Global Warming

[JonTheSavage]

Ok, so let's decide we can't work out if Global Warming is happening or not, or if we are the cause.

 

What are we going to do when the oil runs out?

 

With no oil, we have no petrol, kerosene, nylon, kevlar, poly(ethene), most pharmaceuticals, etc etc.

The modern world would just collapse without oil, which is why we still need to go green, cut down on carbon emission (because most of the time, they come directly from oil) and carbon tax everyone.

 

If we stop using oil for fuel, we can still recycle plastics, and cut oil usage down to an absolute minimum, prolonging stocks for 1000s of years, rather than tens.

Even if you don't believe we are causing global warming, we still need to save our asses at some point, by cutting down on oil usage.

 

Target no.1 - SUVs in America: seriously, after talking to a few folks from the USA, I am absolutely shocked at the number of huge cars that use petrol 5x faster than what would be called thirsty over here!

 

IMHO, people should need a special license to drive and SUV (like a gun license over here) and should get a substantial emission tax

 

We were "Green" 100 years ago, 500 years ago, 5000 years ago, and 100,000 years ago. We still are.

There is NO doubt that the seasons will change, and the earth will change. Nature is never stable.

SUVs put out no more CM than my Tiburon. Its a marketing known fact.

 

You should never need to get permission to own something. Thats what a license is.

How would you like it, if everyone used a PC, and you had to have a license to use a Mac?

Nobody would like that. People wouldn't accept it. Here people would throw a fit if they tried to license guns.

 

Research into different plants, and how they naturally filter Carbon Monoxide. Algae does it naturally after it rains into

ponds etc... some emit methane after they absorb it, which is a natural gas, used in forklifts etc...

 

Gas consumption is not a problem. The problem is fixed pricing on gas due to inflation. The price of gasoline

is fixed with the price of gold, which maintains it's value during inflation.

 

IF IN FACT you want an alternative, look into soy deisel, and also how you can refine cooking grease to make diesel.

Its non toxic, and smells like fried chicken when you crank your car. It runs great in my truck. I have a still behind my

house where I can turn out 5 gallons a day with it. Free refined gas man!

[Paranoid Marvin]

Research into different plants, and how they naturally filter Carbon Monoxide.

 

Carbon monoxide is a greenhouse gas, but it's effects are negligible, due to the small volume that gets emitted

CO is not stable, and will quite often burn to give CO2, or react with peroxy radicals via a photochemical reaction. Peroxy radicals then go on to react with NO, to form NO2, reducing its effects on the ozone layer.

 

Algae does it naturally after it rains into ponds etc... some emit methane after they absorb it, which is a natural gas, used in forklifts etc...

 

You are correct in stating methane is natural gas, but what you have assumed is that is good.

You can't be more wrong with that. In fact, methane's contribution to the greenhouse effect is 25x as damaging as CO2's over a 100 year period

 

Gas consumption is not a problem. The problem is fixed pricing on gas due to inflation. The price of gasoline

is fixed with the price of gold, which maintains it's value during inflation.

 

You consider this a serious issue?

I guess at least you won't have to worry about it when oil runs out in 20 years time...

 

IF IN FACT you want an alternative, look into soy deisel, and also how you can refine cooking grease to make diesel.

Its non toxic, and smells like fried chicken when you crank your car. It runs great in my truck. I have a still behind my

house where I can turn out 5 gallons a day with it. Free refined gas man!

 

Ironic how huge areas of rainforest are being cleared to grow things such as oil palm for bio diesel...

 

 

And just to add to the idea of solar radiation causing global warming, here are quotes from two recent scientific journals, with all the references included in the link:

 

The Marshall Institute report concludes that '...the sun has been the controlling influence on climate in the last 100 years, with the greenhouse effect playing a smaller role." Here we explore the implication that such putative solar irradiance variations would have for global warming. Our results provide strong circumstantial evidence that there have been intercycle variations in solar irradiance which have contributed to the observed temperature changes since 1856. However, we find that since the nineteenth century, greenhouse gases, not solar irradiance variations, have been the dominant contributor to the observed temperature changes.

- http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v360/...s/360330a0.html

 

This comparison shows without requiring any recourse to modeling that since roughly 1970 the solar influence on climate (through the channels considered here) cannot have been dominant. In particular, the Sun cannot have contributed more than 30% to the steep temperature increase that has taken place since then, irrespective of which of the three considered channels is the dominant one determining Sun-climate interactions: tropospheric heating caused by changes in total solar irradiance, stratospheric chemistry influenced by changes in the solar UV spectrum, or cloud coverage affected by the cosmic ray flux.

- http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003.....2JA009753.shtml

[JonTheSavage]

Carbon monoxide is a greenhouse gas, but it's effects are negligible, due to the small volume that gets emitted

CO is not stable, and will quite often burn to give CO2, or react with peroxy radicals via a photochemical reaction. Peroxy radicals then go on to react with NO, to form NO2, reducing its effects on the ozone layer.

 

You are correct in stating methane is natural gas, but what you have assumed is that is good.

You can't be more wrong with that. In fact, methane's contribution to the greenhouse effect is 25x as damaging as CO2's over a 100 year period

 

You consider this a serious issue?

I guess at least you won't have to worry about it when oil runs out in 20 years time...

 

Ironic how huge areas of rainforest are being cleared to grow things such as oil palm for bio diesel...

 

 

And just to add to the idea of solar radiation causing global warming, here are quotes from two recent scientific journals, with all the references included in the link:

 

- http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v360/...s/360330a0.html

 

- http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003.....2JA009753.shtml

 

 

Again, you have failed to find a creditable source. George C. Marshall, the head of the Marshall institute you just described, is a member of the CFR, founded in 1921, which is the propaganda arm of the U.N. whos land was donated by David Rockefeller (the worlds largest oil tycoon), who in turn recieves funding, and loans from Baron Rothschild, father of David De Rothschild, who owns the Bank of England, the same person in the link I provided earlier, who said that Saturn was closer to the sun, than Earth.

 

The shorter version... George C. Marshall recieved a loan from the Bank of England's Baron Rothschild, whos son claims that Mars is closer to the sun than Earth, to start the Marshall Institute. Thus the Marshall institute is a Rothschild sponsored thinktank.

 

http://www.agu.org/eos_elec/96097e.html

"We thank J. Overpeck for helpful suggestions on the manuscript, as well as the numerous users of AnalySeries who have made comments and reported bugs. This is LMCE contribution number 00375 and CFR contribution number 1882."

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/prrl0014.html

 

AGU recieves funding from the same financial groups as well.

 

Nature.com insists on references from the same group of people.

http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080116/full/451230a.html

http://www.npg.nature.com/nature/journal/v...C31C03B738901F0

NOW. Provide me with some evidence that doesn't point back to the same group of people.

[Paranoid Marvin]

NOW. Provide me with some evidence that doesn't point back to the same group of people.

 

I find it amusing how you seem to think my sources aren't credible, whilst you cite no information to back up your points.

 

Let's take a look at another scientific paper:

 

"The Sun and Climate" by Judith Lean and David Rind; solar physicist at the Naval Research Labatory in Washington DC and physicist at NASA Goddard Centre respectively. The paper is reviewed by Prof. Raymond S. Bradley, a climatologist at the University of Massachusetts; Prof. Paul E. Damon, a geochemist at the Laboratory of Isotope Geochemistry of the University of Arizona in Tucson and Dr. Peter V. Foukal, a solar astronomer at the University of Massachusetts.

Now I have shown the credibility of this article, let me show what they conclude:

In this case the Sun could make a difference of about 0.5° C in the surface temperatures now projected by consensus climate models

for doubled concentrations of CO 2.

The rapid warming since 1970 is several times larger than that expected from any known or suspected

effects of the Sun, and may already indicate the growing influence of atmospheric greenhouse gases on the Earth's climate.

 

The entire paper can be found here

 

There are also several papers I have that conclude both the Earth's magnetosprere and patterns of thundercloud formation have a small effect on global climate. However, neither of these can account for the total increase over the last 30 years, which is far above what is predicted, negating the effects of excess CO2 that we are producing.

[socal swimmer]

The Marshall Institute report concludes that '...the sun has been the controlling influence on climate in the last 100 years, with the greenhouse effect playing a smaller role." Here we explore the implication that such putative solar irradiance variations would have for global warming. Our results provide strong circumstantial evidence that there have been intercycle variations in solar irradiance which have contributed to the observed temperature changes since 1856. However, we find that since the nineteenth century, greenhouse gases, not solar irradiance variations, have been the dominant contributor to the observed temperature changes.

 

Again, you have failed to find a creditable source. George C. Marshall, the head of the Marshall institute you just described, is a member of the CFR, founded in 1921, which is the propaganda arm of the U.N. whos land was donated by David Rockefeller (the worlds largest oil tycoon), who in turn recieves funding, and loans from Baron Rothschild, father of David De Rothschild, who owns the Bank of England, the same person in the link I provided earlier, who said that Saturn was closer to the sun, than Earth.

 

Nature.com insists on references from the same group of people.

http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080116/full/451230a.html

http://www.npg.nature.com/nature/journal/v...C31C03B738901F0

NOW. Provide me with some evidence that doesn't point back to the same group of people.

 

 

maybe you didn't read carefully, but the quote marvin provided disproved what marshall said about global warming. the Marshall institute said that the sun had caused global warming, and marvin disproved that.

 

and Nature is one of the most heavily established academic peer-reviewed publications in the world:

 

Nature is a prominent scientific journal, first published on 4 November 1869. Although most scientific journals are now highly specialized, Nature is one of the few journals, along with other weekly journals such as Science and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that still publishes original research articles across a wide range of scientific fields. In many fields of scientific research, important new advances and original research are published as articles or letters in Nature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_%28journal%29

[JonTheSavage]

maybe you didn't read carefully, but the quote marvin provided disproved what marshall said about global warming. the Marshall institute said that the sun had caused global warming, and marvin disproved that.

 

and Nature is one of the most heavily established academic peer-reviewed publications in the world:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_%28journal%29

 

It is irrelivent. Marshall is on Rothschild's payroll.

 

Nature.com's finanical regconition, and paid-for media coverage is irrelivent. Who drives them, and owns them, the same people, that promote the propaganda, is.

 

Now they are recuiting lawyers, to act as faux scientists to promote the propaganda fear mongering through paid-for lobby.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...&refer=home

[Paranoid Marvin]

Now they are recuiting lawyers, to act as faux scientists to promote the propaganda fear mongering through paid-for lobby.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...&refer=home

 

I think you've grossly misunderstood that article.

 

They are just lawyers acting as advisors. They are the sort of scum that makes profit from the biggest problem mankind has ever faced...

 

However, lawyers and advisors don't write for sites like the highly credible Nature.com.

 

 

I find it amazing how you bring together such obscure (and quite often irrelevant and false) links and put then together to claim that every piece of evidence presented is false.

By putting forward these claims and showing very little evidence to back them up, as well as showing a complete lack of understanding for a subject is not good for what is left of your credibility...

[JonTheSavage]

I think you've grossly misunderstood that article.

 

They are just lawyers acting as advisors. They are the sort of scum that makes profit from the biggest problem mankind has ever faced...

 

However, lawyers and advisors don't write for sites like the highly credible Nature.com.

 

I find it amazing how you bring together such obscure (and quite often irrelevant and false) links and put then together to claim that every piece of evidence presented is false.

By putting forward these claims and showing very little evidence to back them up, as well as showing a complete lack of understanding for a subject is not good for what is left of your credibility...

 

Nature.com Credable... Yes, the same credability should be granted to Fox news for saying that "Terrorists" started wildfires in California.

 

And don't forget, Mars is closer to the sun my friend.

[Paranoid Marvin]

Nature.com Credable... Yes, the same credability should be granted to Fox news for saying that "Terrorists" started wildfires in California.

 

And don't forget, Mars is closer to the sun my friend.

 

You really can't be more wrong by making that comparison.

 

Perhaps you should give more input to this topic when you at least understand it, rather than just being one of these conspiracy theory 'sheaple' that jumps into a conspiracy theory, despite that fact there is no evidence to prove it.

[VenturAce]

In your opinion, is Global Warming happening (ie, is the global temperature rising)?

 

It is happening. No doubts. I can see it clearly. Russia is known by its cold winters. But I don't remember when there was really cold winter in Moscow. Summer is much hotter then before. By the way there a lot of temperature records for the past 2 years.

 

Can we stop Global Warming?

Already no. How can we stop something GLOBAL? It is happening and we can do nothing with it. We can just reduce our influence on it. But it is possible only if we will do something to reduce it ALTOGETHER. But then we should refuse of some habitual things we do. And this looks impossible. Global warming has been started by degress. Preconditions were forming year by year and that is why it is hard to stop it. This process is too complicated to stop it.

 

Are we causing global warming as a whole, or merely exacerbating it?

We are the only who cause it. I thing there are no any external forces that make this process going. We are the residents of our planet and all we do is reflected on our planet. More or less.

 

All we can do now is to wait. Wait for results of our actions. I don't think we can make any changes to prevent this global process.

 

[ToGr82B4Gotn]

OYYY VEYYYYY

 

Before I put my 2 cents in, I htought I would mention something more insidious and bewildering than Global Warming.

 

How come , when you put in your 2 cents worth, all you get back ia a PENNY for your thoughts???

 

This penny, multiplied upon millions daily and over the years is where the Uber rich have gotten their money.

We need to find a way to put an end to it....

 

Ok

back to this thing on Global warming.

 

In June 1991, after more than four centuries of slumber, Pinatubo Volcano in the Philippines erupted so violently that more than 5 billion cubic meters of ash and pyroclastic debris were ejected from its fiery bowels producing eruption columns 18 kilometers wide at the base and heights reaching up to 30 kilometers above the volcano’s vent..

 

What does this mean to me?? I mean what does this have to do about global warming???

 

 

Ok, this stuff, including, CO2 which is clear and cannot possibly trap heat, flourocarbons, which have been said to cause ozone depletion, etc...

 

In this single burst of destruction, this volcano put MORE OZONE depleting chemicals DIRECTLY into the UPPER ATMOSPHERE in a few short days than mankind could in 10,000 years at the rate we were going.

 

So, tell me that everyone going back to the lifestyle of cavemen would help cool the earth/

 

The sun is nearing the end of one of its "hot" phases, and will cool significantly. In fact NASA and JPL scientists expect the climate by the 2035-2050 timfreame to be about 3-5 degrees C cooler..

 

Imagine that.....

 

all u tree hugging hybrid wanting walk everywhere one piece of toilet paper using people need to ask WHY you believe this {censored} theat AlGore is espousing.

 

Got a mind of your own??

 

Doubt it

 

We just wanna HELP

 

Ok

We need to get off of fossil fuels... agreed

We need to be more environment friendly Agreed...

 

But not to the tune of 8.7 TRILLION dollars (US figures alone)

 

Who is gonna pay for it??

 

Next time you see Algore , ask him how much CO2 does all of his travel cause????

 

U wanna get rid of CO2?? Plant more trees

[socal swimmer]

OYYY VEYYYYY

 

Before I put my 2 cents in, I htought I would mention something more insidious and bewildering than Global Warming.

 

How come , when you put in your 2 cents worth, all you get back ia a PENNY for your thoughts???

 

This penny, multiplied upon millions daily and over the years is where the Uber rich have gotten their money.

We need to find a way to put an end to it....

 

Ok

back to this thing on Global warming.

<snip>

 

that post was so horribly wrong that I won't even begin to address it. If you really want me too, then ask.

 

So, I will just say one thing:

 

[CITATION NEEDED]

[JonTheSavage]

Oh, there is ample evidence. You just refuse to look at it.

 

Back in the 70s, it was "Global Cooling". Thus was their excuse to pass a carbon tax

was "valid" to dumb liberals then too in the name of "Saving the Planet". Now

they indoctorinate you in your public schools with it.

 

Still go ahead and believe whatever stupid {censored} you want to believe. Carbon Dioxide causing global warming. Please.

Bio-Fuels more efficent? Please. Damn that is stupid. Your scientists need to go back to school, and learn what humans exhale.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23170513#22993204

[Paranoid Marvin]

Oh, there is ample evidence. You just refuse to look at it.

 

Back in the 70s, it was "Global Cooling". Thus was their excuse to pass a carbon tax

was "valid" to dumb liberals then too in the name of "Saving the Planet". Now

they indoctorinate you in your public schools with it.

 

Still go ahead and believe whatever stupid {censored} you want to believe. Carbon Dioxide causing global warming. Please.

Bio-Fuels more efficent? Please. Damn that is stupid. Your scientists need to go back to school, and learn what humans exhale.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23170513#22993204

 

No, OryHara, you need to get a basic understanding of the principles of carbon science.

 

Bio fuels are not more efficient, but the net CO2 is much less than oil or coal. With Bio-fuel, it is being made from plants. The plants capture and store CO2 in their lifetime. So by making Bio fuel and burning it, you are releasing CO2 that is then captured by plants that are used for more bio fuel (the net effect is that, so it's not exactly every CO2 molecule being reused). The overall effect with the use of bio fuels is that the CO2 is recaptured as quickly as it is used, so the fuel in principle emits no net CO2. However, there are still the overheads of transport etc, but they would be negligible if they were run on renewables as well.

With Oil, it is stuff that has been in the ground for millions of years, and there are not any processes that are restoring is as quick as it is burned.

 

Of course it is true that humans and nearly every animal on this planet exhale CO2, but the oceans and plants are able to recapture this CO2, which then goes into the food that we eat, and then burn, exhaling the CO2, etc...

The entire carbon cycle of the planet worked perfectly until we started burning carbon reserves at a rate much higher than what can be stored in the earth.

It's not a case of the actual CO2 itself, or how it is emitted, but more a case of how it is stored or recycled. Without us, there is very little net change in CO2, but we've decided to change that...

 

Of course, if you think you can do any better than the scientists, perhaps you should pop down to Boston and teach them all a lesson, because it is clear that you are far more qualified than them

[dark4181]

global warming is bs, imHo

 

and carbon credits? please.. one company uses too much, so they buy from another company that has some to spare.. how is that reducing anything? it's just trading around what's there, there's no reduction

 

and gore's mansion uses like 1000x more energy a day than i use in a year. talk about hypocritical

[Purple Puppy]

Considering the vast amount of evidence presented, global warming is definitely happening.

 

Greenhouse gasses are increasing in a manner directly proportional to the amount of industrialization to the extent that now there are several orders of magnitude higher levels of greenhouse gasses than before. Furthermore it seems that the more developed a country is, the more greenhouse gasses its producing. Clearly greenhouse gasses are man-made.

 

Then, global temperature is increasing in a manner directly proportional to the amount of greenhouse gasses. Clearly greenhouse gasses cause warming.

 

Then, there are all sorts of drastic consequences arising from the increase of 0.5 degrees celsius, including such horrid things as increased sea level (thereby submerging many cities), an iceless arctic (which may make shipping across the North easier), and mass extinctions of incompetent animals. Furthermore, a higher temperature means more heat, which is energy, which is always readily converted into kinetic energy causing things like storms (Katrina, ahem, ahem).

 

Global warming is real, and it is dangerous.

 

However, politicians and media and people like Al Gore and David Suzuki screw it up big time.

 

By conserving energy, we do not solve the problem of greenhouse gasses. If we all drive Toyota Priuses, use efficient lights, we are still producing several times more carbon dioxide than there has ever been.

 

By using ethanol, we are harassing the corn growing industry and producing more greenhouse gasses than would be absorbed by the corn in the first place because vast amounts of natural gas (methane) is needed to make ethanol and all other forms of biofuels.

 

Instead, we should do something drastic.

 

It is known that most power plants today are coal, and most power comes from power plants. Therefore, most energy we use are coal burned. (OK, some places use nuclear and hydroelectric, but that's a minority. Besides, hydroelectric plants are built using MASSIVE amounts of cement and concrete, which are themselves made using a process that gives out the same amount of carbon dioxide by weight as the amount of cement produced).

 

Therefore, we must replace all power plants with nuclear ones. Here's the reasoning:

 

1) Nuclear power plants produce no carbon dioxide or any form of emission when in use

2) Nuclear fission is a mature technology now and is very unlikely to have any accidents. The Chernobyl accident and other nuclear accidents were because of them being badly managed and because then it was not as mature a technology back then.

3) 0 peoples have died from nuclear exposure when operating in any of the modern plants such as the CANDU ones.

4) the USA has a large amount of uranium from left over nuclear warheads. By using them for useful energy, we can also help in nuclear disarmament thereby leading to greater global peace.

5) If we have sufficient energy from nuclear power plants, then electric energy will eventually displace gas and we will all be happy driving around in electric cars.

 

Meanwhile, whilst this solves most problems arising from domestic emissions, industrial emissions, and transportation emissions, this does not solve the greatest problem of all.

 

Cows.

 

Cattle belch methane, which, molecule by molecule, is 200 times as bad as carbon dioxide in greenhouse effect. As a result, they now contribute to more global warming than all of the world's transportation's greenhouse gas production together. I kid you not.

 

I guess the only way to solve it is to devise a better kind of food for cows. :S

[dark4181]

humans fart methane and belch co2.. it's nature, not a damn thing that can be done about it

[killbot1000]

humans fart methane and belch co2.. it's nature, not a damn thing that can be done about it

 

Yes...thats true, but Automobiles, and Coal-fired power plants belch a lot MORE CO2. Do some research before claiming that global warming is BS. What possible reason would anybody have to fake global warming? The only reason I could think of is to literally make the world a cleaner place, and to create jobs in environmentally friendly fields, regardless of the damage we're doing. If thats the hidden agenda, I think I can live with that. If global warming is BS then we have nothing to lose and we will end up making the world a cleaner place because its the right thing to do.

 

If however we assume that global warming is BS and ignore it, the consequences for being wrong on that point are 1000x worse. I think that even if global warming is BS I would still support measures that would bring polluters under control and would reduce harm to the environment as a whole.

 

Without an environment to live in...THERE IS NO ECONOMY.

[dark4181]

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmFiZ...jQ4OGFiZjFlNjc=

 

On the supposed “scientific consensus”: Dr. Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California, San Diego, (p. 262) did not examine a “large random sample” of scientific articles. She got her search terms wrong and thought she was looking at all the articles when in fact she was looking at only 928 out of about 12,000 articles on “climate change.” Dr. Benny Peiser, of Liverpool John Moores University in England, was unable to replicate her study. He says, “As I have stressed repeatedly, the whole data set includes only 13 abstracts (~1%) that explicitly endorse what Oreskes has called the ‘consensus view.’ In fact, the vast majority of abstracts does (sic) not mention anthropogenic climate change. Moreover — and despite attempts to deny this fact — a handful of abstracts actually questions the view that human activities are the main driving force of ‘the observed warming over the last 50 years.’” In addition, a recent survey of scientists following the same methodology as one published in 1996 found that about 30 percent of scientists disagreed to some extent or another with the contention that “climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes.” Less than 10 percent “strongly agreed” with the statement.

[dark4181]

notice how most places are calling it "global climate change" now? i guess when the facts don't fit your agenda, you have to alter your terminology

[Colonel]

My opinion of global warming:

 

[killbot1000]

My opinion of global warming:

 

Thats right, opinion.

[socal swimmer]

notice how most places are calling it "global climate change" now? i guess when the facts don't fit your agenda, you have to alter your terminology

 

they are the same thing. It is changing for the warmer. Climate change is just more scientific, and emphasizes the fact that it is more than just temperature, it is the entire climate that will be affected.

 

Thats right, opinion.

 

I call it stupidity. But thats my opinion.

[dark4181]

"global climate change" is not the same as "global warming" .. as "warming" always equals "warming" but "change" doesn't necessarily equal "warming" now, does it?

 

oh, and remember the polar ice that everyone was freaked out about a little while ago? "boo hoo, the polar ice is melting, eeeks, it's global warming"

 

well, apparently, all that ice is back, and some more besides

 

so tell me, where's your "global warming" now?

 

oh, and uh oh, unusual cold over central asia

 

what happened to "global warming"?

 

*edit* nope, i'm not done yet.. climate change hysteria

 

and lets not leave out

 

Al Gore and other global warming enthusiasts are fond of reciting that 2,611 scientists have signed a letter stating that global warming poses a serious and real threat. Yet, only about one in ten of the so-called 2611 scientists had scientific expertise. And only 5 out the 2,611 so-called scientists had training in climate, weather or other atmospheric sciences. That is less than 1/2 of one percent. Excuse me, for being underwhelmed.

 

Perhaps more revealing is that Gore’s list of “scientists” included landscape architects, psychologists, lawyers, a philosopher, a dermatologist, a gynecologist, and a diplomat. On this flimsy basis, as only Al Gore can, he tells us that the “debate is over” and that there is complete agreement.

 

Flimsy indeed

[socal swimmer]

"global climate change" is not the same as "global warming" .. as "warming" always equals "warming" but "change" doesn't necessarily equal "warming" now, does it?

 

oh, and remember the polar ice that everyone was freaked out about a little while ago? "boo hoo, the polar ice is melting, eeeks, it's global warming"

 

well, apparently, all that ice is back, and some more besides

 

so tell me, where's your "global warming" now?

 

oh, and uh oh, unusual cold over central asia

 

what happened to "global warming"?

 

*edit* nope, i'm not done yet.. climate change hysteria

 

and lets not leave out

Flimsy indeed

 

well first of all, global warming is global. so cooling over east asia is pretty much irrelevant, because as a whole, the globe is still warming.

 

and thank you for proving that the ice expands in winter. we already knew that. Even that article (that you quoted) said that the ice reached record-low levels last year. And the other link is blogspot, which is not particularly credible.

 

The most compelling evidence from Al Gore was about the study of scientific articles, and the IPCC. Not that letter.

 

please do more research (from credible, unbiased sources) please.