Inconvenient truths about global warming

It's great that I can read good science fiction on the globe online and don't have to trek all the way to the library anymore.

Of course none of this is just earth's natural tendency to warm a cool naturally. Watch out for that wolf Peter.........

An 1851 German painting of the Rhine isn't a credible source of data on weather (or of flag design) in America in 1776. You're better off sticking with Avercamp and Bruegel as sources.

It doesn't take a genius to understand how this all works. Life, the universe, space etc... It's a constant cycle, the only difference is some of these cycles are longer than others depending on the circumstances and veribals involved. So the question is, are Human's to blame for global warming? Absolutely not! Are humans playing a roll in the pace cycle of global warming? Yes! There is no doubt in my mind that we have sped up the global warming process but there is also no doubt in my mind that without human involvement planet earth would still be on a warming cycle. It baffles me that some of the smartest professor's today cannot see this.

"But if global warming proceeds at the current pace"... The current pace being zero for the past decade with a pronounced cooling trend for the past couple of years.

Of course, Mr. Greenway and his fellow warming acolytes have that covered. Global warming results in - global cooling! We should all be very afraid - of global warming zealots trying to impose their socialist agenda using the increasingly absurd anthropogenic global warming pretext.

It is refreshing to see more an more people actually taking the non-catastrophic viewpoint here. It was and still is scary to see the main stream media shoving disaster and catastrophe down our throats, threatening us day in and day out. If you use common sense, you can easily see that Humans had nothing to do with the earth changing from a giant ball of magma to what it is today. Humans have only been on the earth for less that 1% of the Earth's total age. Yet Al Gore says that CO2 and Temperatures are going to rise by hundreds of %. Facts say we have been decarbonizing for over 100 years. Facts say everyone agrees we need to take care of the planet, and its happening faster than ever. (THIS IS GOOD) But facts also say that cities will not be underwater, that estimates of species extinction are histerically inaccurate (we dont even know how many species there are on earth, so how can we estimate how many are dying), and that spending Trillions of dollars to mitigate a cause that is anything but definite while people around the world are dying of starvation, disease, and malnutrition is everything but right.

in the 1300's the mean temp of the earth was 113 degrees, and nobody was underwater. If we are going to flood the oceans, wouldn't all the sewage we dump there daily be a larger danger?

It's still a good idea for all of mankind to stop poluting this earth. Its our children and their children who'll suffer for it in the end.

The global warming industry's propaganda is swaying public opinion, but the sky is falling crowd will look even more foolish and more biased when temperatures drop over the next 5-10 years. Solar activiity determines our climate. NASA says the temperature on Mars has risen over the last decade. Water vapor has 20-25 times the insulating properties of CO2, but the tree huggers manage to ingor that fact. I guess they can't blame Exxon for water vapor. The left wants a socialist world government and global warming propaganda serves their goal.

Let's not forget the earth and its climate is dynamic! Another example of media-hyping of global warming. When are these guys going to realize that slamming people over the head with unscientific examples such has paintings only cause more doubt/skepticism?! There is NO definitive proof of global warming, yet anyone who disagrees with this theory is called an idiot. Anyone who does not look at both sides of the story and believes the propaganda is the true idiot.

I appreciate the fact that this hyping has caused a green movement, but I fear it may backfire when everyone finds out it is all just scare tactics. Plus, the solutions may end up hurting us more than letting nature run it's course.

Open your minds to both sides! (Here are some contrary opinions)

Nasa released a report a year ago that blames unusual winds for the arctic ice melts
What caused warming at the end of the little ice age in 1850 before man-made CO2 emissions were around?
Why did temperatures decline in 1940s when man-made C02 entered the atmosphere?
Why is the Antarctic getting colder and growing?
Why is the sun's projected decrease in output not of concern?
Why is the interior of Greenland gaining ice?

Wait a minute. Europe was colder in the 1700's. That is evidence of global warming, not evidence that the Gulf Stream stopped flowing back then. If you're trying to spread panic, at least try to be consistent.
When people start talking about "truth", you know the discussion has left the realm of science and has become a religion.

Are you kidding? If this happens, this might happen. If that happens, thismight happen.
In the world of flimflammery, common sense is left to specific facts that can be proven and disproven. this nervous nellie is all flim flam. did he write the Time magazine article in the 80's about global cooling?

As I understand it, the question is not whether or not there is a larger cycle of heating and cooling (we know there is), but what effect heat-trapping gases have on an already warming planet. The consensus in the scientific community, entirely apart from the alarmist types in politics and environmental movements, is that it has a magnifying effect. Does it matter? Nobody is sure, but if it does, the effects may be catastrophic. Further, the price of being wrong is we may forego some economic gains, and even that is entirely uncertain, in exchange for new fuels and technologies that can power the next great leap forward.
People who oppose this approach are short-sighted and willfully ignorant.

David-
If no matter what happens and you're original theory is correct, it's time to re-evaluate your theory or how you're measuring results. The need to re-check your theory is evidenced by the fact that you throw around the terms "Global Warming" and "Climate Change" as if they are the same. More evidence is that no matter which way temperatures move it's somehow still the same effect. If temperatures around the world all rose on average you claim it's warming, and when they go down it will still be the same causes having the reverse effect on temperature. Welcome to the world of logical fallacy. If you're theorizing (which it is) and can't be proven wrong no matter what happens, than you're changing the theory to encompass results whenever they come out.

Assuming all the dire predictions about global warming are untrue - who cares? Isn't it still a good idea to pollute less and reduce dependence on (foreign) oil?

Global warming should be "climate change"...the models show that there will be hot spots and cold spots on the way there but that by 2050 all areas of the globe will be "warmer" but in so doing, trigger off a new ice age as the Gulf Stream "conveyor belt" is disrupted. It is taking a very short period of time for this change, something that may take 200 to 300 years in a normal cycle is accelerated to only 50 to 75 years.

Some inconvenient truths about global warming:
1st - The political dynasty on Cape Cod and the millionaires who own vacation homes there have no interest at all in alternative energy. If they did, they would not be inventing excuses to block the offshore windfarm proposed within view of their houses.
2nd - Ditto the local governments of the so-called "green" state of Vermont. They have on 2 occasions blocked hill top windmills because they supposedly interfere with migration patterns of birds and bats.

Gorebull warming will go the way of the original "war of the worlds" broadcast.
Millions will be saying "I never believed any of THAT global warming" as they scrape the ice & bumper sticker off their car.

Global warming is real, just ask Al Gore and Michael Moore. Both men are considered, in the liberal community, as experts in all issues facing America. We're in trouble.

When the global warming true believers push hard for nuclear power, I will believe that they really believe what they are saying.

Recent NASA satellite data shows planetary warming cycles in progress on Mars, Jupiter, etc. Hmmm ... human activity is limited to Earth, but global warming is occurring on multiple planets devoid of human life and activity. Maybe human activity ISN'T the major causal factor at work. Is it wise to mandate spending MAJOR dollars to mitigate a relatively MINOR causal factor?

And Salvador Dali's paintings show us that clocks and watches used to melt in the summer heat a long time ago, too.......
"Global Warming" is a brand name developed by the powers that be to make you feel guilty about living the consumer lifestyle that the U.S. promotes.
The new generation of consumers wants to feel good about their purchases, so "green" products are now being developed so they feel they are contributing to the good of the planet, while still consuming new products.

I wondered what happened to the flat earth crowd, who became the smoking does not cause cancer crowd. They are now happily plugging "there is no global warming." The scientists tell us that global warming is happening much much faster than we imagined. If you want to cotnradict them, go get your MIT PhD and have at it. Otherwise, best not to advertise that your science education ended in second grade.

Peter misses the point. The "Flat Earth" theory was a 19th century fabrication to enhance Columbus' daring. The smoking does not cause cancer crowd was industry-based, hardly a movement..
The beauty of most global warming hysteria is how most believe in evolution (as I do), yet negate how species can adapt over time.
It is almost laughable how a species is said to be stressed or wiped out by a tenth of a degree per decade or even a year's time yet we all adapt to twenty or thirty degrees change on any given day without so much as a whimper...

Don

You are correct, there are changes that man cannot control or fathom. It's a cycle that will always happen that no matter what we do will happen. If it takes the bleeding heart liberials to say we are doomed for us to stop buying 12 cylinder cars with 450 hp or to lights on when know one is home etc... then great!

Peter
See what you are saying, "Global Warming is happening faster than they expected" Unless these MIT professors were living when the saber toothed tiger was roaming around North America it really just comes down to an educated guess as to how quickly the warming process is happening.

It is refreshing to see that people are more and more coming to their senses about the fairy tale that is "global warming".

Should we conserve more? Yes
Should we try to pollute less? Yes
Should we reduce dependency on natural resources and look for alternative energy? Yes
Should this be done on the basis that Al Gore (the inventor of the internet - BTW) can read a teleprompter and show some silly cartoons? Absolutely Not!
It's time for honesty not science fiction and fairy tales!

Actually you can accurately model the temperature from a long time ago.

Where's the argument? Pollution is affecting the natural cooling and heating cycles of the earth. It affects the air we breath.

So quit it. Stop arguing like that isn't true. Live smart.

Reading these posts, rife with remarks about propaganda, agendas, and socialism, I get the distinct impression "Greenies" will become the new "Reds" as a whole new era of McCarthyism kicks off. All we're missing is a juicy quote from Ayn Rand.

The problem is, our markets and banks have already been nationalized (with healthcare just around the corner), and it had absolutely nothing to do with climate change or people passionate about the environment. Quite the opposite, in fact. Sorry, comrades, but I think your fear and anger is a bit misplaced.

It is refreshing to see that people are more and more coming to their senses about the fairy tale that is "global warming".

Should we conserve more? Yes
Should we try to pollute less? Yes
Should we reduce dependency on natural resources and look for alternative energy? Yes
Should this be done on the basis that Al Gore (the inventor of the internet - BTW) can read a teleprompter and show some silly cartoons? Absolutely Not!
It's time for honesty not science fiction and fairy tales!

Markees, we can not accurately model today's temperature, let alone temperatures from a thousand years ago. We know generalities like it was warmer during the Roman era, it was colder during the little ice age, it was warmer during during the Holocene thermal maximum, but models based on the data today are one man's educated guess. There is no doubt man can have a local impact on local temperatures, but it an act of FAITH, not science to say the impact is global.

Global change is divided, like Gaul, into three parts. The first, man made global warming, is more religion than science in that there is no hard evidence proving that it exists. Of all the causes of warming, it is a faint cause. Second, temperature increase has a 50-50 chance as change is continuous; temperature goes up and down over centuries or millennia. Indeed some models show significant increases are predicted more than a thousand years from now. I ask what was the state of science a thousand years ago, and what will we know a thousand years from now? Third, I state that combustion is the basis of about 90% of man's energy, and without cheap energy, millions can not survive.
As a matter of ethics, we should improve their lot by promoting combustion energy, and the wealthy, including Al Gore, should be frugal with resources. As a matter of policy, we must not term an innocuous molecule a pollutant. The result is what Senator Obama vows, the bankruptcy of the coal power industry. There was a time, when due to ignorance, we broke a man due to the color of his skin. It is evil to destroy others without good cause.