Note: There is a maximum of 200 words per comment. If you wish to post more, please visit our forum.
True facts are not dishonest wrote on Mar 1, 2009 8:38 PM:
The Oceans hold 1.3 billion cubic kilometers of water. Physics has given us a way to calculate the rise of temperature of water knowing its mass, specific heat and the amount of heat input. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has reported that the effect of greenhouse gases on global warming is 1.6 watts per sq. meter which works out to a heat input of 800TW on the surface area of 500 Tera sq. meters for the whole planet. This heat input for the whole year without considering the night-time radiation from the sea surface, can only raise the temperature of the sea by ½ degree over a period of 111 years!
It is therefore impossible for the global warming arising out of the greenhouse gases to warm the sea enough to melt the polar ice caps from underneath.
It is therefore impossible for the global warming arising out of the greenhouse gases to warm the sea enough to melt the polar ice caps from underneath.
CHERRY-PICKING DATA IS DISHONEST wrote on Feb 27, 2009 2:04 PM:
Dr. James Hansen, co-author of the scientific paper on the affect of soot on ice albedos, concluded: "The substantial role inferred for soot in global climate does not alter the fact that greenhouse gases are the primary cause of global warming in the past century and are expected to be the largest climate forcing the rest of this century." A report by thousands of scientists for the 2007-2008 International Polar Year announced that "Antarctic glaciers are melting faster than previously thought, which could lead to an unprecedented rise in sea levels."
Albedo effect wrote on Feb 27, 2009 9:42 AM:
The northern hemisphere is highly industrialised so, on top of the usual reasons for ice melt (currents, vulcanism, wind direction and so on) there's also the addition of large amounts of soot, mostly from China and eastern europe. The soot carries up to the arctic, settles on the ice, lowers its albedo and results in melting! Oddly enough this was one of the "fixes" for the media-driven global cooling scare in the 70s. It doesn't have the hugest effect but it is a contributing factor, unlike the whole CO2 thing.
The antarctic, of course, doesn't get that soot because the southern hemisphere is relatively free of the stuff, so it'll just keep right on growing.
The antarctic, of course, doesn't get that soot because the southern hemisphere is relatively free of the stuff, so it'll just keep right on growing.
SAME RHETORIC YEAR AFTER YEAR wrote on Feb 26, 2009 4:37 PM:
Arctic sea ice is NOT growing back "completely" each year, it's shrinking. That's the point! Ships provided detailed records for a century before satellites. Icelandic volcanoes in direct contact only melt potholes, so the localized affect of undersea volcanoes certainly doesn't account for diminished ice sheets and glaciers worldwide. Variations in climate and erroneous interpretations in the past should not deter humanity from trying to mitigate current CO2 levels and lessen the dangerous impacts of the "global weirding" of our weather, unless you belong to a pro-pollution political party.
FUTILITY OF DEBATE wrote on Feb 26, 2009 2:50 PM:
Fundamentalist Christian neoconservatives with a fatalistic view of global warming must believe that it is God's will when a drunk driver gets in a car accident. They are more interested in perpetuating their intractable and devisive religious and political beliefs than scientific inquiry. The Catholic church took nearly 400 years to apologize for persecuting Galileo for producing evidence that the earth orbits around the sun. We cannot afford more decades of inaction concerning global warming.
Same time next year wrote on Feb 26, 2009 1:13 PM:
1. First of all we have only measured the Arctic ice via satellite since the '70s. This was a very cold period, so cold the media was proclaiming another ice age was on the way.
2. It is impossible using the scientific method to prove that man-made C02 is the cause of any melting ice ANYWHERE.
3. The Arctic ice grows completely back every winter which the media intentionally ignores. They like to use the single day when the ice has retreated the most during the summer as propaganda that it is like that year round.
4. There are plenty of scientific explanations for any increased loss of Arctic ice.
5. There are also active volcanoes under the Arctic.
6. Historically there is extensive scientific evidence of the Arctic ice melting in the past.
2. It is impossible using the scientific method to prove that man-made C02 is the cause of any melting ice ANYWHERE.
3. The Arctic ice grows completely back every winter which the media intentionally ignores. They like to use the single day when the ice has retreated the most during the summer as propaganda that it is like that year round.
4. There are plenty of scientific explanations for any increased loss of Arctic ice.
5. There are also active volcanoes under the Arctic.
6. Historically there is extensive scientific evidence of the Arctic ice melting in the past.
Moonbeam wrote on Feb 26, 2009 1:06 PM:
The climate takes much longer than a normal lifetime to go through it's cycles. Therefore it's easy for narcisists and dunderheads to think that the climate is always the same as it is now. Like tectonic drift, it's easy to assume that the continents have always been in the same relative position as they are today. We of course know differently.
Next I am waiting to hear someone take up the cry to stop continental drift.
What about the receeding Moon?
The Moon is receeding in it's orbit of the Earth by about 2-3 inches a year. In a few thousand years it will have a longer phase cycle and the tides will be less frequent.
Next I am waiting to hear someone take up the cry to stop continental drift.
What about the receeding Moon?
The Moon is receeding in it's orbit of the Earth by about 2-3 inches a year. In a few thousand years it will have a longer phase cycle and the tides will be less frequent.
MarkM wrote on Feb 25, 2009 7:54 PM:
This just in from the scientists on the front. Ice in the Arctic is melting faster than anyone expected or predicted.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/02/25-3
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/02/25-3
DIRECT EVIDENCE OF ANCIENT EARTHS CLIMATE wrote on Feb 25, 2009 4:21 PM:
Dendrochronology, the study of overlapping annual tree growth rings of progressively older living and dead trees from the same region, has created continuous records extending back more than 10,000 years using using river oak trees in Germany and about 8,500 years using the bristlecone pine in the American Southwest. An ice core from Greenland records the annual winter deposits for the past 123,000 years. How does Gary account for this direct evidence of an earth older than 7,000 years? The proof is available to anyone who can count!
MarkM wrote on Feb 25, 2009 1:03 PM:
MaryM,
Did you read the links I posted. Many of your questions are answered there. Follow the links in the stories to find even more information. Check the index and footnotes too.
Here's a link that deals with your questions about the Little Ice Age:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11645
And another one about computer models.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11649
Gary,
Try again. I doubt the World is censoring you. Probably a snafu of some sort.
Did you read the links I posted. Many of your questions are answered there. Follow the links in the stories to find even more information. Check the index and footnotes too.
Here's a link that deals with your questions about the Little Ice Age:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11645
And another one about computer models.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11649
Gary,
Try again. I doubt the World is censoring you. Probably a snafu of some sort.
Gary wrote on Feb 25, 2009 8:42 AM:
Dear MarkM, In the first place I didn't say or mean Global Warming is a farce. I am saying that MAN made Global Warming is a farce. You really need to expand your research to what many scientists other than those under the thumb of Algore are saying. I tried to give you a website but "The World" would not print it.
MaryM wrote on Feb 24, 2009 7:08 PM:
It seems interesting that so many people want to explain away what seems to be a common thread in planetary warming. Does anyone remember the "Year without Summer" when the Thames froze in England, it was interesting to know that solar observers during that time noted a lack of sunspot activity. To discount the sun in the formula for global warming to me seems criminal. One just has to step out on a sunny day to know how important a part it plays in the life our planet’s temperature. Has anyone really done serious studies in its output as related to global temperatures? Just because greenhouse gas warming is a popular model doesn’t mean it’s completely right. Science isn’t supposed to be driven by popular themes or trends, but rather by facts. If the facts don’t line up with our current model, don’t explain them away, deal with them. Don’t let paradigm blindness trap you into the popular or accepted reasoning. When Louis Pasteur suggested micro organisms could affect our health, he was laughed at. Don’t let the same kind of popular belief systems that are driven by political figures keep us from examining the facts and dealing with them.
MarkM wrote on Feb 23, 2009 8:45 PM:
MaryM,
The solar system is not warming up.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11642
The sun is not the problem either.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650
Don't stop asking questions -- or looking for the answers either.
The solar system is not warming up.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11642
The sun is not the problem either.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650
Don't stop asking questions -- or looking for the answers either.
rewinn wrote on Feb 23, 2009 4:02 PM:
I find it highly amusing that anyone can doubt that human activity can change the climate, because we've only increased the amount of greenhouse gasses by X%. Consider, if you will, that at zero greenhouse gasses the temperature of our earth would be way below zero. Compare the surface temps in shadow of Mercury and Venus and Mars if you doubt.
Greenhouse gasses, by retaining heat, boost our lovely planet's temperature to something we find comfortable. Now boost that by only x% and suddenly ... not so comfortable.
Greenhouse gasses, by retaining heat, boost our lovely planet's temperature to something we find comfortable. Now boost that by only x% and suddenly ... not so comfortable.
SCAM wrote on Feb 23, 2009 2:49 PM:
C02 is not a pollutant.
It's natural, we exhale it.
C02 isn't causing the planet to heat up.
It's a giant scam invented to seperate us from our money.
It's natural, we exhale it.
C02 isn't causing the planet to heat up.
It's a giant scam invented to seperate us from our money.
MaryM wrote on Feb 23, 2009 2:47 PM:
It's not Global Warming anymore. It's Solar Warming. Our entire solar system is warming up: Mercury, Mars, Jupiter... etc.
MarkM wrote on Feb 22, 2009 7:31 AM:
Gary,
This is supposed to be a debate about global warming. Yet you continue to redirect the conversation elsewhere -- age of the earth, carbon dating, and so on.
You claim GW is a hoax. What is your evidence? What does the roomful of scientists you allude to say? Those of the points that Bill wants debated.
You can't just say it's a farce and leave it there. That may be what you believe, but if you want to persuade anyone else of the same thing you need to bring some evidence.
Unless you want us to base our belief on faith.
This is supposed to be a debate about global warming. Yet you continue to redirect the conversation elsewhere -- age of the earth, carbon dating, and so on.
You claim GW is a hoax. What is your evidence? What does the roomful of scientists you allude to say? Those of the points that Bill wants debated.
You can't just say it's a farce and leave it there. That may be what you believe, but if you want to persuade anyone else of the same thing you need to bring some evidence.
Unless you want us to base our belief on faith.
Gary wrote on Feb 20, 2009 10:11 AM:
Strange The World would not print my website for you. Re: Mt. St. Helen, your right on. As and experiment a rock was broken up and sent to different unsespecting Labs for Carbon Dating, Every Lab came up with totally different results showing Carbon dating to be totally "flawed" along with "man made global warming". PS I'm not the Gary that upheld Carbon dating on 2/20.
Mt St Helens wrote on Feb 20, 2009 6:23 AM:
The new lava dome (dacite) from the at Mount St. Helens was formed in 1986. In 1997 five specimens were taken from this dome at five different locations and subjected to conventional Potassium-Argon dating. The results indicated ages of less than one half to almost three million years old, all from eleven year old rock.
Gary wrote on Feb 20, 2009 6:20 AM:
Carbon dating is a technique used by scientists to determine the age of certain artifacts that are believed to be UNDER 50,000 years old, so how would you know if the artifacts were over 50,000?
There is NO science to prove or disprove. PERIOD
There is NO science to prove or disprove. PERIOD
Gary wrote on Feb 19, 2009 6:35 PM:
To Radiating Love, I'm sorry to inform you but Carbon Dating is very flawed.
Gary wrote on Feb 19, 2009 6:30 PM:
Ok Mark, why is it we have scientists on one hand that says there is Man made Global Warming and scientists on the other that say it is not man made? Your saying the nay's are nuts and I am saying the yea's are nuts. You are right it is theory, just like Darwinism which is another farce. And to the other writer the earth is still only 7000 years old regardless of scientific theory.
radiating love wrote on Feb 19, 2009 12:53 PM:
Gary,
If you believe that we should be using nuclear power to become less dependant on foreign oil and natural gas than you had better hope that the earth isn't only 7000 years old. The science that is used in carbon-dating is the same science that is used to produce nuclear power safely.
If you believe that we should be using nuclear power to become less dependant on foreign oil and natural gas than you had better hope that the earth isn't only 7000 years old. The science that is used in carbon-dating is the same science that is used to produce nuclear power safely.
listening in wrote on Feb 19, 2009 12:48 PM:
Thank you MarkM,
Faith is, by definition, not science, as it does not require proof, only belief. That is what faith is.
Most people of faith believe that mankind was given the gifts of intelligence and reason so that we could use science and rational thought to identify and solve problems. Some, however, whether it be to garner influence or power, play on others' fears and use faith to have people reject these gifts and regress back to myths and fallacies disproved decades and centuries ago. Let's not go back there.
Faith is, by definition, not science, as it does not require proof, only belief. That is what faith is.
Most people of faith believe that mankind was given the gifts of intelligence and reason so that we could use science and rational thought to identify and solve problems. Some, however, whether it be to garner influence or power, play on others' fears and use faith to have people reject these gifts and regress back to myths and fallacies disproved decades and centuries ago. Let's not go back there.
MarkM 2 of 2 wrote on Feb 19, 2009 8:40 AM:
Gary,
Ironically, no scientist will tell you we know anything for certain. That is why science deals with "theories." Theories are based on well-tested hypotheses and are nearly as good as gold as a foundation of knowledge. However, new evidence can always come along to throw a theory into question and lead to a new theory.
This is the process by which we should evaluative global warming and what we should do about it. You claim you've got some evidence from scientists that global warming is a hoax? Please post it so it can be held up to scientific scrutiny.
We can learn lots of things from works of faith. Science is not one of them.
Ironically, no scientist will tell you we know anything for certain. That is why science deals with "theories." Theories are based on well-tested hypotheses and are nearly as good as gold as a foundation of knowledge. However, new evidence can always come along to throw a theory into question and lead to a new theory.
This is the process by which we should evaluative global warming and what we should do about it. You claim you've got some evidence from scientists that global warming is a hoax? Please post it so it can be held up to scientific scrutiny.
We can learn lots of things from works of faith. Science is not one of them.
MarkM 1 of 2 wrote on Feb 19, 2009 8:39 AM:
Gary,
Bill said he wants a debate, not ideological rhetoric. I'm providing information for thought.
I can appreciate your commitment to faith. It can be a satisfying, rewarding way to organize your life. In no way do I mean to disparage your faith, but you must admit it is not scientific.
Science is done by constructing a hypothesis based on research or observation. The hypothesis is tested by rigorous, repeatable experimentation. The hypothesis is scrutinized according to the results. It is either confirmed or re-worked and tested again.
Your example of ice melting in a glass is a good example of science in action. When the ice melts the water level will actually go down. This proves that water expands rather than contracts when frozen. This experiment is repeatable by anyone, anywhere. The data always confirms the same conclusion.
Faith is based on, well, faith. It can help you build the foundation for a productive, happy life, but it is not science.
Bill said he wants a debate, not ideological rhetoric. I'm providing information for thought.
I can appreciate your commitment to faith. It can be a satisfying, rewarding way to organize your life. In no way do I mean to disparage your faith, but you must admit it is not scientific.
Science is done by constructing a hypothesis based on research or observation. The hypothesis is tested by rigorous, repeatable experimentation. The hypothesis is scrutinized according to the results. It is either confirmed or re-worked and tested again.
Your example of ice melting in a glass is a good example of science in action. When the ice melts the water level will actually go down. This proves that water expands rather than contracts when frozen. This experiment is repeatable by anyone, anywhere. The data always confirms the same conclusion.
Faith is based on, well, faith. It can help you build the foundation for a productive, happy life, but it is not science.
That is why it is called a debate wrote on Feb 19, 2009 6:17 AM:
The problem is: beliefs work like a filter letting only pass information matching the belief. So the only facts people care about are those facts that are matching what they already believe in.
who has drank the kool-aid wrote on Feb 18, 2009 7:46 PM:
wow, check with a climatologist. My brother is one. He tells me that the medium temperature of the earth hasn't changed in 30 years and that this is a massive scare tactic designed to frighten people for polotical purposes. Check time magazine and newsweek! Top U.S. scientists were crying global cooling only 20 years ago. Get a grip and quit drinking the kool-aid...
PLEASE JOIN THE 21ST CENTURY wrote on Feb 18, 2009 3:08 PM:
Gary and other neoconservatives should read some science books that are less than 2,000 years old. The God of the Bible was either clueless or playing a cruel joke on humanity when He forwarded the sprinkling of bird's blood as a way to rid a house of leprosy (Leviticus 14:52). If God created Adam first, why does every man bear evidence on their chests that they passed through a female stage in their fetal development? The notion of a young earth, based on biblical genealogy, is akin to belief in a flat earth. Gary doesn't trust what he read in today's newspaper yet promotes public policy based on the centuries-old writings of primitive desert peoples. Death by appendicitis used to be the will of God. We should likewise try to avert a global warming disaster.
E wrote on Feb 18, 2009 12:53 PM:
Pay no attention to carbon dating...Gary has all the answers! Gary I ask you.. WTH are you on? And where can I procure some? Really man.. So you're saying we lived like the Flinstones? Really? Give me a break man.. You've got issues
Gary wrote on Feb 18, 2009 10:31 AM:
MarkM, you can come up with a hundred websites and make all the claims you want but the earth is only 7000 years old and man made Global Warming is a farce. You will find a great many scientists that agree with this too. You will find someday that is a fact, at least you will have something to worry about until that time.
Common Sense wrote on Feb 18, 2009 8:57 AM:
Silliest article I've read in awhile, ignorant/uneducated, because all the signs are there, Earth's temp is increasing due to pollutants in the air, ice caps melting at an alarming FAST rate, increased big weather events (Hurricanes, Tornado, etc.), West coast drying up/less rain (Including Oregon). Get educated & you'll see the ignorance in your ways!
MarkM wrote on Feb 18, 2009 7:32 AM:
Gary,
There are reams of scientific evidence to show the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Only faith purports it's thousands.
The sun is a giant hydrogen fusion furnace that burns for billions of years before collapsing, just like any other star in the sky. Again, there is a bounty of scientific evidence to support this.
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/ast99/ast99205.htm
As for the global warming debate, conditions on other planets are not indicative of changes in solar activity which would impact our climate. Check this out:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11642
and this:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650
Scientists are pretty good at figuring things out.
There are reams of scientific evidence to show the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Only faith purports it's thousands.
The sun is a giant hydrogen fusion furnace that burns for billions of years before collapsing, just like any other star in the sky. Again, there is a bounty of scientific evidence to support this.
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/ast99/ast99205.htm
As for the global warming debate, conditions on other planets are not indicative of changes in solar activity which would impact our climate. Check this out:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11642
and this:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650
Scientists are pretty good at figuring things out.
The earth is flat. wrote on Feb 17, 2009 8:33 PM:
To So this president:Yeah.. And Bush used Airforce One to go on his MONTHLY vacations.. Your point being?
Regardless of the fact that all politicians are piles of s**** I'm at least glad that Obama has actually ACKNOWLEDGED that we have a problem.. That's a step in the right direction..Now if we can stop buying cheap crap from countries that end up giving us all cancer from the toxins they spew into the environment while making our cheap crap...
Regardless of the fact that all politicians are piles of s**** I'm at least glad that Obama has actually ACKNOWLEDGED that we have a problem.. That's a step in the right direction..Now if we can stop buying cheap crap from countries that end up giving us all cancer from the toxins they spew into the environment while making our cheap crap...
Gary wrote on Feb 17, 2009 4:29 PM:
It seems we place to much belief in scientists. They tell us we live on an earth that is millions of years old and it is only thoussnds of years old. The sun burns x amount of metric tons of matter per day, if you put that in to proportion 50 millions years ago it would have been so large the earth would have burnt up. Why do other planets experience warming? Man made GW is a farce.....
So this President will fix it wrote on Feb 17, 2009 12:52 PM:
“Obama will use as much energy in flight to sign the Stimulas Bill as Colorado's museum’s solar panels can produce in 4 years.”
Atheists Worry Less wrote on Feb 17, 2009 12:28 PM:
If nothing is done to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, Oregon will face some $3.3 billion in annual costs, which could translate to an individual tab of about 4 percent of annual household income by 2020, according to a report produced for the University of Oregon's Climate Leadership Initiative's Program on Climate Economics by ECONorthwest.
The UO's Program on Climate Economics is guided by a steering committee of 19 academic and private economists from Oregon and other western states. Committee members also produce some of the program's research. Ernie Niemi, lead author of the report, is a principal with ECONorthwest, a fellow with the UO's Climate Leadership Initiative (CLI) and a member of the steering committee. ECONorthwest was contracted to produce the assessment.
read more here
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-02/uoo-wio021709.php
The UO's Program on Climate Economics is guided by a steering committee of 19 academic and private economists from Oregon and other western states. Committee members also produce some of the program's research. Ernie Niemi, lead author of the report, is a principal with ECONorthwest, a fellow with the UO's Climate Leadership Initiative (CLI) and a member of the steering committee. ECONorthwest was contracted to produce the assessment.
read more here
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-02/uoo-wio021709.php
MaryM wrote on Feb 17, 2009 10:02 AM:
In the 1970s, “a major cooling of the planet” was “widely considered inevitable” because it was “well established” that the Northern Hemisphere’s climate “has been getting cooler since about 1950″ (New York Times, May 21, 1975).
“The world’s climatologists are agreed” that we must “prepare for the next ice age” (Science Digest, February 1973). Because of “ominous signs” that “the Earth’s climate seems to be cooling down,” meteorologists were “almost unanimous” that “the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century,” perhaps triggering catastrophic famines (Newsweek cover story, “The Cooling World,” April 28, 1975).
Armadillos were fleeing south from Nebraska, heat-seeking snails were retreating from Central European forests, the North Atlantic was “cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool,” glaciers had “begun to advance” and “growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter” (Christian Science Monitor, Aug. 27, 1974).
We should be happy that it's warming up!!
“The world’s climatologists are agreed” that we must “prepare for the next ice age” (Science Digest, February 1973). Because of “ominous signs” that “the Earth’s climate seems to be cooling down,” meteorologists were “almost unanimous” that “the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century,” perhaps triggering catastrophic famines (Newsweek cover story, “The Cooling World,” April 28, 1975).
Armadillos were fleeing south from Nebraska, heat-seeking snails were retreating from Central European forests, the North Atlantic was “cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool,” glaciers had “begun to advance” and “growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter” (Christian Science Monitor, Aug. 27, 1974).
We should be happy that it's warming up!!
Thomas wrote on Feb 16, 2009 7:06 PM:
"While the USA wasted the last eight years pretending there was a debate about it, climate change has gotten way out ahead of our ability to mitigate it. At this point, whatever we say in front of the children, we are really talking about a) adapting to a seriously different planetary climate, and b) limiting as best we can the extremity of the predicament that will confront us down the road."
EVEN MY GUPPY GETS IT wrote on Feb 16, 2009 4:49 PM:
While the sky may seem boundless, the earth's life-supporting atmosphere is like the thin skin of an onion relative to the size of the planet. Have any of those who think that we can continue pumping greenhouse and other pollutants into our atmosphere without ill effect ever owned an aquarium? Did you find it difficult to understand what would happen to your pet fish if you allowed them to foul their water without taking action? Humans are bottom feeders in a delicately balanced ocean of air. If we aren't careful, we may all find ourselves floating belly-up when the sea levels rise!
Gary wrote on Feb 16, 2009 3:27 PM:
MarkM
Who's Glen Beck? I read MarkM because he is in the know. Just ask him.
Global warming is not man made.......
Who's Glen Beck? I read MarkM because he is in the know. Just ask him.
Global warming is not man made.......
WHAT ABOUT CHINA wrote on Feb 16, 2009 11:51 AM:
China has higher carbon dioxide emissions than the U. S. since 2006 thanks to coal burning and cement production.
Chinese officials have called developed countries hypocritical for buying goods from its robust industry while chastising the nation for its emissions.
Chinese officials have called developed countries hypocritical for buying goods from its robust industry while chastising the nation for its emissions.
MarkM wrote on Feb 16, 2009 11:15 AM:
Gary,
The premise of your experiment is flawed. The melting of ice floating in water does not raise water levels. The melting of ice on land does. This is what is happening in the Antarctic, Greenland, Canada, and Russia.
MaryM,
Of course politics is involved in global warming -- that's why we're not doing anything about it. If GW is a hoax, it is the largest one ever perpetrated in the history of mankind and every country on the globe has been duped. But you would rather believe that Glen Beck is smarter than the rest of the world? How likely is that?
The premise of your experiment is flawed. The melting of ice floating in water does not raise water levels. The melting of ice on land does. This is what is happening in the Antarctic, Greenland, Canada, and Russia.
MaryM,
Of course politics is involved in global warming -- that's why we're not doing anything about it. If GW is a hoax, it is the largest one ever perpetrated in the history of mankind and every country on the globe has been duped. But you would rather believe that Glen Beck is smarter than the rest of the world? How likely is that?
Gary wrote on Feb 16, 2009 9:49 AM:
It's amazing how many dupes believe in man made global warming. I wonder why other planets are warming also when they don't have man to cause it. Try filling a glass half full of water drop in an icecube and measure the differenceit the height of the water after it melts. Tell you anything.
IT'S A BIG FARCE......
IT'S A BIG FARCE......
MaryM wrote on Feb 16, 2009 8:46 AM:
I must admit that I still have deep doubts as to the "wisdom" that man made global warming, since the earth has always been in a state of change from a cool environment to warm one over a cycle of centuries.
It has only been in the last 100 years or so that man was even able to calculate temparatures, year over year.
So how do any of us really know if the current warming trend is due to increase releases in carbon by man, or is this just another one lf those earth cycles tha seems to repeat itself over the history of the planet?
I am not smart enough to answer that question and neither are most scientists that study this for a living, like Dr. Spencer.
MarkM, you do realize that POLITICS is involved in "Global Warming" like the movie "Inconvenient Truth" and the former VP Al Gore's fortune from the Occidental Petroleum Company!! LOL
It has only been in the last 100 years or so that man was even able to calculate temparatures, year over year.
So how do any of us really know if the current warming trend is due to increase releases in carbon by man, or is this just another one lf those earth cycles tha seems to repeat itself over the history of the planet?
I am not smart enough to answer that question and neither are most scientists that study this for a living, like Dr. Spencer.
MarkM, you do realize that POLITICS is involved in "Global Warming" like the movie "Inconvenient Truth" and the former VP Al Gore's fortune from the Occidental Petroleum Company!! LOL
CC wrote on Feb 16, 2009 8:25 AM:
Oct. 2008 was recorded as the coldest Oct. in history!
The issue as to whether man is the cause of increasing earth temperatures is not settled and that fact has been debated by scientist for many year
The issue as to whether man is the cause of increasing earth temperatures is not settled and that fact has been debated by scientist for many year
Dave wrote on Feb 16, 2009 7:56 AM:
Well now here are a few items to think about...How many acres of land are covered with cement and blacktop every day???how many are lost to building???how many are exposed from over harvesting of timber.How many by dams and other types of construction...It cant just go on fore ever and ever...we need to stop ruining the enviornment
E wrote on Feb 15, 2009 9:59 AM:
Humans are an endangered species if we don't get our act together. All life on this planet had a purpose you take one thing out everything else falls around it.. I suppose the guy yelling "hey there's an iceberg ahead" on the titanic was an alarmist?You folks keep your head in the sand and keep yelling "global warming is a myth" And I'll start buying up my new beachfront property.. In Eugene.
Mr Butterbur wrote on Feb 15, 2009 7:36 AM:
Naysayers concerning the validity of global warming would also have us believe that polar ice is not melting. Deny the nose on your own face, industrial shills.
MarkM 2 of 2 wrote on Feb 14, 2009 8:09 PM:
Some info for you Bill:
"The climate is heating up far faster than scientists had predicted, spurred by sharp increases in greenhouse gas emissions from developing countries like China and India, a top climate scientist said on Saturday."
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE51D29E20090214?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews
"The climate is heating up far faster than scientists had predicted, spurred by sharp increases in greenhouse gas emissions from developing countries like China and India, a top climate scientist said on Saturday."
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE51D29E20090214?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews
MarkM wrote on Feb 14, 2009 7:32 AM:
So environmentalists caused the fires in Australia? This in a country which joined W Bush in stalling GW action for years. Hmmm. Enviro-wackos sure are whimsical in the way that they wield their enormous power. (Enter sarcasm icon here.)
Meanwhile, the US finds itself in the middle of an bitter cold snap -- but Oklahoma is ravaged by tornadoes!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,490665,00.html
Tornadoes in winter. That's why some climate scientists prefer the term "global weirding." Expect the unexpected as our climate slowly changes into something completely different.
Meanwhile, the US finds itself in the middle of an bitter cold snap -- but Oklahoma is ravaged by tornadoes!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,490665,00.html
Tornadoes in winter. That's why some climate scientists prefer the term "global weirding." Expect the unexpected as our climate slowly changes into something completely different.
MarkM wrote on Feb 13, 2009 9:01 PM:
MaryM,
Forgot the link for you. Here it is:
http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1397
Forgot the link for you. Here it is:
http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1397
MarkM wrote on Feb 13, 2009 8:58 PM:
More for MaryM,
If you check a Roy Spencer biographical website that's not written by Roy Spencer you find several things of note:
Spencer is a scientific adviser for the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance which has accepted $2.32 million dollars from ExxonMobil.
Spencer's satellite data research on global cooling has been refuted.
Spencer is a member of the Heartland Institute which has accepted over a half million dollars from ExxonMobil. (Heartland also advocates for Big Tobacco.)
Spencer works for the George C. Marshall Institute which has accepted $630,000 from ExxonMobil.
Maybe Spencer is not technically lying when he says he "has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil." Well yeah, because it looks like ExxonMobil works through intermediaries and not Spencer directly.
I think this IS important to know. Dr. Spencer appears to have a serious conflict of interest.
If you check a Roy Spencer biographical website that's not written by Roy Spencer you find several things of note:
Spencer is a scientific adviser for the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance which has accepted $2.32 million dollars from ExxonMobil.
Spencer's satellite data research on global cooling has been refuted.
Spencer is a member of the Heartland Institute which has accepted over a half million dollars from ExxonMobil. (Heartland also advocates for Big Tobacco.)
Spencer works for the George C. Marshall Institute which has accepted $630,000 from ExxonMobil.
Maybe Spencer is not technically lying when he says he "has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil." Well yeah, because it looks like ExxonMobil works through intermediaries and not Spencer directly.
I think this IS important to know. Dr. Spencer appears to have a serious conflict of interest.
MarkM wrote on Feb 13, 2009 8:56 PM:
MaryM,
What part of the US Gov't is paying Roy Spencer? It's not NASA. By his own account, he hasn't worked there since 2001. Currently, he's employed at the University of Alabama at Huntsville which is a government job, but not a federal one. What did I miss?
Even if he is employed by the US Gov't, I'm not sure what exactly that proves -- that the US Gov't is trying to prove global warming is a hoax? Really?
What part of the US Gov't is paying Roy Spencer? It's not NASA. By his own account, he hasn't worked there since 2001. Currently, he's employed at the University of Alabama at Huntsville which is a government job, but not a federal one. What did I miss?
Even if he is employed by the US Gov't, I'm not sure what exactly that proves -- that the US Gov't is trying to prove global warming is a hoax? Really?
In Austrailia wrote on Feb 13, 2009 2:43 PM:
At least 181 people are dead, 500 are injured, 5000 are homeless, and 1.1 million acres of land have burned in the worst natural disaster in Australia's history - and the fires still rage. Even though the fires were caused by arson. You can also blame environmentalist.
The "green" policy, which denied residents the ability to cut down trees and clean-up bushland in preparation for the fire season.
The "green" policy, which denied residents the ability to cut down trees and clean-up bushland in preparation for the fire season.
MaryM wrote on Feb 13, 2009 1:55 PM:
If you check drroyspencer.com you'll find that Roy Spencer is being paid by U.S.Government.
That's kind of important to know, don't you think?
That's kind of important to know, don't you think?
Kafalas wrote on Feb 13, 2009 1:45 PM:
When you look at real temperature data for the 20th century as a whole, there isn't much evidence that the Earth's climate has warmed more than about one degree Fahrenheit.
Glo wrote on Feb 13, 2009 1:43 PM:
The only hot air that's threatening the planet is coming out of the mouths of the "Global Warming" fanatics.
Gerry wrote on Feb 13, 2009 1:38 PM:
Bill Gehling knows what he writes about.
It is argued that scientists exaggerate the effects of global warming because they receive funds from environmental companies.
It is argued that scientists exaggerate the effects of global warming because they receive funds from environmental companies.
You People will fall for everything wrote on Feb 13, 2009 9:46 AM:
Total ignorance.
I believe that everyone should be responsible for the environment, but who is controlling the toxins coming from China?
All Global Warming does is cost American workers more.
Look at Caterpiller, where Pres. Obama was yesterday 2/12/2009; there is NO more engines made in America for Caterpiller, because of the emission controls!!! Obama lied that the plant would be rehiring people.
Why don't you "GOOGLE" it?
I believe that everyone should be responsible for the environment, but who is controlling the toxins coming from China?
All Global Warming does is cost American workers more.
Look at Caterpiller, where Pres. Obama was yesterday 2/12/2009; there is NO more engines made in America for Caterpiller, because of the emission controls!!! Obama lied that the plant would be rehiring people.
Why don't you "GOOGLE" it?
By Roy W. Spencer wrote on Feb 13, 2009 9:41 AM:
ALL of my research has been 100% U.S. Govt. funded, March 21, 2008
(Huntsville, AL) - See all my reviews
The very first review of my book to appear here claims I (the author) am funded by Exxon-Mobil, which is totally false. Apparently, people can say WHATEVER they want on the internet, spreading rumors, and this is the eventual result. My research has always been 100% U.S. Government-funded. No oil company has ever even ASKED me to do anything for them, let alone paid me. I have written on this issue for 15 years, and am supportive of the oil and coal industries simply because of the huge benefit to mankind that has resulted from access to abundant, affordable energy.
I have a "full disclosure" on my website if anyone is interested in more details...just Google [Roy Spencer full disclosure]. If the best a reviewer can do is say they haven't read the book, but they know I'm just a shill for big oil, then they are seriously misinformed on the global warming issue. Unfortunately, this is becoming commonplace.
-Roy W. Spencer
(Huntsville, AL) - See all my reviews
The very first review of my book to appear here claims I (the author) am funded by Exxon-Mobil, which is totally false. Apparently, people can say WHATEVER they want on the internet, spreading rumors, and this is the eventual result. My research has always been 100% U.S. Government-funded. No oil company has ever even ASKED me to do anything for them, let alone paid me. I have written on this issue for 15 years, and am supportive of the oil and coal industries simply because of the huge benefit to mankind that has resulted from access to abundant, affordable energy.
I have a "full disclosure" on my website if anyone is interested in more details...just Google [Roy Spencer full disclosure]. If the best a reviewer can do is say they haven't read the book, but they know I'm just a shill for big oil, then they are seriously misinformed on the global warming issue. Unfortunately, this is becoming commonplace.
-Roy W. Spencer
MarkM wrote on Feb 12, 2009 5:40 PM:
If you check ExxonSecrets you'll find that Roy Spencer is being paid by ExxonMobil.
That's kind of important to know, don't you think?
That's kind of important to know, don't you think?
A few facts wrote on Feb 12, 2009 10:12 AM:
People seem to assume that most of the CO2 out there is manmade. Not so. Only about 2 percent of it is from car emissions. About 20 percent is from, not car emissions but (can you guess?) manure. That's right. There are so many animals making so much excrement that this causes more CO2 than cars. If you REALLY think we are responsible for global warming you shouldn't buy a hybrid, you should attack factory farming by becoming a vegetarian, for cow farts trump SUV exhaust easily. Furthermore, all of this biofuel nonsense such as ethanol is worsening global poverty and contributing to starvation from places as disparate as Italy to the bread riots in Egypt.
To Bill wrote on Feb 12, 2009 10:09 AM:
I would like to take this opportunity to THANK YOU for writing a letter to open the dialog of "Global Warming"
Seems strange saying that as it is snowing outside my window!!
A wonderful book on the subject by distinguished climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer
"Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor"
Seems strange saying that as it is snowing outside my window!!
A wonderful book on the subject by distinguished climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer
"Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor"
Al wrote on Feb 12, 2009 8:47 AM:
For every scientist waving his arms about global warming there is another that thinks it's nonsense.
Al Gore refuses to debate John Coleman (founder of the Weather Channel) which tells me he's lost on the subject without a script or tele-prompter. Let's get some experts from both sides to present their cases.
Until then, I remain convinced that Federal and State Government is more interested in creating an new reason to pillar and plunder the private sector than addressing any real or perceived environmental problems. And before all you "Greenies" jump on your keyboard, just Google the myriad of ways our Federal Government is currently trashing our country and the globe.
Al Gore refuses to debate John Coleman (founder of the Weather Channel) which tells me he's lost on the subject without a script or tele-prompter. Let's get some experts from both sides to present their cases.
Until then, I remain convinced that Federal and State Government is more interested in creating an new reason to pillar and plunder the private sector than addressing any real or perceived environmental problems. And before all you "Greenies" jump on your keyboard, just Google the myriad of ways our Federal Government is currently trashing our country and the globe.
I agree wrote on Feb 12, 2009 8:25 AM:
We have to decide and maybe this issue will actually have a chance to be heard.What we dont need is to have our government blacking out the information before its issued to the public.
MarkM wrote on Feb 12, 2009 7:17 AM:
I'd like to recommend two websites to you in your search. The first is Climate Change: A Guide for the Perplexed by New Scientist magazine.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462
Click on the question you have and read the detailed, thorough answer. Check the sources for more information.
The second website is ExxonSecrets. It's run by Greenpeace but don't let that scare you off. It's a compilation of the people, groups, and companies who are supporting the global warming denier arguments. When you follow the money, you find that most of it leads to ExxonMobil. You can draw your own conclusions but to me that's suspicious.
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/exxon-secrets
You're going to have to be a little pro-active on this. I doubt anyone will set up the debate you desire. Even if they did, it wouldn't settle much. That's not how the contrary arguments are designed to work. It's going to be up to you to learn for yourself and then spread the word.
Good luck in your search.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462
Click on the question you have and read the detailed, thorough answer. Check the sources for more information.
The second website is ExxonSecrets. It's run by Greenpeace but don't let that scare you off. It's a compilation of the people, groups, and companies who are supporting the global warming denier arguments. When you follow the money, you find that most of it leads to ExxonMobil. You can draw your own conclusions but to me that's suspicious.
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/exxon-secrets
You're going to have to be a little pro-active on this. I doubt anyone will set up the debate you desire. Even if they did, it wouldn't settle much. That's not how the contrary arguments are designed to work. It's going to be up to you to learn for yourself and then spread the word.
Good luck in your search.
MarkM wrote on Feb 12, 2009 7:17 AM:
Bill,
It's not surprising that many people are confused over the veracity of global warming. Powerful, wealthy groups are heavily vested in clouding the science as much as possible so as to delay action.
This is the same strategy that the tobacco companies used back in the 60's and 70's -- if they could put out enough contrary information, enough people would be unsure that cigarettes cause cancer and they'd keep on smoking until we know for sure.
Well, today we know the answer to that one. The scientists and doctors were right. Even the tobacco companies admit it now.
Global warming presents a much, much more serious problem. It's incumbent upon us to learn as much as possible.
It's not surprising that many people are confused over the veracity of global warming. Powerful, wealthy groups are heavily vested in clouding the science as much as possible so as to delay action.
This is the same strategy that the tobacco companies used back in the 60's and 70's -- if they could put out enough contrary information, enough people would be unsure that cigarettes cause cancer and they'd keep on smoking until we know for sure.
Well, today we know the answer to that one. The scientists and doctors were right. Even the tobacco companies admit it now.
Global warming presents a much, much more serious problem. It's incumbent upon us to learn as much as possible.
To Thomas. wrote on Feb 11, 2009 10:18 PM:
The original letter isn't uninformed. There's a serious debate out there and your assumption the letter is uninformed is in itself rather judgemental. Do some research. Attend a geology class. Watch valid unbiased documentaries. The possibility "global warming" that has since changed to "climate change" is human-caused, is still on the table. If you research, you'll see there are several periods of global warming and global cooling...before humans arrived. Yes. It's true. There is evidence that points to that few would deny, and to brush off the possibility that the continuing cycle from cooling to warming is not human caused is in itself the uninformed decision. Perhaps you should do some serious research instead of arguing against the article with no points other than saying that you "don't want to hear more ideological rhetoric such as your uninformed comment. With which parts of reality do you disagre?" It doesnt seem like you want to hear a debate since you've already decided that human-caused was reality...obviously to you natural cause isn't possible. Start making informed comments instead of ones that degrade someone's opinion simply because it isn't your own.
The World welcomes your comments about stories, and we encourage a robust dialogue on this site. All comments must meet reasonable standards of decency and civility.
Please follow these basic rules:
- No defamatory comments about individuals or businesses.
- No deliberately false information.
- No obscenity or racially offensive language.
- No harassment, verbal abuse, threats or personal attacks.
- No information that invades another person's privacy.
- No business solicitations or charitable solicitations.
Comments that violate these standards will not be posted. Users with repeated violations may be banned from future posting.Comments will be approved throughout the day during business hours. After hours and weekend comments may not appear until the following business day. It may take a couple of hours before comments are approved.
The World generally does not edit comments, but we reserve the right to edit any comment that does not meet our standards.
Close Guidelines