If you intresting in sport Buy trenbolone and Buy testosterone enanthate you find place where you can find information about steroids

Is Global Warming Something We Can Prevent?

There’s been a ton of talk about new carbon emission standards and with Obama now in the White House, there will probably be a lot of money spent on new legislation, new policies and all with the aim or curbing or slowing down global warming.

Personally I think that many people miss the big picture when it comes to global warming. The earth has been around for 4.5 billion years and has survived just fine with us and will do just fine without us. Throughout the history of the earth there has been a definite movement between warm and cold periods. I think that what is misunderstood most about these temperature changes in the past is that everyone assumes they are extremely gradual.

For example you hear people talk about an ice age that lasts 10,000 years or a warmer period that may last 5,000 years, but in the middle of those overall trends there have been period of 50 years or even 100 years that may completely buck the trend. One of the great examples I read about was when the great conveyor – seen here which is huge underwater river in the ocean more than 40 times as large as all the fresh water rivers on earth, part of it stopped flowing in the not too distant path (maybe 20 to 30,000 years ago). Well the warm water the great conveyor brings up from the equator keeps much of continental Europe and the east coast of the US to some extent much warmer than it would be normally.

When the great ocean conveyor belt stopped flowing, the climate of France took about 3 years to be plunged into extremely cold weather and much of Europe experienced the same conditions. Many scientists are saying that now because of the melting of the north pole ice, the extra fresh water may serve to disrupt or partially half the great conveyor – which has been theorized adds close to 10-15 degrees of warmth to the areas it passes through.

Here is the direct quote from this article that I found particularly enlightening:

For early humans living in Europe 30,000 years ago – when the cave paintings in France were produced – the weather would be pretty much like it is today for well over a thousand years, giving people a chance to build culture to the point where they could produce art and reach across large territories.

And then a particularly hard winter would hit.

The spring would come late, and summer would never seem to really arrive, with the winter snows appearing as early as September. The next winter would be brutally cold, and the next spring didn’t happen at all, with above-freezing temperatures only being reached for a few days during August and the snow never completely melting. After that, the summer never returned: for 1500 years the snow simply accumulated and accumulated, deeper and deeper, as the continent came to be covered with glaciers and humans either fled or died out. (Neanderthals, who dominated Europe until the end of these cycles, appear to have been better adapted to cold weather than Homo sapiens.)

So is Global Warming a bit of red herring, when we really should be worried about Global Cooling?

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Ma.gnolia
  • BlinkList
  • Fleck
  • Furl
  • Live
  • Propeller
  • Spurl
  • YahooMyWeb
  • TwitThis
  • Simpy
  • E-mail this story to a friend!

Tags: ,

134 Responses to “Is Global Warming Something We Can Prevent?”

  1. Chicken E. Little Says:

    What, me worry?


  2. J Daven Says:

    You are getting the whole problem with global warming fears wrong. The problem is not whether its going to get colder or hotter, but whether humankind is bringing about the changes. You would have to be all but deaf, dumb and blind not to be able to understand that humans are increasing the amount of CO2 levels in the atmosphere well beyond a natural rate. This is where global warming gets its name from heat trapping gases like CO2. Now trapping more heat from the sun close to the earths surface might have unpredictable results leading to higher temperatures or maybe even a disruption in the way the currents heat up the earth.

    However, what is not unpredictable is what all the CO2 will do to sunlight. It will be trapped and increase the temperature of gases in the atmosphere. Now if you are a global warming denier, you might say the atmosphere is a big place, how can little ole’ us put enough gas from sources like cars and factories to do anything. Well guess what happens when you put a drop of oil in a gallon of water. The whole thing becomes cloudy thus effecting the way light travels through the water. This is exactly what happens when you dump more CO2 into the huge volume of the atmosphere. A little bit can go along way.

  3. Prootwadl Says:

    Some potentially interesting links to read:


    Global Climate Change Facts: The Truth, The Consensus, and the Skeptics

    Global Climate Cooling Facts

  4. Tommy Says:

    There is such a lot that we can do to prevent global warming , but the question that needs to be askd is , is it simpy too late ? Just because there is a new president in house doesnt mean that globak warming wilinstantly get better.

  5. JC Says:

    I don’t know if there is really global warming, but can we prevent it? No, because the world is driven by economy, and no one would spare their money on helping this kinda stuff. So if CO2 causes the climate change, it will only get worse, until one day it is not reversible, and the earth will take care the matter by wiping out most creatures on the planet, and everything starts back from zero.
    If climate doesn’t change, there are many other things can happen. 1. chain effect biochemical product wipe out everything. 2. We run out of energy source before we discover a better one, and the whole world goes into a choas. 3. Someone made a virus taking down the whole WWW, and the world goes into a chaos. Any way things will just start back from zero again.

    I am just gonna enjoy my life everyday. :)

  6. dreidson Says:

    I think there are really three questions at play here:

    1) are we causing the earth to warm,
    2) is that a bad thing, and
    3) if the answer t 1 and 2 is yes, can we do anything about it.

    I’d say the answer to 1 is yes, but human activity is just one of the variables at play here, including natural variation, solar activity, volcano activity. That CO2 is a greenhouse causing gas is not disputable, but the degree to which the increase in CO2 has caused or will cause global warming certainly is.

    I’d say the impact to date is not negative. There are good and bad consequences, and the one that is most potentially devastating is of course rising sea levels of which we haven’t seen any signficant consequence. Its going to take a lot of additional melting in Antartica and Greenland before that threatens our existence. Warming climate generally means higher crop yields, fewer deaths related to climate, and less reliance on climate control.

    Can we do anything about it? Yes, but it’s not going to involve carbon emission targets, cuts, trading, or anything of that nature. The growth in China and India alone will more than negate any cuts the US and Europe could make, not to mention additional growth in the rest of the developing world. However, fossil fuels can be replaced as a source of energy, and they will need to be replaced eventually anyway. There is an abundance of energy in the universe, and our future as a civilization depends on us finding another source in the not too distant future regardless of whether the earth is now warming due to our current energy policies. Technology is the answer regardless of which question we are asking. Conservation simply doesn’t have the capacity to do anything but delay the inevitable.

  7. J Daven Says:


    Your points are very astute. The only ones I have a problem with concerns alternative methods of energy production here in the US and conservation. Firstly, conservation is just plain wise under any circumstances. For example, using energy to light up tourist attractions like the Eiffel Tower is just plain wasteful and is unnecssary. If energy was unlimited and didn’t pollute anything, then I say go for it. But this may never be the case and we should conserve energy for the really important things in life. That being said, I am not an energy conservationist. I do waste energy and would definitely be a hypocrite if I told others to do so but that doesn’t make it any less important. I do may things I shouldn’t. :)

    With regards to China and India, both of these countries follow the industrial examples of the western world (i.e. highways, cars, entertainment, space travel, etc.). If we do it, then inevitable other countries follow suit. If the US makes a lot of money in the “green market” and really popularizes it, then China and India will want to take advantage. Of course, there will be a huge delay in this, but the US should not just throw up our hands and say we give up. Our country should lead by example even if it may already be too late.

    As I’ve told all my climate denialist friends, who cares if its all untrue, the amount of jobs, money, technology, etc. generated from just being careful with regards to global warming will be a huge boon to our economy and the world’s.

  8. dudeguy Says:

    It’s ok to have a comment.

  9. rkolter Says:

    I personally rank global warming deniers up there with UFO believers and people who have seen Elvis alive recently. Denial does not equal falsification.

    Although, I too wonder about the impact – things won’t change the way Hollywood wants to depict them. People will have time to migrate away from encroaching water. Humanity tends to adapt.

  10. Don Says:

    I find all this talk very funny. You actually believe you can do something about global warming. Everything you do creates carbon even now your using coal to talk about what would help limit carbon. Your drive into work, your office, your house, what you eat, your heros fat ass al gore, everything. And yet you feel compelled to preach to others on how to change. If the alternatves worked we’d use them. If it were not for burning coal, oil, natural gas, ya all would be eating berry’s in the woods bitching about something else that you cannot change. Get over it

  11. dreidson Says:

    J Daven, I’m not saying conservation isn’t a good thing. It just isn’t an answer to the problem of global warming. There are a lot of not too painful ways that public policy can be changed for the better in this regard. For example, local laws ought to require builders to install only the highest efficiency air conditioiners available (or specify the current SEER rating as the minimum allowed). In most cases, the consumer doesn’t select the HVAC unit, and the builder selects the most economical unit out there that just happens to have a low SEER rating. When I bought my house 13 years ago, I got a big chuckle because my parents bought a new house at the same time. On the energy lable on the air conditioner, it said the range of costs per month was from X to Y, and my model was exactly ONE RED CENT less than the maximum. I read the lable on parents unit, and low and behold, it was the one model that mine beat. For an extra $500, both our builders could have installed a higher efficiency model that would have paid for itself in the first summer alone. I’m convinced also that fuel efficiency in autos is something that can be drastically increased. Our average fuel economy has actually gone down in the past 15 years. Efficiency is something that consumers are interested in at our current cost of fuel regardless of its carbon footprint effect.

    As far as China and India, I have to disagree slightly. Should we change our source of electricity to something much more eco friendly without bringing the cost of the alternative down close to coal powered generators, China and India won’t follow our lead, as a matter of fact, they will sit back and laugh at us for using more expensive electricity. China even now is not even bothering to use basic technogy to reduce the pollution of the new coal fired powerplants they are bringing on line at the rate of one per week. Until the cost of the power is similar, or realistically, much lower (because they’ll have already invested the capital in the coal fired plants), they are not going to change.

  12. JC Says:

    Then why doesn’t US built a few green power plants in China? I know it is a fact that China isn’t doing what they should for the climate, but they don’t have a choice, just like US won’t help them out, because they would rather spend on something beneficial to them.
    It’s kinda sad, none of us has a choice actually, like I said, everything is controlled by the economy.
    And yes technology is the only solution, we have to find a ‘good’ alternative energy source before 1. we run out of oil and 2. we upset the climate. But really I haven’t seen a good one yet.
    If I can do something, I would promote electric vehicle and nuclear power plant first. But I am a money-driven person too.

  13. J Daven Says:


    You are right of course. Money is what drives all markets especially in China. JC’s point also makes sense because China would never give up fossil fuel electrical plants for solar and wind. They are too costly and too inefficient. Our scientists (I’m one of them) really need to come up with something better. Now solar cells are about 40% efficient as far as the photon to electron conversion process. Something closer to 60-70% would really make solar energy cheap and useful.

    At any rate, I’m rambling. Yeah, China, India and other developing nations will be the real problem as they become more technologically advance even if the US comes up with more efficient use of our energy.

    And to Don, not once did any of us mention politics or environmentalists or hippies, etc. We are just concerned humans with regards to health of our environment and our pocket book. Your mentioning and insulting of Al Gore shows your true colors of conditioned ultra right wing hatred, which is fine but since no one here brought any partisan politics into the conversation, your views might be better suited for Rush Limbaugh’s radio show or other such outlet.

    Remember, global warming is not a republican vs. democrat issue, it’s not an atheist vs. christian issue, it’s not even a hippie environmentalist vs. good ole’ red meat eatin’ american issue. It’s simply a clash between science and nature vs. capitalism. Scientists say the climate is changing and capitalist say changing our ways is too expensive. However, over time, green technologies will become the norm and create jobs and growth as well as technological advancements in other areas and life will be better with quiet cars, removal of our dependence on foreign and unrenewable energy sources and hopefully, if its not too late (most here think it already is) provide us with a clean and healthy earth.

  14. Don Says:

    It is not possible to convert to alternative energy for all are needs, period. In trying to do so huge sums of money will be spent that will not supply enough energy. The rest of the world will continue and step up their usage of cheap fuels we are not consuming. Carbon trading? We continue to put out carbon! When we look at the earth as a whole with all the people involved than yes it is to late. We are heading down a path that we are not able to change. We can cut back, use less, buy energy star, but in the end it’s only a bandaid. The only way we will convert is from a global shut down. Humans do without? Never happen. My bio-diesel gels in the winter, can’t use it. My rain harvesting will only go so far, not enough. My solar panels don’t run the fridge, pool pump, or air. The gas sold today has a shelf life of less than a month before it goes bad. I started to buy a wind turbine but it will barely charge a battery. I had a hybrid but it still needs gas from off shore. Does anyone really beleave everyone will buy a hybrid. They cannot afford to and they won’t. Gore say’s we must stop carbon emissions by 2018. Shut it all down. Where will the power come from? Politics? he sells carbon credits wow big surprise. The only way we can change is a total planet collapse. I personaly don’t want that. We can pretend and make ourselves feel good but in the end we cannot change what we have already done to the planet. You want to make a change figure out a way to save the planet by using human greed.

  15. Prootwadl Says:

    Some additional reading related to Global Warming (thanks to BoingBoing):

    The Deniers by Lawrence Solomon

    Some notes…

    Red Hot Lies by Christopher C. Horner

    An Appeal to Reason by Nigel Lawson

  16. Prootwadl Says:

    It seems that the theory of “Global Warming” has a fair number of seemingly serious detractors, some of them with rather impressive credentials.

  17. J Daven Says:


    Global warming is not a theory it’s an effect. It’s the effect of increased heat trapping gases in the atmosphere. Just like its not theory what happens to water when you increase the temperature to 100C, its not theory what happens when you change the composition of the atmosphere by increasing the percentage of CO2 and other gases.

    The unknown part of this effect is how much is happening over what period of time and what is (are) the point source(s). Humans? Nature? External cosmic force? A combination of some or all? Etc.

    Global warming deniers have an agenda not an answer to our problems. This agenda is similar to intelligent design or creationism advocates: make money by confronting overwhelming scientific data and praying on the emotions of the naive, uneducated and religious fears of mankind.

  18. Chicken Little Says:




  19. Prootwadl Says:

    I’m just presenting reading material. I don’t have enough knowledge to have a firm opinion on the topic.

  20. rkolter Says:

    “The Deniers” by Lawrence Soloman has some issues – many of the quoted scientists are talking about a field they have limited experience in. Other climate scientists quoted have since said they were misreprented and did not deny the fact of Global Warming. Lawrence Soloman is a loon.

    “Red Hot Lies” is a book on politics, and it’s author is an expert on politics and legislation, not climatology or paleoclimatology.

    “An Appeal To Reason” seeks to explain why it’s not economically feasable and in general practical to do anything about climate change or CO2 emissions. Which may or may not be true, but is irrelevant to the question of if human caused climate change is occuring. He does point out correctly that people are saying everything is global warming caused, when it likely is not. But that also does not show that global warming doesn’t exist.

    The truth? Overwhelming numbers of scientists who are actually experienced in the field, agree that humanity is changing our atmosphere and that is having an impact on our climate. For each one scientist against, there are twenty or more for.

    Whether there is an effect or not is worth looking into, to be sure. But to deny the potential is akin to walking blindly into traffic.

  21. Don Says:

    Items that have no resolvable out come:
    Religion: Who’s worshiping a false god?
    Sports: Which team or player is best?
    Politics: Who’s the best leader?
    Dems vs. Rep: Which is best?
    Capitalism vs. socialism: Which one works better?
    Global warming: Did man create or planet cycle?
    Climate change: Can we change the world?
    All of the above items can be debated till dooms day without a true answer or out come. All those books and speakers you listed are great. Did they write those books for free? or are they trying to make a million on our fears? Did you think those books and speakers just wanted to get the word out or is this just another way of making a name for themselves? What about grants? You don’t get money unless you agree with climate change, which is a fact. Mean while lets spend billions on what? Carbon is almost forever so where are we now? Broke looking for berrys in the woods while those countries that could care less run the world into the ground and climate change occurs anyway! The world has been coming out of an ice age for thousands of years the sea has been rising and the planet has been getting warmer. What we do with carbon is not good but at this stage we cannot shut down all in ten years. Believing we can is akin to walking into traffic

  22. Prootwadl Says:

    I personally think that denying the possibility of human activity influencing global warming is about as irresponsible as saying that it’s a certainty that humanity is completely responsible for it.

    rkolter, what do you think of the ICECAP site and friends?

  23. rkolter Says:

    Well, careful Prootwadl – it is a certainty that humanity is completely responsible for the overwhelming growth of CO2 in our atmosphere, and it is a certainty that previous warm periods in Earth’s history have been associated with high levels of CO2 – although not as high as exists now. It is a certainty that while CO2 is not the strongest greenhouse gas, that it is a greenhouse gas.

    If the higher CO2 values and higher temperatures in the past have a positive correlation, then it is likely the temperature will rise, and that resulting rise is humanity’s fault.

  24. dreidson Says:

    rkolter, what of the fact that higher CO2 levels have historically trailed the increase in temperature rather than preceeding them?

  25. Admin Says:

    Thank you everyone for all the comments on here. I like the fact that this post inspired some interesting discussion and appreciate the points everyone makes, regardless of which side of “Global Warming” (if there is such a thing as a side) you are on.

    Prootwadl, I’m a big fan of that ICECAP site, I check in there every couple days and really like what they have to say. I llike hearing alternative viewpoints and the scientists at ICECAP may be one sided, but it’s a side I have trouble hearing in the mainstream media.

  26. rkolter Says:

    Dreidson – where does this fact come from?

  27. J Daven Says:

    Here is a link critical of the ICECAP.us site.


    Also from the same site


    This site might be a propaganda site with an agenda. I can’t quite tell. Many GW deniers trying to punch holes in air tight scientific data will simply just take the complete opposite stance and fit all the data they can find to support the opposite view point. Its a very easy way to create skeptics.

    Young Earth Creationists do the same thing. Instead of the long known fact that the earth is several billion years old, this group says just the opposite. The earth is only a view thousand years old and they try to fit the exact same data to make their argument work. Their agenda: to support the Genesis story in the bible as the literal truth.

    I am trying to find out the funding source for ICECAP.us. This gives a huge insight into their ultimate goals. For example, they might be funding my oil companies.

    At any rate, I’m not trying to insult anyone here. ICECAP.us might be a very valid site full of useful information. However, I am a PhD chemist who has gone through the process of gathering, analyzing and publishing scientific data. It can sometimes be a very boring process and reading the results by a third party can sometimes be even more boring, however, this information is peer reviewed many times and stacked against even more peer reviewed data. You can find this information in journals such as Science, Nature and other environmental scientific journals.

    Now I know what you are going to say. That these guys almost all agree and present only one side of the issue. However, scientists individually might have some shady goals, but the overall scientific community only presents what they have found with no other goal in mind but to present the facts. Their would be no scientific community if every journal article written was falsified or misinterpreted data. Their results wouldn’t be duplicatable and would fall flat real fast.

    Their is no global conspiracy of scientists. The earth is really round. It is many, many millions of years old. And it is warming faster than any naturally cycle ever could due to man made pollution sources. I know many of you will disagree but scientific phenomenon don’t require humans – on a lonely planet in a nine planet solar system on the outskirts of an obscure spiral galaxy among many – to agree for said phenomenon to occur. Nature will do what it does now and for many billions of eons beyond the existence of man.

    Whew, that was a mouth full. :)

  28. dreidson Says:

    rkolter, here is one op ed piece that sites the statistic. But there are plenty of others. If memory serves, this is one of the “errors” in an inconvenience trut that led to its being legally barred from being shown in British schools.


    j daven, you are sounding more and more like a conspiracist. There’s healthy debate on both sides of the issue, and while you seemed to earlier indicate that the extent of man’s cause of warming is subject to debate, now you seem to think that everyone that doesn’t agree that man is the primary cause of warming is some kind of crackpot. That’s not the case – not everyone that questions or is skeptical of the extent of man’s involvement in warming is out to make money (just as there are plenty of scientists and even Al Gore making money on promoting AGW).

    We may have had unprecedented warming for two decades, but we’ve had no warming since then (1998), but we had significant cooling the three decades before that.

  29. J Daven Says:

    The reason why I don’t give much room to the global warming versus global cooling debate is because such a debate does not exist in the scientific community. Take this article for instance:


    Now this is just one article and it’s not going to prove anything definitively but it makes my point very clear:

    There is NO scientific consensus for global cooling. I repeat NO scientific consensus. As the article states, confusion over global warming spurred by the oil industry is the reason why global cooling might have started in the first place.

    The REAL debate is on two issues.

    1st: How bad is global warming going to affect our planet and our way of life?

    2nd: What is causing global warming? This is almost universally agreed upon in the scientific community as either a naturally occurring event/cycle made considerably worse by man or completely made by man’s pollution.

    Now you talk about healthy debate. Healthy debate does not mean you can debate anything just for the sake of it. For instance, you cannot debate with me that water does not boil at 100C at 1 atm. You can call me closed minded for not engaging you in this debate, but I’m not going to engage in something so absurd.

    As I have said in two posts above, I am a scientist. I participate in the scientific community as far as publications, grant writing, etc. We are not debating this issue. Lay people such as politicians among others are. Just like it took time for Galileo’s discoveries to sink into the minds of the masses, so too will global warming. However, I’m afraid it will probably be too late if it turns on that the 1st issue I listed above is worse than we think.

    I will listen more to your points about global cooling if you can present a peer reviewed scientific article from a reputable journal that supports your hypothesis that we are getting colder.

  30. rkolter Says:

    Op-Ed articles mean very little.

    Bellamy, a professor of botony and Adult Education, was an avid supporter of the Earth being affected by greenhouse gases as late as 1989 when he wrote a book that stated conclusively that the earth was warming. Until 2000, he openly supported reducing carbon emissions to slow climate change.

    Since his sudden flip-flop in 2004, he has been ousted as the chairperson of The Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts, among other organizations. He’s widely discredited.

    The Op-Ed piece you quote talks about how there was a temperature drop during reconstruction after WWII that correlated with a rise in CO2. He then writes, “Al Gore, in his famous movie “The Inconvenient Truth,” had simply omitted to say that for the past 420,000 years that he cited as an example, rises in CO2 levels in the atmosphere always followed increases in global temperature by at least 800 years. It means that CO2 can’t possibly be the cause of the warming cycles.”

    There’s no sourcing for that. I dispute that the records of the past 420,000 years of atmospheric data are so clear that one can say all prior warming events were followed by a rise in CO2 but showed no rise during the event. Showing one recent, brief, example of a cooling trend with CO2 rising means little – and the CO2 rise during that period was less, far less, than the rise now.

    I’m appalled that the op-ed article cites in it’s tagline the widely falsified claim that the sun is responsible for the current warming trend.

    This is the kind of arguement that is frustrating – people taking layman’s knowledge, half-truths, and outright myths, and disputing scientists who spend their entire lives immersed in this knowledge.

    J Draven is right – there is no dispute in the scientific community about the fact of global warming. No more than there is about the fact of evolution, or the fact of gravity.

  31. Chicken Little Says:

    ahhh….the Illuminati have moved on to forecasting “global warming” in lieu of the Atlanta “water shortage”

    Bon Voyage!


  32. rkolter Says:

    I wonder if we forecasted that the sky was falling, if Chicken Little would duck and cover. :)

  33. dreidson Says:

    “J Draven is right – there is no dispute in the scientific community about the fact of global warming. No more than there is about the fact of evolution, or the fact of gravity.”

    Apparently there is no dispute because anyone that disputes the veracity of AGW and the dire consequences of it is suddenly discredited. There needs to be significant debate about this issue because the overwhelming majority of voters have the same opinion as me – there is no debate over whether man is having some impact on the climate, the question is how much, and is the consequences of that effect justify drastically overhauling our lifestyle by changing our primary sources of power. Your side of the debate consistently states that anyone that doesn’t agree with this is a crackpot, or worse, someone funded by the oil companies out solely to make money. Meanwhile, I read stories every day it seems like that indicate someone that used to agree with this “consensus” now disputes it. The whole Flat Earth metaphor is wrongly applied in this case. It is not the “deniers” who claim to know all the facts and that there is no room to debate conclusions or finding. Good science involves a healthy level of skepticism, conclusions that can be verified and results that can be duplicated.

  34. Bruce Says:

    I was hoping to see how Lake Lanier was doing but instead i’m reading about someone trying to convince himself and every one else about climate change. How much time do you have on you hands anyway? Considering Georgia uses coal for electricity your sure putting out a lot of carbon! When you have invent this new power source of yours please feel free to run your mouth.
    You talk about chicken little, your a chickin little! Shut up already!

  35. rkolter Says:

    There isn’t a dispute, because the only people who do dispute it take positions that are contrary to existing evidence without providing evidence of their own.

    The position that the sun has caused the warming trend has been put forward repeatedly, but has been repeatedly shown to be untrue – no other planet shows a similar warming trend.

    The position that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, or not an important greenhouse gas, has been proven false. Likewise the position that CO2 only rises after a warming trend has never been proven, and is opposite the evidence that it is in fact, a greenhouse gas.

    The position that mankind is not the group creating the CO2 emissions is unfounded because no other source of emissions has been found.

    The position that mankind cannot drastically alter our environment has been proven false on local scales time and again, and it is no stretch nor scientific bungle to ramp that up to an estimate of global change.

    There is a healthy debate about how much change will occur. But there is no debate that changes will occur. The question is, since this is a science experiment we can only perform ONCE, do we want to go heedlessly into it, or do we want to control it as much as we can?

  36. rkolter Says:

    Psst Bruce – this particular thread is on Climate Change. Read every previous thread for information on the drought. There isn’t a lot of new data right now, which is why the administrator put this thread out there.

    When something new pops, we’ll have a new topic, and go back to talking about the drought.

  37. Bruce Says:

    Yes CO2 is warming the planet. Yes in the sun is in a cycle. Yes climate change is happening. No we cannot stop it. We have over populated the planet and this is how it goes. Why do you debate something without a result? Were doomed deal with it. Pssst, the administrator also lets idiot’s like chicken little talk for lack of topics.

  38. Bruce Says:

    The polar ice caps are melting so fast that the world’s oceans are rising more than twice as fast as they were in the 1970s, scientists have found.

    They have used satellites to track how the oceans are responding as billions of gallons of water reach them from melting ice sheets and glaciers.

    The effect is compounded by thermal expansion, in which water expands as it warms, according to the study by Anny Cazenave of the National Center for Space Studies in France.

    Cazenave’s data show that in the past 15 years, sea levels have been rising at 3.4 mm (1/8 of an inch) a year, much faster than the average 1.7 mm (1/16 of an inch) recorded by tidal gauges over the past 50 years.

    Cazenave said: “This rate, observed since the early 1990s, could reflect an acceleration linked to global warming.”

    Run for hills global warming has raised the oceans 1/8″!!!!!!

  39. rkolter Says:

    1/8″ per year is 12.5 feet in 100 years.

  40. rkolter Says:


    12.5 inches. Not feet. I need coffee.

  41. stuart Says:

    I think some of you don’t realize that you are asking for the same leap of faith in the name of science that you would reject if it was being expected in the name of religion. Even if the global warming doomsday predictions are backed up by legitimate science, as you claim, few people have the time, inclination, or ability to determine if that is indeed the case. So for them to accept it, they have to trust in the word of the scientific community just as they used to trust in the religious priesthood.

    You can say that the scientific community is backed up by facts but, again, most people cannot or will not attain the knowledge necessary to verify whether its assertions are true, so it all comes down to whether or not they have faith in what you are calling the scientific community. I think most people do not have that faith and so I don’t see them accepting the drastic changes in lifestyle that would be required to avert the impending disasters forecasted by some in the same community.

  42. Bruce Says:

    Very well put! The amount of faith required to solve the climate problem is so huge and expensive that the faith does play a huge part. Just not going to happen.

  43. rkolter Says:

    Ironically, I agree. The human species is not going to change its ways just because some brilliant scientists say so. They won’t even do it if rock stars say so, and they listen to rock stars.

    I don’t know that it is lack of faith though. I think for the more developed countries it’s resistance to change and lack of desire to lose any amount of comfort. For developing nations, it’s a willingness to let others pollute in their nation for money, or a willingness to improve, but use of less expensive and more readily available technologies.

    In any case, I don’t need faith to know global climate change, driven by humans, is occuring. And I don’t HAVE Faith that humans will do anything about it.

  44. Bruce Says:

    Through human history we have exploited resources to create energy. Wood, whales, coal, oil, natural gas. Each resource was cheaper and more readily available than the other. Now there are none to replace the last. We are left with more expensive solar, wind, geo, wave, energy’s which cost much more and are highly unreliable compared to the past sources. There are no replacements except to use less. To do without something you had, is so much harder than to have used less in the first place. Look at the past civilizations that have come and gone. They used up their resources became to populated and lived high on the hog. The only way we will change is if we lose everything, or another form of cheap energy is found. Even so there are way to many people on this planet to support. Climate change is occuring! Did we create all of it? Maybe maybe not. But the fossil fuels we need are in short supply and running out. We need to find a better energy source. This one is killing us!

  45. dreidson Says:

    “Each resource was cheaper and more readily available than the other. Now there are none to replace the last.”

    I think just the opposite – there is an abundance of energy in the universe. There is a next source of energy out there that will be cheaper and more plentiful. I think it is likely to be solar, because when it comes down to it, almost all of our energy is solar in one form or another. Solar energy allow plants to grow and produce their own food, which we either eat, or other animals eat and then we eat the animals. Coal, petroleum, and other fossil fuels are simply left over solar energy that has been preserved. Even hydro power is fueled by the sun – water gets to the high elevation through preciitation, and precipitation results from the energy of the sun warming surface water to the point that it evaporats. Geothermal and nucler are really the only sources of energy we have that aren’t directly or indirectly from the sun. So it stands to reason that the best source of energy would be to convert the sun directly to energy. This will happen eventually, but only when fossil fuels cost is elevated either due to scarcity or governmental policy.

  46. Bruce Says:

    How do you get solar in a car, truck, cargo ship, train, bulldozer, space shuttle? How do you get solar to fertilize our crops, kill insects, feed people? How do you heat with it? When it’s overcast we…….? Some day it will happen does not cut it. Once again it’s pie in the sky fun thoughts about how wonderful some new energy would be that does not replace what we have now. Solar will be great after we replace every thing we have that runs on fossil fuel. By the way making solar panels, and hydro power create green house gases. Fossil fuels are super concentrated sun light, now that’s hard to replace. If it were possible to switch to solar we would have done it already. twenty thousand dollars of panels on my house won’t run a pool pump and fridg. So I’ll do what? Go without? What will the poor people and poor countries use? Fossil fuels!

  47. rkolter Says:

    Actually Bruce, there are answers to most of your questions…

    You get solar in a car, truck, cargo ship, etcetera by using solar panels, which are becoming much more efficient. That energy goes into batteries.

    Space Shuttle… I dunno. That one won’t be solar powered anytime soon. :)

    Fertilize our crops? It does that now. But to add fertilizer? Solar for the plant that refines it, solar for the vehicles that move it…

    Kill insects? Magnifying glass? Ok, maybe not. But you could use solar power to power the plant that makes the insecticide.

    Feed people? Solar for the vehicles to move it, for the plant that fertilizes the crops, etcetera.

    Heat with it? Er… it’s the SUN, dude. But, you could store it in a battery and then use the battery to power an oven. Or, use solar power to power the bottling company for the propane.

    Overcast? You have to think long term and rebuild the power grid – it’s not overcast everywhere. And, again, storage for excess power.

    Twenty thousand dollars of solar panels won’t run a pool pump and fridge? Actually, it’ll run your entire home, including the pool pump, and on a sunny day give you energy to sell back. There are many do-it-yourself sites that cover exactly this.

    Solar power could reasonably replace most fossil fuels, if we were willing to make some significant changes and investments. As the technology improves, which it is doing on a yearly basis, it becomes more feasable and affordable.

    Now, do I think it’ll happen? No. I think we’re doomed. But, the fact I think we’re doomed doesn’t mean it couldn’t happen.

  48. J Daven Says:

    Bruce, most of your critiques of solar are easily solvable the way rkolter stated in his last post. The most pressing concern that can’t be solved using solar is plastics. Almost all plastics are made from petroleum. However, I don’t think anyone should take the position of completely removing fossil fuel use. The earth can take a lot of punishment without too many adverse changes. It’s just that presently, we have gone past this threshold.

    The solution will ultimately involve a combination of all things said and then some. The use of fossil fuels at a less polluting level, the use of nuclear, solar, wind, water, etc. to supplement the reduction in fossil fuels as well as future research that leads us to the ideal power source, such as nuclear fusion.

    There is too much doom and gloom here. You guys seem to think our society is akin to a heroine addict when it comes to our use of fossil fuels. I think we are more like alcoholics. We drink it down to party and feel good with the most adverse affects happening over time but eventually, many of us will seek treatment and move on to bigger and better things. A heroine addict can die after one dose. This would be more like using nuclear energy if our society was about 100 times more aggressive and ready to blow each other up for the slightest insult.

  49. Bruce Says:

    At this stage of the game we cannot replace all our systems to run on solar! Unless we start over from zero. All our machines run on fossil fuel cars, ships all as i listed. We don’t have the time or money to replace all of this in the time frame set forward which is 2015 – 2020 to drop fossil fuels. I believe in solar but the amps are not their to run what matters the most. The panels produce lots of DC power which is converted to AC and sent back to the power company for a credit. But when you need air conditioning, pool pump, or fridge that comes from the power company. I watch the green channel all the time and these people are seeing a 30-40 % cut in utilities. For 20 grand? Did you know solar panels put out less power the hotter they get? In the desert the sand dulls the glass covers and drops the out put. I really wish it would work but there are so many short falls. Solar is the way to go but were too far gone on fossil fuels i can not see how we can change fast enough to make a real dent in the problem? Some day it will have to happen, but at what cost. For right now it’s duct tape on Hover dam. Back to reality google “peak oil” it’s worse than global warming, and it’s happening now. Been following it for years.

  50. Stuart Says:

    It’s pretty tough to generate enthusiasm for taking action against global warming when you have headlines like these being published:

    * “Cyclist braves brutal cold to battle global warming”
    * “Global warming activist limbs go numb from cold on trek to Antarctica”
    * “Minnesota dog sled race cancelled because of too much snow”
    * “Eiffel Tower closed, flights hit by snow”
    * “Blizzards close down over 1,000 village roads in Turkey”
    * “The day the sea froze: Arctic conditions continue to grip UK”
    * “Communist-era power shortages hit as deadly cold, heavy snows grip Europe”
    * “Indian geologist declares: Global cooling will lead to our extinction”
    * “Poor burn books to stay warm in chilly India”
    * “Record levels of CO2 unable to stop record cold!”
    * “Earth’s average temperature showed no detectable warming from December 1978 until the 1997 El Nino”
    * “NCDC: the U.S. cools down by 0.49 degrees F per decade”
    * “Global sea ice ends year at same level as 1979″
    * “Reality check: Politically left scientists now rejecting climate fears”
    * “Claims of impending marine species extinctions due to CO2 warming refuted by real-world evidence”
    * “Princeton professor fired by Gore says warming-fear promotion has turned into a cult”
    * “Sunspots had been predicting major cooling since 2000″
    * “Extreme –60F Alaska cold grounds planes, disables cars”

  51. J Daven Says:


    I too can play your game:

    Expert: 12 of 17 penguin species in decline
    Audubon: Warming is changing birds’ habits
    Study: Warming will shift West’s weeds
    ‘Warm everywhere’ in Arctic this winter
    Move to ban commercial fishing in Arctic north
    Uneven sea level rise likely, study finds
    Going to the dogs, and warming, in Greenland
    eep sea Web camera eyes climate change
    Hot, dry Australia sees fire danger rise
    ‘Boulder bunny’ in danger due to warming?
    Record-breaking heat scorches Australia…
    Scientist see holes in glacier at Alaska volcano…
    2007 the second warmest year on record
    Greece swelters and burns in record heatwave
    Drought raises spectre of war
    Scientist says sea level rises underestimated
    Tuvalu to disappear under the waves?
    India’s Ganges river drying up
    Dengue fever spreading and increasing
    Glacier National Park glacier-less by 2030
    Vietnam under threat from rising oceans
    Malaysian fish species disappearing

    You can find these stories at


    among many, many more at other sites. Some are stupid, some don’t make any sense, some are due to paranoia, some use hoakie pseudoscience however, a great deal of them are spot on accurate.

    The internet is a great place to find (mis)information.

  52. Stuart Says:

    Yes, and that’s the point J Daven. Most people (including me) don’t know what is information and what is misinformation about global warming. And as long as we don’t observe any obvious changes in climate on which to base the beliefs you profess and act upon them, we aren’t going to change our beliefs and actions.

    On the other hand, we will act to prevent environmental catastrophes that are observable and obviously damaging to the natural world, such as the fact that there is an enormous amount of plastic waste floating about in the ocean.


  53. Don Says:

    Stuart gets extra points for well said! Careful Stuart he will try the “climate change” line than anything goes. Plastic in the ocean now there’s something we can take care of!

  54. J Daven Says:

    So I guess that means that Don and Stuart are the type of guys that evacuate when the hurricane is right over their head rather than days before when it is first forecasted. That’s okay. Some people have to see it to believe.

    Plastics in the ocean. Who cares?! It doesn’t effect my everyday life. I’m not having to change my everyday routine because of plastics in the ocean. Let’s just let it get to the point when our beaches are overrun and most of the fish in the sea are dead before we do anything. It will cost too much money to do anything about it now and it may not even cause that much damage. Lol! You guys are rich.

    Taken straight from the environmentalist prophet’s mouth, the great Stuart:

    “And as long as we don’t observe any [plastic] in [the ocean from where I live] on which to base the beliefs you profess and act upon them, we aren’t going to change our beliefs and actions.”

    Nice try guys but given your attitude, no one will get off their ass to do anything as simple as picking out plastic from the ocean. You can’t pick and choose based on what is simple and in front of your face. The most pressing concerns we are faced in the future are difficult to understand and even more difficult to solve.

  55. Don Says:

    Hey Daven did you drive to work today or walk? How many solar panels on your house? How much carbon did you produce with these e-mails? How much rain water do you save and use at home? I’m sorry all your energy is from what? Fossil fuel? Talk is easy with some one else’s money. Global warming cannot be stopped. There is no magic machine we can turn on and clean it all up. It dosn’t matter what anyone thinks it can’t be changed. Unless of couse you live in la la land. Every person on this planet would have to change by the end of the week in order to stop CO2 release. It will never happen! I’m ready for the huricane, solar panels, rain collection, garden, bio-diesel generator, hybrid car! Bring it on! But none of this will remotley help unless we all do it. How about you Daven?

  56. J Daven Says:

    Well, no one here has said definitively that we will stop global warming but that we must cut down on fossil fuels. No one here has explicitly said that once we cut down on fossil fuels that global warming magically stops. The debate has mostly been about whether global warming or global cooling exists.

    I want fossil fuels to be removed from our society because I don’t like buying anything from the Middle East. I also don’t like the fact that our economy is so tied to a resource that might be very scarce in the coming decades. And if and I stress if, cutting down on these fuels helps our environment then that’s fing awesome. If not, at least we solved some of our other problems and we will just have to hope that rising temperatures aren’t as bad as some people think.

    Man will have wrought what man will have wrought but there is NO reason, I repeat, NO reason, why we shouldn’t cut down on fossil fuels NOW. You have done so, I am doing so (live very, very close to my job, fuel efficient car, live in small duplex, recycle, etc.). Now what the hell is wrong with encouraging others to do so. You rebuild the levee after it gets knocked down. Not say screw it just because there will be another hurricane next season.

  57. Don Says:

    SANTA FE, N.M. — Former astronaut Harrison Schmitt, who walked on the moon and once served New Mexico in the U.S. Senate, doesn’t believe that humans are causing global warming.

    “I don’t think the human effect is significant compared to the natural effect,” said Schmitt, who is among 70 skeptics scheduled to speak next month at the International Conference on Climate Change in New York.

    Schmitt contends that scientists “are being intimidated” if they disagree with the idea that burning fossil fuels has increased carbon dioxide levels, temperatures and sea levels.

    “They’ve seen too many of their colleagues lose grant funding when they haven’t gone along with the so-called political consensus that we’re in a human-caused global warming,” Schmitt said.

    • Click here to visit FOXNews.com’s Natural Science Center.

    Dan Williams, publisher with the Chicago-based Heartland Institute, which is hosting the climate change conference, said he invited Schmitt after reading about his resignation from The Planetary Society, a nonprofit dedicated to space exploration.

    Schmitt resigned after the group blamed global warming on human activity.

    In his resignation letter, the 74-year-old geologist argued that the “global warming scare is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision-making.”

    Williams said Heartland is skeptical about the crisis that people are proclaiming in global warming.

    “Not that the planet hasn’t warmed. We know it has or we’d all still be in the Ice Age,” he said. “But it has not reached a crisis proportion and, even among us skeptics, there’s disagreement about how much man has been responsible for that warming.”

    Schmitt said historical documents indicate average temperatures have risen by 1 degree per century since around 1400 A.D., and the rise in carbon dioxide is because of the temperature rise.

    Related StoriesClimate Warming Gases Rising Faster Than Expected
    Experts: Climate Change Fueling Australian Fires
    Warming Climate Pushing Birds Northward
    Sea Levels Rising Faster Than Ever
    How to Go Green in Hard Times
    Schmitt also said geological evidence indicates changes in sea level have been going on for thousands of years. He said smaller changes are related to changes in the elevation of land masses — for example, the Great Lakes are rising because the earth’s crust is rebounding from being depressed by glaciers.

    Schmitt, who grew up in Silver City and now lives in Albuquerque, has a science degree from the California Institute of Technology. He also studied geology at the University of Oslo in Norway and took a doctorate in geology from Harvard University in 1964.

    In 1972, he was one of the last men to walk on the moon as part of the Apollo 17 mission.

    Schmitt said he’s heartened that the upcoming conference is made up of scientists who haven’t been manipulated by politics.

    Of the global warming debate, he said: “It’s one of the few times you’ve seen a sizable portion of scientists who ought to be objective take a political position and it’s coloring their objectivity.”

  58. rkolter Says:

    Being a formor astronaut, walking on the moon, working for the Senate, or even being a (long retired) geologist, does not constitute a knowledgable source.

    He states the majority of scientists are being misled by politics. But, in fact he offers no evidence of this. Consortiums of hundreds of scientists the world over have agreed global warming is overwhelmingly a human caused situation.

    He says he’s hearted by the upcoming confrence made of scientists who haven’t been manipulated by politics. And he has deduced that they haven’t been because…?

    Please, please read and think objectively? If this guy told you that milk caused cancer, and after all, he should know, he’s been on the MOON, would you believe him?

  59. Don Says:

    Daven, you cannot get to work with out it, you can not heat your apartment, or turn on your lights with out fossil fuels. You are bitting the hand that feeds you. We as humans have nothing else to use that works. People have tryed and failed for years myself included. 20,000 dollars and the panels cut my bills by 40%. Not 100% would be nice try sending only 40% of a e-mail. The whole idea sound great solar powers all our needs! Kinda like the 60′s we should have flying cars and skate boards!

  60. rkolter Says:

    Don -

    Solar panels have improved dramatically both in efficiency and in price, in the last few years.

    But even if they hadn’t, if everyone did a 40% drop, that would be huge.

    Or alternatively, if we started putting solar farms up in areas that get the most sunlight and fed that energy into the grid, homes without solar panels would effectively be using cleaner energy.

    Again, I say for the record – I don’t think we’ll do it. I think we’ll burn fossil fuels until gas hits $4, then complain a bit… then wind down. Then complain when it hits $5… and so on. We’ll get incremental change when it hurts us directly in our wallets not to change. But we won’t get a large scale solution up and running.

    But my pessimism doesn’t mean that the technology doesn’t exist.

  61. J Daven Says:

    I must confess my bias here but for good reason. Any and I repeat any source that comes from Fox News is not reputable one bit. I don’t want to insult any republicans or conservatives here, but those who listen to Fox News are the least informed out there since it is simply a propaganda network.

    Now this does not mean that republicans, conservatives, liberals, democrats, etc. don’t know what they are talking about. Of course not. Both sides contribute to our society. It’s just that Fox News’ purpose is propaganda and not the pursuit of truth. No big deal. We live in a democracy and there are other channels and sources of info so one propaganda network won’t effect much. If you might notice, there isn’t many on Fox News talking coherently in support of global warming. Only that individual they can find and pay, comes on the network and professes scientific pressure from the community. This pleases their constiuents who already have formed an opinion and just want to live happily with their opinion propagated by others.

    As far as political manipulation and pressure, this is a very poor way of proving a point. It’s easy to say an issue is being tainted by outside pressures using one guy who goes on air and complains, but luckily science doesn’t fall easily to this. Unlike faith and supernatural beliefs, you can actually prove scientific research by reproducing experiments in a lab or finding other verifiable data in the environment. Global warming is constantly proven time and time again by scientists who will never go on Fox news or know this astronaut fellow or even care about us writing on this webblog about the Georgia Drought.

    Take for example, evolution. Many people on both sides pressure boards of education, science literature, hiring/firing of political appointees, etc. based on pressure for and against evolution. None of this makes evolution false or disappear. Evolution is observed over and over and over and over and over again in nature. If one scientist is pressured to believe in evolution or not to believe from other colleagues or religious influence, evolution does not automatically vanish from nature.

    This one guy came to my school invited by the Christ King Fellowship. His nickname is Dr. Dino. He only has religious degrees and has taken a few geology classes. Because of this, he says that he has found proof that the earth is only 4000 years old and that man and dinosaurs co-existed together because on land that he owns in Texas he has found human footprints right next to dinosaur footprints. This one piece of evidence (proven to be a hoax) is all religious zealots needed to fuel their disbelief in evolution and pay this guy to tour the nation and spout his nonsense.

    This political wrangling is just the way of humanity. If you listen to one Fox News story about an american hero who was an astronaut who says something about something, don’t base your existence on this. You will be disappointed every time. Look at multiple sources, think for yourself and for God sakes turn off the TV and start reading some science journals.

    Just like those religious zealots that look in awe at Dr. Dino’s research pictures of men riding around on top of dinosaurs like horses, Fox news watchers only need one person to go on the air in an official looking capacity to further their beliefs and disbeliefs.

  62. Don Says:

    Sure sounds really keen guys! Guess home depot will be stocking any time now. The money is probably in my account as i write. Guess i should read more CNN and al gore to be more up to date. Golly wish i could be as informed as daven. Why has it taken so long to turn on those nifty solar panels and stop global warming. Sure sounds easy! This will be great!

  63. J Daven Says:

    Science journals, Don! Science journals! Go to the library of your local public university. Go to the journal section and look up global warming in the electronic card catalog. Read about the research straight from the scientists who visit the poles themselves. Read about the techniques they use to burrow into the ice and take core samples. Read about the scientific instruments they use to analyze the samples. Read about the comparisons with other researchers and past data. I will warn you, it will be boring as hell but you will be more informed than the dumbed down synthesis of this material by the networks.

    How many global warming talks do you think Anderson Copper gives to the Biology department at MIT? None!

  64. Don Says:


  65. GThierry Says:

    There’s your problem, Don. You didn’t read real science journals. Science Journals don’t read like that stuff you posted. Science Journals go: The morphological vectors of any given n sub4, when transposed into the cosine of c squared minus CL, sub r over x cubed, were found in certain instances to be not equal to the square of pi times the . . . .

  66. J Daven Says:




    Okay, well I see you are tired of this subject so we can retire the debate for now. Stay optimistic, my friend. You never know what humanity is capable, both good and bad.

  67. Don Says:

    I’m not tired of the subject. I don’t have a clue where you guys think your coming from. Other than you like to hear yourself talk and sound important repeating other peoples words. You decide what you want to hear and look for some one else to back you.

  68. rkolter Says:

    Uhm, no Don. The people who are submitting non-experts and op-ed pieces as proof that there is a controversy about global climate change are actually the ones who have decided what they want to hear, and are looking for backers.

    They are also the same people claiming there is a controversy, and providing dozens of scientists, but rarely one in a related field, to back up their theory. Despite thousands, literally, of scientists who have signed onto multiple documents declaring this a serious issue, who have actually done observations and experiments to determine what their position should be.

    Scientists… well, real ones anyway, start with a hypothesis, and then run tests and gather data that could either prove or falsify the hypothesis. Climate change deniers do not do this – they start with a negative theory – that climate change is NOT human caused, and then bring up idea after idea, each of which real scientists then actually test and prove wrong.

    It’s the SUN! no… it’s not. No other planets have a marked increase in temperature.

    It’s a natural cycle! No… it’s not. The growth of CO2 in our atmosphere is unmatched in any other period.

    The CO2 is going up because it’s getting hotter, not vice versa! Well… it’s true that CO2 levels will climb in addition because of temperature, something had to cause the temperature rise and no denier has offered a solution.

    Sure we have… it’s uh… The SUN!

    … and so it goes…

  69. rkolter Says:

    … although to be fair, I think that you did say you agreed there was such a change going on, but that there is nothing we can do to stop it.

    There ARE things we can do to stop it, but I will grant you that I don’t believe we are as a species willing to do anything about it. Give a diabetic a candy bar and they may well eat it. Near-blind people will still want to drive. Many depressed people know they’re depressed but do not seek available help for it.

    … and despite most of the world knowing we’re screwing up the planet and that there are fixes, I don’t think most of the world will do a thing about it.

  70. J Daven Says:

    I guess I can’t let this one go. Don you are a freaking hypocrite:

    “Other than you like to hear yourself talk and sound important repeating other peoples words. You decide what you want to hear and look for some one else to back you.”

    YOU have posted just as many comments here at anyone else. Your comments have been just as long as the rest of us. You like to hear YOURSELF talk just as much as the rest of us or you would have stop commenting a long time ago.

    And don’t you dare talk about posting other peoples words that back a point. You posted the Fox News piece. You posted that guy Schmitt’s words. You are quoting sources about solar and other things to back up your point.

    Don’t try and turn this around on us. Everyone tries to use sources and evidence to back up one’s observations. It’s called science and open debate. That really gets on my nerves what you dare to say especially saying we have no clue what we are talking about from the guy quoting Fox News.

    I’m a PH.D. scientist in chemistry. My dad has a masters in environmental science and works for the EPA in Atlanta, GA no less. What the hell do you do that gives you such great insight and a “clue” as you say.

  71. Don Says:

    Science Journals go: The morphological vectors of any given n sub4, when transposed into the cosine of c squared minus CL, sub r over x cubed, were found in certain instances to be not equal to the square of pi times the . . . .
    Yep, the above clears it up! Environmental science, sounds important. The guy next door works for the EPA home all the time lots of vacation, he’s a director, in charge of picking through the garbage in New Orleans. I quoted Fox once, so? I’ll bet 20$ dollars your a democrat. Talk about bias!

  72. Chicken Little Says:

    J Daven Says:
    February 18th, 2009 at 11:41 am

    I guess I can’t let this one go. Don you are a freaking hypocrite:

    Don Says:
    February 18th, 2009 at 1:43 pm

    Science Journals go: The morphological vectors of any given n sub4, when transposed into the cosine of c squared minus CL, sub r over x cubed, were found in certain instances to be not equal to the square of pi times the . . . .

    and you all say I ruined this blog


  73. Don Says:

    In an effort to clear up the topic the below was quoted to me on this blog.
    GThierry Says:

    February 17th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
    There’s your problem, Don. You didn’t read real science journals. Science Journals don’t read like that stuff you posted. Science Journals go: The morphological vectors of any given n sub4, when transposed into the cosine of c squared minus CL, sub r over x cubed, were found in certain instances to be not equal to the square of pi times the . . . .

    Information like this looks really important but says and does nothing. Kinda like congress! I am still a hipocrite, but these bunny huggers are worse than CL!

  74. Tommy Says:

    carbon emissions – hmm are we not being a little extra in the fact that reference to Obama in the white house has been mentioned. Ok I understand that he is the new president but to expect rapid results anf fast is a little optiomistic ! well good luck is all i can say to obama !!

  75. DSE Says:

    rkolter says:

    Scientists… well, real ones anyway, start with a hypothesis, and then run tests and gather data that could either prove or falsify the hypothesis. Climate change deniers do not do this – they start with a negative theory – that climate change is NOT human caused, and then bring up idea after idea, each of which real scientists then actually test and prove wrong.

    I’m not a scientist, but with all due respect, I don’t think what you are saying is correct. Climate change deniers do not start with a theory that global warming is not valid and then only listen to evidence that contradicts global warming. And alternatively, it doesn’t appear that scientist that adhere the global warming theory are supporting that theory with any substantive testing or data.

    Here are some observations that don’t seem to be in sync with global warming – refute them with scientific data if you will:
    1) antartica is not warming, it is cooler now than it was 30 years ago with the exception of one small portion of the continent.
    2) there is more ice in/on antartica than there was 30 years ago.
    3) there is an equivalent amount of ice in/on Greenland now as there was 30 years ago, and there is as much ice on the arctic cap now as there was 30 years ago.
    4) global temperatures have not increased in the past 10 years
    5) while there was signifcant warming in the period from 1980 to 1998, the 1990s in general were no warmer than it was in the 1930s.
    6) its no warmer now than it was during the medieval warming period when vikings settled Greenland.

    All of these observations make people such as myself sceptical of whether the resources
    Its obvious and proven that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but I think there is general consensus that we don’t have any idea how to quantify the impact from increasing the concentration of CO2 by 100 parts per million. There are simply too many variables. These observations I listed above lead myself and many others to question whether the cost and resources required to change the world off of a carbon based energy system to one without carbon sources of energy is justified by the amount of warming we’ve experienced to date.

    Now for a scientist, you don’t seem to have a very good grasp of the chief arguements “deniers” are making.

    It’s the SUN! no… it’s not. No other planets have a marked increase in temperature. – really? How are we measuring the average global temperature of mercury, venus, and mars to within one degree farenheit, and for that matter, how much would we expect them to warm up when they don’t have an atmosphere that would insulate the warming?

    It’s a natural cycle! No… it’s not. The growth of CO2 in our atmosphere is unmatched in any other period. – I’ve never heard one “denier” argue that man doesn’t have some role in the increase in CO2. I have heard plenty argue that the current warming is part of a cycle, and that as part of the normal cycle, we can expect the earth to be in an ice age much larger portion of the time than it is warm like it is now.

    The CO2 is going up because it’s getting hotter, not vice versa! – no, the theory is that in the past, increases in CO2 have followed increases in global temperature, not preceeded them. This is not intended to refute the reason for CO2 increasing, its intended to refute the use as evidence for global warming theory that an increase in CO2 causes increasing temperatures.

  76. Chicken Little Says:


  77. Don Says:

    OK so it’s warming there’s nothing you can do about it. Nor can you fix it. Can’t clean it up eather CO2 stay’s around for a long long time. About the time we cut CO2 output China will, is, doubling theirs. This whole thing is like arguing sports. Waste of time.

  78. jack Says:

    Face it guys, its not a scientific issue but rather a political issue or faith issue. I personally think its the biggest scam since scientist thought the earth was flat.

    Like Creationism, it comes down to who do you put your faith in, God or Scientists/man?

    My believe is time and time again man is proven wrong, yet God has been proven correct 100% of the time.

    Why should I put my faith in fallible men when I can put my faith in an infallible God?

  79. Don Says:

    Good response Jack! Does anyone know where the lake level is at?

  80. Me Says:

    Any “fact” that is reported by a scientist that gets government funding…is not so much a fact, but an advertising strategy. Scientists are getting huge research grants to study Global Worming. I would be shocked to hear a scientist say, “Global worming is not caused by man, so stop giving me all of this research funding?” It is all about money people!

  81. Me Says:

    Scientists don’t make money by saying there isn’t a problem.

  82. Don Says:

    We now have proof that global warming is BS. For the first time since the EPA was formed they have decided for the first time after 45 plus years of testing that CO2 is a toxin that must be regulated. I think this is great all the low income people who voted for change trying to just get by will be getting a carbon bill with an increase in utility bills. Wow less than 100 days for the new admin. and this has been found to be a toxin! Looks like some of our readers will never get out of the apartments with the added bills to solve something that will never be cleaned up. Looks like the global warming workers will be the first to loose their jobs when the boss gets those news utility bills. Might want to remove that bumper sticker before the lay offs start.

  83. richtfan Says:

    a. the only warming we get is from the sun. sunspots happen or don’t happen regardless the amount of co2 in the atmosphere.

    b. co2 is beneficial for plant life and should be highly encouraged. there is no scientific data linking co2 made by mankind to any detrimental climate event. it is all just a bunch of crap spewed by Algore in an effort to get Americans to fall under even much more ridiculous federal bureaucracy. there is no actual proof of anything.

    c. back in the Middle Ages there were grapes growing in England. We have actual evidence of this. There were no cars back then. how on earth was it warm enough, without the automobile around, for England to have temperatures that would sustain the growth of grapes?

    d. co2 is exhaled by humankind in case you missed biology in high school. therefore, to reduce co2 we need to encourage mass genocide and or suicide. that would solve the problem. see how stupid and hysterical these people are?

    e. global warming and climate change fanatics, which means most of them, are involved not just in a movement but a new religion. the church of global warming has been formed and is throwing its hysterical weight around with alarmism and fear on a daily basis. this is a movement, not an issue. just look at how they react to anyone and anything who opposes them. they don’t debate the facts. that would not stand up to scrutiny. what they do is call names and make accusations like ” you don’t care about the planet or our trees”. algore will not debate anyone about this stupid stuff because he’ll get toasted by anyone with credentials. ever heard of the Petition Project? http://www.petitionproject.org. go there and view the names and credentials of all of the more than 31000 real scientists who say there is no global warming, there is no manmade climate change and we have no reason to be alarmed or concerned.

    this is all a bunch of crap made up by a hysterical leftist group led by algore and his minions.

  84. Don Says:

    I agree! Thanks for the post! Sad thing is the carbon tax bills that are coming are the largest in history and cannot be stopped. Good news is the poor and working poor who voted for this admin. will be hit the hardest. It’s starting with the huge tax on a pack of smokes. I’m not a smoker but i feel sorry for them just the same.

  85. Don Says:

    Carbon dioxide is the unavoidable byproduct of fossil fuel combustion, which currently provides 85 percent of America’s energy. Thus, it will be very costly to move away from this preferred energy source, and especially doing so as expeditiously as S. 2191 requires. A study by Charles River Associates puts the cost (in terms of reduced household spending per year) of S. 2191 at $800 to $1,300 per household by 2015, rising to $1,500 to $2,500 by 2050.[2] Electricity prices could jump by 36 to 65 percent by 2015 and 80 to 125 percent by 2050.[3] No analysis has been done on the impact of S. 2191 on gasoline prices, but an Environmental Protection Agency study of a less stringent cap and trade bill estimates impacts of 26 cents per gallon by 2030 and 68 cents by 2050.[4]

    Even these cost projections may underestimate the true costs, because they assume no unpleasant surprises. But the world has already witnessed many unpleasant surprises with Europe’s ongoing efforts to impose a cap and trade program under the Kyoto Protocol, the international climate treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

    In fact, European efforts have racked up significant costs while failing to reduce emissions.[5] Nearly every European country participating has higher emissions today than when the treaty was first signed in 1997. Further, despite ongoing criticism of the United States from Kyoto parties for failing to ratify the treaty, emissions in many of these nations are actually rising faster than in the United States.

    The European experience also shows the problem of cap and trade fraud.[6] None other than Enron’s Ken Lay was a strong supporter of carbon cap and trade when the idea was first floated in the 1990s, saying that it could “do more to promote Enron’s business than almost any other regulatory initiative.” These carbon allowances that will be bought and sold have a value estimated at $50 billion to $300 billion annually, and the trade in them would be a huge new business.[7] Enron may be gone, but others ready to take advantage of cap and trade–often at public expense–are not.

    The actual cost of S. 2191 is difficult to estimate–as America has never had to deal with such severe energy constraints–but would likely be very high.

    A Regressive Tax

    By limiting the supply of fossil fuels, S. 2191 would raise the cost of energy. For consumers, cap and trade means more expensive gasoline and electricity as well as net job losses in energy-dependent sectors. Senator Lieberman himself concedes costs into the hundreds of billions of dollars. And as the Congressional Budget Office has noted, such energy cost increases act as a regressive tax on the poor.[8]

    Lost Jobs

    The net job losses from S. 2191 are estimated by Charles River Associates to be 1.2 million to 2.3 million by 2015.[9] Some of these jobs will be lost for good, due to the impact of higher energy costs on economic activity. Others, chiefly in the manufacturing sector, will be sent overseas. In the very likely event that S. 2191 significantly raises domestic manufacturing costs and that developing nations refuse to impose similar restrictions, the American economy could experience a substantial outsourcing of manufacturing jobs to those nations with lower energy costs.

    Little Environmental Gain

    While the costs of aggressive cap and trade proposals are substantial, the environmental benefits are suspect. This is true even if one fully accepts the claim of man-made global warming. The most ambitious measure to date is the Kyoto Protocol, but even if the U.S. were a party to this treaty and the European nations and other signatories were in full compliance (most are unlikely to meet their targets), the treaty would reduce the Earth’s future temperature by an estimated 0.07 degrees Celsius by 2050–an amount too small even to verify.[10] S. 2191 would at best do only a little more.

    Indeed, a number of economists, including many who are far from global warming skeptics, warn of overly aggressive cap and trade measures imposing costs exceeding the benefits.[11] In other words, the costs of implementing such measures would be higher than the value of the global warming damage that they would prevent.

    The Slippery Slope

    It is a near certainty that the first climate bill enacted will not be the last one. In fact, most major environmental organizations have already criticized S. 2191 and other pending global warming bills as inadequate, or as at best “a good first step.” The economic impacts of S. 2191, though substantial in their own right, could be a mere down payment toward costlier subsequent measures.


    Cap and trade bills are nothing short of a government re-engineering of the American economy. And S. 2191, with its aggressive targets to reduce emissions from fossil fuel use, would put the nation on a path of serious economic harm not justified by any benefits.

    Ben Lieberman is Senior Policy Analyst for Energy and the Environment in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation

  86. Chris Long Says:

    It’s amazing how many closet scientists this issue has spawned. It’s also amusing, in a frightening way, to watch how angry and bizarre the global warming alarmists act. Of course, the funniest thing of all is listening to Al Gore drone on and on about carbon footprints & global warming and finding out exactly how large his carbon footprint is. Oh, & lets not forget that in an age with untold advances in teleconferencing and remote meeting capabilities, Obama, who loves to tell you how technologically savvy he is, wasted 9000+ gallons of jet fuel flying around in Air Force one to make Earth Day appearances and talk about “green initiatives”. Speaking of “green initiatives”, I wonder how upset the “greenies” are knowing that “evil corporations” are profiting like mad over this latest marketing fad.

    The bottom line is, how big of a difference will we make in preventing/stopping of global warming? Very little/none. Can we all do something not to add to the problem? Sure we can, but our contributions, good and bad, are a drop in the bucket. Should we all conserve and take steps to preserve the environment? You’re damn right we should. We should all be good stewards of our world and its natural resources, but get over yourselves people. Really. Nobody’s denying your precious theory of global warming…just the degree to which you alarmist quacks think that man is responsible for it.

  87. Don Says:

    Obama is as we speak pushing hard for a 50% increase in all engery costs. Heating, electric, gasoline. If we are lucky this will pass and cap and trade will become reality. So for all of you that cannot afford your homes, car, lights and have lost your job well this is the change you wanted! And not one penny actualy goes to changing global warming. Who ever that bunny hugger was living in the apartment on this site, hope you like it there because that’s all you get. I’m sure you can’t afford a two hundred dollar light bill. LOL! Don’t worry the planet will still over heat your obama just gave that money to some welfar slob! Good job bunny huggers you just shot yourselves in the foot and made your master al gore rich! LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL!

  88. Chicken little fan Says:

    Man made global warming is the all time biggest hoax ever! It’s about the government controling you period! BGAWK!

  89. Solar Pumps Says:

    Spectacular, I have been looking for something this good. Playing with RSS- I can keep up to date with your site now- cool feature.

  90. Solar Guy Says:

    Nice post. You are in my RSS reader now so I can read more from you sometime again.

  91. Dannie Bracey Says:

    Found a great site that lets Outsourcing Buyers post their projects for FREE.

  92. Anselm Says:

    Spectavular, I have been lkoking for something this good. Playing with RSS- I cwn keep up to date with your site now- cool feature.;

  93. Fruman378@gmail.com Says:

    Hi. First I wish to say that I really like your web site, just identified it the past week but I have been following it increasingly since then.

    I look to concur with most of your respective thoughts and beliefs and this submit is no exception. entirely

    Thank you for the great webpage and I hope you maintain up the excellent do the job. If you do I will carry on to read it.

    Have a very great day.

  94. 1 Week Diet Says:

    good submit, this will assist me with some odd stuff i should do for varsity, thanks my good friend

  95. Jeromy Ottley Says:

    I appreciate ur insightful post. I will check this site again

  96.  Carpet Extractor Says:

    it seems that the only solution to global warming is the reduction of CO2 and CFCs;,*

  97. Wes Neigh Says:

    I saw this on another post and it made me smile

    Life is an open door. It can be closed at any time, so don’t complain about the draught. :)


    The formula for losing weight is not difficult – eat less and workout more often – the issues surface when we in reality try to put that into operation! There are lots of stumbling blocks in the big wide world aren’t there?! I uncovered some good advice by visiting the web resource in the box below, they have lots of tips, I worked off 7 pounds by following their tips.

  99. Chasity Mcoy Says:

    Try a solution of bleach and water in a spray bottle and cleanse the are with it -1/3 bleach to 2/3 water.

  100. Mason Parker Says:

    global warming would only increase if we keep on polluting the environment`-,

  101. Ecommerce Leeds Says:

    What percentage of global warming deniers do you think don’t know the difference between weather and climate, local and global, or past and present? Considering this figure and the small minority of people who continue to deny anthropogenic global warming (AGW), what does this tell you about the AGW denial movement? Thanks

  102. Window Support Says:

    India and China aren’t doing enough because the alternative sources of power generation are too expensive to adopt on a mass scale, and their energy requirements are increasing with every passing day. So, if the developed nations are willing to fund this transformation to clean energy, it would lessen the burden of India particularly due to the financial constraints that it currently faces. And they will be ready to adopt new greener methods of power generation for their growing needs.

  103. Accommodation in Cannes Says:

    Yes we can stop global warming with few daring steps.It should be implement by everyone around universe.We need to stop the Carbon producing things,which is main cause of it.Nuclear plants should be closed and try to use electricity in limit.Plant more n more tree and make environment greeny.

  104. Ecommerce Leeds Says:

    They were supposed to be posted the 31st of October, but I didn’t see them, does anyone have a link? Or they not even out yet?Thanks……….

  105. Indian Recipes Says:

    We only can prevent global warming and we have to prevent .It is for our future and children’s future.It’s time to take desperate steps unless it is too late.

  106. Waterproofing New York Says:

    The report looks at historica precendent for such significant events, of which there are a few. The good news is that life survived all those previous events, the bad news is that there could be significant negative political and economic consequences to such a rapid shift.

  107. Indian Recipes Says:

    The best way to prevent global warming is planting trees in our places.

  108. best car loans Says:

    We are the only creature on this earth which can surely prevent global warming with maintaining some rules and steps like not wasting water,planting trees.

  109. Waterproofing New York Says:

    Based on a study commissioned by the United Nations, global warming is projected to increase the average tempature by 3.5 degrees over the next century. According to the IPCC (Inter-govermental Panel on Climate Change) the likely result would be that sea levels would rise by between 0.09 and 0.88 meters..,.,.,

  110. Ladders Says:

    The main cause behind global warming is increase in temperature.
    We can prevent it by planting more n more tree.Using cycle in our daily life activities.By using less electricity heat generating products.Proper switching off lights and machines when not in use.Like that…

  111. best car loans Says:

    There are a lot of contradictory reports doing the rounds regarding global warming. We first need to how much it has had firstly, whether negative or positive.

  112. Singles Holidays Says:

    The Simple Idea I will gave is to Walk a lot so the Green House Gas emission from the vehicles can be reduced and then it will be easy for Us to save our Earth these are all small steps I dont ask U people to walk a lot just walk for around 2-3 KM for the place where U have to go if the place lies within 2-3 Km radius. This can reduce both the Green House GAS emission level and then the Traffic all over the world.

  113. Waterproofing New York Says:

    I think the best way to prevent global warming to stop glaciers from melting.And it can be possible only planting more tress so that the temperature will not arise that will help us in stoping the enhancement in temperature.

  114. Waterproofing New York Says:

    one of the main reasons of global warming is not only human beings but also there are other natural reasons such as galvanic blasts which increase the temperature of the surroundings and contribute a little in global warming.

  115. florida search engine marketing Says:

    dont ask U people to walk a lot just walk for around 2-3 KM for the place

  116. florida search engine marketing Says:

    I think that what is misunderstood most about these temperature changes in the past is that everyone assumes they are extremely gradual.

  117. Contemporary Sofa Says:

    Global warming is viewed as a real problem. Many believe that the switch has already flipped. I don’t know, but maybe the solution lies not only in measures to reduce the output of green house gases but in active measures to reduce the amount of green house gases in the atmosphere.

  118. key tag Says:

    Yes Global warming can be prevent by introducing the ecofriendly products in every field so that the gases can not be come out and the temperature do not increases.

  119. Contemporary Sofa Says:

    Global warming is a natural cycle. Sure pollution sucks but it is not the reason for it. Even without the industrial age there would be another ice age. The bottled water industry will kill us all… ,.m.

  120. pc disposal Says:

    Global temperature swings can be caused more quickly by the sun than anything else. Volcanoes come in a distant second. Man is negligible.

  121. cloud accounting Says:

    Nobody knows for sure, but it ain’t gonna be like in “The Day After Tomorrow”. We will probably get more severe weather and in the long run it could trigger a mini ice-age as the Earth trys to balance things out.

  122. av installation Says:

    Ah, I’ve been looking at homes in the area and that is sort of a priority. Unless, a pool comes cheap enough.

  123. best car loans Says:

    More than that what will happen to the world.
    Wont the world just eventually repair the damage and life will prosper.
    Im just saying is global warming the end of the world or just
    The end of us.

  124. Fever in Toddlers Says:

    Recycle paper, plastic and glass, and buy products with less packaging. This can save 1,000 lbs. of carbon dioxide a year.

  125. men shaving balls Says:

    Reduce using of plastic materials in your house. specially disposable cups plates and things.

  126. business skills Says:

    I don’t have enough knowledge to have a firm opinion on the topic.

  127. business skills Says:

    I personally don’t believe in the global warming theory because… well I live in Texas and we had the coldest winter in over 10 years and it’s always hot anyway.

  128. business skills Says:

    i have the same ideals with you

  129. Dental Clinic Gurgaon Says:

    In modern age ,global warming is the main problem of many countries….every country wants to fight with that major problem…and for that they also make some plans and spend a lot of money over them but all in vain….atmosphere is ruined day by day…so everyone should think about that….thanks

  130. business skills Says:

    I really like it. I hope you will post again soon.

  131. Business Skills Says:

    Great post having some nice ideas .I totally apriciate your job .Good work .Keep it up

  132. massage therapy Says:

    This was a fantastic article. Really loved reading your we blog post. The information was very informative and helpful.

  133. Salt Lake City Says:

    I have bookmarked this for my friends. Keep blogging.

  134. Coal Briquetting Plant Says:

    if CO2 causes the global warming, it will only get more intense, until one day it is not undoable, and the world will take care the issue by eliminating most animals on the world, and everything begins back from zero.

Leave a Reply

Copyright © 2007-2009 -- Privacy Statement