" Well, ostinmontana, I'll give you another opportunity to deny real scientists, though I know I'm wasting my time with someone who is not interested in facts that disagree with his opinion. How about 17,000 scientists who signed a petition sponsored by Dr. Frederick Seitz, past president of the National Academy of Sciences? I'm sure you'll find some verbiage somewhere to try to discount it. You'ge going to believe what you ant to believe. No global warming concesus, though.
*********
"More than 17,000 scientists, to date, have signed a petition sponsored by Dr. Frederick Seitz, past president of the National Academy of Sciences, refuting Gore's claims that global warming is human-induced. The petition states: "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
Renowned meteorologist Dr. William Gray, in a recent interview with Discover Magazine (which has advocated the theory of human-induced global warming), says: "This human-induced global-warming thing... is grossly exaggerated... I'm not disputing there has been global warming. There was a lot of global warming in the 1930s and '40s, and then there was global cooling in the middle '40s to the early '70s. Nearly all of my colleagues who have been around 40 or 50 years are skeptical... about this global-warming thing. But no one asks us." (Gray was described by Discover Magazine's editors as one of "the world's most famous hurricane experts.")

Excerpt from THE PATRIOT POST
Patriot No. 06-25 Digest | 23 June 2006

"

" "There's a sucker born every minute."...P.T.Barnum...Well, those who bought into global warming ought to read the latest commentary about this global warming hoax:...http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html...which justifies this following statement:...Carbon politics,(environmentalism), properly so called, is merely the organized power of the rich Democrat class, represented by rich Democrat types, like Al Gore, Ted Turner, John Edwards, the Sierra Club, for oppressing and lowering the living standard of the American people....with Gov. Schweizter and his climate committee, their useful idiots. "

" There is plenty of great discussion of the science out there in the blogosphere--just stick to real, published science for the basis of discussion, not submitted, but unpublished ideas. Anything published in E&E needs to be looked at with a skeptical eye, by the way.

If you're looking for the validity of opinion, the best bet is listening to the national and international professional associations... that is, ones that formed long before an issue got into the news. The Geological Society of America (GSA), American Geophysical Union (AGU), Soil Science Society of America (SSSA), and American Quaternary Association (AMQUA), to name a few from my field of expertise, all strongly endorse the consensus on global warming. The outsider is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG), and even they had to soften their skeptical stance after their membership protested their positions in 2006.

Even more convincing are the statements from world leaders in the petroleum industry, such as:
Quoted in Oil and Gas Journal 2/11/08
…”Shell oil co president John Hofmeister … is calling for governments to set mandatory limits on greenhouse emissions”. and “Government leadership is necessary to establish what those standards should be. This is one reason why Shell is publicly, nationally calling for a United States cap on all sorts of emissions, but primarily CO2...”

From their websites:
"There is now a strong scientific consensus that recent changes in our global climate are almost certainly caused by human activity. Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, in particular from fossil fuel use and deforestation, are the main contributing factors." (http://www.shell.com/home/content/envirosoc-en/environment/climate_change/what_is_climate_change/what_is_climate_change_000407.html)

"ConocoPhillips recognizes that human activity, including the burning of fossil fuels, is contributing to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that can lead to adverse changes in global climate." http://www.conocophillips.com/social/values_policies/climate/index.htm

Those that state the science indicates otherwise don't have a leg to stand on. "

" DW: You really can't be serious about me being "intellectually dishonest." You were the one who FALSELY reported that "95 percent of meteorologists nationwide... are documented as being skeptical over global warming." Then you falsely claimed that "Temps have begun dropping over the last 7 - 10 years." Then you cited a July 2007 study that the editor of the journal it was submitted to (Energy and Environment) called "patchy," "old," and refused to publish. The study you cite from the Royal Meteorological Society (RMS) is by authors who all have confirmed and substantial ties to energy companies, such as Exxon, Shell, and Texaco. The same body (RMS) that published their work also voted in February 2007, as a whole, to endorse the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report. The RMS referred to IPCC scientists as the “world’s best climate scientists” and they stated that climate change is happening as “the result of emissions since industrialization and we have already set in motion the next 50 years of global warming – what we do from now on will determine how worse it will get." DW, until you can post honest statements about scientific fact, I would suggest you stop calling others "intellectually dishonest." "

" dw: Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte, an endocrinologist, is the lead author of the study you cite. His July 2007 work has not yet been published and was denied for publication by the Energy and Environment journal because of his flawed research techniques. In fact, the editor of that journal, Dr. Bochmer-Christiansen, said Klaus-Martin's work was: "a bit patchy and nothing new." Nonetheless, Klaus-Martin found that 45% of the 528 abstracts implicitly or explicitly endorse man-made global climate, while 48% were neutral and ONLY 6% did not believe there was consensus. Thus 7 times more believed in consensus than did not, while most were neutral. Unfortunately, his study included medical, economic, and social science journal articles written by those who do not have expertise in climate science. "

" Ostinmontana: You conveniently went back to the dated "abstracts on global climate change produced between 1993 and 2003" and ignored what I posted below that is an update to that survey from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment.

"...examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007."

"Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus."

"...a July 2007 review of 539 abstracts in peer-reviewed scientific journals from 2004 through 2007 that found that climate science continues to shift toward the views of global warming skeptics."




" In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results."

"...the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, including every leading scientific journal in the world."

There is No concencus on man-made, nor catasptrophic global warming.

As I said before CYCLICAL global warming cannot be refuted. But then, neither can historical cyclical global cooling.

You have ignored the facts about the lack of consensus that I have presented to you. That is intellectually dishonest, so I will no longer participate in this discussion. I learned long ago not to debate with people whose minds are made up, and do not wish to be confused with the facts. Or, who ignore facts that show them to be wrong. "

" Mr. Rademacher, Jr., PE, has asked us to prove "that human-produced carbon dioxide is the sole source for variations in global temperatures." That is like asking a medical doctor to prove that cigarettes are the SOLE source of cancer in the US. Human-produced carbon dioxide is but one big factor of many in global warming, just like smoking is one big factor for the onset of many types of cancer. Just because smoking is not the SOLE source does not mean that correlation between the two should be discounted, as Rademacher seems to argue with global warming. I am unable to provide research which states that man-made carbon dioxide is the SOLE source of climate change--that research does not exist. I am able to provide volumes of non-IPCC research indicating man-made carbon dioxide is a highly significant factor in global warming. If you would like that research, Mr. Rademacher, I will happily provide it. For example, several meta-analytical studies have shown that a clear majority of scientists have found proof for and accepted man-induced global warming. The prestigious journal Science documented one such meta-analysis which found that 75% of 928 abstracts on global climate change produced between 1993 and 2003 explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view that man-made global warming is real. The other 25% discussed methods and paleoclimatic issues while NOT A SINGLE ONE was able to refute man-made global warming. (Science 306 (5702): 1686) "

" Well thought out requests, E.L. Let me quote some real climatologists on some of these issues.
"Writing in the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society, professor David H. Douglass (of the University of Rochester), professor John R. Christy (of the University of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson and professor S. Fred Singer (of the University of Virginia) report that observed patterns of temperature changes ("fingerprints") over the last 30 years disagree with what greenhouse models predict and can better be explained by natural factors, such as solar variability."

According to Dr. Douglass: “The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.”

One of his co-authors, Dr. John Christy, added: “Satellite data and independent balloon data agree that atmospheric warming trends do not exceed those of the surface. Greenhouse models, on the other hand, demand that atmospheric trend values be 2-3 times greater.
"We have good reason, therefore, to believe that current climate models greatly overestimate the effects of greenhouse gases. Satellite observations suggest that GH models ignore negative feedbacks, produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects of carbon dioxide.”

And the third co-author, Dr. S. Fred Singer, said: “The current warming trend is simply part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that has been seen in ice cores, deep-sea sediments, stalagmites, etc., and published in hundreds of papers in peer-reviewed journals.
"The mechanism for producing such cyclical climate changes is still under discussion; but they are most likely caused by variations in the solar wind and associated magnetic fields that affect the flux of cosmic rays incident on the earth’s atmosphere.
"In turn, such cosmic rays are believed to influence cloudiness and thereby control the amount of sunlight reaching the earth’s surface¬ and thus the climate.
"Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of atmospheric CO2 has only a minor influence on climate change. We must conclude, therefore, that attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless — but very costly."
"

" ostimmontana, SmithButte, CJR and others, all of you write some interesting words, but they fail the tests of significance and defensible content.

As such, please provide the empirical data that proves the cause and effect relationship between human-generated carbon dioxide levels and variations in global average temperatures. I am not referring to the correlation between the two sets of data. And, to make your task somewhat meaningful, please note that the output from climate models is not considered valid data derived by the scientific method. And, ostinmontana, since you constantly emphasize providing references, and quote from a number, please provide your peer reviewed, science based documents that did not come from the IPCC and any of the first through fourth assessment report summaries. {Look up the big words I used... "cause and effect relationship", "correlation", and "scientific method"... before you respond}.

While all of you are at it, instead of attacking who authored each one of the articles referenced, why don't you provide valid scientific data that proves the statements made in each article wrong. Oh, and provide all of the references too, while your at it. Of course, you do have all this information right at your fingertips, don't you...

Billions of dollars and some 20 years of effort on the part of the anthropogenic global warming researchers, and still no proof that human-produced carbon dioxide is the sole source for variations in global temperatures. And, by sole source, I am referring to ruling out variations in the sun's output, cosmic ray influences, orbital changes, Earth's axis wandering, the effect of aerosols, the influence of clouds, etc.

I'll be waiting for your documented scientific evidence that rules all of these out and validates the human-generated carbon dioxide global temperature link...

E.L. Rademacher, Jr., P.E.
"

" 'Disclaimer' wrote, "they sell like hotcakes. Hardly disastrous!"

The "disaster" I referred to is in the environmental impact. If you want to buy one, go ahead. Enjoy! Probably a great car. If I wanted one, I'd buy it, too. But here are some facts regarding Toyota's Prius which you can feel free to deny off hand, if your mind is made up:

*"Building a Toyota Prius causes more environmental damage than a Hummer that is on the road for three times longer than a Prius."

*"...the Prius is partly driven by a battery which contains nickel. The nickel is mined and smelted at a plant in Sudbury, Ontario. The plant is the source of all the nickel found in a Prius’ battery and Toyota purchases 1,000 tons annually. Dubbed the Superstack, the plague-factory has spread sulfur dioxide across northern Ontario, becoming every environmentalist’s nightmare.

“The acid rain around Sudbury was so bad it destroyed all the plants and the soil slid down off the hillside,” said Canadian Greenpeace energy-coordinator David Martin.

*"The nickel produced by this disastrous plant is shipped via massive container ship to the largest nickel refinery in Europe. From there, the nickel hops over to China to produce ‘nickel foam.’ From there, it goes to Japan. Finally, the completed batteries are shipped to the United States, finalizing the around-the-world trip required to produce a single Prius battery."

*"When you pool together all the combined energy it takes to drive and build a Toyota Prius, the flagship car of energy fanatics, it takes almost 50 percent more energy than a Hummer."

*"The Prius costs an average of $3.25 per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles - the expected lifespan of the Hybrid. The Hummer, on the other hand, costs a more fiscal $1.95 per mile to put on the road over an expected lifetime of 300,000 miles. That means the Hummer will last three times longer than a Prius and use less combined energy doing it."

*"A Toyota Scion xB only costs a paltry $0.48 per mile to put on the road.it takes five years to offset the premium price of a Prius. Meaning, you have to wait 60 months to save any money over a non-hybrid car because of lower gas expenses."

http://clubs.ccsu.edu/recorder/editorial/editorial_item.asp?NewsID=188 "

" I rechecked the source and it is indeed just a meteorologist panel opinion, so scratch that. No actual poll.

Here's an even BETTER one, though, with citations:

From a survey of ISI Web of Science database : Less Than Half Of All Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory.

"...examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment..."

"...a July 2007 review of 539 abstracts in peer-reviewed scientific journals from 2004 through 2007 that found that climate science continues to shift toward the views of global warming skeptics."

"Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus."

" In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results."

"...the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, including every leading scientific journal in the world."

Sorry, No concencus on man-made, nor catasptrophic global warming.

CYCLICAL global warming cannot be refuted. But then, neither can historical cyclical global cooling. "

" dwrowell - You just posted an equally absurd comment on the CFL article. Ostin's right, you can't just invent faux facts to suit your opinion. As for hybrid cars, I have a friend who reported getting 80 miles to the gallon in a Prius on a trip to California and back. So think about that the next few times you fill your gas hog. I'm very excited to see hybrids making there way into more utility type vehicles. I've driven a Prius and found them impressively responsive. I guess that is why they sell like hotcakes. Hardly disastrous! "

" dwrowell: Please cite some sources for the information you provide. I highly doubt "95% of meterologists nationwide" are skeptical about global warming. First of all, global warming itself cannot be refuted--its whether man has an influence that is under question by a very few. Secondly, many national and international meteorological bodies have put forth statements claiming man-made global warming is real. You may believe what you want and justify it any way you choose, but when we are talking about global change science, you can't just make up points to suit your viewpoint. "

" You folks are arguing about engineers and psychologists being reputable commentors on climate change. How about just listening to the "95 percent of meteorologists nationwide" who are documented as being "skeptical over global warming". Those of you who are screaming "the sky is falling" over yet another cyclical weather media hoax can doubt the 95% of real climate and weather experts all you want. I don't care. At least I know better than to believe the likes of Al Gore.

Go buy a case of CFLs and an environmentally DISASTROUS hybrid car, so you can pretend you did something good for the earth.

By the way. We're truly headed into a cooling cycle. Nothing to worry about in the long run. It happens over and over. In the short run, warmer is safer than colder. More negative adverse effects occur from ice ages than warming cycles. Enjoy it while the warmer weather lasts.

Temps have begun dropping over the last 7 - 10 years, completely wiping out the previous slight increase in temps (as though we can REALLY measure the whole dang earth's temperature at once anyway!) Any long time Montanans remember the days of snow above fence lines. It will happen again. Then things will warm up again.

Concerned about CO2 emmissions? Stop breathing! You can scream about increases in CO2 all you want, but there is no science that proves the THEORY that CO2 causes global warming. If you keep claiming it IS true, how are you going to explain the cooling trend in a few years? Oh, yeah. Global warming causes that, too, I forgot. "

" Unfortunately many of you have a hard time seeing the big picture.

I read an article one time about climate change and how humans are dealing with it. It was one of the most logical and thought out article that I had read concerning the "fight" about global climate change.

Consider our options:

Think of this problem as a square divided into 4 equal boxes. Two columns and two rows. Along the side of the square place each of the possibilities concerning climate change. First would be "climate change is real and man made" and second would be "climate change is totally fake and never will have an effect on our planet"

Now, for the sake of this exercise we will think of everything is extreme terms.

Along the top of this square, place our two options of what we can do about the problem. First would be "Act on climate change, and try to reverse the damage" and second would be "ignore the problem and don't act"

Now that we have our boxes drawn and our options labeled, we can start filling in the results of each.

First box (upper left) we assume that "climate change is real" and "we act to reverse damage". The result is that we acted and prevented possibly the worst catastrophe that could happen to our planet. We live in a cleaner world with less waste and pollution. Industry is sustainable and the world is running great. Sounds pretty good right?

Second box (lower left) we assume that "climate change is not real" and "we act to reverse damage". The result is (once again we are thinking in extremes) we spent tons of money on preventing something that wasn't real and it caused a huge economic downturn worse than the great depression. We are now all poor, but we are alive. Lucky us? At least we now have a cleaner world.

Third box (upper right) we assume that "climate change is real" and "we don't act". The result is that sea levels rise and we have huge floods in major cities. Industry is destroyed, man kind set back a hundred years. Not so great right?

Fourth box (lower right) we assume that "climate change isn't real" and "we don't act". The result is basically nothing. There is no change in any industry and the world goes on as it is. Sounds fine?

Alright, the point of this exercise is to point out that there really is only one option. ACT! If we are wrong, so be it. We might have some economic problems but at least we have a cleaner more efficient world. If we don't act and the climate change is real, we are STILL going to have a huge worldwide economic crisis!

I am not an educated scientists, but I am an educated logical thinker. My career depends heavily on a healthy economy. A healthy economy depends on a stable climate. I have just as much to worry about as the next guy. If this turns into a global catastrophe I will be SOL and so will you! "

" what is this new fangled science stuff. you mean that putting polution in the air is bad for it. no freakin' way. that is crazy talk. next you are going to tell me that storks don't bring babies and that mountains are really giants that have been sleeping for so long that grass and trees have covered them. i won't believe it, this science stuff is all too hokey for me. "

" Anyone who would write this statement -- "waht is it about you rinky-dink psychology degree which makes you more qualified to offer opinions about anthing than an engineer? -- didn't earn a BS degree unless it means bull. I doubt the dweeb even sniffed an AA. "

" I love Burton. First, he quotes a story from a scientist at the Woods Hole Oceonographic Institution...an Institution that has explicitly adopted as true the man-made climate theory. Then he expounds on the 2008 International Conference Change, hosted by the Heartland Institute. The Heartland Institute receives most of its funding from EXXON, but we wouldn't believe they would be biased. Does your BS stand for Biased Standpoint, John? "

" As the 6:59 Comment of Mr. Burton, I would suggest that he re-read what I wrote. Once again, he responded to what was in his own head, not what I wrote. "

" Mr. Burton: Third graders learn about the greenhouse effect. The more CO2 in the air, the more warming. The ice cores have shown that CO2 levels have not been as high as they are now in ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY. As was quoted below, the 650,000 year record in those cores conclusively shows that CO2 ranged from 180-280 parts per million. Now we are 380+ parts per million and rising rapidly. The rise started to happen at the exact time that we started pumping CO2 in the air at insane levels (the Industrial Revolution). Most (i.e., a consensus) of the scientists looking at this data have concluded what any third grader will tell you--when we raise the carbon dioxide levels, like now, the earth will warm. The following bodies of scientists have reached enough consensus among their members to endorse anthro-genic warming: American Academy of Science, American Meteorological Society, Royal Meteorological Society (UK), World Meteorological Association, American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Physics, American Astronomical Society, American Physical Society, Federal Climate Change Science Program, Geological Society of America, American Chemical Society, Engineers Australia, European Geosciences Union, The Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, American Association for the Advancement of Science, US National Academy of Science, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK). That is just a very small sampling of scientific bodies endorsing man-made climate change. What bodies have endorsed your view, Mr. Burton? Although a few scientists, like the ones you cite, may do so, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate. Even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists is unable to explicitly reject the idea of man-made climate change (their membership is divided on the issue of how much humans have influenced warming and their statement is that more research is necessary). Scientists worldwide and in the United States have reached consensus on the issue. "

" Hmmmm...I wonder what The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change talked about? Do you suppose the conference might have (HORROR!) been attended by (MORE HORROR!) over scientists 200 scientists and other experts on climate change, from Australia, Canada, England, France, Hungary, New Zealand, Poland, Russia, Sweden, and of course the United States. Where did these scientists and experts come from (EVEN MORE HORROR!)? They come from the University of Alabama, Arizona State, Carleton, Central Queensland, Delaware, Durham, and Florida State University. From George Mason, Harvard, The Institute Pasteur in Paris, James Cook, John Moores, Johns Hopkins, and the London School of Economics. From The University of Mississippi, Monash, Nottingham, Ohio State, Oregon State, Oslo, Ottawa, Rochester, Rockefeller, and the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm.
And from the Russian Academy of Sciences, Suffolk University, the University of Virginia, Westminster School of Business (in London), and the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. SAY IT ISN'T SO!!





"

" Now Osty has friends and partners (what kind of partners?) who are scientists who are qualified to speak to the issue of global warming. Really? And their names and professional titles are? They have been published where? Their fields of study are? Amazing that a guy who is a sexual health counselor and part-time law student (who by his own words received a poor education in the Butte Public School system) is friends & partners with sooooo many movers and shakers in the academic community. "A"MAZING.

"

" From: www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2006/05/01/ccruth01.xml: "...Suffice to say here that the UK Government is an ardent supporter of Kyoto's procedures, which are part of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affair's policies for "dealing with dangerous climate change", irrespective of cost. But the IPCC's analysis is deeply flawed, as explained in an excellent report from the House of Lords*. The Lords' report also contained a quote from Professor Reiter, of the Institut Pasteur in Paris, which challenged the appropriateness of the notion of scientific consensus. He said "consensus is the stuff of politics, not science".
And indeed it is, as there seems to be little scientific agreement that mankind's fossil-fuel burning is the major reason for climate change. On the contrary, analyses of scientific papers on climate change by Dr Benny Peiser, of John Moores University, and Dr Dennis Bray, of the German-based GKSS National Research Centre conclude that the dissenters are in a healthy majority. * House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs, The Economics of Climate Change, Volume I, HL Paper 120I (July 2005), TSO (The Stationery Office). Consensus Indeed.

"

" The only consensus that has been reached is that between those individual whose grant funding depends on reaching a conclusion which confirms their hypothesis. It is only in your world that engineers are not credible (LMFAO), and politicians like Al Gore (a politician with NO SCIENTIFIC EDUCATION/TRAINING OF ANY KIND---AT ALL) is. Why a dipsh-t with a degree in psychology is qualified to make any assumptions about the ability of an engineer---whose degree (any engineering degree)is orders or magnitude more difficult to obtain---to render an opinion about the topic at hand is beyond belief. The fact of the matter, Osty, is that there is ANYTHING BUT consensus. As is usual with liberals, you all believe that a consensus has been reached whenever liberals agree with a predetermined conclusion. The only opinions that matter are your own. "

" I'll take my BS degree and put it up against Osty's sexual health degree any day of the week. Engineers don't have any scientific training?! You have a degree in psychology for God's sake...that's like having a degree in nothing. HAAAAA!!! Puhhhlease!!! And, to make matters worse, I'm sure you're going to tell me how you (a sexual health counselor, alleged clinical psychologist, part time law student, and man "who has published important work" is more qualified to render an opinion on matters scientific than an engineer! You are too freakin' much, Osty :)) Yeah, I'm a cop; but at least I have a SCIENCE DEGREE. You have a degree in psychology! I'm sorry? waht is it about you rinky-dink psychology degree which makes you more qualified to offer opinions about anthing than an engineer? Please, do tell. HAHAHAHAHA!!!! Then we have the Tard. An imbecile of the highest caliber---a guy who works in higher education, but won't won't divulge what his alleged degree is in. A guy who looks up to the Ward Churchills of the world because he associates with them: the losers of the educational community. If there were ever two people who were more in-love with themselves and their own opinions than Osty the Wonder Dog and his sidekick the Tard, I'd love to meet them. "

" Seriously, just yesterday, to their credit the Southern Baptist Convention announced that Baptists have a moral responsibility to combat climate change. This coming from an organization that long resisted the notion of human responsibility for climate change. "The statement marks a significant shift in the way one of the country's most conservative churches regards climate change." Their statement included, "Our cautious response to these issues in the face of mounting evidence may be seen by the world as uncaring, reckless and ill-informed. The time for timidity regarding God's creation is no more."

That die-hard nay sayers would persist until they're up to their nostrils in rising sea levels says much about their psychosis. Instead of an old fashioned Ark to the rescue, they could take inspiration from the Heaven's Gate people who thought by committing mass suicide, they were traveling to the Comet Hale Bop which was to serve as an interstellar Ark. The point here is that those who subscribe to the extreme right un-American dogma are so much like those who would belong to a cult. "

" Ha! I'm quite certain Crispy Cream University does not confer Bachelor of Science Degrees. By the inane rubbish spewed by he who must not be named on this forum, it is BS of an entirely different nature. "

" CJR: It is funny that a certain someone will take the word of overly-biased "Professional" Petroleum Engineers over the thousands of actual scientists who have reviewed the climate data and are qualified to speak on the issue. Many of my friends (and my partner) are engineers--I can tell you that the science background they have is minimal at best. THEY ARE NOT SCIENTISTS. Why being a professional engineer might qualify them to speak about this issue is beyond me. It seems to me they are no more qualified than a Cali Cop with a BS degree. "

" I'm sure glad it was pointed out that that these were -- "Professional" Engineers. Not scientists, not climatologists, but "Professional" engineers. LOL. "

" Juiceball: First of all, it isn't the earth as a whole that we should be worried about in terms of global warming. It is OUR OWN existence and quality of life that we should consider. Secondarily, you may think its arrogance that humans can think they have an influence...but just think about the more than 100 POUNDS of carbon dioxide that each American gives off EVERY SINGLE DAY. A hundred pounds of any light gas is a LOT--think aboutthat amount coming off each of 301,000,000 Americans every single day--and that is only one country in the world. To think that this type of output does not have an effect is SHEER STUPIDITY. A new study came out this week that says that 1/6 of Americans' drinking water has pharmaceuticals in it from only the past 20 years of pharmaceuticals being dumped in our garbage and seeping into waterways. Science has repeatedly shown us instances in which humans have significantly affected the environment in profound ways (think Berkley Pit). Anyone who thinks the 130 people per each square mile of the globe have little impact on the world has not looked at ecological or biological scientific data. Come out to the East coast--you'll see that your assumption that we have little impact is ludicrous. "

" Great job, Mr. Burton, in choosing one article from six years ago. Here's another tid-bit from the same Institute you cite: "e have a pretty good idea of how CO2 has fluctuated in the atmosphere for the past 650,000 years. We have cores of glacial ice that have accumulated in Antarctica over 650,000 years, and they have trapped in them tiny bubbles from the atmosphere in the past. Scientists can figure out what atmospheric carbon-dioxide levels were in each year in the past.

Throughout that entire 650,000-year time span, the natural CO2 fluctuation is 190 to 280 parts per million. Today we’re at 381 parts per million, and almost all of that extra 100 or so ppm increase has happened in the last 100 years—that is, since the Industrial Revolution. There’s not much doubt that the increase is due to anthropogenic burning of fossil fuels." You can find the rest of this forum discussion at http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12457&tid=282&cid=13366#14
Look up consensus in the dictionary, Mr. Burton. The clear majority of world and US scientists have reached the conclusion that human caused factors are significantly influencing our current warming trend. To say it another way, they have reached CONSENSUS on this issue. A small minority of scientists think otherwise. Mr. Burton, you can continue citing the minority all you want, but that will not take away the fact that the majority HAVE found evidence for human-induced warming. "

" Although humans do likely have some influence on earth's climate by production of CO2 we must be aware that throughout it's 4.5 billion year life the climate has varied between the planet being a ball of fire and how it is now. On the geological timescale the climate has never been stable. Hey, Juiceball, where do you think cows came from and what do you think they're used for, who was actually responsible for their existence? "

" On Solar variation and global warming you misquote me by truncating what I said. The warming seen in the last 40 years cannot be explained by variation in solar output.
This is the kind of reference that is so easy to find:
Nature 443, 161-166 (14 September 2006) | doi:10.1038/nature05072
Variations in solar luminosity and their effect on the Earth's climate

P. Foukal, C. Fröhlich, H. Spruit and T. M. L. Wigley

Abstract

Variations in the Sun's total energy output (luminosity) are caused by changing dark (sunspot) and bright structures on the solar disk during the 11-year sunspot cycle. The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years. In this Review, we show that detailed analysis of these small output variations has greatly advanced our understanding of solar luminosity change, and this new understanding indicates that brightening of the Sun is unlikely to have had a significant influence on global warming since the seventeenth century. Additional climate forcing by changes in the Sun's output of ultraviolet light, and of magnetized plasmas, cannot be ruled out. The suggested mechanisms are, however, too complex to evaluate meaningfully at present.

Also, Cosmic rays do not necessarily emanate from our sun. Cosmic rays come from the cosmos. The effect of cosmic rays on global warming has not been shown. Scientific thinking is best done with Occam's Razor at the ready- for global warming look to the greenhouse effect first. Try showing that it is not important before you consider outlandish explanations. "

" It is just amazing how the hard core right wingers can not let go of their political dogma no matter how much evidence and consensus among a STRONG MAJORITY of the science world. They tenaciously cling on to denial even when the more moderate wing of the Republican Party and George Bush himself have come around to acknowledging the FACT of human interference with global climate. It is useless to argue with these nincompoops! They claim over and over again that this global warming is just another cyclical event but completely disregard the factual data that proves the rate of carbon increase in the atmosphere far surpasses all other events and can only be explained by human impact. It's beyond time to set aside political ideologies and begin to deal with real problems that affect all of us. "

" Consensus among the scientific community? Hardly. "Discover" magazine, 09.01.2002, "The Next Ice Age." "Worried about global warming? Talk to a few scientists at Woods Hole. Oceanographers there are seeing big trouble with the Gulf Stream, which warms both North America and Europe. "...A growing number of scientists—including many here at Curry's base of operations, the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution on Cape Cod in Massachusetts—believes conditions are ripe for another prolonged cooldown, or small ice age."
"... climate science is ultimately a battle of different computer models...Climate science is extraordinarily complex because it is dependent upon the gathering and interpretation of millions of data points. If the National Weather Service has trouble predicting tomorrow's weather, how can anyone forecast a change in global climate a few years hence?" These excerpts are only a few that I found. Anyone---ANYONE---who states that there is consensus among climatologic scientists regarding the causes of global warming doesn't know what he is talking about. "

" I'll take the word of a couple of Professional Engineers over a couple of dipsh-ts without the educational credentials to back up their opinions. The only absolute in this argument is the fact that there IS NOT consensus---not anywhere near it---among the "scientific community" on this issue. "

" I see CJR, the Meerschaum pipesmoking dipsh-t, is again taking the liberal "I'm not a protagonist" not-so-high road. The science most certainly is not in; there is no consensus. The very fact that an idiot like the Tard is spouting his BS again should be enough to convice anyone of it. The only consensus that exists is the consensus amony environmentalists and the scientific community whose research depends upon such research. If the Tard ever tells the truth (or better yet, types his own words without cutting & pasting the words of others), it will be the first time. "

" The sun has NOT varied in the past 40 years

Did someone actually type this? - have you heard of 'sunspot activity' - we just exited a major, major solar min (lack of sun spots, thus lack of ionizing radiation that actually helps our planet keep cool.

Can you explain with your science why Mars, Venus and other planets are warming up also? - I'm sure 'us humans' didn't cause Mars to heat up?

No, humans haven't kept good care of their 'spaceship earth' (B. Fuller) very well, but I'm wondering why Mars has 'global warming' also....????

There was a 'cooling period' in the 70's - and also some of the highest sunspot numbers in recent history! ???, and volcanoes - every time a 'big one' erupts - global temps cool slightly...

I read a study that said to cool the earth down - all the pyrite reserves (pyrite is the source of sulfur in coal...pyritic sulphur) should be burnt, in south america there are huge piles of pyrite - burn 'em - and all the sulphur going into the atomosphere would undo the harm that burning sulphur-free coal has done....

What? - we burn sulfur-free diesel? - Volcanoes are good for global cooling? - so is sulfur? - Sun Spots help ionize atomosphere - and that protects us from the sun's harmful rays? - WOW! -

But the statement that 'the sun has NOT varied in the past 40 years' - that statement is a complete and total fabrication - surely the only place that one is published is on a roll of toilet paper! ?? - thanks for the entertainment!
Sun Spot index's have been accurately kept since 1755 that I know of.... that's 1755A.D. - over 200 years of recording data on SIGNIFICANT changes in the sun and it's sunspot activity.
Beryllium 10 levels can be traced back about 1100 years - an accurate record of the sun's cosmic rays striking the earth - frozen in time in ice sheets, scientifically recorded by many, many scientists...

Scientists outside the US have known about the sunspot activity/global temperature relationship for a long, long time. The US Media lives and thrives for scare tactics and corporate manipulation of the US populus....(sells more oil and Hummers!)

Who are you going to believe? - real scientists or the current presidential candidate (remember - I did not have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky!) - ????
"

" The science is there. The sun has NOT varied in the past 40 years to explain the current warming. Science magazine in 2008 published a study that it was not the view of scientists that we were going into a cooling period in the 1970's--the great majority of scientific papers concluded that warming due to the well-known greenhouse effect was the upcoming problem. Lord Monckton and the George Marshall Institute do not publish peer-reviewed science, let alone unbiased studies. Cows don't affect CO2, they produce methane.
All these naysayers don't have one leg to stand on. Read Nature, Science, Geophysical Research Letters, and the IPCC report to get your science. All these other comments are politically motivated. Look for the preponderance of conclusions, and you will clearly see that the climate scientists very much know what they're talking about when they conclude that it is "Very Likely" (90% confidence) that the measured global warming is due to humans (IPCC 2007 report).
All the naysayers state 100% confidence. That is a sure indication that they don't know what they are talking about and don't have solid data (peer-reviewed published papers) to back them up.

“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.”
-Charles Darwin
"

" I think juiceball's comments are simply ridiculous. When he/she claims - that humans have NO effect on the earth, it's like saying even though the cancer cells in a person who has cancer are doubling in shorter & shorter time-frames, it has no effect on the body. This is simply hogwash & other deniers only ignore the science because they really don't even understand it. Come to think of it, there are still people who believe the earth is flat, and God created the world in 6 days. Sheesh sheer ignorance in the face of overwhelming evidence. Then they take the giant leap -- the most skilled scholars & researchers & scientist of the respective disciplines are part of a grand conspiracy. Those who have concluded that 9-11 was an inside job have more credibility than these hacks & deniers of global warming. I guess their attitudes are formed by their giant leaps of faith, based on their fear of any change in our collective behaviors.

Another way to look at it -- of 100 experts who have been recognized as subject matter experts, 99 have come to a conclusion based on pure science, while one who is paid to promote a dissenting view, is the only one we should believe? rd makes a similarly lame statement with NO basis in truth -- "Twenty years ago, the earth was recovering from the thought of the coming ice age." -- Recovering from the thought? That's a nonsensical statement. He adds -- "Yes, in school we were taught that the next ice age was upon us." -- My question to rd is what school did you go to? This is just laughable. "

" H.A.A.R.P. "

" The very idea that humans have any effect on the earth over the span of it's existence is sheer arrogance. Cows effect CO2 levels more than we do. The earth will live on. Species become extinct, that is they way of the universe. Unless you are making an effect over the course of more than a million years, you don't count. "

" Twenty years ago, the earth was recovering from the thought of the coming ice age. Yes, in school we were taught that the next ice age was upon us. In only 20 years, "science" has flipped 180 degrees, and now it is global warming -- and "man-made" global warming at that.

I've read that new research is indicating that the models used to predict global warming were flawed -- they did not account for the effect of wind on ocean currents and climate change.

Finally, there is no "consensus" on climate change. There are some scientists that believe their research shows man-made global warming. It is to their benefit to make as much of this as possible, because that is how they get money through grants, federal funding, etc. Essentially, a group of scientists have found that they are relevant on the world stage, they like it, and the more they discuss global warming, the more "relevant" they are... "

" Harrington is correct that everyone should research the topic of human-induced climate change. There are a number of resources available that demonstrate that the connection between human-generated carbon dioxide and temperature variations have not been proved by any valid scientific method.

To aid the research into the subject, here are two samples of the overall reviews on the subject that are available:

“Climate Issues & Questions”, Third Editions, George C. Marshall Institute,
http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/577.pdf

and,

“A N.C. Citizens Guide to Global Warming”, J. Schwartz,
http://www.johnlocke.org/acrobat/policyReports/globalwarmingguide.pdf

In reference to the Harrington statement on scientific consensus about humans being the main source of climate changes, research will show that the consensus does not exist. For example:

“U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
Senate Report Debunks "Consensus" “
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

and,

“Consensus”? What “Consensus”? Among Climate Scientists, the Debate Is Not Over, The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/consensus.pdf

There are numerous other sources available. All one has to do is look without a preconceived notion as to what the answer. Like Harrington...

E.L. Rademacher, Jr., P.E.
"

" There may be consenus among certain scientists, but their conclusions are untrue, because what they have ignored is the absolutism of this propostion as the major premise: The sun is the source of heat that heats the solar system and any variation in its output of radiant energy causes climate change....Thus their conclusions fall into realm of material fallacy (Petito Principii)... circular reasoning... by assuming as true what is to be proven....as in assuming as the major premise that man is the cause of climate change, and then setting out to prove man is the cause of climate change. Hence, all their data and science is fallacious and false... a hoax and untrue. "

" The science is in: global warming is real and influenced heavily by man. The time to act was 20 years ago. Americans had better get with the rest the world and start acting now, or we will continue to the suffer the consequences of our inaction "