Help me debunk this Global warming "debunking" BS!

[iconoclastic cat]

Okay, DUers, I need a bit of help debunking this global warming denial from a raving wingnut. Any info will be greatly appreciated.

Global Warming between Ice Ages

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/viewArticle.do?id=9986
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/cycles.htm
http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/viewArticle.do?id=10046
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/Ice_Age.html

"The significance of the fact, immediately grasped by any competent climatologist, is that glacial advance is an early warning sign of Northern Hemisphere chilling of the sort that can bring on an Ice Age. The last Little Ice Age continued from about 1400 to 1850. It was followed by a period of slight warming. There are a growing number of signs that we may be descending into another Little Ice Age—all the mountains of “global warming” propaganda aside.

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/pr/00/02/iceAge.html
http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/views04/0130-11.htm
http://nov55.com/gbwm.html

Enjoy. I tried to keep it to a number of education, scientific, and non-political organizations.

And before you say, "Why don't you just do it yourself, IC?" I am, in fact, trying to get through it, but I'm also trying to get some actual work done. Besides, several thousand heads are better than one.

Thanks much!

[rusty charly]

1. "any competent climatologist"

that is such a "smoke and mirros".

if you have a "competent climatologist" on your side: name him.

[Finder]

2. We are approaching an ice age of sorts...

in the northern hemisphere due to global warming. Why else do you think the world is fighting for resources? The DOD expects we will be affected around 2010.

[phrenzy]

46. Buzz Click: Is the 'Jury Still Out' On Evolution As Well?

After all, there are some "creation scientists" that dispute it.

You say you happen to 'believe' in global warming, as if it is a spiritual belief? If you believe the scientists who are 'deniers' of man's effect on climate change are credible, then why do you believe it yourself? After all, they have access to the same information as you, right?

And you're attempts at defending the guy you keep citing as a 'leading scientist' are laughable. When you yourself have come right out and admitted that he has 'whored himself out' for corporate interests. Haha, even after admitting that you still would have people believe that he should be taken seriously on this subject.. riiiight. Let's see, 'leading scientist' with history of selling out to big money interests promoting a theory that will directly effect the bottom line of big business... But but.. THIS TIME... he's being sincere.. HONEST! ... yeah man... sounds real credible.

[Buzz Clik]

48. Oh, brother.

Are you going to tell me you've worked out all the details of creation/evolution? No questions left to answer? Of course not -- there's still room for skepticism on some aspects of the details. That doesn't keep me from believing in evolution, but it does keep me from stating categorically that "there is absolutely no disagreement among scientists" on the subject. And, for the fifth time, that was my only point.

"You say you happen to 'believe' in global warming, as if it is a spiritual belief? If you believe the scientists who are 'deniers' of man's effect on climate change are credible, then why do you believe it yourself? After all, they have access to the same information as you, right?" Where did I say that? I'm willing to discuss a lot of issues, but I won't defend things I never said.

"And you're attempts at defending the guy you keep citing as a 'leading scientist' are laughable." I defended a leading scientist? In what way? Do tell...

I get the distinct impression you have no idea whatsoever what I've been trying to say.

[sakabatou]

3. The Little Ice Age was mainly in Northern Europe and parts of Asia

In other parts of the globe, there were droughts and unusually high temperatures.

[Finder]

5. Correct. n/t

[Yupster]

44. I was just at the Athabascian Glacier

in Alberta and they said they estimate the glacier has been receding since the 1840's.

[zbdent]

4. Is the nut a fundie religious type?

If so, then he would have to acknowledge that the Earth is far older than the Bible would paint it, for the theory of the "Ice Age cycle" argument they love to try to hit you with ...

[Finder]

6. I think some are assuming this is a debunking but it isn't...

Global warming can lead to cooling or a mini ice age in some areas.

http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/viewArticle.do?id=10148

This is not a religious view by any means.

[Xithras]

20. Very true. Many people miss the fact that warming can cause cooling.

Simply put: When you warm the oceans, you increase evaporation and cloud cover. Increased cloud cover causes increased precipitation and can lead to surface temperature reductions. If the temperature over the continents drops at a faster rate than the temperature of the ocean, you get ground accumulation of snow and can spark an ice age.

A lot of people get jumpy about debunker's and try to refute even scientifically valid information simply because it is sent by a suspect source. For example, the debunker claim that much of the temperature increase from 1850 was actually a climactic recovery from the Little Ice Age is actually 100% correct. Although the theories range from asteroids to interstellar dust, the most probable cause for the Little Ice Age was the combination of the solar minimum and an increased period of volcanic activity. These caused dramatic changes in weather patterns around the world, and caused the temperatures in North America and Europe to plummet. The global warming following the termination of the Little Ice Age was an expected normalization of global temperatures following the end of that anomaly, and accounts for up to 75% of the global warming we've experienced since that date.

Does this refute global warming? Absolutely not. The problem with MODERN global warming is the additional (and continuing) 25% increase beyond the previous highs. The best yardstick we have is the Medieval Warm Period, as it shows us what a "normal" warming period SHOULD look like. According to the National Academy of Sciences (who conducted a federally funded survey in the late 90's, using everything from ice cores to tree rings), we hit the high end of "normal" about 25 years ago. Starting in the 1970's, we entered a period of continuing warming that is unprecedented since the end of the last ice age. THAT is what we need to be concerned about. If the warming had ended in 1975, then "debunker's" who use the Little Ice Age, precession, and solar activity to explain away the warming would have been correct. The continuation of the warming beyond what we would have expected from natural factors is solid evidence that something new is happening this time around. Increased CO2 concentrations from human activity are a valid scientific explanation for that change, fit the evidence, and are the ONLY major difference that we have been able to find between this and previous warming periods.

There is really no question (in the scientific community) that a large part of the global warming experienced over the past 150 years is perfectly natural. There is ALSO no real question that humans have exacerbated the issue. Human pollution caused the temperatures to climb at a faster rate than normally would have been expected (the amount of warming we are experiencing is about 50-100 years ahead of "normal"), and to continue climbing beyond the point where historical data indicates that it should have stopped. The BIGGEST problem with human induced global warming is that there is STILL no indication that it's going to stop, and accepted scientific theories hold that is will NOT stop until we reduce our CO2 output.

[Finder]

27. I think sometimes the way questions are framed regarding...

global warming leads to confusing answers or at least answers that seem to contradict--which they don't.

Governments need to work with the worst probable scenario in order to be prepared. Industry tends to gamble based on economics...and scientists need to work with real data and apply that data to models based on probabilities.

Warming trends are natural as well as contributed by man and no scientist disputes this. What some dispute is what the result will be or what should be done. As you noted, volcanic activity and such can disrupt any consistent trend modeled.

The whole thing should not be a political issue.

[Xithras]

28. Agreed. The politicization of global warming was a terrible mistake.

It was inevitable that it would eventually move into the realm of politics, but I honestly feel that the entire global warming debate has turned more political than scientific. It's a debate between "our" politicians and "their" politicians, with each side citing its pet scientists to reinforce its point...and each side ignoring its own scientists when they proclaim opinions that don't support their political goals.

The entire issue should have never been politicized this way. The science should have been left to the scientists to debate, hammer out, and develop a consensus on. The role of politics should have been limited to deciding how to respond. The fact that the mere EXISTENCE of global warming has become a political debate points to a major and fundamental screwup by everyone involved.

[Buzz Clik]

41. Many (most) scientists have resisted the political slant. Unfortunately...

... some have not. As much as I admire and respect James Hansen and his opinions, I have been disappointed at his willingness to trot before Congress and get face time on television.

I've also been a bit alarmed at the rush to attribute the most recent trends in warmth to human causes. Nearly all of the objective projections suggest that anthropogenic contributions to temperature increases will be very, very modest over the next 20 years. Regardless of the cause, if this orb we call home continues to heat up, we'd better be prepared to make some adjustments.

[iconoclastic cat]

8. No, he's an evangelical who believes in ID and accepts the age

of the Earth as being trillions of years old.

[JHB]

12. Billions of years old

just sayin...

[Seabiscuit]

7. There isn't *any* disagreement among scientists about global warming.

To say that any climatologist disputes it is a bold faced lie.

Weathermen on TV whose salaries are paid by FOX, MSNBC, CNN, etc., yes. Real scientists, no.

TV weathermen are not climatologists, nor are they scientists in any way shape or form, no matter how the bobbleheads may falsely claim that they're National Weather Service "experts".

[iconoclastic cat]

9. You and I believe that, but how to counter his argument? nt

[Buzz Clik]

10. Errr... that's a major overstatement.

There are plenty of credible arguments out there that question human contributions to global warming. I'm not talking about the bizarre interpretations of scientific literature or a bunch of happy crap from junkscience.com. I'm referring to honest-to-God reasonable scientists who don't fully buy the whole scenario.

Keep in mind that the Al Gore style global climate crisis is based on some enormous extrapolations and iffy modeling (the modeling isn't bad, and the science behind it is good -- but predicting weather 50 years from now? Yikes!). There's plenty of room for skepticism even if you believe the science.

(Please don't assume wrongly that I some discount the notion of anthropogenic contributions to global warming. However, to say "There isn't *any* disagreement among scientists about global warming" is flatly wrong.)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

11. Um, no there aren't.

It's like saying there are credible scientists out there who aren't to sure about this Darwin fellow.

[Buzz Clik]

14. LOL! That's just silly.

The greenhouse effect is recognized as being 100% true. But the melting of the ice caps and Greenland? Flooding of the coasts? Rampant spread of tropical diseases? No, that is not endorsed by every breathing scientist.

I happen to think that Fred Singer is a manipulative jackass, but he is a member of the National Academy and does not buy into the current "consensus" on global warming. Like it or not, he is a scientist, and that destroys the notion that "there isn't *any* disagreement among scientists about global warming."

If you want to take this further, be prepared to be very, very specific as to what "every" scientist believes about global warming.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

16. Fred Singer?

Isn't he on that panel put together by the petroleum industry whose evidence against global warming consisted of footage of a calving glacial played backwards?

Makes him about as credible as Michael Behe.

[Buzz Clik]

22. I wouldn't know.

Care for another? Try Fred Seitz. Past President of the National Academy. I wouldn't give you a nickel for his objectivity, but he too opposes all the conclusions of the IPCC.

Let's just be real careful in crafting your arguments. If you want to make inroads with those on the fence, don't fill the debate with easily disproved ca-ca.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

24. Fred Seitz?

The guy who once worked with Sun Yung Moon and worked with R.J. Reynolds to help prove that smoking tobacco wasn't good for you?

I still don't think you're helping your case much.

[Buzz Clik]

25. Are you reading my posts at all?

I will state -- for the THIRD TIME -- that 1) I fully support the notion that elevated CO2 pressures contribute to global warming, and 2) my one and only point is that saying that there are not any scientists who disagree about global warming is incorrect.

Settle down.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

26. Yeah, I'm talking about #2.

The "scientists" you're coming up with are, literally, the same "scientists" who say smoking isn't bad for you.

Do you go into smoking threads and say that there are scientists who disagree with the idea that smoking is bad for you? Of course not.

[Kashka-Kat]

32. Melting of ice caps not "recognized as true"? HUH?

Well, ya just lost me with that statement.

Direct observation tells us they ARE melting... hence decline in polar bear populations, collapse of antarctic ice shelves, shrinkage of glaciers, thinning of arctic ocean ice, earlier and earlier breakups of arctic ice, etc.

[Buzz Clik]

47. Exactly, Let me share this:

"Snowfall-driven Growth in East Antarctic Ice Sheet Mitigates Recent Sea-level Rise," by Davis et al., Science, June 24, 2005. If you read the article, you'll see what I mean.

[Buzz Clik]

19. deleted (misplaced response) n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

23. Fred Seitz?

He's also worked for Sun Yung Moon and worked with R.J. Reynolds to help prove that tobacco wasn't bad for you.

I don't think you're helping your case much.

[SheilaT]

13. Please name some of those

"honest-to-God reasonable scientists" and tell me where to find their peer-reviewed publications.

Al Gore said in his movie that of several thousand peer-reviewed articles, only two expressed any doubts about global warming. But half of all articles in the main stream media express such doubts. So again, point me in the direction (name names and publications) of those reputable scientists who think global warming is in doubt.

[Buzz Clik]

15. I'll quote you (and Al Gore):

"only two expressed any doubts about global warming." There you go. Two is greater than zero, and my one and only argument on this thread is that saying there is no dissent within the scientific ranks is nonsense.

[Beaverhausen]

18. One of them just wrote a piece stating his findings have been distorted

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/27/opinion/27doran.html?ex=1311652800&en=870956966cbf5101&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

"Our results have been misused as “evidence” against global warming by Michael Crichton in his novel “State of Fear” and by Ann Coulter in her latest book, “Godless: The Church of Liberalism.” Search my name on the Web, and you will find pages of links to everything from climate discussion groups to Senate policy committee documents — all citing my 2002 study as reason to doubt that the earth is warming. One recent Web column even put words in my mouth. I have never said that “the unexpected colder climate in Antarctica may possibly be signaling a lessening of the current global warming cycle.” I have never thought such a thing either."

[Buzz Clik]

21. Excellent quote. Crichton's book was unintentional comedy.

[joeunderdog]

43. You will find doctors who smoke, too. sssssoooooo?

The BushCo Pentagon's #1 threat?
Iran? nope
North Korea? nope
nuclear waste? nope
overpopulation? nope


.....................Global Warming

[Buzz Clik]

45. Please follow along.

I was responding to the comment that there was absolutely no disagreement among scientists about global warming.

[SheilaT]

49. Two out of several thousand.

That's as close to consensus as you'll ever find.

Personally, I'll go with those numbers, and anyone who still chooses to believe that "the jury is out" about global warming is free to believe that, just as people are free to believe in anything they want to. No matter how silly, illogical, or wrong. Of course, some things cross over to illegality, such as if you believe it's okay to murder persons of a certain class, or even just at random. but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about the overwhelming weight of scientific opinion. Again, I want to see the peer-reviewed studies that do cast doubt on global warming.

When it comes to studies of the efficacy of new drugs, there's almost always a lot more uncertainty than there is with global warming, but new drubs get approved nonetheless. If the friend prefers to think that it's not proven, he can just go ahead. Tell him it's all mass hysteria and he should simply not use his air conditioning so much.

[Buzz Clik]

50. No room for skepticism? All the parameters mapped out?

Although I certainly agree that global warming must be addressed, I have great reservations about some of the specific predictions.

Examples: In Gore's movie, he showed CO2 levels increasing dramatically of the next decades. Remember when he got on the cherry picker and moved it waaaaay up? The implication was that the temperature would follow the CO2 in linear fashion. Do you believe all that? What will be the corresponding temperature increase?

Have you read Bjorn Lomborg? You personally -- have you read his book? It's very broad and has been ripped by various specialists, but he does make some good points and quotes tons of sources. (Actually, Crichton's silly novel used Lomborg's references almost exclusively -- I found that to be amusing.) So, if you're making a tally, make that three scientists.

In another posting on this thread, I referred to the article, "Snowfall-driven Growth in East Antarctic Ice Sheet Mitigates Recent Sea-level Rise." by Davis et al., Science June 24, 2005. That points out some of the complexities in changes in climate even within the Antarctic that makes accurate, definitive predictions impossible. You should check it out. (scientist number 4).

The global warming issue needs sensible debate on both sides. Hysteria from the right cannot be balanced by hysteria from the left. We need intelligent dialog.

[joeunderdog]

51. Balanced or "sensible" debate doesn't mean the truth lies halfway

between the extremes. The RW uses that math to distort the truth all the time. Tell an outrageous lie and get them to believe half of it and you will always win more than if you deal with factual debates. If 99% of scientists say it is so, then calling them extreme is folly. Because they predict "extreme" weather doesn't make their opinion extreme.

This is not about politics, left and right. It's about CO2 and the fact that we are at a level in time never reached in the last 600,000+ years. The results, so far, have gone according to the predicted patterns described by those following it, with some exception. Basing a whole skepticism and philosophy on the exceptions doesn't provide balance, sensibility or fair mindedness.

[SheilaT]

52. I'm reminded of the

classic "balanced" reporting. Treating an extreme minority opinion as if it is equally valid as the overwhelming majority.

"Scholars claim the world is round. Opinions differ. Details at 11."

And, wow, three out of thousands. Yes, you're right in that it is not utterly unanimous about global warming, but you -- or at least the so-called dissenters here -- are being somewhat disingenuous, rather like the way anti-evolutionists (otherwise known as ID proponents, creationists, crackpots, or ignorant) latch onto the fact that scientists have valid debates over the exact mechanisms that drive evolution and pretend that means scientists don't agree about the fact of evolution.

Yes, climate changes, dramatic climate changes, have occurred many times over the billions of years since the earth cooled. I recently read a fascinating book "Snowball Earth" by Gabrielle Walker which describes a time about 600 million years ago when it seems our planet was completely and totally covered with ice. Why and how it happened, why and how the ice melted and life as we know it got started, is somewhat speculative but told in a clear way in this book.

Because things like climate and climate change -- not just the weather -- absolutely fascinate me, I've read a reasonable amount (although no doubt still a small percentage of the material available) about it. I understand that we can't know with certainty precisely what is triggering the current warming, but we have good reason to be very suspicious of the cause, as Al Gore so clearly points out.

And as I stated before, anyone is completely free to believe whatever they choose about anything, based on whatever evidence they find compelling. That is, after all, the basis of spiritual and religious beliefs. But don't be too surprised when, especially in the material realm, people find them preponderance of evidence for human created global warming to be highly convincing, rather than any alternatives (including, apparently, that it's not really happening).

[Seabiscuit]

29. Err... that's absolutely false.

"Plenty of credible arguments out there that question human contributions to global warming"??? ONLY if you find the right-wing lies "credible".

Name ONE "honest-to-God reasonable scientist" who questions human contributions to global warming. Just one. You can't, because such scientists simply do not exist. Consensus on human contributions to global warming is absolutly 100% in the scientific community. By contrast, 53% of media articles falsely pretend there is some dispute where in fact there is none. You've been indulging yourself too much in the latter.

Read up about it before spouting off such falsehoods.

And if you don't have time to read, at least see Gore's film, "An Inconvenient Truth".

Edited to add: the so-called "scientists" you've referenced elsewhere in the thread are poseur wack-jobs representing corrupt interests.

Not one *serious* or *credible* (or in your words, "honest-to-God reasonable") scientist would dispute the fact of human contribution to global warming.

[Buzz Clik]

30. 100%? Not a chance.

You cannot get scientists to agree 100% on any subject, and this is no exception.

There are plenty of skeptics -- not about the existence of the greenhouse effect and contributions from greenhouse gases, but the long-term impacts. Seriously, do you really believe every aspect of the models that predict climate 50 to 100 years from now? If you do, you are gullible. Even the top climatologists who make these predictions recognize the enormous uncertainties involved.

"By contrast, 53% of media articles falsely pretend there is some dispute where in fact there is none. You've been indulging yourself too much in the latter." I made no comment about the mass media. Stay on topic because I won't chase your red herrings.

"Edited to add: the so-called "scientists" you've referenced elsewhere in the thread are poseur wack-jobs representing corrupt interests." You are absolutely in no position to judge the credentials of the past President of the National Academy, particularly when he has decades of expertise in the subject at hand. Your strong opposition to his positions and his highly questionable tactics cannot be equated to him being a "wack job". I cannot believe you would even venture such a lame argument.

Although I personally do not doubt the anthropogenic contributions to global warming (which, by the way, have yet to have a significant impact), your arguments are empty and ridiculous. And, although I very much enjoyed Gore's film, I would never be so foolish to recommend it to anyone as a scientific investigation.

Read this thread closely, my friend, and choose your opponents wisely. I know this subject quite well from both sides. If I were skeptical of global warming, I could shred you with no problem. I strongly advise you to bone up on the facts before you venture into a serious argument about global warming with someone who has deep knowledge in the area.

[Seabiscuit]

33. You're in absolutely no position to lecture me, son.

You obviously have no basis for your argument because the only two "scientists" you could name are indeed fools who spout falsehoods for special right-wing interests, as already noted by others on this board. Anyone with any scientific credentials who sells out his principles for money and influence as the two that you referenced is deserving of being referred to as a "wack job". They are "hacks", to be more precise. And yes, I am, as a citizen of the world concerned about ecology, in the position to criticize them and, in fact, to judge them exactly as I have.

You should know better - just look at what you've done here - when asked to cite a "reasonable" scientist who disagrees with the other scientists about global warming you could only name two complete sell-out nut jobs who have absolutely no credibility in the scientific community on the issue. What's left of your position is nothing more than a complete train wreck.

I mentioned the 53% of the media spreading falsehoods about their being some dissent in the scientific community about global warming, because it's obvious from your statements that that is where you're getting your misinformation. And the source of your misinformation *is* relevant to the discussion.

I am undoubtedly far older, far wiser, and far more knowledgeable about this subject than you are.

Grow up and quit insulting your elders like a spoiled child and stop spreading dangerous myths about global warming.

Gore's film is a summary for the general public in common language of numerous scientific studies, all of which are in agreement on the subject. It is not meant to be a scientific treatise. No film is a "scientific investigation". He's merely presenting good, solid information in a language anyone who speaks English can understand.

[Buzz Clik]

36. This is excellent, and ironic.

I've never debated anyone from this side (I'm always supporting global warming and Kyoto), but this is going to be fun -- and very easy. And you deserve every bit of this.

I will take this one point at a time.


"You obviously have no basis for your argument because the only two 'scientists' you could name are indeed fools who spout falsehoods for special right-wing interests, as already noted by others on this board." For the fourth time, my only point in bringing up either Seitz or Singer was to cite two scientists who disgree with global warming. There are hundreds of others. In the context of this argument, Seitz whoring himself to tobacco or anyone else is meaningless. The very fact that he is the past President of the National Academy of Sciences means that he was recognized by his peers not just as a scientist but as a leader among the very best scientists. Your decision to label him as a "wack-job" is meaningless. You are certainly entitled to that opinion, but it is baseless and cannot be defended in the context of my original statement.

"And yes, I am, as a citizen of the world concerned about ecology, in the position to criticize them and, in fact, to judge them exactly as I have." Rush Limbaugh calls himself an environmentalist. Labels that are self-assigned carry no water. Sorry.

"You should know better - just look at what you've done here - when asked to cite a "reasonable" scientist who disagrees with the other scientists about global warming you could only name two complete sell-out nut jobs who have absolutely no credibility in the scientific community on the issue. What's left of your position is nothing more than a complete train wreck." I never claimed that either were "reasonable" scientists. Just scientists. In the case of Seitz, one with credentials that would be difficult to exceed. There is no more debate on this issue -- neither you nor anyone else on this board are in a position to rescind Seitz's standing as a scientist. For you to continue to claim that you can is an indictment of your understanding of science, not his.

"I mentioned the 53% of the media spreading falsehoods about their being some dissent in the scientific community about global warming, because it's obvious from your statements that that is where you're getting your misinformation. And the source of your misinformation *is* relevant to the discussion." You are so eager for a fight on this subject that you won't even read the thread. For the tenth time, I am an advocate for global warming, and I know a helluva lot more about it than you. I do not read or listen to any popular media on the subject EVER, with the lone exception of Gore's movie. I enjoyed it and was motivated by it, but I recognize its flaws. You're probably convinced that it was perfect with no scientific errors at all.

"I am undoubtedly far older, far wiser, and far more knowledgeable about this subject than you are." I'm really beginning to like this debate. I love "opponents" who beat their chests.

"Gore's film is a summary for the general public in common language of numerous scientific studies, all of which are in agreement on the subject. It is not meant to be a scientific treatise. No film is a "scientific investigation". He's merely presenting good, solid information in a language anyone who speaks English can understand." No question, but he made mistakes. Care to take this further? Are you ready to defend some of his gaffes? Man, I hope so. But you better bring more to this discussion than hot air.

[Seabiscuit]

38. Your childish flaming just hit a wall. Go to www.flame.com with your shit

I'm through with you and your bullshit. Nothing but lies, distortions, and childish insults.

[Buzz Clik]

39. If you want an intelligent discussion on the subject,

let's open a thread in one of the quieter forums. Shall we? Care to venture into the Environment forum? That's a pretty bright bunch. They certainly wouldn't let either of us get away with "insults", "bullshit", and "lies."

I'll leave it up to you.

Let me know.

[Seabiscuit]

40. If I want an intelligent discussion on the subject, the last person I'd

choose to have it with is you. I'd choose someone who isn't intellectually, ethically, and morally bankrupt.

[Buzz Clik]

42. LOL!

Works for me.

[deaniac21]

17. RICHARD S. LINDZEN is the

Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597

[Beaverhausen]

31. Utilities Pay Scientist Ally on Warming

Utilities Pay Scientist Ally on Warming
The Associated Press

Friday 28 July 2006

Washington - Coal-burning utilities are contributing money to one of the few remaining climate scientists openly critical of the broad consensus that fossil fuel emissions are intensifying global warming.

The critic, Patrick J. Michaels, is a professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute and Virginia's state climatologist.

Dr. Michaels told Western business leaders last year that he was running out of money for his analyses of other scientists' global warming research. So a Colorado utility organized a collection campaign for him last week and has raised at least $150,000 in donations and pledges.

The utility, the Intermountain Rural Electric Association, based in Sedalia, Colo., has given Dr. Michaels $100,000 of its own, said Stanley R. Lewandowski Jr., its general manager. Mr. Lewandowski said that one company planned to give $50,000 and that a third planned to contribute to Dr. Michaels next year.

"We cannot allow the discussion to be monopolized by the alarmists," Mr. Lewandowski wrote in a July 17 letter to 50 other utilities. He also called on other electric cooperatives to undertake a counterattack on "alarmist" scientists and specifically Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth," which lays much of the blame for global warming on heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide.

Mr. Lewandowski and Dr. Michaels, who holds a Ph.D. in ecological climatology from the University of Wisconsin, have openly acknowledged the donations and say they see no problem. But some environmental advocates say the effort clearly poses a conflict of interest.

"This is a classic case of industry buying science to back up its anti-environmental agenda," said Frank O'Donnell, president of the Washington advocacy group Clean Air Watch.

more here
http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/072806EA.shtml

[Odin2005]

34. GW "sceptics" are basically good a fooling laypeople with sophistry.

Once you've defeated them on the science you are still not done because they will launch an postmodernist philosphical tirade about how concensus among scientists is meaningless and then finally a pull the Galilleo and Copernicus cards and declare the IPCC to be "dgmatists" who "persecute" them like the Inquisition persecuted Galilleo.

[Buzz Clik]

37. Have you read any of the IPCC reports on the subject?

They are not cut-and-dried in their support for all the claims surrounding global warming. There is plenty of room for skepticism, particularly when it comes to long-range projections.

[ComerPerro]

35. rate of change, quite simply

or maybe its just a coincidence that this "warming trend" is sharper than many things history has seen, and happens to coincide with the industrial revolution...