Rabble Rouser says:

Oh and to the guy with the ice cubes letting them melt in a glass of water… add another ice cube or two, and that’s what you get when GREENLAND melts. Not all of the ice is on top of the water, there’s a whole lot of it that is STILL ON LAND. When it melts, you can throw your damn Mr. Wizard crap out the window!

I see a bunch of people here who are hung up on denial, because they are either too stupid, or too afraid to do anything. Some of us knew that this was happening 30 years ago, and were called crazies back then.

Then again, maybe it’s time that the virus that has infected this planet be wiped out. That virus… The Human Race.

Watching these hucksters cover their asses is a gas says:

EPA now says greenhouse gasses are a public health threat.

Next up, vaccines against greenhouse gasses and bans on entering greenhouses.

OOOOOOOOOO SCARY

And you want politicians to make you better when you are sick? ROFL

Ranger007 says:

Power and money! Power and money! Power and money!

What’s the question here?

If Algore was around 12,000 years ago, could he have prevented the formation of the Great Lakes? But he would have found someone (human, naturally) to blame.

arpie says:

Oy… Can we all agree that not everyone agrees that: men went to the moon, democracy is the best system; heck not everyone agrees that the earth is millions of years old.

So the fact that “not everyone agrees” doesn’t mean a thing. And unless someone here is a climatologist and is authoritatively talking about research they actually reviewed and understand, they’re talking out of their behinds.

That being said, I think it’s idiotic to think that non-sustainable fuels are just gonna last forever, so the point is moot, we need to move away from them. I care about my kids, grand-kids and their descendants, I don’t want to push the problem to them, I want to work on it now.

I also think it’s not worth the risk, most research does seem to point to climate change, and regardless of why, if we can do something about it, having cleaner air and renewable energy sources can only be seen as a good thing, unless you’re trying too hard to not think about it.

Bob says:

I could be wrong but what I read here:
http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/12/06/great-deconstruction-of-climategate/#comments
seems to indicate that the global warming numbers were manipulated. I also understand that in 1971 there were 5,000 polar bears and now there are 25,000. That must be why the icebergs are crowded.

Global warming is the religion of left. SO I understand how upset they get when they are told that they might not have facts to back up their religion. I just wish you would realize your being sold a bunch of crap so they can steal away your freedom. Think Hugo Chavez and Venezuela. Here’s a web site where a former citizen of Venezuela describes what happened in his country.
http://www.grabtheapple.com/page/2

Jason says:

To answer the ORIGINAL question…

The issue is that those that believe in AGW try to twist the argument so that it looks like those that do not believe in AGW also do not believe in global warming. This is a non-sequiter. To not believe in global warming would be to deny both the seasons and the greatest proof against AGW, the Medieval Warm Period.

The point at which the argument/debate needs to stay is on the AGW component. Given that there are plenty of FAR more dramatic warming periods in earths history, it is beyond stupid to immediately decide that this time, it is our fault. The eco-system has shown that it is plenty capable of turning the climate upside down and back on its own. No help from us.

Where the AGWers lose the debate on science is that the concentrations of CO2 have been shown to rise AFTER a temperature rise and NOT before. THIS very important fact constantly goes underreported or totally denied. We are now 10+ years into a flat/cooling trend yet CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are still rising rapidly. It is beyond obvious that the CO2 theory is at a minimum very flawed and very likely totally CRAP.

As for some of the stupidity demonstrated here from both sides of the debate…

You can chose to be silent and not appear to look stupid or open your mouth and remove all doubt.

– Ice volumes at BOTH ends of the planet are expanding.

Ice cover at the NP was at its lowest in summer 2007 but that was more specifically, LOWEST MEASURED. The north-west passage has been opened in the past more than once and when it was colder than it is now. We simply have never been able to measure things with dramatic accuracy until the advent of satellites. As of 2009, the ice at the NP has already returned to 1979 levels.

– Ice in a glass will not overflow the glass…

Well, this is a stick in your eye, tree in mine if you are not careful about how you use it. This illustration ONLY works for ice at the NP and that ice which is already floating at the SP. Glacial ice will cause an increase in sea level. Where the AGW people fail is with respect to the fact that there is still MORE ice forming in places such as Greenland and Antarctica in the central areas of those land masses. As for sea level change, there has been none measured that counts for anything at all.

– Cold kills more than heat does.

It does. Famines are driven more by crop failures from cold temperatures than people dying from heat exposure. Cold also drives the population indoors for longer periods of time and this increases the chance for communicable diseases. Add vermin to the problem and a plague is very easy to get started.

– EPA calls CO2 a danger.

CO2 is a necessary part of our ecosystem. All oxygen consuming life emits CO2. Humans are but one of 10s of millions of species. We are so insignificant that it is not even funny. The biomass of all the ants on earth matches our biomass as a species. 6.6 Billion human beings simply living exhale 1/5 as much as ALL industry combined (Estimates are from 2 years ago). So if you pick 4 more species that match our CO2 output, you tie industry. There are over 5000 species of mammals alone. Any 10 of them would EASILY outweigh all of our industry and us as creatures in the total output of CO2. This labeling of CO2 as a pollutant could quite possibly be the most stupid thing that our species has ever achieved. It is a direct assault on life itself.

Climate change is real and natural.

AGW is a fairy tale spun to justify more control for governments and dictators.

Humanity is but a flea on this planet. Our contribution is but like tossing a pebble in the ocean.

Hyph3n says:

It could take more like 50 or 100 years to sort out if it actually real.

Assuming for a moment this is a natural cycle, did scientist get lucky pushing a theory of global warming or was it a conspiracy since the 70’s?

Yes, the Earth goes through cycles… but from what I have seen we don’t know exactly what causes them, what triggers them or if we are in a “normal” cycle. Saying that cycle does not preclude human involvement.

Gary says:

“it’s hard to believe that the science is settled given all of these differing opinions.”

You mean differing opinions among people who aren’t qualified to have opinions on the subject at all. I’m sorry, but listening to Rush Limbaugh and reading some stuff on the internet does not make you an expert. On the other hand, thinking you are qualified to argue that real experts are wrong does make you a crackpot.

Eric Morris says:

@Rabble Rouser/#30

I could totally be wrong about that. I wasn’t 100% but it is some type of animal that does absorb/eat CO2. Anyway this is a sincere sorry from a 17 year old.

I still think it’s a natural cycle. I am 100% for people driving more fuel efficient cars, recycling, etc but it must be by individual choice not governmental mandate. I hate this world’s coming to an end crap pushed by idiots like Gore, they are just trying to make a buck.

SparkyOne says:

Wake me when we pass 8k ppm CO2 otherwise STFU!

SomedudeinPAUSA says:

I dont have a degree in any scientific field and all i can do is assess the information i have seen. And from what I have seen the man-made climate change skeptics seem to be a bunch of nut balls that cant simply construct a decent well thought out argument to convince me they are indeed correct. On the other hand most of what is said on the other side just makes common sense. Who knows though? I alone cant change the outcome of humanities fate… i just hope the people that can make the right choice. And why not just air on the side of caution?
Call me what you must.

SomedudeinPAUSA

Obamaforever says:

From: Obamaforever
To: Johnny (aka John C. Dvorak-I do not have a PhD in climatology, but I act like I do.) per #37

Quote: we’ll see who wins in five years

Question: Are you talking about the 2012 election or Climate Change?

If you are talking about the 2012 election, please remember you lost your ass when you bet against Obama in 2008. I suggest you save your money and stay out of the 2012 election.

If you are talking about Climate Change then you are showing your ignorance. Johnny, do you expect a 5 degree F increase or decrease in temperature in the five year period? If you do, you are an idiot.

Climate has lots of variables. You can have places that have an increase in temperature and you can have places that have a decrease in temperature. Scientists start to worry when the variations in the increases/decreases are greater than expected based on past history. Scientists are also concerned about the speed in which these variations are happening.

If we wait unit the ocean water is up to our upper lip or we wait until the oceans are dead it will be too late to do any about the climate.

I have a suggestion for you, Johnny. Why don’t you have a pro-Climate Change climatologist (with a PhD) on your crankygeeks show. You two can debate the pros and cons of Climate Change. I am thinking that the climatologist would wipe the floor with you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have asked this question before, but you did not answer.

Please answer the following question: Do you believe that it is O.K. to BURN fossil fuels?

Ah_Yea says:

#56 Mark,

Well said. I am becoming more convinced that the intended result of all this is vastly fewer people who can be controlled far easier.

The logic is inescapable. Given the laundry list you stated above, the only solution is a greatly reduced world population.

And all the talk of a one-world government, (aided by cap and trade), fits nicely into this scenario.

Frightening.

Mark T. says:

Ah_Yea, oh, I left off over-population. Ooh, that made me think of genetically engineered crops and steroid use on cattle. Add those to the list of crises.

Of course, $12 trillion of national debt (may soon be $14 trillion) is NOT a crisis!

Tech_1 says:

It is mostly due to magnetics.