this is exactly what one could have predicted. see, folks, even the liberal new york times says gore is lying. the paper issued a mea culpa for their cheerleading and propaganda leading us into the war. and those articles, like this one, were used in papers all over the country. 

Mm-hm. I do believe they have officially changed the name on the masthead to Even the Liberal New York Times.

SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!

Hurry!! Get your kids, they will now witness the demise of the last of the Republican Punditry Handmaidens of Neo-Con in their final hours before EXTINCTION! That's right, see our era's version of Dinosaurs, Pea size brain and all!

Barnes & Kondracke, the men whom are said to be authorities in public policy, and politics have died by their own hand, or voices long ago, and just don't know it!! Mark the event well, as we will soon be welcoming rational, objective, intelligent comment when they are gone.

Happy Thoughts is the return of the Fairness Doctrine!;

Dan Grady

Stay strong, Al! They're all just jealous because you have facts and they don't. They only have "truth", as Stephen Colbert would call it.

Actually, that's "truthiness".

Zutreffendheit?

"BARNES I'd still like these global-warming people to explain why -- why if it -- if mankind caused it to increase 1 degree over the last 100 years -- it increased 1 degree over many centuries many earlier -- what was it? Heavy breathing by dinosaurs?" I see this argument all the time, but it doesn't make any sense. No one denies that natural variability has occured in the past. Many things can cause warming. A good analogy would be a defense attorney who says "My client couldn't have murdered the victim. The victim's great-grandmother died in 1950 and my client wasn't around then." It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

They don't understand the meaning of the term "tipping point".  The first drop of water in a bucket does not constitute a threat of overflowing, nor does the second.  As the drops continue to accumulate, however, they represent a serious threat. 

 Just because there has been incremental warming in the past doesn't mitigate the threat of future incremental increases.  Indeed, the ACCUMULATION is the problem.  Additionally, future increases in CO2, whether ours or other nations', exacerbate the problem exponentially. 

We simply CANNOT sit back and allow this problem to spin out of control.  We MUST provide leadership to the rest of the world.  We represent something like 10% of the world's population but produce more than a third of the world's waste and pollution.  If other industrialized nations see no concern on the part of the Americans, why should they care? 

It's time to get our heads out of the sand, or in Fred Barnes' case, his a$$.

I'm a little suspect of any infomation based on dinosaurs breathing many centuries ago. There's a list of scientists on this item, ask a couple.

The pathology of denial on this issue is startling. I'm guessing a fair amount of fear."I'll lose what comfort I have in life, to If its true it'll be a life of unending pain we're all facing, but I can't say that." We are an intelligent and pragmatic nation. We have faced problems and delt with them. There are ways of reducing co2 and other polutents that we can easily sustain. And on the whole I'd a soon screw with our planet's atmosphere as little as possible. Life is fully dangerous as it is. Thank you I'll swallow the "Biggest con in the world" Just tell me whats the competition. The threat of Iraq, Unions,The republican's dedication to the middle class?

All you have to do to see why the righties are so adamant about being correct on global warming is to take a look at the last 6 years. Heck, throw in the prior 8 while you're at it. It's such a humiliating string of wrongs that they're starting to panic, and getting to the point where they might as well go all-in, even when they don't have a hand worth the ante. Newt, Delay, Contract on America, Bush and Dick, Iraq, Schiavo, wire-tapping, torture, rendition, Gonzales, Myers, Powell, Condi, Gonzales, Scooter, "the Dukester", Abramhoff, Kenny boy,... Too bad, they'll end up being wrong on this one, too.

If we're an intelligent and pragmatic nation, why do we put Democrats and Republicans into power time and time again, when both refuse to regulate our food and water and drugs and corporate abuses?

We had two chances to put a known consumer rights activist into the White House and we went with men who have allowed corporations to ride roughshod over our population. That's not intelligent or pragmatic.

Exactly! Just exactly. When will there be enough smart voters to turn this crap around?

Luckily, more of us are becoming aware of the realities, thanks to the Internet alternative to the corporate media. But will it be enough, will it be in time? I doubt it. Personally, I think the near future of the US looks pretty bleak. The poisoners are in charge and life expectancy is aleady dropping. Deaths from improperly regulated drugs is rising. Workplace safety is deteriorating. Health care costs rising so fast that soon the common worker will be bankrupted by an emergency room visit. All the Democrats and Republicans can offer is war crimes and more war crimes, using money we need here at home to fix the problems. It don't look good.

A large part of what we do and what we think we can do, comes from our leaders. A large number of us thought that our current leaders were good. We got sold a bag of trash, rich trash mind you, but trash. How that happenned is a long and ugly story. Which I don't have a spare week or so to explain. The information is out there find it.

Now we're gonna try the OTHER rich trash.

Find your opponents greatest strength then with great volume repeatedly, emphatically distort and misrepresent it, this has become the classic conservative strategy.

They should be scared, too. Healthy countrysides and clean air is a concern that resonates with everybody, especially rural conservatives.

Their tell is encapsulated in that last line, "--we're going to win this one." These anti-environment, scorched-earth hacks are concerned only with maintaining republican rule. Health be damned, these guys are going to win control.

Conservative leadership is about rule. Conervatives fear liberal leadership because liberal leadership is about representation. They fear the voices of Americans being represented on the environment.

Roundhouse, you're oversimplifying an issue.  In their zealousness to satisfy a large Green contingent, Liberals make mistakes.

To illustrate: Clinton's trip to Portland, Oregon shortly after being elected, with the objective of solving the impasse on National Forest timber issues.  Impasse meaning NOTHING in a Forest Service Timber Contract could please a Green, and the available appeal process put existing and future timber management contracts in indefinite limbo,an obvious crisis.

Clinton meant well, but was woefully uninformed, and beholden to Greens (understandable enough--They voted for him).  Clinton, I think, genuinely thought he could lead a compromise, pleasing Greens while arriving at a stable, at least predictable timber management policy.

The outcome:  disaster for the Forest Service management policy, message sent to the Western timber industry that it would cease to exist other than on private ownerships, except for some limited entry for what amounts to a gardening excercise around the fringes of National Forests, to placate the Greens; he couldn't get what he sincerely wanted. 

800-plus sawmills in 12 Western timber-producing states are now reduced to about 250, depending on what week it is.  Federal AND private stands are now sometimes too far from a sawmill for economically feasible management.  Forest fuels accumulate with no management (even where management is easily feasible), and we have now mega-fires instead of management and what would deliver building products into the market, to increase supply, benefitting consumers.  The resultant shortfall is made up in imports from foreign countries, some with unsound forestry practices, some with absolutely zero operations that we could classify as Best Management Practices.

I give Clinton credit for wanting compromise and believing he could make it happen, but it turned out opposite.

So NOW Clinton is responsible for forest fires?

What lemoc fails to tell you is that the mills in the northwest were shut down not due to lack of access to national forests, but for various other market related reasons

http://www.kettlerange.org/powermillreport.htm

enjoy

sounds like market conditions to me. an oversupply of timber and falling prices.

the initial reason I looked this info up was that one day I was watching C-Span and some Repub Sen or Rep (I can't remember which) was actually reciting the full list of mills that were supposedly shut down due to Clinton's policy on logging in national forests

NG--An excellent article.  No significant conflict with with what I was saying,  focusing primarily on present market conditions for ongoing shutdowns, and the logistics faced by mills at this time. The Prof made reference to the fact that "we in the NW are used to industrial firms rersponding to oversupply by temporary cutbacks and shutdowns....used to the roller coaster of international commodity prices...", but 'that we seem now to be in a new paradigm. 

We are.  The whole nature of the Western U.S. lumber industry has changed now, with Federal harvests (management) being virtually eliminated.  Federal timber prices, with an appraisal/bid process tied to market rates, once adjusted as low as necessary to sell the contract, and got bid to the moon when the market was up.  There are billions of board feet of Federal Timber close to where mills USED to be, but once out of management status, the mills left.  Timber stands are NOW significantly more distant and remote for existing plants.

Imports surged mightily over the past ten years, in response to our shorter supply domestically, and long-term forecasts would seem to encourage additional shutdowns.  We now import 1x4 from Scandanavia and 2x4 from Germany and Austria, Pine molding and shop stock from Chile, Brazil, Fiji, etc.  When our pines got in such short supply, the Radiata Pines from the tropics made their entrance into our markets and are now entrenched (not necessarily a bad thing).  Meantime, the question is:  do we want or need forest management? 

JSCOTT--no point in blaming any person(s) for the megafires.  Question is whether there is an alternative.

Lemoc - you do well reciting timber industry BS. There were/are many other variables involved...doesn't sound like you have visited many national and state forests in Wash. - still clearcutting. But, it is easier to just blame it on Clinton.

 As I have said before..Fred Barnes makes Mariah Carey look like a genius.

BS BOASE--the chances that you will ever get your urban shut-in a$$ to even a mere fraction of the National Forests I am familiar with is -0-.

Your ignorance re: forest silviculture is evident.  You got a Fern Gully vaccination in our educational system and media climate, and you're happy with it.  You drive up the Columbia Gorge or places like it, remarking about how this place or that "should never be cut", not realizing it was clearcut  four or five times in the past, and regenerated on its own BEFORE we developed good forestry with restocking requirements.

In the Douglas Fir stands you are talking about, clearcutting is often a sound silvicultural approach for overall health of the stand and maximized regeneration.  Other silvicultural approaches are not even noticed by you, because you're so Pavlovian re: "clearcuts".

Lemoc, have you even met bkboase3653? Why the necessity to be so ad hominem in your response?

Hi Val...

Musta been something about his/her opening sentence.

Lemoc,  got any links to that info? I've been doing a little surfing on the internets through all the tubes and everything BUT I haven't quite been able to find anything to back that claim.

 As for the NYT, one can tell they are being bribed and bribed heavily to start slanting the news against Gore. Can't let anything get in the war of profits. 

Sorry for not responding to your request yet, Buzz. 

The lumber/timber industry is populated by independent people (except for a few publicly-owned BIGS) who look at each other as business enemies, and over the years haven't done well at getting organized enough to tell their story: letting the public know the good side of forestry, that it is an evolving science striving for good stewardship, comprehensive forestry codes are in effect with penalties/prosecution for violations, etc.

They didn't get organized in time.  Sierra Club, et al WAS organized, told one side of the story, and now our National Forests are just building fuel and burning.

Excellent piece - it's a real shame, but I guess not entirely surprising, to see the New York Times in the same boat as the Republican talking-points hounds who have been baying at Gore in direct proportion to the increase in his popularity .... Republican pap about Al Gore and the Internet

New York Times also forgot to check whether Lomborg really is a statistician. He is not. He is a political scientist. I know, because I studied at the same place as him, and know him quite well. He just thinks statsistician sounds more objective, so why not call yourself a statistician. He has almost no formal training in stats.

In his first Danish language book, he called the greenhouse effect "a myth". He wrote that "the greenhouse effect is still very tenuous (...) and doesn't consitute a serious problem for our future" (my translation).

In his 2001-book in English The Skeptical Environmentalist he reluctantly accepts that global warming is real, but does what he can to discredit the IPCCs use of models to explain changes  in temperature citing their own graphs (p. 267) which, if you look them up, rather precisely explain changes in temperature occuring during the past 100 years. Natural and anthropogenic factors combined.

Now he accepts it is real and a problem, but still not a big one.  

He has a litany of half-truths and selective quoting behind him. For a huge list of them see www.lomborg-errors.dk

There is 'no concensus' that the earth revolves around the sun, but that doesn't mean that it is not true.

The only reason we are having this debate is because the pro-polution people have hundreds of millions of dollars to make them look like they know what they are talking about.

Republican Party Strategy on Global Warming:

1 – Deny the existence of global warming.

2 – Blame global warming on the Chinese.

3 – Deny the existence of global warming.

4 – Blame global warming on bovine flatulence.

5 – Dis Al Gore’s movie.

6 – Deny the existence of global warming.

7 – Maintain that even if global warming exists, it is not caused by human activity.

8 – Have energy industry lobbyists publicly refute the existence of global warming.

9 – Blame the American consumer for being addicted to oil.

10 – Claim that nuclear power is a solution to global warming.

11 – Deny Iran nuclear power.

12 – Deny the existence of Global Warming.

Waddaya know?  A 12-step plan to cure global warming addiction.

Much in the same way that cirrhosis cures alcoholism...

The corporatocracy with its lackey and sycophant careerists in politics and the news media are working overtime to bury the warnings of the majority of scientists, and its most visible public speaker, Al Gore, because they fear the concepts of global warming and sustainability that do not allow an economic model that includes reckless irresponsibility, and does not fit an economic model of ever-expanding markets. As long as it is future generations that will have to pay the price for the lack of seriousness and sacrifice necessary today, they are fine with it. The problem with this choice, of course, is that it chooses suicide for those too young to be able to vote or have a say about the present generation's greed and recalcitrance. Oh well, if we close our eyes and wish hard enough "maybe" the problem will go away. We don't have to worry though, because the news media and politicians will make it all go away for us with the magic of propaganda.

Scientists claim that mankind is responsible for between 4% and 10% of the total c02 released into the atmosphere.  That leaves 90% to 96% of c02 released to be caused by other natural events…volcanoes and other gas released naturally from the Earth, methane from decomposing vegetables, animal feces, etc.  So if we take the high side, 10% caused by human activity, and say that 25% of that is caused by the United States, 1% – 2.5%, please tell me how we are going to save the planet from global warming when we only have control over 1% – 2.5% of the thing that is causing it while 90% - 96% of what is causing it is occurring naturally?  

by not contributing that extra 10% the environment is not equipped to handle? Gosh who woulda thunk it was so easy! In any case thanks for making it clear you have no clue what you are talking about.

I forgot to mention that more than half of the measly 1% - 2.5% c02 emissions caused by the United States includes breathing by humans.  Since I believe that even you would conclude that breathing is a necessary evil, .5% to 1.5% is very little control over something as naturally uncontrollable as the climate on Earth and is certainly not worth wrecking the economy of the United States over.

Talk about wrecking the U.S. economy. Iraq?

Reinstate the 1% doctrine on global warming. There is more evidence to support a looming global climate crisis than there was evidence connecting Hussein to WMD or Al Qeada.

Anyway, this idea that the economy will be ruined by inventing our way out from under our dependence on foreign oil is reckless at best. It is a lack of imagination to think we couldn't sustain a green economy.

Round, I agree with you. From one of my previous post on a related thread:

 “ The thing I really don’t understand is this…if reducing CO2 is the goal of the global warming community why not do it in the name of becoming energy independent and freeing our country from the threat posed by oil rich middle eastern countries instead of creating a cause that must be accepted by faith like global warming?  It is a FACT that we need to rid ourselves from our dependence on foreign oil.  Developing alternative energy technology would also have the secondary effect of reducing CO2 emissions. That would be much easier to sell to global warming skeptics than the current global warming “the sky is falling” movement.  My suggestion…put as much energy in demanding alternatives to fossil fuel as you are currently putting in drumming up support for the global warming faith and do it in the name of national security.  The same goals can be achieved and will be based on facts that don’t require a leap of faith.  Doing it this way will mean a lot of people (politicians and scientists) won’t get paid and that unfortunately will probably keep it from happening. 

 With the federal government collecting 18.3 cents per gallon and the states averaging another 30+ cents per gallon in tax revenue on gasoline how will the government ever replace that revenue?  Everyone was up in arms that the big oil companies earned 9 cents per gallon for their product last year while ignoring the 50+ cents per gallon collected in taxes.  Until they figure out an alternative way to power our vehicles that can be TAXED, there is not much hope for change.” 

Logic says when you reach an impasse on an issue, you look for other ways to accomplish the same thing without the resistance.  If global warming hadn’t become such a religion for many of you, you would see that developing alternative energy technology is the answer to many of the world’s problems including global warming, if it exist, and a much easier "sell" to skeptics.  

If global warming hadn’t become such a religion for many of you, you would see that developing alternative energy technology is the answer to many of the world’s problems including global warming, if it exist, and a much easier "sell" to skeptics. 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 

Hmmmm, someone who starts his posts like "you liberal Kool-Aid drinkers" is definitely is not just a "skeptics" but someone who is going to oppose GW viewpoint in any cost because it is coming from liberals side. Basically your point is that this is coming from Gore and his liberal side, therefore it has to be wrong. You are not questioning the merit of AGW theory but you are upset that it is coming from liberal side.

There are ample number of papers published in various scientific journals supporting AGW. Ironically there are very few credible stuffs in your side. But you still going to oppose STRONGLY anyway - without accepting a single aspect (not the whole theory) of AGW theory. Let's see the argument coming from you:

"the Earth can also tolerate increase and decreases in co2 without catastrophe."

Sounds like a faith-based argument to me. Now tell me who is religious? You or Al Gore?

Agreement on contentious issues is a good thing, so I won't delve into the facts, or lack thereof on global warming. Nor will I trade barbs with those who consider environmentalists to be the same as fundamentalists.

Since we are sharing, I will share two questions. Why attack the other side of the discussion so vehemently? Why not stay positive and advocate an affirmative policy on energy independence?

You won't lose any conservative street cred. for supporting a cause in which you authentically believe.

Thanks for the exchange, CB.

I like that alternative.

Sorta like an alternative energy source, eh?

Yes CO2 occurs naturally. Did you know that potassium occurs naturally in your body. It maintains a natural balance, if you UNNATURALLY raise the level of potassium in your body by 10% it will become toxic and kill you. A specific balance is maintained, destroy that balance and you begin to cause serious problems.

Hey H2O also! And we have a very recent example of what happens when to much H2O is introduced into the body (a woman engaged in a radio contest to drink as much water as possible died from OD'ing on water. Humm, that is more deaths from a water OD then have ever died from smoking pot. makes you wonder don't it...) then it can handle. Of course if you tried to extract all the water bad things will happne, there is a BALANCE to these things that know-nothings like CB cannot grasp.

And you are a perfect example of what happens when somebody drinks to much liberal Kool-Aid.  You consider yourselves all-powerful, able to control the very climate of the planet with your intellect.  Obviously, you give yourselves way too much credit.  Even in your stupid H2O example, you fail to prove anything since drinking 4% - 10% above normal daily intake would present no ill effects.  Under normal circumstances, 2 liters of water per day is recommended by doctors.  2 liters of water is approximately 33.81 ounces.  Drinking 35.1 to 37.19 ounces will not kill anyone anymore than adding .5% - 1.25% co2 , the amount of co2 caused by the United States, will cause a climate catastrophe.  In your example, if a person fell into a lake and drowned, you be claiming that the extra water the person drank before falling in is what actually killed him.  Ridiculous!

 And another thing…since the total output of co2 for all of mankind is 4% - 10% of the total co2 released into the atmosphere, your suggestion that we cut 10% to maintain balance would mean that all of human activity, including breathing, would have to stop.  Do you really think that is a good idea, moron?

The question ISNT the strawman can we CONTROL the climate with out INTELLECT the question is can we EFFECT the climate with out POLLUTION and the answer is YES WE CAN and HAVE. Some things are maintained at a specific balance changing that balance CAN and often DOES have a detrimental effect, this is really quite simple.

Nah, it's morons like yourself that think "breathing" contributes to global warming and that our emissions do not. Good talking points, but not based in what most people would call reality.

Oh, and 2 liters of water is actually more like 67 ounces of water.

Try reading what I said again…I don’t believe that EITHER of those activities contributes to global warming.  However, it is a fact that when humans, including yourself if you are a human, exhale, co2 is released into the atmosphere.  You are the ones saying co2 is causing global warming so I look forward to your rebuttal proving that the Earth can differentiate between co2 caused by pollution and that caused by normal breathing. While I do believe that there are a million GOOD reasons to reduce pollution and be good stewards of the planet, I don’t believe that stopping global warming is one of them. 

Oh, and thanks for checking my math…While I failed to multiply by 2 for my water example, the truth of my post remains…drinking 4% - 10% more than the daily recommended amount of water will not kill anyone.  It is about tolerance…just like the human body can tolerate 4% - 10% more than the recommended amount of water, the Earth can also tolerate increase and decreases in co2 without catastrophe.  

Earth can also tolerate increase and decreases in co2 without catastrophe. 

Do you feel such a sweeping assertion should be backed up by anything, anything at all? Or is it just enough that you said it, posted a comment on a blog for the world to see, and that should be it?

No indeed, the Earth cannot differntiate between what is natural CO2 emissions, and what are not natural CO2 emissions, but since the dearth of scientific knowledge says that manmade CO2 emissions is increasing the pace of global warming, then shouldn't we start reducing manmade emissions? You want to be a good steward of the planet, why isn't global warming one of your quests then?

It has been proven, time and again, that at the rate we're spewing forth more and more CO2 into the Earth's atmosphere, it can't handle it forever. You know, ozone holes, global warming, stuff like that.

I strongly feel we should go with some random crank blog commenter who doesn't know the metric system, rather than the accepted scientific consensus.

Val, we’ve been here before...you claim I have no peer-reviewed study to back up my position and I claim that you have no peer-reviewed studies that haven’t been bought and paid for to back up yours.  So, it looks like we will never agree on this subject. 

 I know one thing for sure…nature is tough.  I have confidence that the Earth will survive and that life will adapt to ever changing conditions as it has done for millions of years.  It’s self-indulgent and narcissistic on your part to believe that humans have anywhere near the power you claim to control the climate of the planet. 

So global warming will not literally explode the earth.  That's very comforting.

Are you really basing your whole objection on the premise that every single one of the refereed publications is "bought and paid for?" That's all there is your contrarian stance?

I mean, more power to ya for staking out such a bold position, but to come on here with such a wildly speculative theory and then deride other people as "kool-aid drinkers," "morons," etc... well, let me just say that it must be difficult to ride a bicycle with balls that big. 

CB

Where did you get your info on CO2?  I can't find anything that says 4 - 10% only is man made?

Man-made contribution to co2

It's true that water vapor is a major greenhouse gas, mostly because there is much more water vapor in the atmosphere than CO2 or methane. both CO2 and methane however, are much more potent, so small increases can have large effects. Also, notice that the graph says "natural and manmade sources".  That itself is very simplistic view of the complex atmosphere. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere increases the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere thereby making GW even worse. As a result, even though all the water vapors are labelled as "natural" in this article, in reality they are not so. A good amount of vapor is contributed by "manmade sources".

Secondly, that small number 0.072 builds up over time.

Lets look at the proposition that  CO2 and Methane are significant greenhouse effect contributors.  Lets assume for a moment that increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is responsible for 100% of the observed mean global surface temperature change observed over the last century.  Lets also assume that man is responsible for 100% of this increase.  Neither of these statements is actually true but they err on the side of caution and are useful simplifications.

A few facts:  (1) The mean temperature of the Earth is approximately 288 degrees Kelvin.  (2)  The mean temperature change over the last 100 years was, according to the IPCC 2001 report, 0.6 degree kelvin.  (3) The Earth's atmosphere contributes about 33 degrees kelvin to the mean temperature of the earth, meaning the earth wold be a frozen hell at 255 K were it not for its atmospheric blanket. (4) Atmospheric CO2 concentration increased roughly 35% in the last century.

From a simple estimation technique, we can readily see that the 35% CO2 increase only produced a greenhouse effect increase that could not possibly have exceeded 1.8%.   This result suggests an upper limit of about 6% of the total greenhouse effect is attributable to CO2 alone.

Implies that man has contributed at most, 0.2% to the net warmth of the earth, so small as to nearly defy maccurate measurement.  Inconsequential.

THIS is the Inconvenient Truth.

NL207,

Your so-called logic and subsequent conclusions defy even the most liberal definitions.

Even tiny changes in the "mean" temperature can cause drastic catastrophic results.

I love how you come to this grand conculsion without even the slightest knowledge as to what you are talking about.

Please provide your credentials in climatology or some other scientific area that allows you to pontificate so well.

I'll ask you the same question.  How can you justify the asinine claim that tiny changes will produce major effects in a system as masive as the earth?  This is akin to claiming that dropping a marble upon the earth's surface will generate an earthquake.

How do you know what my knowledge base on the subject is?  In that little spot above was more fact than any other single comment on this thread.  I should think THAT would have been fair warning by itself.

My credentials are irrelevant in this case because there is nothing in my post which cannot quickly be verified with a Google.  Do the googling yourself.  See what you get.

NL,

Unless you are a climatologist who has done some research on the subject, then your opinions are meaningless.

All of the climatologists that have done research into this phenomena state clearly that small changes have significant effects and that man's activity has contributed greatly to the increase in greenhouse gases and that these increases are speeding up the natural process of global warming.

What you have stated is meaningless drivel so as you told another blogger, get your head out of your arse.

Good Lord, what an ignoramus!

Which of the facts I cited is false?  They are all easily verifiable through Google, and since you haven't attempted to refute any of them with a reference, that means you have conceded them all.  You lose the point.

Next:  You are factually incorrect.  Not all of the scientists you refer to as climatologists agree that CO2 increase has greatly affected global climate or that any future effects will be calamitous.  I will provide you with one:   Dr. Richard S. Lindzen. http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm He does not agree with this thesis.  Therefore your claim that ALL AGREE is false.  You lose this point also.

Last, the vast majoriy of scientists you would call climatologists do not have a degree in anything called 'climatology'.  The leading pro gobal warming scientist in the US, Dr. James E. Hansen, is actually a physicist by training. http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/  The closest degree programs I am aware of that produce anything like a credential in climatology are Doctorate programs in Meteorology or Geography, many of which have recently begun offering a climatology track.  This is an example:  http://www.udel.edu/Geography/grad.html  These programs are not old enough to have trained the current crop of prominent scientists.  The interesting thing about meteorologists is that a great number of them are global warming sceptics, and their opinions are widely discounted in the pro Global Warming community by people like you, who lack any real scientific training.

Hey Stupid,

Since you started name calling, I feel obligated to continue, you cite a bunch of facts and then make a stupid conclusion.  You lack even the slightest bit of brain matter.

We aren't having a contest so claiming someone won or lost is stupid.

Yes, all of the scientists do agree, your reference to Dr. Lindzen did not provide any evidence to the contrary.

Dr. Hansen is one of thousands of scientists that agree.

Finally, I refer to climatologists as a shorthand reference to all people with a scientific background and education who study the climate which includes many scientific disciplines.

Now, go back to grade school and learn something about the things you think you have some knowledge about.

I also forgot to mention that no meteorologists are global warming skeptics.

You are really, really stupid you know making statements with no backup and providing links that don't provide the evidence you need.

You may call me anything you like, but you are still ignorant.  You should learn the difference between ignorance and stupidity.  The former may be cured, but the later ...

You are once more shown to be factually incorrect. 

Maybe you will appreciate this op-ed by Dr. Lindzen. http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220 Indeed, he is an Anthropogenic Gobal Warming Skeptic.

You will also appreciate the positions of these meteorlogists on the subject of anthropogenic global warming.  They are all sceptics.

Dr. Joe Sobel, Dr. Joe Bastardi and Dr. William Gray.

an op ed by Gray:

 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301305_pf.html

Google the other two at your leisure.

So, clearly, since there are Phd meteorologists who are also Global Warming skeptics, your claim that ALL METEOROLOGISTS accept the theory of AGW is also false.

You clearly do not even know what the facts of this debate are. How can someone who is so seriously misinformed have any worthwhile opinion on the subject much less carry on a debate on the topic without getting hammered?

Okay NL,

Now you provide a link that supports your claim and I'm ignorant.  You are dumber than a post, Mr. Stupid.  Your links are over a year old and still nothing.

Where is the research to back his claims, Peer Reviewed?

No, No and NO.

You still do not get it do you.  Thousands of scientists do research and come to a conclusion.  You find a crackpot who makes comments and that's the basis of your argument.

Re-think your conditions of stupidity and ignorance stupid.

NL,

Did you actually read the Post article, it contradicts what you are saying and calls your guy a crackpot.

You are getting stupider, if that's even a word!

I will provide you with one:   Dr. Richard S. Lindzen. http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm He does not agree with this thesis.

+++++++++++++++++++

Better links for Lindzen:

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=17

 Ross Gelbspan reported in 1995 that Lindzen "charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC." ("The Heat is On: The warming of the world's climate sparks a blaze of denial," Harper's magazine, December 1995.)

That's it, let's make an ad hominem attack on the scientist's ethics rather than debate the scientific content of his work.

You don't suppose the Billions spent by governments researching anthropogenic global warming would be any incentive for its recipients to continue emphasizing the threat of global warming, do you?  What do you think would happen to that river of government funding if politicians were convinced climate change was mostly natural? 

Maybe this would interest you.  In liberal bastion, New York, Lindzen and two other debaters handily downed Dr. Richard C.J. Somerville an Dr. Gavin Schmidt, neither of whom are weak minded fools.

http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/Event.aspx?Event=12

NL,

Billions? please provide links you lying crackpot!

NL,

Your commentary on the debate is delusional at best.  Let's take the word of a film maker over scientists.  Okay!

That's it, let's make an ad hominem attack on the scientist's ethics rather than debate the scientific content of his work.

++++++++++++++++++++

Merely describing the fact. You call it ad hominem attack? In last few years he was widely funded by oil industry. Amazingly his all the conclusions about environent and pollution sides with oil industry. Don't you think I should raise my eyebrows. Is it just coincidence that he is funded by oil industry and his scientific conclusions ALWAYS favor oil industry? In fact, if his works did not favor oil industry, you and I would not hear his name (he would be an anonymous scientists like many others).

It reminds me "cigerette does not cause cancer" story. There were some scientists who claimed that there was no relation between smoking and cancer. Interestingly those scientists were funded by tobacco industry. Sounds familiar?

 -------------------

You don't suppose the Billions spent by governments researching anthropogenic global warming would be any incentive for its recipients to continue emphasizing the threat of global warming, do you?  What do you think would happen to that river of government funding if politicians were convinced climate change was mostly natural?

++++++++++++++++++++++++ 

It's possible. I don't rule it out. In that case you should find those scientists and find their fraud works. Interestingly I don't find AGW skeptics are doing that kind of constructive works. All they are doing is making up fake science papers (to give an impression that it is peer-reviewed paper), spreading mis-information in internet, making documentaries with dobious graphs and data and writing lots of articles in Wall Street Journal (not science journal for peer-review).

Overall, I am noticing that there are more frauds going in your side than pro-AGW theory side. 

A few facts:  (1) The mean temperature of the Earth is approximately 288 degrees Kelvin.

++++++++++++++++++++

First of all, did you read any article in global warming? If you read, you would know that global warming does not mean global temperature going up N degree Celcius uniformly all over the places. In fact due to global warming in future some place may be cooler than today climate. There are various factors - geographic location, topology, change of ocean currents etc. For example, warmer gulf stream plays a role in UK climate. If gulf stream gets deverted due to global warming, UK climate may actually become cooler.

 -------------

(2)  The mean temperature change over the last 100 years was, according to the IPCC 2001 report, 0.6 degree kelvin.

++++++++++++++++

Please read this graph. You will get some idea how recent years have been warmer than normal and average surface temperature.  Recent years are warmer than average surface temperature. 

 Global Average Surface Temperature Anomalies

--------------------------

(4) Atmospheric CO2 concentration increased roughly 35% in the last century.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The important things is rate of increase of CO2 in recent years. That is more important than simple linear arithmetic.

Some of these graphs will give some idea how CO2 affect climate. Here transient experiment is taking CO2 increase into account and control experiement is without taking CO2 increase into account. The temperature difference between these two experiment is also shown in graph.

Surface Air Temperature Map 

Please remove your head from your posterior and observe that what I did was a simple engineering technique.  If memory serves me, it is commonly known as a Bounds Analysis which s not intended to produce and exact result to N decimal places but rather is intended to compute maxumum or minimum limits on the variability of some parameter or outcome.  In this case, I was looking at the parameter, greenhouse effect of atmospheric CO2 concentration.  based on the data the charts you refer to happen to agree with, the analysis happens to suggest that CO2 is a minor player in the greenhouse gas equation. 

Why don't you google some pages about what the relative greenhouse effects of the aggregate atmospheric water vapor vs CO2.  I don't see any of them that say water vapor is less than 60% of the effect.  Try the search:  "greenhouse gas effect of water vapor".  The first result I get is:  http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

containing this:

"Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). "

There are about 933,000 more results in the search set.  I can tell you that none of them that give this value place it at less than 60% of the total effect.  You can look for yourself.  Notice if you will how many of the pro-global warming sites omit the water vapor numbers or omit water vapor completely from their list of greenhouse gases.  Why do you suppose this is so?

I love your logical conclusion process.   Because I disagree with your position I must be stupid or uninformed.  

NL

Your simple approach to the most complex problem of our time shows you to be the most simpleminded person here.

Your displaying your credentials without telling me.

Thanks

The simple approach helps people of limited understanding like yourself comprehend the point.   It is not practical to discuss a recursive system of differential equations before an audience dominated by people without a higher education in mathematics.

The point is this:  The amount of change observed over this last century of observation is trivial, 0.6 degrees K, especially when one consider what happened in the years surrounding the end of the last ice age. http://carto.eu.org/article2481.html Notice the natural range of variabilty, something on the order of 12.0 degrees K over the last 420,000 years.  We aren't any where near the peaks observed in interglacial times.  According to Al Gore, the end of the world as we know it is near.  This is all alarmism.

The amount of change observed over this last century of observation is trivial, 0.6 degrees K,

+++++++++++++++++++++++++ 

Now you are sounding like a broken record - keep repeating the same thing again and again without reading the replies of your earlier comments. 

In nutshell, rate of annual temperature increase is more important factor than mean surface temperature in sea level. Check the rate of increase in annual temperature in recent years.

In a nutshell, the rate of change over the last century was not constant.  It has not been the same over the last decade as it was over the interval 1967-1998.   Nor was it the same over the intervals 1920-1940 or 1940-1967.  There is no reason to believe that rate will not continue to be variable over the next 100 years.  Therefore, the rate is an unreliable predictor over intervals greater than 30 years.

Let me stuff this in your tail pipe:  The rate of change in the optimum interval [1067-1998] for your purposes was calculated to be about 0.17 K per decade.  The IPCC ful report of 2001 projected warming of 1.7-5.4 K over the next century.  If indeed the RATE of warming is what we should be looking at, I can see directly where the IPCC got their 1.7 K number from, a simple assumption that the rate of warming over the interval [2000-2100] will be on average, equal to the rate of warming over the interval [1967-1998].  Where do you suppose they derived their 5.4 K number from?  What do you think the liklihood is that larger number is anywhere near correct?  Why would any responsible scientific body publish such a number?

NL,

Are you claiming that you know more than all of these scientists about this subject.

You are the one person in the world who has discovered that all of these thousands of scientists have been making incorrect conclusions based on the reams of data they have been studying?

You have the best data and only now have felt the desire to share it with the world?

All of these thousands of scientists don't know as much as you and don't have the data the you have?

Are you kidding me? You come here spouting nonsense and you want us to ignore the scientific consensus and believe what you say.

WOW, you are crazier than I had previuosly believed!

You confuse Scientific Consensus with Political Dogma.

 There is no scientific consensus that human activity is the major driving force behind the climate on earth.  In fact, there is overwhlming scientific consensus that aggregate human activity has thus far produced a nearly imperceptible blip in the climate of this planet, and barring a full scale nuclear exchange, it will likely continue to be so. Read the IPCC reports for yourself.  Get the 2001 full report.  This "Policy makers summary" just released isn't trustworthy.  The 2007 full report won't be available until June at the earliest.

The proof has been presented before in this thread.  The mean temperature of the Earth is at present slightly more than 288 Kelvin.  http://library.thinkquest.org/10701/text/earth.html 255 K of this is directly attributable to solar irradiance.   33 K is attributable to the aggregate influence of Earth's atmosphere. http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

And what has been the aggregate natural and human induced variance introduced into this system?  A few tenths of a degree!  This is so inconsequential that until recently, science had great difficulty even measuring it accurately.  So ... 288 K from natural causes.  0.6 K from combined man-made and natural variations in your mind constitutes a crisis requiring the most massive governmental intervention into private life in history.  I thought you liberls were opposed to police states, or is it just RIGHT wing police states that you oppose?

NL,

You are wrong again and your links don't help you.  Your first link means nothing because who produced it?  Not a scientist!

Your second link says that man is causing the increase in greenhouse gases, there is a consensus and this is causing global warming.

Do you ever get tired of being stupid?

In fact, there is overwhlming scientific consensus that aggregate human activity has thus far produced a nearly imperceptible blip in the climate of this planet, and barring a full scale nuclear exchange, it will likely continue to be so. Read the IPCC reports for yourself.  Get the 2001 full report.

++++++++++++++++++ 

Another example of cherry picking data to fit your argument. Why 2001? Why not 2004 or 2005 or 2006 or 2007? Here the article about recent IPCC report (not from 2001).

Global Warming:L the final verdict (The Observer)

 Of couse you will say that IPCC is alamist and fraud. Basically, you would like to quote IPCC as long as it fits your argument (with old data and report though).

NL,

A little bit of advice, if you ever want to taken seriously again, please cite references.  You can't make statements without references and expect people to believe you.

What you do makes you seem stupid instead, like you are just making things up.  And, don't expect people to look it up for you.  Don't be so lazy! If you make the statement , then you provide the reference, end of story. 

I cited plenty of references.  Most all of the information I cited is COMMON KNOWLEDGE to anyone aquainted with the field and is readily available on the web.

Is there something wrong with your typing fingers?  You don't know how to operate a search engine? 

Or maybe you just don't like to have your comfortable little world shaken.

NL,

Please re-cite your references, because I can't find them.  Maybe you are too stupid to re-read your posts.  Your first reference was to Lindzen and that didn't back up your statements.

Try providing some background on your foolish conclusions with the unrelated facts that you provide.

Or maybe a link that isn't a year old.

I think your brain is on overload because you are not thinking too straight.

I cited plenty of references.  Most all of the information I cited is COMMON KNOWLEDGE to anyone aquainted with the field and is readily available on the web.

++++++++++++++++++++

 And none of these materials provide the source of their data. While presenting data, they do three things

1. Make up their own numbers. Even if they take it from somewhere they don't mention where the data came from, what method used. Example, 95% vapor in greenhouse.

2. Take data/numbers from reliable source and then twist and misrepresent those data. Example, in Global Warming Swindle, the data is taken from NASA but they misreprsent the data in their own made-up graph.

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece

3.  They cherry-pick data to fit their argument. Example, using surface temperature increment in 100 years. Then, in Global Warming Swindle, sunspot graph. Here what The Independent says:

 "Other graphs used in the film contained known errors, notably the graph of sunspot activity. Mr Durkin used data on solar cycle lengths which were first published in 1991 despite a corrected version being available - but again the corrected version would not have supported his argument."

COMMON KNOWLEDGE? Well, you google it, just read first a few article available in internet. You want to call it "common knowledge"? AGW skeptics are successful about it. They just throw some article internet to create doubts among people about AGW theory. They don't publish any paper in science journals for peer-review, but they publish ample articles in Wall Street Journal. So I guess you got th idea who they work and what their agenda is.

Small correction:

So I guess you got the idea how they work and what their agenda is.

I can see directly where the IPCC got their 1.7 K number from, a simple assumption that the rate of warming over the interval [2000-2100] will be on average, equal to the rate of warming over the interval [1967-1998].  Where do you suppose they derived their 5.4 K number from? 

+++++++++++++++++++++++

Surface temp measuement is not the only type of measurement to measure warming. In fact this is one of the least reliable way to measure rate of increase ("least reliable" does not mean it's invalid). Very conveniently your source took only this measurement into account and ignored rest.  There are other types of measurements too - ocean temperature, sea level rise (due to expanding water), setellites and radiosondes, borehole analysis, paleoclimatic data etc. Various measurements give various numbers. In addition, various models give various results and that's why there is a huge difference. Again, it's not linear extrapolation, as you would like to think.

---------

 What do you think the liklihood is that larger number is anywhere near correct?  Why would any responsible scientific body publish such a number?

+++++++++++++++++++++++

Good question. It's just estimate based on various models. And estimates are peer reviewed in various science journals. Interestingly, nobody including AGW skeptics could not refute those number in scientific community, by publishing papers to counter those numbers. All I see a few articles here and there in internet disputing those numbers. And they got people like you who are willing to believe anything they say or write - without doing any proper fact checks. Just to make it convincing, they throw their own numbers to give an impression that these are also result of some kind of research.

It's possible that IPCC is a crooked institution and alamist. Being an openminded, I don't rule out anything. But until someone proves that, they are not. There are procedures to question their numbers and expose them (if any agenda they have at all) - by published papers, getting peer-reviewed. You and your side is not doing that, but running away. Instead all they are going is writing fake papers (remember Oregon Petition project?), writing articles in internet to appeal mass and create doubts and making documentaries (Global Warming Swindle).

Again with the name calling.  I think you are looking in a mirror.  Everything you have said has been completely refuted, yet you repeat it over and over again.

You have no standing.

We cite scientific research, you cite your opinions.

You have no clue, the scientists do.

I think it's time for you to stop trying to act intelligent (it's only an act remember) and listen to the scientists who study these things.  They know far more than you could ever conceive.  Your points are meaningless and you are stupid, dumb, ignorant, uneducated, and most likely have very little self esteem which is why you act tough on a blog.

Go home and lick your wounds, think about how stupid you sound and try to gain some knowledge.

In case there is some confusion, the above post is directed to NL207.

I think you should quit while you're behind.

What CB,

No more discredited articles to link to?

Try the search:  "greenhouse gas effect of water vapor".  The first result I get is:  http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

containing this:

"Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). "

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The basic problem is this number (95%) is that it does not take manmade effects into accounts. Therefore, labeling 95% vapor as "manmade" is intellecitual fraud. And this is how anti-AGW scientists (or non-scientists) dupe you - by simple maths, where the real issue is much complex and cannot be solved with such a simple math. To solve this problem what it requires is computer models - feeding N number of data. Everything in this earth is NOT LINEAR and cannot be solved using simple math. 

I posted it earlier, resposting the text again: 

---- 

It's true that water vapor is a major greenhouse gas, mostly because there is much more water vapor in the atmosphere than CO2 or methane. both CO2 and methane however, are much more potent, so small increases can have large effects. Also, notice that the graph says "natural and manmade sources".  That itself is very simplistic view of the complex atmosphere. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere increases the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere thereby making GW even worse. As a result, even though all the water vapors are labelled as "natural" in this article, in reality they are not so. A good amount of vapor is contributed by "manmade sources".

Secondly, that small number 0.072 builds up over time.

A small correction. The actual sentence will be:

Therefore, labelling 95% vapor as "natural" is intellecitual fraud.

based on the data the charts you refer to happen to agree with, the analysis happens to suggest that CO2 is a minor player in the greenhouse gas equation.

+++++++++++++++++++++++ 

How so!!!!!!! Interestingly you don't layout the specifics about how it agrees with you. You just throw some words and assume that nobody is going to notice or realize.

Did you see the The Difference between transient and control experiements - decal mean graph?

According to this graph, the temperature difference is less near equator and worse in arctic and antartic reagions (as high as 5 degree C in 100 years). As you love simple math, let me point out the difference one by one.

1. You compared mean surface temperature and concluded that the difference is only 0.6 degree K in last 100 years. But this graph says that if CO2 increases in 1% rate, it is going to make as high as 5 degree celcius in some area.

2. This graph used 1% rate increase. This is a very optimistic number. In reality in recent years we are adding 1.3 to 1.6% CO2 every year.

Now do that math.