agree with the intent of jbess's post; voters are part of the problem today. The US got what it voted for and so can't complain. However, the sound bite implying that more people voted for american idol than the president is nothing but spin. There was clearly more votes, but not more people voting. The voting systems could not be more different. With american idol, people voted with telephone and text messaging. They were allowed to vote as many times as they wanted to, within 2 hours. Most fans vote at least several times, the crazies vote 100's of times. In the US system, most people (except those in Florida and Ohio) get to vote only once.

Just to clearify, I am not of the party that believes the elections were stolen in 2000 and 2004. I was mearly agreeing to the fact that there is MUCH more interest in silly things like American Idol contests than things that really matter. I don't believe it is spin, but fact, that this country has taken a turn for the worst. Case in point, that the mere fact that there is legislation taking place for speed limits on the lake because of the lack of personal responsability is just more proof.

Joe

[Airwaves]

I'm interested in your credentials as a scientist. I have none but I tend to take any reports made by them with a grain of salt.

Okay, I guess they're all wrong and you're right cause you want global warming to be just one of those issues that will go away.

Now all those scientists can get on with the really important questions of the day....like "do you want fries with that"? and "Who is the next American Idol"?

[Weekend Pundit]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Okay, I guess they're all wrong and you're right cause you want global warming to be just one of those issues that will go away.

No, they're not all wrong. Many climate scientists disagree with them, some because the methodolgy used is sloppy or suspect, as are some of their motives.

Earlier you asked me if I was a scientist. No, I am not. I am an engineer with a Masters in Physics, one used to dealing with data, using it to design, build, test, and if need be, redesign, rebuild, and retest advanced electronic and optical instruments. I understand scientific method: observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena; formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation; use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations; performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments. I use it, or a variation of it, when delving into new territory when developing new instruments using bleeding edge technologies or working with PhDs to advance our understanding of optical phenomena.


I understand the process of peer review, which means to have the theory one has put forward reviewed by one's peers, both those that agree and disagree with it. If it is reviewed only by those who agree with it, then the review is suspect. It may cause a self-perpetuating positive feedback loop, blocking out all opinions or data that disagree with the theorem, particularly those that show the theory to be flawed. It is this problem that I see with the many proponents of anthropogenic global climate change. It is the problem with the National Academy of Sciences, a body that is supposed to be apolitical and open minded. It hasn't been open minded since the 70's and is less so today. It has become far too political to be considered unbiased.


In my previous post I mentioned the Mann “hockey stick” graph, the one that shows a marked increase in global temperatures over the past 100 years or so. It was used by the NAS as one of the proofs that human-caused global warming was indeed happening. But that graph has been debunked as being based upon questionable data, has not undergone true peer review, and neither has the algorithm used to generate the graph. For background on the Mann graph, here is a paper that addresses the issues with the graph, the data that was used to generate the graph, and well established historical data that was ignored by Mann and his colleagues because it didn't fit in with the theory:


http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf



Other theories with a good deal of verifiable data that point to other causes of global climate change have been ignored out of hand. One such has been postulated by Dr. Henrik Svensmark of the Danish Space Research Institute. Svensmark theorizes that the sun's output is the major driver of climate change throughout history, barring such things as volcanic eruptions and extraterrestrial events (asteroid strikes). He backs it up using carbon dating techniques on layers of soils, peat, and other organic layers in clay and sedimentary rock to determine the solar output throughout the past millennia: http://www.dsri.dk/~hsv/Noter/solsys99.html



Others have checked his data, including some of his skeptics, and so far no one has been able to prove his theory wrong. Yet others have gone beyond Svensmark's initial work and looked back a number of millennia and still his theory holds up.


The one thing I have learned over the years is that just because the media splashes theories of global warming across the pages/TV screens/computer displays doesn't mean they're valid. All theories should be taken with a large grain of salt until others have had a chance to dig deep and prove or disprove them. Anthropogenic global warming is one of those that should be looked at with skeptical eye. There are still too many unanswered questions, too many flawed computer models that are being used to extrapolate what Earth's climate will be like over the next 100 years. Basing environmental policies upon a problem that may not even exist is foolish at best and extremely dangerous at worst.

[Airwaves]

So now the results of the research into Global Warming, that MOST scientists agree with, is media driven!

As I said, let's just move on to the important issues of the day, American Idol, because if you and yours take the results of studies "with a grain of salt" and "scientists have an agenda" then there is absolutely nothing I am going to say to change your mind.

[Weekend Pundit]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

So now the results of the research into Global Warming, that MOST scientists agree with, is media driven!

As I said, let's just move on to the important issues of the day, American Idol, because if you and yours take the results of studies "with a grain of salt" and "scientists have an agenda" then there is absolutely nothing I am going to say to change your mind.

Believe it or not, many scientists do have an agenda. It's called "funding". If you think that it is merely altruism that drives scientists, then you are sadly mistaken. It is funding. Funding is what enables scientists to do their research. Altrusim does not. Global warming is the research subject du jour, garnering much of the interest and a lot of funding.

And most scientists do not agree with the results of the research, at least when it comes to anthropogenic global warming. Only the most vocal and politically correct scientists appear to agree. Most of those who disagree rarely get the media play, or are derided as crackpots, or seem to have their funding slashed.

Am I a cynic when it comes to this partcular subject? You betcha. I've seen too much of what I've described here in the halls of academia, government, and in the corporate world. I speak from experience, not ideology.

[Airwaves]

As I stated, I am not going to write anything that will change your mind, not with the attitude that you "take the research with a grain of salt" or, "Scientists have an agenda" (yep, funding is an issue but if the scientists are wrong, then their reputation and future funding sources instantly dry up, that's generally known as peer review). Or, my favorite, "Most scientists do not agree with the research". Those would be the " most scientists" who still believe smoking does not cause lung cancer? (now whose funding source is in question?)

It appears that you folks who believe everything is just fine, find a few scientists who disagree that the earth is subject to global warming and that that the majority of the global warming has occurred based on what "we" have done in the 20th century, so it must be so...

So scientific resarch isn't to be trusted, media reports on that scientific research isn't to be trusted, but God bless the politicians (scientists all!) who have kept us on the straight and narrow and away from Kyoto! (BTW, the US Govt is a major scientific funding source as well).

One day, your kids will thank you.

edit:
Don't know how to show you how I edited my post, Here are the edits
(that's generally known as peer review) and
"God bless the politicians (scientists all!)"

[Great Idea]

Weekend Pundit.... you reference McKitrick's articles as others supporting your opinion have on this post. You speak of FUNDING? Guess who has paid for all of his "research" and "articles"? The COAL and OIL industry. Internal documents and emails published from the oil/coal industry lobbyists admit to such studies and articles done to create "confusion" and doubt regarding the theories of global warming.

The hockey stick is very relavent data. In only several other periods over the last many thousands of years have steeper spikes been seen in increased temperature as we have seen in the last 140 years. (YES , these temperatures can be accurately measured scientifically via ice cores, tree rings and tree fossils as well as sediment layers) In either case it involved a CATASTROPHIC event. Volcanoes and meterors were the culprits. So why such a steep increase and dramatic change in such a SHORT amount of time? What is the catastrophic event this time? ( Yes 140 years is VERY short) CO2 and green house gases are clearly contributing to the dramactic changes we are all witnessing around us. The evidence that fossil fuels is contributing to this are overwhelming.

The final flaw and myth in your arguement is that scientists don't agree. Over 80 percent of the scientific community is in AGREEMENT regarding global warming and as to its root causes. Go to all the major research foundations and communities in the world and verify this for yourself. Only a few stand against the tide .... like McKitrick..... who along with most of his peers are paid lobbyists working for the fossil fuel industry. This isn't liberal noise.....

My final observation although not scientific should stir some consideration among skeptics....... just look around you! Do you really think all this drought then rain/flooding is normal?? 23 inches of rain since MAY1... we normally get 6 or 7. Just look at the flooding this spring, last fall as well as the hurricanes last season....... whats your gut tell you? Sure it happens once in a while but not every few months like it is now. My gut tells me that we need to start paying attention to what our earth/environment is trying to tell us...... something is "OFF" with our climate and we are contributing to it. AND we need to do EVERYTHING in our power to try and change it.

[Weekend Pundit]

Airwaves: I haven't said that I disagree that global warming, or rather, global climate change is occuring. Rather, I am disagreeing with the stated cause. Climate changes all the time. Anyone that believes the climate has always been like it has been over the last few decades is deluded or misinformed.

To hear some tell it, all climate change everywhere is our fault. This includes many of the same scientists that so many hold in such high regard, even though their theories, their computer models, and so on, haven't been able to predict what will happen next year, let alone 100 years in the future. That makes it all suspect.

Great Idea: In regards to funding, where do you think the scientists who say all global climate change is human-caused get their funding? I think you'll find that quite a bit of it comes from organizations, governmental agencies, or corporations that have a lot to gain should that be the case. The vested interest door swings both ways.

[Great Idea]

BUT not this fast without a direct cause. No one is disputing that is changes .... just as to the RATE at which it changes. Only drastic influences cause such dramatic changes in such a short period of time..... ie huge volcanic eruptions, meteors OR IN THIS CASE MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF CO2 EMMISSIONS THAT ARE MAN MADE...... As for who funds these so called "liberal" studies? You can look at all the different scientific groups that support these claims and there is a VAST array of sources and governments funding the data. Much of it comes from our own government. Many of these climate studies are continuously funded NO MATTER what the conclusions and unfortunately the funding hasn't increased with these findings at all. Many of the universities and NASA which is measuring this data is doing so much the way they always have. Are they now making it up to get .... what? Unlike the "science" you quote that gets paid directly fees to "testify" and contradict the facts for a fee. Most of the world's science supporting these conclusions don't have any agenda or benefit from such findings, unfortunely they just have environmental problems that need solutions.

Unlike your quoted sources that have a huge agenda called MONEY.

Heres some food for thought Weekend Pundit...... if your I am wrong and you are correct and we follow the majority of the available scientific data now available supporting global warming/CO2 we just end up with a cleaner environment and some much needed new industry...... IF you are wrong and I am right yet we continue to do little and nothing, keep the status quo of fossil fuel waste (your way) and the results are catastrophic environmental damage and possibly worse......... which side of that equation do you really want to be on??? Lets play it safe and clean up our act so that our children and future generations will look back and be proud of what we accomplished.

[SIKSUKR]

I love all this talk about CO2 emmisions causing global warming.Now tell us how you would change this short of going back to the stone age.Any ideas that help help reduce emmisions are worth exploring and we have already made great strides since the 70's,but to think we can switch away from fossil fuels with the snap of a finger is very niave.The developing countries would almost certainly not go along with these drastic changes and we have to be competitive in the world market.The one good thing about high oil prices is it makes other energy sources more competitive and in turn can spurn the growth towards alternative energy.There is nothing wrong about exploring other energy sources that will be clean burning or zero emmisions but were not prepared to switch over.I would love to see the US have zero dependence on oil if for nothing else,not being under the thumb of the big oil producing middle east.We are heading in the right direction,just don't let the chicken little scare tactics shape our society.

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by Weekend Pundit

For background on the Mann graph, here is a paper that addresses the issues with the graph, the data that was used to generate the graph, and well established historical data that was ignored by Mann and his colleagues because it didn't fit in with the theory

This is a very interesting read. There are two points that jump out; Mann's results do not seem to be reproducible and Mann seems to be unwilling to assist (even hindering) those trying to verify his work. Even without expertise in the subject matter these are significant reasons to question the conclusions that Mann draws as well as questioning his integrity.

In my opinion, much scientific work suffers from these types of problems. The only check on scientific work is that results are repeatable by other scientists, especially critics, and that rigorous review over time yields consistent results. This requires scientists to publish details of their research and support an open review process.

The current state of Global Warming theory is largely initial publication of observations and proposed explanations (theories) for those observations. They have not been replicated and reviewed. In fact, many articles that declare new observations often make comment about the fact that the current computer models can't explain the new data. That means that the existing models and the assumptions they were based on are WRONG. If we can't accurately predict climate behavior that is occurring right now, why would we think we have the slightest chance to predict climate changes 20 years or more from now?

If the "fix" for global warming was for everyone to chip in a few bucks and build a giant air conditioner for the planet I'd say, GREAT, let's do it. Even if they were wrong the cost is negligible and the impact controllable. However, the "fix" that is actually proposed would be severely crippling to our economy with a minimal impact on the problem. We simply do not have enough reliable information for a commitment of that scale.

[SIKSUKR]

[QUOTE=Airwaves]I've tried to ignore these threads, but when I see posts comparing the conditions on earth several thousands years ago, or even 1-thousand, or 2-hundred years ago, to the conditions of today, I have to wonder what the folks suggesting that, this is the way things are, are thinking!

Let's start with the most recent comparison,


Can you remember your history when the accepted belief was that the Earth was flat? That the Earth was the center of the universe? etc. The folks that told us that those "facts" were wrong were also called quacks and even heritics!

This is a great argument.Let me see.At the same time people thought the earth was flat they burned witches at the stake.The Romans worshiped all of those Gods that ruled the world.Yup,kill all of those Christians cuz their evil.Give me a break.We have the right to use slaves to the death to build those pyramids.Yup,a solar eclipse meant the gods were mad and the world was about to end.Come on.There was a lot of backward thinking in centuries past.Dont try to justify your point by midevil thinking cuz it only sounds midevil.I think our thinking is a lot more advanced today than to say"but,people used to think the world was flat".

[Airwaves]

SIKSUKR wrote:

This is a great argument.Let me see.At the same time people thought the earth was flat they burned witches at the stake.The Romans worshiped all of those Gods that ruled the world.Yup,kill all of those Christians cuz their evil.Give me a break.We have the right to use slaves to the death to build those pyramids.Yup,a solar eclipse meant the gods were mad and the world was about to end.Come on.There was a lot of backward thinking in centuries past.Dont try to justify your point by midevil thinking cuz it only sounds midevil.I think our thinking is a lot more advanced today than to say"but,people used to think the world was flat".

Exactly! At one time all those things were blindly accepted. Today we know that they are blatantly wrong!

Page 4 of today's 6/23 Boston Herald coincidentally carries a story headlined
"Gosh, it hasn't been this hot in about uh, 2000 years"
It's an Associated Press report on a Congressional request of the National Academy of Sciences. It concluded "recent warmth is uprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia".

The article also shows new research linking global warming to the production of half the hurricane fuled warmth in the North Atlantic in 2005.

They also studied evidence of the climate going back thousands of years and:

"The panel considered the evidence reliable enought to conclude there were sharp spikes in "greenhouse" gasses blamed for trapping heat in the atmosphere, beginning in the 20th century, after remaining fairly level for 12,000 years".

Unfortunately I couldn't find a link to the article on line but since it is an Associated Press story I'm sure it will turn up in other papers that may have a link.

[Weekend Pundit]

I saw reports about the "warmest in 2000 years" claim. One of the TV reports showed the so-called hockey stick chart, showing greatly increased temperatures over the last 100 years or so. The only problem with that chart is that it is a fraud. It was never reviewed by the rest of the climatological community, the algoritm was never released or subjected to a Monte Carlo analysis, and the media and the It's-All-The-Fault-Of-The-Evil-Humans Club seized upon it to 'prove' that human caused global climate change is fact.

It is not. It is still a theory with a lot of holes in it.

Frankly, I am more inclined to believe the solar output theory of climate change. There's a hell of a lot more evidence that the sun is the major driver of climate change and not homo sapiens.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Weekend Pundit

I saw reports about the "warmest in 2000 years" claim. One of the TV reports showed the so-called hockey stick chart, showing greatly increased temperatures over the last 100 years or so. The only problem with that chart is that it is a fraud. It was never reviewed by the rest of the climatological community, the algoritm was never released or subjected to a Monte Carlo analysis, and the media and the It's-All-The-Fault-Of-The-Evil-Humans Club seized upon it to 'prove' that human caused global climate change is fact.

It is not. It is still a theory with a lot of holes in it.

Frankly, I am more inclined to believe the solar output theory of climate change. There's a hell of a lot more evidence that the sun is the major driver of climate change and not homo sapiens.

Whoa WP,

Been there done that, don't know what your getting yourself into, but I am one of the few here that agrees with you.

[Airwaves]

Okay Weekend Pundit,

So, you are a scientist that has reseached this, perhaps you are a member of the National Academy of Sciences that made its report to Congress this week and you have an opposing point of view?

If you are a scientist then speak up and show us your credentials and show how the National Acacemy of Sciences is wrong.

If you are just another lamb being lead to slaughter, well... I guess you don't need to know what real scientists believe now do you? All you have to do is believe what the politiians tell you to believe.

Don't worry, after you're dead your kids will be left to sort things out.

After all, I quoted that bastion of liberalism, the Boston Herald!

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Okay Weekend Pundit,

So, you are a scientist that has reseached this, perhaps you are a member of the National Academy of Sciences that made its report to Congress this week and you have an opposing point of view?

If you are a scientist then speak up and show us your credentials and show how the National Acacemy of Sciences is wrong.

If you are just another lamb being lead to slaughter, well... I guess you don't need to know what real scientists believe now do you? All you have to do is believe what the politiians tell you to believe.

Don't worry, after you're dead your kids will be left to sort things out.

After all, I quoted that bastion of liberalism, the Boston Herald!

I'm interested in your credentials as a scientist. I have none but I tend to take any reports made by them with a grain of salt. Often, scientists have a specific goal in mind when the research begins, and having such, clouds their judgement.

As an interesting parable, one could say that you have found a study that says exactly what you already believed and have used it as a confirmation that you were right all along. Why not start digging for papers that oppose your own views and really broaden your mind?

FWIW, I think global warming is probably happening but somehow I doubt a miniscule increase in carbon dioxide is gonna cause it. We are talking about a change from .002% to .0035% (worst case) CO2 in the atmosphere. It's such a tiny amount in the whole scheme of things.

What if this CO2 increase helped plants grow and decreased world hunger?