Join the Discussion

Comments So Far: 82

• 0%

  Sock_Puppet6 months, 2 weeks ago

  Good find Aide. It's ashame that the naysayers won't understand the science behind it.

  Reply

  13 Replies

  • 0%

    Aidenag6 months, 2 weeks ago

    I don't expect them to either. I just hope this finally decreases the crebility of those spouting out this fake talking point.

    Reply

    8 Replies

    • 0%

      Dionys6 months, 2 weeks ago

      Have you ever actually talked with a global warming denier? They're not interested in facts. They're interested in pushing their ideology.

      Reply

      6 Replies

      • 0%

        TonyByron6 months, 2 weeks ago

        Dionys: "Have you ever actually talked with a global warming denier? They're not interested in facts. They're interested in pushing their ideology."

        My goodness, some would claim that your naming all skeptics as "deniers" paints you as an ideologue.

        Skeptics argue facts, those with an agenda attack the fact-checkers.

        Reply

        5 Replies

        • 0%

          Dionys6 months, 2 weeks ago

          Skeptics? Have you ever read the motherload of "skeptic" journals? It's pretty much a bunch of angry whiners who try to argue facts but end up making key errors in basic logic usualy taught to undergrads.

          Reply

          2 Replies

          • 0%

            Blackadder19646 months, 2 weeks ago

            A skeptic is someone who wants evidence "James Randi" one of the worlds biggest sceptics thinks global warming is real.

            http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-04/040607mi.html

            he of course isn't a scientist but has long experence with myths and sudo science like astrology and spoon benders

            This link has good info on many of the denier myths.

            http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/ear...

            Reply
          • 0%

            libsRfunny6 months, 2 weeks ago

            ohhh , you need to be enlightened ..

            http://donoevil.propeller.com/story/2008/02/24/...

            Anyone with any common sense currently experiencing the longest, coldest winter since scientists warned of global cooling can tell you for a fact there is no global warming going on as well.

            Reply
        • 0%

          capn_caveman6 months, 2 weeks ago

          In one sense I agree that the term "global warming deniers" is an often overused term and in my opinion doesn't really describe the majority of the global warming skeptics. I certainly shy away from the "denier" label myself. I believe skeptics is more fitting as a whole, although there are certainly a group of people who should be considered global warming deniers.

          However, I should note that the skeptical crowd is just as apt to place unfitting labels on the other side. I believe that the science behind the global warming phenomena is sound. And because of my views, I have been previously called a Gorebot (drone) and I now apparently belong to the Church of Global Warming. I have also been frequently described as an alarmist. None of the above is true. I consider myself to be a proponent of the science behind global warming.

          Proponents argue facts, those with an agenda also attack the fact-checkers.

          Reply

          1 Reply

          • 0%

            jdhatl6 months, 2 weeks ago

            The right in America has been at war with science for many, many decades. Because it keeps proving them wrong over and over and over again. They are stubborn people. This doesn't as much include economic conservatives who tend to be much more interested in the truth than your typical mindless reactionary 21st century neo-nerd.

            Reply
    • 0%

      libsRfunny6 months, 2 weeks ago

      You mean like this Russian Scientist who says Al Gore and the Church of Global warming is a bunch of hooey?

      http://donoevil.propeller.com/story/2008/02/24/...

      Reply
  • 0%

    Endoscopy6 months, 2 weeks ago

    "It's ashame that the naysayers won't understand the science behind it."

    What science behind what? I remember all the talk about the coming ice age. It was all over the place. People seem to be rewriting history here.

    At the time there was also talk about the warming and cooling cycles that happen regularly and we were going into a warming cycle. That was ignored because we were supposed to be causing the new ice age. Now the same reasons are causing global warming. The pseudo scientists use the same information and now go a different path. The much touted UN report was in three levels. A top level talking about the overall report. The second level was to explain in layman's terms what the scientific reports that made up the third level said. The top two levels were written by political people and sometimes had nothing to do with what the scientists said.

    Al Gore took the top two levels and other information and amplified them for his movie.

    Reply

    3 Replies

    • 0%

      mesodude6 months, 2 weeks ago

      "What science behind what? I remember all the talk about the coming ice age. It was all over the place. People seem to be rewriting history here."

      --It was "all over the place"? If the belief was so widespread in the scientific community, please substantiate this. In particular, define "all over the place." Cite facts and figures including numbers of scientists, news articles etc. You won't be able to and you know this.

      How many scientists all over the world were spreading this global cooling theory you claim was so widely embraced? Several thousand scientists from all over the world generally agree on global warming theory today. In contrast, a small fraction of global deniers (many funded by the energy corps) are speaking out on behalf of those on the right (who we both know have a helluva lot to lose if we begin to aggressively adopt measures to address the impact of global warming). Give it up, Endo. Right wing lies must stop.

      Reply

      2 Replies

      • 0%

        Blackadder19646 months, 2 weeks ago

        Endoscopy the problem in the 70's wasn't pseudo scientists it was pseudo journalists

        http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/ear...

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 0%

          jdhatl6 months, 2 weeks ago

          Conservatives these days don't even know what a peer reviewed study is. They are the victims of a very slick propaganda machine. They let their hatred for liberalism steer their beliefs. The people behind this campaign know full well that global warming is coming. They just don't want anyone to do anything about it. They are actually excited about it.

          Reply
• 0%

  Obaku6 months, 2 weeks ago

  Not to put too fine a point on it, but global warming or no, tha fact remains that we are in an INTER-GLACIAL period.

  In a universe where entropy always wins out, the final death is always in cold - even if that cold is preceded by a supernova.

  Reply

  12 Replies

  • 0%

    Dionys6 months, 2 weeks ago

    Or -

    Even if it's preceeded by global warming so intense that the ice caps melt, the frozen methane deposits are released into the air and a tipping point is reached where there's no return to an Earth that can sustain life as it does now.

    Reply

    11 Replies

    • 0%

      Obaku6 months, 2 weeks ago

      Yes. Been there, done that.

      Although life will continue, even if only deep in the rocks of the mantle and at vents in the deep ocean, as long as the Earth has an atmosphere.

      Some theories would even say that the more extreme the period of warming, the more extreme the freezing would be that follows. Not that that would be of any concern to us!

      And at any moment, all of the warming, all of the CO2, we have seen could be made moot in an instant by Yellowstone having a tantrum.

      Reply

      10 Replies

      • 0%

        Dionys6 months, 2 weeks ago

        True enough. Just as the violence we see now in America (or Iraq or wherever) could be made moot in an instant by a Nuclear device.

        Either way people should do something about it instead of sitting around on their asses in gas-guzzling SUVs.

        Reply

        9 Replies

        • 0%

          TonyByron6 months, 2 weeks ago

          "Either way people should do something about it instead of sitting around on their asses in gas-guzzling SUVs."

          How much power could you save if you turned your computer off?

          Reply

          8 Replies

          • 0%

            Dionys6 months, 2 weeks ago

            How much power could you save if you powered your laptop with solar as I do.

            Jacka$$.

            Reply

            1 Reply

            • 0%

              vettenut6 months, 2 weeks ago

              Nice, kind and loving Christian sentiment there, Dionys!

              You may want to re-read the Propeller Code of Conduct regarding name-calling......

              Reply
          • 0%

            Aidenag6 months, 2 weeks ago

            I would use my computer much less, if i lived in a region that used fossil fuels to generate electricity. As is, my state produces so much from water, wind and solar sources, that we have zero need for dirty energy. In fact, we export a good 30-40% of our electricity to other states we have so much to spare.

            It's amazing what a progressive, conservation minded state can accomplish.. I mean 40% of the entire nation gets its electricity from coal, and yet here we are using not a single ounce of it, and doing better economically then the states using coal.(There goes Big Coal's argument about switching destroying economies).

            Reply

            5 Replies

            • 0%

              Endoscopy6 months, 2 weeks ago

              There speaks ignorance. To get power effectively from wind you have to have sustained wind. There are only a few places in the country that have that. It requires mountains that funnel the wind so that the winds consistently stay high enough. NASA established that when they looked at alternate energy sources as mandated by the Carter administration. I worked on that project as one who helped take the data from their wind turbines.

              The water sources also require access to certain types of water. A lake will not do it. Then there is solar. That counts on little cloud cover. For consistent power it requires at least some created by fossil or nuclear fuel. There is no getting around that fact. If you are lucky enough to live where that is not a requirement you don't live in the heart of the US.

              Reply

              4 Replies

              • 0%

                Aidenag6 months, 2 weeks ago

                That's why we use all 3 sources Endoscopy. Just one as you said doesnt work for most regions(even mine). When you combine multiple sources though, it becomes much more effective.

                As for the midwest, i agree its much harder to find and use natural sources for energy. But that doesnt mean they cannot still become fossil fuel free for electricity. They can import the electricty from places that create clean energy. Like i said, my state sells off 30-40% of ours every single day to states that are not able to produce as much as they need. And we sell it for LESS than coal plants in the midwest charge per KW..

                The only thing holding back the entire country from moving off coal, is the lack of investment in green infrastructure. The coastal states alone, can create ALL the nations energy needs for generations to come. And that is an undisputed fact. Between Solar,Wind,Wave,River, and Thermal sources, the planet gives us all the energy we could ever need/want.

                Reply

                2 Replies

                • 0%

                  jdhatl6 months, 2 weeks ago

                  At least until they finally get fusion figured out, which they are rather close to actually. Except that most of the scientists involved are in their 80's and are dying off quickly.

                  http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1996321...

                  Reply

                  1 Reply

                  • 0%

                    Obaku6 months, 2 weeks ago

                    Yeah, they have been promising fusion and flying cars for decades, and at least they have working prototypes for flying cars.

                    Reply
              • 0%

                Blackadder19646 months, 2 weeks ago

                Endoscopy

                I don't know what you did in the Carter administration but your comments make no sense you don't need mountains for wind power most coastal area are fine. And I don't get your comment on "water sources" & "certain types of water. A lake will not do it.".

                I live on the large island south of Australia (Tasmania) and until recently our power was 100% hydro, built from the 50s to 70s due to reduced rainfall we now have to use a cable from the mainland (coal power)

                All our Dams are lake feed and the only 'type' of water they use is the wet kind.

                Reply
• 0%

  engineer6 months, 2 weeks ago

  Aidenag

  Thanks for the post.

  Unfortunately, like Sock said, the naysayers will ignore this. Again if their leaders said the sky was geen with red stripes, they'd believe that too!!

  Reply
• 0%

  chevydog6 months, 2 weeks ago

  I am one of those who is a skeptic on global warming, spare of any politics. The guy may be correct if he includes "scientific" journals; but believe he is not so if he looks only at mass distribution "popular" communiction (e.g, radio, TV, national mags). The conventional wisdom explanation was the 22-year cycle for sunspots and solar flares.

  Three straight very cold winters may not a trend make, just as the only slightly longer run of warmer winters we've had may not. One could make a very decent case for both of these being blips on a geologic time scale. Considering how recent the last Ice Age was, I certainly hope we're moving away from it.

  Weather cycles are certainly not new. Nor are Multhusian-type statements that man has exceeded the Earth's capacity to tolerate him. IMHO, the global warming flap is the latest in a long line of these. Improved communication has given it a viability that perhaps it doesn't deserve.

  Reply

  1 Reply

  • 0%

    jdhatl6 months, 2 weeks ago

    Okay keep driving that chevy then chevydog. Your not convincing anyone but the already persuaded.

    Reply
• 0%

  bill29366 months, 2 weeks ago

  The question should be, in 30 years will the USA Today be doing the same article with the words 'warming' substituted for 'cooling' and 'the 2000s' for 'the 1970s'?

  Reply

  9 Replies

  • 0%

    Aidenag6 months, 2 weeks ago

    And the response to that question would be a big no. The amount of peer reviewed studies and research showing global warming outnumbers the skeptical studies by large amounts. and has been this way for decades now.

    Reply

    7 Replies

    • 0%

      Endoscopy6 months, 2 weeks ago

      You ignore the politics of the problem. Scientists who do not talk the talk do not get funded. It is conform or else.

      Reply

      6 Replies

      • 0%

        Aidenag6 months, 2 weeks ago

        Not the science conspiracy theory angle again. This is the same excuse that was used by Big Tobacco to try and deny that smoking kills. They would hire their own scientists who didnt mind skewing the facts(just as deniers do now with global warming). Then blame all those stating smoking is bad, by saying they are the ones with the financial motives....

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 0%

          Blackadder19646 months, 2 weeks ago

          My understanding was the Bush Admin didn't (until recently) believe in GW so how does the 'Science Conspiracy' make any sense at all. How would putting forward a theory the Government doesn't want to know about get you any funding.

          Reply
      • 0%

        mesodude6 months, 2 weeks ago

        "You ignore the politics of the problem. Scientists who do not talk the talk do not get funded. It is conform or else."

        Why do you make these kinds of statements (as if you don't know for a fact that the energy corporations are funding global deniers)? Anyway, your suggestion that all scientists who support global warming theory are on the take might make sense if societies all over the world placed as little value on scientific education and were as willing to wh0re their environment to turn a buck as those of you on the right clearly are. The fact is, not every person can be bought, Endo and just because Americans would rather invade other countries and steal their resources than turn off the faucet while brushing their teeth or carpool doesn't mean *all* people are self-serving and greedy. This is such a deeply ingrained con mindset.

        Reply
      • 0%

        IcCaRus6 months, 2 weeks ago

        the truth is just the opposite. the bush admin tries to silence govt scientists if they disagree with the party line.

        Reply

        2 Replies

        • 0%

          vettenut6 months, 2 weeks ago

          Oh, I see--

          Between you and Aidenag and other Glow Bull Worming True Believers, you guys are all OK with conspiracy theories as long as they agree with your belief system, but NOT if they don't.....

          I think the statement is: One guy's brilliant and insightful synthesis of facts is another guy's conspiracy theory!

          The difference is solely in perspective!

          LOL!!!

          Reply

          1 Reply

          • 0%

            mesodude6 months, 2 weeks ago

            "you guys are all OK with conspiracy theories as long as they agree with your belief system, but NOT if they don't....."

            --Except that the so called conspiracy theories of the "Glow Bull Worming True Believers" are fairly well substantiated while those of you on the right are not. It's a matter of public record that the Bush administration has dragged it's feet on this issue and deliberately tried to silence and or discredit government scientists. The problem is that people like you refuse to use basic logic and reasoning. Who is the Vice President having secret energy corp meetings? That would be Cheney. Who is bribing scientists to muddy the waters on the issue of global warming theory? The GOP and energy corps. Who stands to lose most if we adopt measures to address global warming's impact on the planet? The GOP and the energy corps. You can't dispute *any* of this, vettenut. You can't.

            Reply
  • 0%

    bill29366 months, 2 weeks ago

    I take it from the comments from the 'Global warming/climate change' crowd, they will be denying it in thirty years in the same manner they are now denying 'global cooling' of the 70s. They will use terms like 'it was only a few scientist that believed it' or'there was no consensus'. All to cover that they were wrong.

    Reply
• 0%

  simonsez6 months, 2 weeks ago

  I guess our crystal ball is clearer now. It may have been frosted over back then.

  We can now predict with certainty the trend as well as the cause out a hundred years or so.

  Reply

  8 Replies

  • 0%

    lestparker6 months, 2 weeks ago

    Wow.. with certainty? Must be a good crystal ball lol

    Reply
  • 0%

    amazed6 months, 2 weeks ago

    oh, please --- they can't even predict tomorrow with certainty.

    Given the age of the earth and how long we have been taking its temperature and THEN trying to extrapolate meaningful data from it, is like measuring all of a human's vital signs for one second and extrapolating anything meaningful about his entire life -- like weight trends, blood pressure trends, etc.

    There may very well be some global warming going on. We may very well be contributing to it, so we should do what we can REASONABLY do to reduce our output of CO2 and other pollutants. That just makes sense.

    To decimate our economy or turn everyone's lifestyle on its head for something that may or may not be even happening and may or may not be our fault is insane.

    Remember, we still have 3 degrees Celsius to go before we catch up to the earth's supposed "average" temperature before the little ice age began around 1350. Supposedly, the climate was wonderful, then.

    Reply

    6 Replies

    • 0%

      simonsez6 months, 2 weeks ago

      My comment above was sarcasm if anyone took it seriously ...

      Reply

      1 Reply

      • 0%

        amazed6 months, 2 weeks ago

        oops-- re-reading it I don't see how I missed that. I guess I left my sense of humor in the drawer today -- I'll go fetch it.

        Reply
    • 0%

      simonsez6 months, 2 weeks ago

      Like San Diego maybe.

      Reply
    • 0%

      TonyByron6 months, 2 weeks ago

      amazed: "oh, please --- they can't even predict tomorrow with certainty."

      Didn't sound like sarcasm to me.

      Reply

      1 Reply

      • 0%

        Blackadder19646 months, 2 weeks ago

        http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/ear...

        Reply
    • 0%

      mesodude6 months, 2 weeks ago

      "oh, please --- they can't even predict tomorrow with certainty."

      --So, because climatologists "can't even predict tomorrow with certainty," if a category 5 hurricane was forecast to hit your town tomorrow, you're saying you'd be out on your front porch sipping wine coolers and listening to Rush until the storm hit and washed your house several blocks away, right?

      "To decimate our economy or turn everyone's lifestyle on its head for something that may or may not be even happening and may or may not be our fault is insane."

      --But if you're wrong and the results of not acting are catastrophic, what do you think will happen to the economy? If your entire family drowns (say, because the polar ice caps have melted), will you say to yourself--"oh well, at least they all had jobs"? I simply do not follow con logic and reasoning.

      Reply
• 0%

  Cityslicker6 months, 2 weeks ago

  Boring !

  O-k , debunked that a Political Party or Parties used Global Cooling to get what hey wanted , so now debunk Gullible Warning for the same purpose .

  Predicted it would rain last night at or about 12:00 am , just got rain at 10:00 am this morning , spot on prediction .

  Reply
• 0%

  RickyDawkins6 months, 2 weeks ago

  oh yeah? well back in the 70's, scientists were predicting global cooling!

  so there!

  Reply

  5 Replies

  • 0%

    Nixie6 months, 2 weeks ago

    They can debunk it all they like, I'm sure it was a bunch of nonsense. But the fact is, when I was in school, we read in our science books and watched movies that referred to "the next ice age" that was almost upon us and blamed it on the hole in the ozone. I went to school in the 80s, and I remember what a big deal it was when we had an "El Nino". It was supposedly a sign that things were maybe warming up. Of course, we were also told to take "military" showers and "dixie cup" our toothbrushes.

    Reply

    4 Replies

    • 0%

      Aidenag6 months, 2 weeks ago

      Ummm Nixie, i think you got that backwards. A hole in the Ozone let's more UV in. UV creates heat, thus warming things up, not cooling them down. And nobody in the scientific field has ever said otherwise.

      Reply

      2 Replies

      • 0%

        Endoscopy6 months, 2 weeks ago

        They said just the opposite back then. That is why people like me who have lived through those "scientific" reasons for the new ice age go "ho hum" at this go round with some of the same reasons only now it causes warming. I'll wait and see what they say 20 years from now. That will be past Al Gore's gloom and doom. Islands are going to be flooded in a few years. Will they?

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 0%

          jdhatl6 months, 2 weeks ago

          They are already flooding, evacuation plans are being made. No amount of blogging is going to stop it. Also consider this : mainstream media had terrible science content in the 70's. Just think of the TV shows- the six million dollar man?

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbvHtizL0x0&NR=1

          Reply
    • 0%

      mesodude6 months, 2 weeks ago

      "I'm sure it was a bunch of nonsense. But the fact is, when I was in school, we read in our science books and watched movies that referred to "the next ice age" that was almost upon us and blamed it on the hole in the ozone."

      -- LOL... That is unpossible. You learned this in our public school system? ;-x

      Reply
• 0%

  mesodude6 months, 2 weeks ago

  "Do not even try to tell me I'm nuts..."

  --Ok...

  "I sat there in front of my T.V. while they were saying it. The thing to remember is we are heated by the sun, that is our heat source."

  --So thousands of scientists all over the world claimed this, handing out Nobel Prizes, writing books and filming documentaries about it and discussing/debating it nightly on the news the way they are discussing global warming today? Where can I find out about these scientists and all the conferences they held on the subject? I'm a child of the 70s, I actually know some climatologists locally and I've been online and in libraries trying to find out about this phenomenon (where, as right wingers suggest, the whole scientific community was in unison on this "global cooling" craze I keep hearing about). I'm just astounded that I can't find much in the information on this subject and yet those on the right try to convince me it was roughly comparable to the hippie movement.

  Reply
• 0%

  markmawn26 months, 2 weeks ago

  J.G. Bennett predicted there would be a rash of natural disasters early in the 21st Century. He considerd this a time where mankind had a critical choice to evolve or perish. I think it will be a 50/50 split.

  I'm on high ground, how about you?

  Reply
• 0%

  TonyByron6 months, 2 weeks ago

  The headline is: "Study debunks 'global cooling' concern of '70s".

  It does nothing of the kind as the second paragraph lists four (among many) prominent publications that were clearly "concerned" about the evident cooling trend.

  A bit of trickery in the article tries to confuse a set of facts-that cooling did occur from 1940 to 1980- to a consensus on the cause of the cooling. And then it tries to say that skeptics of the *cause* of current warming rely on a non-existent consensus back then. The fact is some scientists from back then who predicted long-term cooling are now predicting long-term warming.

  I would never fault a true scientist who changes their theory due to new facts. I do fault those who spin and twist data to serve an agenda.

  Current computer models do not adequately explain the cooling back then or the recent warming.

  "Consensus" is a lucrative bandwagon right now. The vehement attacks on others is disturbing.

  Reply

  9 Replies

  • lovermanComment removed: User banned.8 Replies

    • 0%

      TonyByron6 months, 2 weeks ago

      "Please explain where you notice a cooling trend from 40's to 80's?"

      I assume since you can type you are able to search for temperature graphs for the last 100, 1,000 and 10,000 years.

      It is undisputed that the earth has been warming for over 12,000 years. Long before humans had any claimed effect on the environment. As I'm sure you know the ice sheets that covered much of the northern hemisphere are largely reduced now.

      If you read the article it discusses the documented cooling event from 1940 to 1980.Please inform yourself before you post.

      Reply

      7 Replies

      • 0%

        protoham6 months, 2 weeks ago

        Quite to the contrary the earth core has been cooling about 100 degrees C every 1 Billion years. The earth is cooling. The atmosphere is warming slightly. And no the sky is not falling.

        Reply

      • lovermanComment removed: User banned.4 Replies

        • 0%

          Nixie6 months, 2 weeks ago

          The earth is warming, accepted. But how can you prove we are the cause or the solution? How do you explain the forest found under the ice sheets in Canada, areas that had never been thawed in recorded history? The earth has been warmer than it is now, very likely will again, and it's highly unlikely that anything you or I do will affect it. You say it has increased expotentially in the last 150 years. There were no cars 150 years ago. There were factories that ran on coal, and trains that did the same. Maybe coal is what hurried the warming effect. Maybe if we just get rid of coal, all our problems will be solved. One of the big problems I have with the GW rhetoric is all they ever say is "It's Man's Fault". I need more specifics than that. I need to know what exactly we did, or used that caused this. Just blaming man in general is not scientific.

          Reply

          3 Replies

          • lovermanComment removed: User banned.2 Replies

            • 0%

              chevydog6 months, 2 weeks ago

              loverman -- There are technological limitations to CO2 recovery. Both it and SO2 (from sulfur present in coal) are acidic gases and absorbed by the same type mediums. SO2 in applications that use CO2 is generally a no-no. The alternative is to reduce the sulfur in the coal before it's burned--possible, but unlikely to achieve low enough S levels to avoid problems with CO2 recovery systems. So CO2 recovery systems for boilers are generally restricted to natural gas-fired ones.

              As a chemicals person, I'd also note that this would put utilities in the business of operating chemical processes. Generally, their record in doing this is not very good. It's a management problem and might be able to be worked out; but it certainly shouldn't be blithely ignored.

              Reply

              1 Reply

              • lovermanComment removed: User banned.
      • 0%

        capn_caveman6 months, 2 weeks ago

        Oops, meant to give your comment a negative vote TB :)

        The thing about modern climate change is that mankind and it's greenhouse gas emissions in the Industrial Revolution era have introduced a variable into the climate change equation where there was not one before. It is also undisputed that humans have exponentially increased the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere in a (relatively) short period of time. Nobody can simply take a look at the temperature graph of the past 10000 years and simply dismiss the impact of humans.

        Reply
• 0%

  ghengisghan6 months, 2 weeks ago

  LMAO..."we are right...this time"

  Reply
• 0%

  TerraBattery6 months, 2 weeks ago

  I heard from many sources that the Gulf Stream is cooling and is being actively monitored by several authorities... because nobody wants upcoming ice age for Europe and probably US (remember "The day after tomorrow" movie? :). Am I right?

  Reply
• 0%

  protoham6 months, 2 weeks ago

  More garbage, what they fail to look at is the earth as a whole. The inner core is cooling and I suspect the atmosphere will warm to try to compensate. It is all a balancing act done by the earth as a system.

  Reply

  1 Reply

  • 0%

    Isoparm6 months, 2 weeks ago

    The rate of heat transfer from the earth's interior is relatively constant as you stated yourself. It is not a factor in the increased heating of the earth's atmosphere. At the bottom of the ocean where the majority of the heat transfer from the interior takes place, the water averages very cold.

    The atmosphere will not "compensate" for anything. It has no conscious will. The atmosphere is in dynamic equilibrium with the heat transfer from the sun, the albedo, and the emissive/absorptive characteristics of the component gases which effect radiative and convective heat transfer.

    Reply
• 0%

  Cityslicker6 months, 2 weeks ago

  Global Warming , funded by Big Oil , "Working for Big Oil taking down America one pump at a time" .

  Reply
• 0%

  Isoparm6 months, 2 weeks ago

  The fact that some people still refer to the shifting atmospheric heat balance as "global warming", indicates a total lack of understanding of what is occurring. Suggestion: Learn some basic physics. Learn the difference between temperature and heat. They are not the same thing. Learn non-linear dynamics such as fluid dynamics. This explains how a small change in initial conditions can lead to larger changes and unpredictability later. Learn the emissive/absorptive characteristics of the gases involved. These determine the heat capacity of the atmosphere. Learn the difference between latent heat and sensible heat. This is the minimal requirement for having a basic understanding of what is occurring.

  Reply

• MichaelRhodenteComment removed: User banned.2 Replies

  • Welfare_Made_Me_RichComment removed: User banned.1 Reply

    • MichaelRhodenteComment removed: User banned.
• 0%

  Endoscopy6 months, 2 weeks ago

  We who generate relatively little Green house gases are supposed to cut to the bone and take a major economic hit while China and others spew more and more. We should legislate ourselves but ignore the rest of the world. Typical liberal policy.

  Reply
• 0%

  ETproductions6 months, 2 weeks ago

  As valiant an effort as this may be, it is a complete waste on the 19% who still support George Bush and his War on Science.

  Reply
• 0%

  markmawn26 months, 2 weeks ago

  I don't know if any of you are aware of the Global Dimming theory. No, I don't mean the tendency for normally bright people to turn Conservative out of fear of terror.

  Here is evidence that Global Warming is actually being slowed down by particulate pollution. Without the particulates, we may roast a heckuva lot faster, and the evidence was obtained during the 3 days that planes were grounded after 911.

  http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/kauffman5.html

  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming

  Reply
• 0%

  vettenut6 months, 2 weeks ago

  Interesting article!

  It just goes to show that a little re-writing of history and selective re-processing of "data" can go quite a long way toward get rid of embarrassing and dis-jointed "scientific theory" AND media hype that retrospectively "doesn't fit today's template."

  Way to make those guys get with the program, usatoday!

  If you work on it some more, you'll perhaps have almost as much credibility as the NYTimes!!!!

  (End of sarcasm)

  Reply
• 0%

  Katheriness2 months, 1 week ago

  Thanks for the post.

  Reply