[Beetle01]

http://www.dailytech.com/Sea+Ice+Ends+Ye...e13834.htm

Each year, millions of square kilometers of sea ice melt and refreeze. However, the mean ice anomaly -- defined as the seasonally-adjusted difference between the current value and the average from 1979-2000, varies much more slowly. That anomaly now stands at just under zero, a value identical to one recorded at the end of 1979, the year satellite record-keeping began.

[Coach_Owens87]

You are still showing that you are scientifically lost, as this does nothing to disprove global warming, and the article never states that either. One piece of data can not disprove years of studies. Change in one region, can be offset by change in another, as this study shows. The article also mentions that the ice is thinner than ever before, and doesn't point out the loss of land based ice loss, not quite the global warming de-bunker you want it to be. It also doesn't mention that the earth is still warming, which is what global warming is. The scary theory's of death and destruction are mostly junk, but global warming is still scientifically sound.


From nasa:

"Earth is currently in a period of warming. Over the last century, Earth's average temperature rose about 1.1°F (0.6°C). In the last two decades, the rate of our world's warming accelerated and scientists predict that the globe will continue to warm over the course of the 21st century. Is this warming trend a reason for concern? After all, our world has witnessed extreme warm periods before, such as during the time of the dinosaurs. Earth has also seen numerous ice ages on roughly 11,000-year cycles for at least the last million years. So, change is perhaps the only constant in Earth's 4.5-billion-year history.

Scientists note that there are two new and different twists to today's changing climate: (1) The globe is warming at a faster rate than it ever has before; and (2) Humans are the main reason Earth is warming."

http://nasascience.nasa.gov/big-question...nsequences

[Beetle01]

It goes to show how lost that article is

1. How do they know how fast Earth warmed or cooled in the past? They don't.

2. There is no defintive proof that humans are the main reason the Earth is warming. Actually alot of science prooves otherwise, that for us to even think we have the ability to affect something such as global weather patterns is absurd.

[Beetle01]

http://anulap.com/global_warming.html

Check out this picture and caption. I thought it was funny.

[Beetle01]

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?F...4616db87e6

POZNAN, Poland - The UN global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. Set for release this week, a newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN. The report has added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over 400 scientists who spoke out in 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.


“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh

[SIZE=5][SIZE=3]“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.[/SIZE][/SIZE]

The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata

[Coach_Owens87]

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?F...4616db87e6

POZNAN, Poland - The UN global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. Set for release this week, a newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN. The report has added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over 400 scientists who spoke out in 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.


“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh

[SIZE=5][SIZE=3]“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.[/SIZE][/SIZE]

The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata

You can find all the rogue scientist, or people who doubt global warming, and put them all together and it still wouldn't equal half the amount that believe it is occurring, or that humans are partly to blame. Nothing in science is ever really for certain, people always challenge each others ideas, that's what makes science great. Many of those UN scientist probably changed their mind, or go against GW for political reasons. Many are probably from oil supporting countries.

I can find many list to support me, and mine have a lot more significance in the scientific community. The list includes organizations like the American institute of chemistry, physics, American meteorological society, federation of American scientist, geological society of America, and many more. Even the American assoc. of petroleum geologist admit human activity is contributing to global warming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_...ement_2008

like I said before 650, against over 90% of all scientist doesn't hold much water. I bet you could go back to the 1970's and find 650 scientist that believed cigarette smoking didn't cause cancer, and we all know how that turned out.

[Old School]

Below are a few interesting sites, some will enjoy......and some will not.

Alamists still heated even as World cools
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/in-the-news/P24/

Global Warming, Global Myth
http://www.libertyunbound.com/archive/20...rming.html


http://icecap.us/images/uploads/More_Ske..._Daily.pdf

Here's a new Al Gore movie it's a must see. lol


2500 Scientist?
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/they-said-it/P16/

Earth First, a typical environmental group? Abother must see video.
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/article...198/15394/

Not Evil Just Wrong


Farmers Panic Over Cow Tax!
http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/1...a-cow-tax/

Shell to quit Wind Projects.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/bu...299195.ece

Pre-Industrial CO2 levels ssame as today
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/6855

[PC_You_Know]

Like the thread title, SO MUCH FOR GLOBAL WARMING!

[Coach_Owens87]

Like the thread title, SO MUCH FOR GLOBAL WARMING!

Like ive said a million times, ill take the vast majority of scientist, and the overwhelming support from major scientific organizations, over the small percentage who go against the GW theory.

[Coach_Owens87]

Below are a few interesting sites, some will enjoy......and some will not.

Alamists still heated even as World cools
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/in-the-news/P24/

Global Warming, Global Myth
http://www.libertyunbound.com/archive/20...rming.html


http://icecap.us/images/uploads/More_Ske..._Daily.pdf

Here's a new Al Gore movie it's a must see. lol


2500 Scientist?
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/they-said-it/P16/

Earth First, a typical environmental group? Abother must see video.
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/article...198/15394/

Not Evil Just Wrong


Farmers Panic Over Cow Tax!
http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/1...a-cow-tax/

Shell to quit Wind Projects.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/bu...299195.ece

Pre-Industrial CO2 levels ssame as today
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/6855

lol, youtube, glen beck, and the conservative Canada free press is all you can come up with? Come on old school, you can do better than that. Lets not try to not get political opinion and get some scientific facts.

[ImagineThat!]

Like ive said a million times, ill take the vast majority of scientist, and the overwhelming support from major scientific organizations, over the small percentage who go against the GW theory.

Scientists that can prove/disprove whatever they want. Scientists that will prove/disprove whatever the people that are funding their research want proven/disproven. Come on Coach, quit being so naive and think for yourself and quit believing everything that a professor tells you.

Why is it that only your links are credible?

[Coach_Owens87]

Scientists that can prove/disprove whatever they want. Scientists that will prove/disprove whatever the people that are funding their research want proven/disproven. Come on Coach, quit being so naive and think for yourself and quit believing everything that a professor tells you.

Why is it that only your links are credible?

Exactly, which is why you have to look at both sides of it. But when all major studies show that global warming is occurring, I believe it.

My professor's have nothing to do with my thoughts, I actually disagree with a lot of my professors, I go to ALC, almost everyone there is hardcore conservative.

[guyfawkes]

I believe that humans are the main reason for global warming and I believe we can stop it before it gets to the point to where the earth can no longer sustain human life. But, this would require everybody (not just the US) to take part and that would be near impossible. But, on the long term, I think it would be a good idea to get off of fossil fuels because they will eventually run out, and if we are able to develop more "green" technology that is environmentally friendly, then we won't have to worry about polluting the earth.

[Old School]

lol, youtube, glen beck, and the conservative Canada free press is all you can come up with? Come on old school, you can do better than that. Lets not try to not get political opinion and get some scientific facts.

Obviously, you never bothered checking out those site, but before we get into my sites, let's check out your sites, one is wikipedia (enough said) while the other is from NASA containing a mere three or four paragraphs, now let's look a little deeper into NASA's site. Scientist James Hansen is the caretaker of NASA's GISS data and also a Global Warming Alarmist, and was a paid consulant to Al Gore during the making of "An Inconvient Truth", this guy has little to no credibility in the science world today.

Hansen specializes in climate "modeling" more or less attempting to predict future weather events based on computer simulations. Here are a few of his pridections.

In 1971, Hansen wrote his first climate model, which showed the World was about to experience severe Global Cooling. NASA colleagues used it to warn the World that immediate action was needed to prevent a catastrophe.

In 1981 Hansen and 6 other Federal Scientist predicted Global Warming of "Almost unprecedented magnitude" in the next century, eventually leading to a Worldwide rise of 15 to 20 feet in the sea level. Sound familiar, it's only been 28 years since his prediction, but how much have the sea levels risen since 1981?

On June 23, 1988, Hansen spoke to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, while the Midwest was experiencing a severe drought. Hansen's computer model predicted rising temperatures 0.54 degrees per decade and more droughts for the Midwest thru the middle of the 21st century. FYI since that prediction in 1988 the Midwest has only been concidered to be in a drought 2 years 2005 and 2006 and temperatures have slightly declined since 1998.

In 1986 Hansen predicted global temperatures should be nearly 2 degrees higher in 2006. We know today that temp. have only risen about 0.6 degrees in the past 20 years, I guess we can give him credit for being 30% correct.

In 2004 Hansen made claims that the window for action is only 10 years, BTW didn't Gore make the same prediction in 1992?

NASA also said that 1998 was the hottest year on record, BTW they used Hansen's computer programs do determine this fact, which was latter determined to be inaccurate and 1934 is still the hottest year on record.

According to one report, there are 4 scources of Global Temperature Measurements, they are NASA, The UK Meteorological Office's Hadley Center For Climate Studies, The University of Alabama at Huntsville and RSS (Remote Sensing Systems). The report said that NASA is out of step with the other three. The other three show global temps. declining since 1998 while NASA show them increasing at a record pace. How can that be?

Now, I have to ask you do you still believe NASA and Hansens reports are credible?

As I stated earlier it's obvious that you have not looked at my sites, if you had you would have found links to many reports, studies that backs the theroy Global Warming is not man-made, there are also quotes from scientist who once believed global warming was man-made.

The videos were extras that I thought you would enjoy, I know I did. Coach here's another chance to watch this video.

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/article...198/15394/

[Old School]

Scientists that can prove/disprove whatever they want. Scientists that will prove/disprove whatever the people that are funding their research want proven/disproven. Come on Coach, quit being so naive and think for yourself and quit believing everything that a professor tells you.

Why is it that only your links are credible?

ImagineThat!....After several disussions with Coach, I come to realize that "Coach is a legend in his own mind".

[Old School]

I believe that humans are the main reason for global warming and I believe we can stop it before it gets to the point to where the earth can no longer sustain human life. But, this would require everybody (not just the US) to take part and that would be near impossible. But, on the long term, I think it would be a good idea to get off of fossil fuels because they will eventually run out, and if we are able to develop more "green" technology that is environmentally friendly, then we won't have to worry about polluting the earth.

Why do you believe GW is man-made?

I'll ask you the same question I've ask many others. What caused previous warming and cooling cycles before the industrial era? Could it have been Natural Cycles? and If it was Natural Cycles in the past, Why couldn't it be a Natural Cycle again?

[Beetle01]

You can find all the rogue scientist, or people who doubt global warming, and put them all together and it still wouldn't equal half the amount that believe it is occurring, or that humans are partly to blame. Nothing in science is ever really for certain, people always challenge each others ideas, that's what makes science great. Many of those UN scientist probably changed their mind, or go against GW for political reasons. Many are probably from oil supporting countries.

I can find many list to support me, and mine have a lot more significance in the scientific community. The list includes organizations like the American institute of chemistry, physics, American meteorological society, federation of American scientist, geological society of America, and many more. Even the American assoc. of petroleum geologist admit human activity is contributing to global warming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_...ement_2008

like I said before 650, against over 90% of all scientist doesn't hold much water. I bet you could go back to the 1970's and find 650 scientist that believed cigarette smoking didn't cause cancer, and we all know how that turned out.

Im not sure how many climatologists there are in the world. However, I can be certain there are not as many as you think. The amount of credible ones probably number around 3,000. That's a safe number Im using. More like less than 2000 in all reality, but we can never know for sure. So the fact that 650 people who are experts in their field are speaking up saying this is completely absurd stands out to me. More and more seem to be saying that every day. Even those not the Al Gore camp have eased up their wording now using statements as there is a probablity man has had an impact on global temperatures. Also, alot of scientists have put their careers on the line with the fact that man made global warming is true, and to admit otherwise is going to hurt them sverely, so they will fight tooth and nail to the bitter end to have us all believe that what they say is true, just to save their own butts.

For one Coach, you need to quit using alarmist terms such as earth temperature rising faster than ever. Because there is no way anyone could possibly know that.

[Coach_Owens87]

Im not sure how many climatologists there are in the world. However, I can be certain there are not as many as you think. The amount of credible ones probably number around 3,000. That's a safe number Im using. More like less than 2000 in all reality, but we can never know for sure. So the fact that 650 people who are experts in their field are speaking up saying this is completely absurd stands out to me. More and more seem to be saying that every day. Even those not the Al Gore camp have eased up their wording now using statements as there is a probability man has had an impact on global temperatures. Also, a lot of scientists have put their careers on the line with the fact that man made global warming is true, and to admit otherwise is going to hurt them sverely, so they will fight tooth and nail to the bitter end to have us all believe that what they say is true, just to save their own butts.

For one Coach, you need to quit using alarmist terms such as earth temperature rising faster than ever. Because there is no way anyone could possibly know that.

could you please Provide a link to these 650 who oppose GW?

650 people, compared to 90% of the scientific field still doesn't hold much water.

If you would read some scientific magazines are articles you would know that CO2 levels, and temperature changes can be found in ice core samples from glaciers.

It's true that CO2 levels have been higher in the past, and have varied greatly, but those changes in CO2 occurred over a long period of time, some thousands of years, compared to the century or so this warming trend has occurred in. The earths atmosphere will absorb the excess CO2, but it cant do it at the rate we are putting it into the air, so to answer old schools question, thats why this cant be only a natural cycle.

Article that may shed some light on how they know this isnt natural, and how they know past cycles.

http://www.reuters.com/article/environme...=0&sp=true

[Coach_Owens87]

Obviously, you never bothered checking out those site, but before we get into my sites, let's check out your sites, one is wikipedia (enough said) while the other is from NASA containing a mere three or four paragraphs, now let's look a little deeper into NASA's site. Scientist James Hansen is the caretaker of NASA's GISS data and also a Global Warming Alarmist, and was a paid consulant to Al Gore during the making of "An Inconvient Truth", this guy has little to no credibility in the science world today.

Hansen specializes in climate "modeling" more or less attempting to predict future weather events based on computer simulations. Here are a few of his pridections.

In 1971, Hansen wrote his first climate model, which showed the World was about to experience severe Global Cooling. NASA colleagues used it to warn the World that immediate action was needed to prevent a catastrophe.

In 1981 Hansen and 6 other Federal Scientist predicted Global Warming of "Almost unprecedented magnitude" in the next century, eventually leading to a Worldwide rise of 15 to 20 feet in the sea level. Sound familiar, it's only been 28 years since his prediction, but how much have the sea levels risen since 1981?

On June 23, 1988, Hansen spoke to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, while the Midwest was experiencing a severe drought. Hansen's computer model predicted rising temperatures 0.54 degrees per decade and more droughts for the Midwest thru the middle of the 21st century. FYI since that prediction in 1988 the Midwest has only been concidered to be in a drought 2 years 2005 and 2006 and temperatures have slightly declined since 1998.

In 1986 Hansen predicted global temperatures should be nearly 2 degrees higher in 2006. We know today that temp. have only risen about 0.6 degrees in the past 20 years, I guess we can give him credit for being 30% correct.

In 2004 Hansen made claims that the window for action is only 10 years, BTW didn't Gore make the same prediction in 1992?

NASA also said that 1998 was the hottest year on record, BTW they used Hansen's computer programs do determine this fact, which was latter determined to be inaccurate and 1934 is still the hottest year on record.

According to one report, there are 4 scources of Global Temperature Measurements, they are NASA, The UK Meteorological Office's Hadley Center For Climate Studies, The University of Alabama at Huntsville and RSS (Remote Sensing Systems). The report said that NASA is out of step with the other three. The other three show global temps. declining since 1998 while NASA show them increasing at a record pace. How can that be?

Now, I have to ask you do you still believe NASA and Hansens reports are credible?

As I stated earlier it's obvious that you have not looked at my sites, if you had you would have found links to many reports, studies that backs the theroy Global Warming is not man-made, there are also quotes from scientist who once believed global warming was man-made.

The videos were extras that I thought you would enjoy, I know I did. Coach here's another chance to watch this video.

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/article...198/15394/

So he made some predictions that haven't been entirely true, and he is all of the sudden less credible than some junk conservative site that picks and chooses data to support itself. How hypocritical is that? So the scientific field show now hush and listen to Glen Beck, and the great detailed blog of "watts up with that? Scientist make wrong predictions all of the time, happens every day, you learn from those mistakes and move on. FYI he is not the only scientist saying this, global warming is occurring, not at the rate a lot of people claim it is, but it is occurring.

Also global cooling was never scientifically accepted, and was not a theory, just a small prediction by some scientist.

As for my Wikipedia link, it was just a convenient way to show all of the major groups supporting AGW, you could easily scroll to the bottom of the page, and view each organizations website.

lol, and I don't think a "report" by "watts up with that" (which is probably where you got your info, seeming it has everything you said, and is easily found on a google search) is more credible than anything I provided. He provides data that is really, really misleading, almost a lie. Also there are more than 4 trusted sources for global temperatures, wouldn't you think the NOAA is a good source? Read it and look at GLOBAL TEMPS, not US temperatures, big difference.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008...stats.html

Here is a link of the real data that the 4 global metrics show! This watts guy is really great at cherry picking.

http://atmoz.org/blog/2008/03/10/4-of-4-...in-trends/


You are using data for the US and making at it appear to be world data which it is not. 1934 was the warmest year in the US, not the world, it was only 0.15 degree Celsius hotter than 1998, so nice try, but cherry picking doesn't work. And the earths temperature is not cooling, although temps in the US have slightly fallen since 2000. But again this is only the US, not the world, and the theory is called global warming, not US warming. So please, do a little more research before you post things that just make you look worse.

[Beetle01]

could you please Provide a link to these 650 who oppose GW?

650 people, compared to 90% of the scientific field still doesn't hold much water.

If you would read some scientific magazines are articles you would know that CO2 levels, and temperature changes can be found in ice core samples from glaciers.

It's true that CO2 levels have been higher in the past, and have varied greatly, but those changes in CO2 occurred over a long period of time, some thousands of years, compared to the century or so this warming trend has occurred in. The earths atmosphere will absorb the excess CO2, but it cant do it at the rate we are putting it into the air, so to answer old schools question, thats why this cant be only a natural cycle.

Article that may shed some light on how they know this isnt natural, and how they know past cycles.

http://www.reuters.com/article/environme...=0&sp=true

Post #5 has the link you're looking for.

Also your article clearly states they only go back 610,000 years. A small hiccup in the history of this planet.

[Coach_Owens87]

Post #5 has the link you're looking for.

Also your article clearly states they only go back 610,000 years. A small hiccup in the history of this planet.

That may be a small hiccup, but I think its a wakeup call to all those saying we couldn't look very far into the past, or that we couldn't know if this is the warmest trend in history. Natural "ice age" occurrences happen around every 11,500 years, so I think having a history of 600,000 years is enough to know if this is natural or not. Guess this puts an end to all that "natural cylce" crap you try to spit out.

[Coach_Owens87]

Post #5 has the link you're looking for.

Also your article clearly states they only go back 610,000 years. A small hiccup in the history of this planet.

That list of "prominent scientist" is one of the biggest jokes you have ever posted, once I took a look at that list, and then done some research on who these scientist are, it became clear this was just a big political push from the fossil fuel industry. The report was lead by Sen. Inhofe, and had 413 "prominent scientist" which include people with these illustrious credentials.



84 have either taken money from, or are connected to, fossil fuel industries, or think tanks started by those industries.

49 are retired


44 are television weathermen


20 are economists


70 have no apparent expertise in climate science

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environment...s-47011101

Thats half of the list that is very questionable. Not quite the global warming debunker you want it to be.

[Stardust]

In the polar caps, for every fraction of an inch that the ice melts, ice is added at that amount in a different region. It proves that the earth does not spin on an equal axis from the beginning of time. As one part of the earth moves closer to the sun, metling occurs. At the same instant, as one part of the earth moves further from the sun, freezing increases.

Al Gore can chalk this crusade up with his creation of the Internet. Nice to see that ole Al is doing this for the good of mankind, err his wellbeing that is. His investment in the creation of "Carbon Credits", has the potential to make him Billions should he convince the public to freak out and begin purchasing mythical carbon footprint credits.

There is no meaningful debate with the scientific community.

[Coach_Owens87]

1. In the polar caps, for every fraction of an inch that the ice melts, ice is added at that amount in a different region. It proves that the earth does not spin on an equal axis from the beginning of time. 2. As one part of the earth moves closer to the sun, metling occurs. At the same instant, as one part of the earth moves further from the sun, freezing increases.

Al Gore can chalk this crusade up with his creation of the Internet. Nice to see that ole Al is doing this for the good of mankind, err his wellbeing that is. His investment in the creation of "Carbon Credits", has the potential to make him Billions should he convince the public to freak out and begin purchasing mythical carbon footprint credits.

3. There is no meaningful debate with the scientific community.

1.)This should occur in a natural cycle, but it isn't, the polar ice caps are melting, and the ice that is freezing in other places is thinner than what it should be, so it's not all a natural cycle.

2.) That isn't exactly the case either, some parts of the earth can actually be closer to the sun, and experience colder weather due to the shape of the earth.


3.) Your exactly right, the debate about GW is over, the debate now is over how much of an impact humans are having, glad you realize that.

[Beetle01]

1.)This should occur in a natural cycle, but it isn't, the polar ice caps are melting, and the ice that is freezing in other places is thinner than what it should be, so it's not all a natural cycle.

2.) That isn't exactly the case either, some parts of the earth can actually be closer to the sun, and experience colder weather due to the shape of the earth.


3.) Your exactly right, the debate about GW is over, the debate now is over how much of an impact humans are having, glad you realize that.

LOL you try and debunk my scientists, which whether or not they are connected to the fossil fuel industry does not matter, because any you mention will be connected to Al Gore and that is worse, taking money to do a one time reasearch project is not going to affect the outcome, because its a one time deal, doesn't matter what the results are. You constantly refer to the majority of scientists, yet show no proof of this 90%. You just throw random figures out there. GW does exist. The Earth gets warmer, then it gets cooler, then it gets warmer. The earth has not got any warmer in the last 10 years, and for the last 6 it has cooled.

Id say in 1000 years we could have somewhat of an impact on warming. And that is doubtful. Our planet could be very polluted and unhealthy. but to think we could affect weather patterns, or global climate is a joke. Our earth heated because of the massive sun spots that showed up a coulple decades ago. "For the first time in history"(using your words) Then they started going away a little less than a decade ago and the Earth has been cooling.

[DevilsWin]

NASA's trips to Mars (which you support )may refute your claims on Global Warming. Only time will really tell.

[Stardust]

LOL you try and debunk my scientists, which whether or not they are connected to the fossil fuel industry does not matter, because any you mention will be connected to Al Gore and that is worse, taking money to do a one time reasearch project is not going to affect the outcome, because its a one time deal, doesn't matter what the results are. You constantly refer to the majority of scientists, yet show no proof of this 90%. You just throw random figures out there. GW does exist. The Earth gets warmer, then it gets cooler, then it gets warmer. The earth has not got any warmer in the last 10 years, and for the last 6 it has cooled.

Id say in 1000 years we could have somewhat of an impact on warming. And that is doubtful. Our planet could be very polluted and unhealthy. but to think we could affect weather patterns, or global climate is a joke. Our earth heated because of the massive sun spots that showed up a coulple decades ago. "For the first time in history"(using your words) Then they started going away a little less than a decade ago and the Earth has been cooling.

Great post and dead-on.

[Old School]

So he made some predictions that haven't been entirely true, and he is all of the sudden less credible than some junk conservative site that picks and chooses data to support itself. How hypocritical is that? So the scientific field show now hush and listen to Glen Beck, and the great detailed blog of "watts up with that? Scientist make wrong predictions all of the time, happens every day, you learn from those mistakes and move on. FYI he is not the only scientist saying this, global warming is occurring, not at the rate a lot of people claim it is, but it is occurring.

Also global cooling was never scientifically accepted, and was not a theory, just a small prediction by some scientist.

As for my Wikipedia link, it was just a convenient way to show all of the major groups supporting AGW, you could easily scroll to the bottom of the page, and view each organizations website.

lol, and I don't think a "report" by "watts up with that" (which is probably where you got your info, seeming it has everything you said, and is easily found on a google search) is more credible than anything I provided. He provides data that is really, really misleading, almost a lie. Also there are more than 4 trusted sources for global temperatures, wouldn't you think the NOAA is a good source? Read it and look at GLOBAL TEMPS, not US temperatures, big difference.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008...stats.html

Here is a link of the real data that the 4 global metrics show! This watts guy is really great at cherry picking.

http://atmoz.org/blog/2008/03/10/4-of-4-...in-trends/


You are using data for the US and making at it appear to be world data which it is not. 1934 was the warmest year in the US, not the world, it was only 0.15 degree Celsius hotter than 1998, so nice try, but cherry picking doesn't work. And the earths temperature is not cooling, although temps in the US have slightly fallen since 2000. But again this is only the US, not the world, and the theory is called global warming, not US warming. So please, do a little more research before you post things that just make you look worse.

Saying “So he made some predictions that haven’t been entirely true” is like saying the Detroit Lions lost a few football games this year. lol

Did I hit a nerve with the Beck video or what? lol

Global cooling not accepted,….your kidding right,

Let’s discuss NOAA, since you brought them up, according to NOAA’s own web site and I quote, “NOAA took a leadership role in the effort of the IPCC to prepare a report on the International State of Climate Science, NOAA provided observation, data, model simulations, analysis, authors and review editors.” Their latest gaffe was to report September’s temperature data for the month of October which averages 1 degree higher, yet no one at NOAA noticed that October’s norm was 1 degree higher. One would have to wonder, was this an honest mistake or were they trying to adjust their numbers to justify the cause.

Getting back to the IPCC report, here are a few quotes from past members of the IPCC in which according to NOAA has itself taken a leadership role in observation, data, analysis, authors and review editors.

• "Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly ... . As a scientist I remain skeptical." -- Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called "among the most pre-eminent scientists of the last 100 years."

• Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history ... . When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists." -- U.N. IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning Ph.D. environmental physical chemist.
  
• "It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming." -- U.S. Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

• "Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp ... . Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact." -- Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch U.N. IPCC committee.

“I have found examples of a summary saying precisely the opposite of what the Scientists said.” South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer, Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author.

In August 2007 a comprehensive survey of peer-reviewed scientific literature from 2004 – 2007 revealed “less than half of all published scientist endorse Global Warming theory.

Your commit about Anthony Watts is not surprising, since that’s a typical “coach” response whenever someone doesn’t agree with your point of view. Watts is best known for revealing flaws of the surface stations across the U.S.. NASA and NOAA both use data from these stations to determine the average temperature. Watts determined that different types of paint or whitewash on the surface station buildings could cause variations in their reading’s, he also has surveyed over 750 of the nearly 1200 surface stations across the U.S. Watts found that the majority of those surveyed did not meet the original guidelines when these stations were established, The link below shows photo’s of these stations being located on blacktop, concrete, attached to buildings, decks and so on. Do you really think they would give accurate temp. readings in some of these locations?

http://gallery.surfacestations.org/UCAR-...index.html

Hansen and NASA have been trying to shove Global Warming down our throats for decades one example, was to use 1998 as the hottest year on record, while it was only 0.15 C difference between 1998 and 1934, 1934 is still the hottest year on record like it or not. Global Temperatures have been declining for the past 6 or 8 years, so how many years do temperatures have to decline for the alarmist back off of Global Warming.


By all means keep up your little personal “zingers,” I have found them to be a great motivator. lol

[Coach_Owens87]

Glen Beck is an idiot, and has no clue what he is talking about, so he doesnt bother me.

Also I didnt throw off on watts because he disagreed with me, he was very very misleading with his data. What he was saying doesnt correspond with the real data, I gave a link to prove that.

You can give examples of people who dont agree with it, and I can give you twice as many that agree with me, so this really doesnt get us anywhere.

lol, and would you please stop saying 1934 is the warmest year for the globe, because it isnt, it's the warmest year in the US, not for the globe, which is what we are worried about since this is global warming, not US warming. You really think youre showing me up, when youre completely lost, it's GLOBAL WARMING, keep that in mind. Also you may want to know that 2002-2006 was a warmer period on average than 1930-1934, according to NASA, which is the data your are referring to, so you could say that tempatures are hotter on average, which kinda takes away from 1934, being a fraction hotter in the US than 1998.

Here is a look at some data of global temps, take a look at these:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabled...s+dSST.txt

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.txt

Also, I didnt argue that 1934 was the warmest year in the US according to NASA, (so I dont know why you would assume that would bother me) but other sources still say 1998 is the warmest year in the US, because the difference between the 2 is statistically insignificant. But this is really not important, and doesnt effect the global temperature records, because the US just represents a fraction of global temperature, there are other countries in this world.

Next time you do a Google search, try to look at global records, and stay away from conservative people with an agenda like you. Global warming due to the burning of fossil fuels would look bad on your profession, so I can understand you rush to use false data to make your view seem correct.

[Beetle01]

Coach in that data a see warming starting almost immediately. Sure there are years where it dips back down. However, you are aware we were in a mini Ice Age that we recently came out of. At those points in time there is no way that man could have had a global effect on the weather. Yet we were slowly warming, because we were coming out of a mini Ice Age. Also hasn't it already been shown that the data is not accurate anyways?

Like I said before in other threads coach. You liberal types always choose the worst way to go about your arguments to get at your agenda. I agree we should cut back on our pollutants, and CO2 usage. Not for fear of global warming, but for health reasons. That is why we should do it. Most people are not going to buy into some hogwash theory about man-made global warming. There has been a great attempt to fool people into believing in man made GW. However when there are just as many if not more scientists who say its untrue. You are not going to get very far with that argument.


I dont have a PHD in anything, and I wager with a few months time using just data off the internet I could make a convincing case for either side. Its all on where the money comes from. man-made GW people have decades worth of funding and pay to recieve if they get people to buy into man made global warming. Whereas those who debunk it, basically its a one time deal. They have nothing to gain from saying its man made or not. They get paid and funded before the research and final data is presented. So who funds them is not important to me.