Al Gore's Global Warming Alarmism Continues to Melt and Wither

Chris, big Al is going to run, i think he will annonce at some earth day type event in July, i hope it SNOWS. CHRIS CAN YOU ANS. A QUESTION I HAVE- how can millions of sensible people around the world belive this un-proven non- sense Gore is hustling on them.

Do your read newsbusters.org or the Chicago Sun Times? I saw the same thing this morning.

The Chicago Tribune reported on the plight of the penguins. Global warming is real and man has much to do with it. Don't kid yourselves. No honest scientist is debunking the findings.

This whole global warming thing reminds me of the debate that raged over the world being round or flat...I've seen subtle changes in my lifetime without the benefit of looking at satellite imagery and other data, I just look around me and can see it. We cannot continue to fool ourselves in denying its existence.

hey Joe, would you like to make a bet on all these dooms-day predictions made by the global warming scaremongers. I will bet you that every climate disaster predicted by "Fat Albert" never happens. Al has missed every climate disaster he predicted so far, as a matter of fact Al said we had 10 yrs. left about 12 years ago. C'mon Joe or Stacey put up or ?? . After all how can you lose-" No scientist disaggres with you, so Joe say's.------LOL!

micky: "I will bet you that every climate disaster predicted by "Fat Albert" never happens."

Try telling that to the folks in Texas and Alabama, who are currently enjoying their "normal" respective floods and drought. Yes, yes, I know no specific weather event can be attributed to global warming. And yes, yes, I know that global warming only makes such events statistically more likely.

James: "Do your read newsbusters.org or the Chicago Sun Times? I saw the same thing this morning."

It's originally sourced to the Heartland Institute. The article just throws up the same bs that has been debunked numerous times. These people are desparate.

micky: "Al said we had 10 yrs. left about 12 years ago."

Source it. Gore is quoting James Hansen, and I believe that is what Hansen said last year.

Chris. I'm surprised you missed this one. It's right in line with your style of misreprentation.

http://newsbusters.org/node/13833

This story is also refers to the Heartland Institute.

No! Only ten years! Thanks a lot Gore.

The Chicago Sun-Times article that was cited was written by James M. Taylor, of the Heartland Institute. The Heartland Institute is heavily funded by Exxon-Mobil.

See http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=41

Who is doing the hustling?

From your article: "Gore claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame. Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, "Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame."

The author fails to give the article title, author, or any specific reference or link to this article. And anyone, who expects to find a quote like this one in a scientific journal, is an idiot! No wonder his reference is so obscure!

The only reference to Himalayan glaciers in the September, 2006 issues of this journal is this, and the abstract is a bit more complicated than this author indicates:

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/
?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2FJCLI3860.1

Of course, there are also other studies:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070327113346.htm

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/
2006/03/0310_060310_glaciers.html

Bud: "The Heartland Institute is heavily funded by Exxon-Mobil."

I'm SHOCKED!!!!!!!! Thanks for the link.

I don't know which predictions will come true but the future is not good unless we change our ways. It's happening to the bears and penguins now. Birds all over the planet have changed their migration patterns. Weather systems have changed as well. I remember when we used to get below zero temperatures every winter. Now, it is rare. The planet has definitely warmed up. The science is in. The fact is that their is only a debate in America. Everywhere else, they understand.

Your article says: "Gore claims the snowcap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame. Yet according to the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine, "Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine."

Comments from climate scientists:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/05/tropical-glacier-retreat/#more-157

Read Sections 3 & 4, especially the following:

Section 3:
A glacier is like your bank account. Whether your wealth is growing or dwindling depends on how much money you deposit vs. how much you withdraw each year. The Kilimanjaro glaciers are nearing bankruptcy, but is this due to excessive withdrawals or insufficient savings? This, in essence, is the question raised (but not settled) in the paper by Kaser et al. [2004]. This paper has played a valuable role in calling attention to important work on the physics of tropical glaciers, that can help in teasing out the record of tropical climate change from glacier retreat data. It has also been widely misquoted and misinterpreted.

The aspect of the paper that has attracted the most attention is the claim that the retreat of the Kilimanjaro summit glaciers can be explained by precipitation reduction, without any compelling need to invoke a warming trend in local air temperature. The arguments are special to the high, cold glaciers of Kilimanjaro, and are not meant to generalize to other tropical glaciers. As the authors point out, even if the whole story comes down to precipitation changes which favor ablation, the persistence of these conditions throughout the 20th century still might be an indirect effect of global warming, via the remote effect of sea surface temperature on atmospheric circulation.

Section 4:

When the interesting and thought-provoking work of [Kaser et al] emerged from the machinery of the skeptics' disinformation operation, it had mutated beyond all recognition. The reports put out by the Heartland Institute (here and here) are typical.

I see a bright, prosperous future for those brave enough to use their imagination and drag the world forward.

Is anyone surprised that Emily's List supports on pro-choice candidates, or that the Chamber of Commerce supports business-friendly candidates, or surprise that the Sierra Club or 1,000 Friends support environmentalism candidates.

Expressing "surprise" at supporters is simply political posturing and red herring; at worst it shows pure political naivety and foolishness.

Let's see if Greenpeace lays out their donors or if Al Gore lays out who his sponsors are.

Speaking of Greenpeace, here's an article on Greenpeace's financial transgressions.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10936

Your article: "...according to the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine,..."

Huh? There doesn't seem to be a November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine. To bad he again doesn't give the Title/Author reference. Maybe he didn't want anyone to check.

http://www.nature.com/nature/archive/index.html?showyears=2007-2003-

Thanks for the Newbuster link - I can't say I'm surprise Al Gore won't debate anyone on global warming. After watching Kerry take a beating from Gingrich, Gore definitely doesn't want to go to bat against real scientists.

Your article says: "Gore claims global warming is causing more tornadoes."

I don't recall Gore making that claim. The author should cite a reference. However, here is the same criticism(?) of the "strawman" that the author sets up, and the response of a climate scientist:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=299#comment-14379

See #4

Chris: "I can't say I'm surprise Al Gore won't debate anyone on global warming."

I'm not either. It would be a total waste of time, especially debating people, who are at best intellectually dishonest.

Chris: "Expressing "surprise" at supporters is simply political posturing and red herring; at worst it shows pure political naivety and foolishness."

Perhaps, except when there is documentation that Exxon's stated purpose in funding these groups is to confuse the scientific issue of global warming in the public's mind.
____________

Yet some forces of denial—most notably ExxonMobil and the American Petroleum Institute, of which ExxonMobil is a leading member—remained recalcitrant. In 1998, the New York Times exposed an API memo outlining a strategy to invest millions to "maximize the impact of scientific views consistent with ours with Congress, the media and other key audiences." The document stated: "Victory will be achieved when…recognition of uncertainty becomes part of the 'conventional wisdom.'"

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/05/some_like_it_hot.html

Chris: "Thanks for the Newbuster link."

Glad to oblige. This article is a masterpiece in taking statements out of context. But then he amazingly stretches the meaning to a headline, which has absolutely nothing to do with the purpose of the statement in the first place! All while violating the access agreement to the statement, as required by the IPCC website posting it. It is purely and simply a work of ingenious dishonesty!

Your article says: Gore claims global warming is causing more frequent and severe hurricanes. However, hurricane expert Chris Landsea published a study on May 1 documenting that hurricane activity is no higher now than in decades past. Hurricane expert William Gray reported just a few days earlier, on April 27, that the number of major hurricanes making landfall on the U.S. Atlantic coast has declined in the past 40 years. Hurricane scientists reported in the April 18 Geophysical Research Letters that global warming enhances wind shear, which will prevent a significant increase in future hurricane activity.

Well, there's that reference thing again. Let's see if there's an April 18 Geophysical Research Letters.

Well - Eureka!!! - This is likely the article abstract:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028905.shtml

Of course, they are referring to global warming having the effect of increasing El Nino events in the Pacific, which does affect wind shear in the Atlantic. The abstract simply says this needs to be "...incorporated into projections of long-term hurricane activity." That's a long way from your article's claim. And even if correct, I'm not sure increased frequency of El Nino events will be much improvement over increase hurricane frequency.

Chris Landsea's article - no reference given even to the journal it might be in - will likely take a skeptical viewpoint, since he is a well know skeptic.

My goodness. In trying to find a reference to Landsea's article, look what I found.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/shear-turbulence/#more-437

I quote:

A recent paper by Vecchi and Soden (preprint) published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters has been widely touted in the news (and some egregiously bad editorials), and the blogosphere as suggesting that increased vertical wind shear associated with tropical circulation changes may offset any tendencies for increased hurricane activity in the tropical Atlantic due to warming oceans. Some have even gone so far as to state that this study proves that recent trends in hurricane activity are part of a natural cycle. Most of this is just 'spin' (pun intended), but as usual, the real story is a little more nuanced.

We have commented on the connections between hurricanes and climate change frequently in the past (see e.g. here, here, here, and here). The bottom line conclusion has consistently remained that, while our knowledge of likely future changes in hurricanes or tropical cyclones (TCs) remains an uncertain area of science, the observed relationship between increased intensity of TCs and rising ocean temperatures appears to be robust (Figure 1). There is nothing in this latest article that changes that.

Your article says: Gore claims global warming is causing an expansion of African deserts. However, the Sept. 16, 2002, issue of New Scientist reports, "Africa's deserts are in 'spectacular' retreat . . . making farming viable again in what were some of the most arid parts of Africa."

This appears to be the article. Definitely, good news!

http://environment.newscientist.com/article/
dn2811-africas-deserts-are-in-spectacular-retreat.html

And here is a more recent article confirming it.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/
earth/dn10293-more-crops-for-africa-as-trees-reclaim-the-desert.html

But neither article mentions global warming, either in the sense that global warming is not associated with desertification, or in the sense that global warming is not occuring due to the retreat of these deserts. This case seems to be associated with respectively poor and improved land use techniques.

This article does mention global warming.

The message is pretty clear here:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070627221726.htm

And Africa is not the only area of concern:

http://climate.eas.gatech.edu/jwei/223zjy.pdf

Steve B.,
If Al Gore said anything about an increase in tornadoes - he didn't say it in "An Inconvenient Truth."

Thanks, Joe.

I didn't remember that part either.

Serious food shortage?

Global warming will cause increased precipitation and growing seasons.

Seems to me that those of you who are wanting to decrease CO2 and water vapor (the main greenhouse gas) are the ones trying to starve people.

Your article says: "Gore argues Greenland is in rapid meltdown, and that this threatens to raise sea levels by 20 feet. But according to a 2005 study in the Journal of Glaciology, "the Greenland ice sheet is thinning at the margins and growing inland, with a small overall mass gain." In late 2006, researchers at the Danish Meteorological Institute reported that the past two decades were the coldest for Greenland since the 1910s."

The reference is again non-specific and (by design?) difficult to look up. This might be it, the reference found on the Danish Meteorological Institute website:

http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/index/viden/fk-introduktion/vid_art_dkc.htm

Hanna, E., J. McConnell, S. Das, J. Cappelen, and A. Stephen: Observed and modelled Greenland Ice Sheet snow accumulation, 1958-2003, and links with regional climate forcing". Journal of Climate: Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 344-358 DOI: 10.1175/JCLI3615.1.

Now - to the Journal of Climate.... Well, here's the abstract, and maybe you can tell me how this author gets his conclusion from this abstract....

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/
?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2FJCLI3615.1

Maybe he has access to the entire report and could quote from it. Of course we know what kinds of political rhetoric he claims are quotes from scientific journals (above: "Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame.") Or maybe this is not the report he's referrng to, and if that's the case, then you'll have to provide that link.

I've never seen people so eager to show the world is ending, despite evidence to the contrary.

The Earth is a monstrous sized planet that has been around for 5.6 BILLION years, surviving God knows how many ice ages, warming trends, bombardment by meteors and comets, even having most of it's like wiped out at one point or another.

And still, here we are.

It's a little presumptious (and I think arrogant) to think man could destroy it it a couple of hundred years.

Your article says: Gore claims the Antarctic ice sheet is melting because of global warming. Yet the Jan. 14, 2002, issue of Nature magazine reported Antarctica as a whole has been dramatically cooling for decades. More recently, scientists reported in the September 2006 issue of the British journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series A: Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, that satellite measurements of the Antarctic ice sheet showed significant growth between 1992 and 2003. And the U.N. Climate Change panel reported in February 2007 that Antarctica is unlikely to lose any ice mass during the remainder of the century.

There is no January 14, 2002 issue of Nature. If this guy can't be precise about the journal issue he's referring to, then how can you expect him to be precise about anything he's reporting?

http://www.nature.com/nature/archive/index.html?showyears=2007-2002-

I find no reference to Antarctica in either the January 10, 2002 or the January 17, 2002 issues of Nature. Maybe you should contact this author to find out where this article really is.

Here is the table of contents for the Royal Society's, Philosophical Transactions A. Perhaps you can find an article here on the Antarctic ice sheet. If so, please point it out. Thanks.

http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/content/
p0278482115j/?sortorder=asc&p_o=0

Finally!!! "...U.N. Climate Change panel reported in February 2007...."

Would that be the IPCC Report? If so, why doesn't he just say IPCC? And why doesn't he give the specific reference - page number? I think this guy obviously doesn't want you to check the reference. And why doesn't he refer to the overall conclusion of the IPCC report?

Well, I've wasted enough time with this disinformative "article". My conclusion is that it's impossible to take it seriously - the Chicago Sun Times should do some checking of its own before it accepts another article from this clown.

Chris: "I've never seen people so eager to show the world is ending, despite evidence to the contrary."

Strawman Chris. Evidence? Evidence? You present this article as evidence? What a joke!!! This guy apparently can't even get his references straight!!!

Chris: "It's a little presumptious (and I think arrogant) to think man could destroy it it a couple of hundred years."

You "think"? You certainly have a right to your opinion, but you can't substitute your opinion for evidence - and this article certainly fails to present evidence.

steve is kicking your ass chris

btw the earth is 4.6 billion years old, not 5.6 billion years

Two things:

1. I'm not on the defense,
2. When you're explaining, you're losing.

4.6 billions vs 5.6 billion....does it really matter after a few billion?

Bottom line: we'll be here in 200 years in better shape than were are now; just as we are in better shape than our ancestors 200 years ago.

I don't fall for the gloom and doom and I'm not bent on screaming that we're going to drown, dehydrate, starve, or whatever in the next ten years.

Science isn't settled, nor is settled on what the consequences will be.

Chris: "I'm not on the defense"

I see that. You haven't defended one of the points made in your article. And I don't blame you one bit. They're indefensible. I would have thought you'd have checked them out first, though, before promoting this story.

I wish most of my opponents would walk around and mumble about sources rather than defend against the charge.

Make my life a whole lot easier.

As it is, nothing has been answered.

Jebus, kook, if you haven't figured out that global warming is happening by now, there's simply no hope for you. Have you noticed that winters are warmer and shorter, and that summers are warmer and longer? No, of course not, because you live in a bubble, paid for by the oil industry. GD Freak. I hope your daughter is real happy living in the life that you're handing her, where she has to kill for food and water. When she's screaming out in agony as your grandchildren die of starvation, you can proudly say "You know what, hon? I helped make this happen for you, because I was being paid by the oil industry to perpetrate lies and ignorance! Aren't you happy?"

The earth has warmed about 1 degree in the last hundred years. Obviously noticeable by anyone not in a bubble. Not to mention your local area must be indicative of the world as a whole.

Those evil oil companies must be shipping greenhouse gases throughout the solar system as several other planets are warming as well. Maybe Congress should investigate.

:::sigh::: there you go again, Clark - always foaming at the mouth with you conspiracy theories.

Glad you emerged from your cave, dragging your knuckles the whole way.

Here's the rundown...again....no one denies the earth is getting warmer, just as Mars is getting warmer (must be the Mars Rover).

But it's highly doubtful any of your predictions will come true, as the past doom and gloom theories have never come true. We haven't frozen to death (a al 1970), we haven't starved to death (a la 1960s and 1970s), we haven't over-populated ourselves to death (a la 1960s and 1970s), and our oceans are still thriving (a la 1980s and early 1990s).

Your alarmist movement is nothing more than political cover to force social change on a populace that would otherwise be horrified at what you propose (a la Former Soviet Union, Vietnam, North Korea, and Cuba).

So, since you want this social change so bad, tell us what it is.

Tell us what the ideal temperature is.

Tell us what tax rates you would force on the producers of society and how you would re-distribute that wealth.

Tell us what regulations you would impost on captains of industry.

Tell us with 100% certainty what will happen in the next 50 to 100 years.

Chris: "I wish most of my opponents would walk around and mumble about sources rather than defend against the charge."

1. Sources obviously don't matter to you. Thanks for the confirmation.

2. Your source has no credibility, so your "charges" are groundless.

Chris: "Tell us...."

Defend the points you originally make in this "article". It's your article, after all.

Actually, it was a highlight of an article.

I still don't see where the sources are invalid.

Nor have the points been debunked.

Alarmists can't stand it when realists point out the future ain't as bad as predicted.

I still find it odd that the alarmists actually seem to want the earth to flood and it's populace to starve.

It seems borne of some perverted hatred of mankind and reverence toward Gaia.

Chris: "Actually, it was a highlight of an article."

Translation: Selective quoting of a selective quoter.

Chris: "I still don't see where the sources are invalid."

Of course you don't.

Chris: "Nor have the points been debunked."

Actually, they haven't even been made.

Chris: "Alarmists can't stand it when realists point out the future ain't as bad as predicted."

Ideological gibberish and faith-based nonsense.

Chris: "It seems borne of some perverted hatred of mankind and reverence toward Gaia."

It seems - it seems - it seems....blahblahblah....
You've got nothing.

I've got history on my side.

Ideological gibberish=the world will end in 10 years=we need more money to explore.

Climate and historical realism=no doomsday prediction has ever come true, nor is it likely it will.

Faith-based nonsense is taking these government funded scientists at face value when they say we're all going to drown, starve, and roast in 10 to 100 years.

Faith-based is quoting Al Gore's power point presentation.

Faith-based is saying the ocean's will rise 20 feet in the next 100 years.

Faith-based is ignoring history and placing unfounded faith in those whose livelihoods depend on government largesse.

Ideological gibberish is discounting adaptability and opportunity with changes while wanting higher taxes, limits on development, limits on the number of children a family can have.

At least be honest enough to come out and say that the "we care" mantra is political cover for a push by radical leftists to push an extreme agenda of taxation and regulation.

I'll lay $5,000 on the table right now that in 50 years none of the predictions will come true.

Chris: "I'll lay $5,000 on the table right now that in 50 years none of the predictions will come true."

$5,000? It's your daughter's world your wagering, ...and her children's, ...and their's.

That's why I also believe that - as history shows - the future will be better and more prosperous than the world of today.

And it'll be my world until I leave it.

Just as this generation has done better than the previous one, the next one will also do better.

"Here's the rundown...again....no one denies the earth is getting warmer, just as Mars is getting warmer (must be the Mars Rover)."

You fool. I've already showed you why Mars is getting warmer, and it has NOTHING to do whatsoever with why the earth is growing warmer.

The debate over global warming is over. Apparently, somebody forgot to clue you in. Your side LOST. Get over it.

I've asked you this about a thousand times, but have never received an answer. I don't know why, but I'll try once again:

Why are you so feverishly against the economic explosion that would unfold as a result of an aggressive policy of alternative energies? Is there something that you have against advancement and economic success? What possible motivation could you have, other than receiving cash from the oil industry, to endlessly cling to ridiculous, disproven "facts," and stand firmly in the way of progress?

Your position on this is nothing short of pig headed. Aside from whatever money you're obviously receiving from the oil industry to be a point of disinformation, I simply cannot fathom why you would insist upon ignoring reality, especially considering what is at risk. You're so utterly convinced that you and your oil industry pals are right, yet you have NOTHING to base that belief on. It's just a staggering thing to watch you obsess over this, be flat out on the wrong side, brush aside documented facts of science, and cling to mythical fantasies. Bizarre.

Chris: "That's why I also believe that - as history shows - the future will be better and more prosperous than the world of today. And it'll be my world until I leave it. Just as this generation has done better than the previous one, the next one will also do better.

Translation: Regardless of how I leave the world to succeeding generations, I have "faith" that they'll figure it out. Anyway, it'll be their problem, regardless. Now, THAT'S "Faith-based," and damned irresponsible.

But you have your talking points. All that blather about scientists, "...whose livelihoods depend on government largesse, etc., etc., etc." It's no wonder you don't think sources are important - you have so little regard for science.

My only point is that this article you have "excerpted" from is just that: talking points, and little else.

Let me understand this - Mars is getting warmer, but it's not the same reason Earth is getting warmer.

HAHAHAHAHHAHAAH!!! That's like saying the reason my neighbor has the flu isn't the same reason I have the flu.

You're so desperate to push a radical leftist ideology of higher taxes and regulation that you'll say "ignore the man behind the curtain."

Actually, I see the opposite. As more and more info is put out there, more and more people are coming to the climate realist side.

BBC actually was publishing about a poll today that found 56% of people believe climate scientists are still questioning climate change (which they are) and that the problem is "exaggerated to make money" (which it is).

Just say it, Clark, it won't hurt you. Just say, "We want to raise taxes to the point that it discourages exploring new energy resources, to the point that people won't accumulate wealth, that people won't have children. We want to regulate industry and development out of existence."

All I can say is go drink some more kool aid.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6263690.stm

Chris: "Mars is getting warmer, but it's not the same reason Earth is getting warmer."

Some sources for you - oh, that's right. You don't like sources or science. Well, here they are anyway. And unlike your article, I give you specific links so you can easily check it out for yourself. And unlike your article, these references actually exist!

Climate myths: Mars and Pluto are warming too
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11642

Global warming on Mars?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192

"The team's findings don't point to an external influence, such as an increase in solar radiation, that some climate-change skeptics have suggested may be behind Earth's recent warming, Geissler says"

No Escape: There's global warming on Mars too
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20070407/fob7.asp

Thanks for this link.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6263690.stm

And here's a couple for you:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250571,00.html

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1176967,00.html

Hmm..., Zogby weighed on this too:
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1161

A CBS Poll:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/26/
opinion/polls/main2731709.shtml

Here's a good summary of polling 2006-7 polling results.
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2007/may/policy/ee_climatepolls.html

The sources you give don't say global warming isn't occuring on Mars. It simply says it's too early to tell.

These of course are the same wingnuts who say man is warming the planet to the point of extinction. But without man to blame for warming on other planets they take a wait and see approach.

Wish they'd do the same here.

I hope this issue is alive and well for the next election because it's going to fall on the global alarmists to explain what the impact of government mandates and taxes will have the economy.

The polls you mention are old news.

It's also funny to look at the contradictory views - government mandates to curb emissions while giving tax breaks to unproven methods (wind, solar) while no breaks to proven electricity generators (nuclear). They also oppose higher taxes on gas and electricity.

Someone's going to have to pay for the mandates and tax breaks. Who would that be? Or would it be more more income redistribution schemes?

The BBC poll - and I imagine other polls do as well - show there's more concern with terrorism and crime.

The poll essentially adheres to the theory that individuals being polled will give the answer they feel is socially acceptable even if it's not the true opinion they hold.

The poll also exists in a vacuum in that negative socio-economic impacts are not mentioned in relation to the question, e.g., "would you pay higher taxes to discourage greenhouse emissions? How much job loss is acceptable to prevent industry from emitting greenhouse gases? Are you willing to allow massive windmills and solar collection panels in your neighborhood?"

That last question is important. You love to cite as proof various polls that adhere to your pre-conceived notions.

Are you willing to embrace polls that show the NIMBY and BANANA traits held by the American public, as these polls show?

Bottom line: climate realists - the true rationalist approach - is winning the debate and the public is seeing the alarmists for what they are: scientists who simply exaggerate the problem for increased funding with a complicit radical left wing who wants to force massive government regulation and taxes on a populace.

You know, the same argument leftists use on the Republicans for war on terror and the need for increased government surveillance.

My $5,000 bet is still on the table.

If we can afford to kill Iraqis, we can afford to do what's possible about global warming. There is no excuse for ignoring the problem and insisting that it isn't real.

Joe: "There is no excuse for ignoring the problem and insisting that it isn't real."

True, but you won't get Chris to deal with it. He puts $5,000 on the table but fails to see it is really the world his daughter inherits that he's actually willing to gamble. He dismisses that with some flippant remark about having faith in her ability to take care of herself. There are things happening today that are not inconsistent with warming predictions - just ask the folks of Texas and Alabama how they like their respective floods and drought - but Chris will likely say something like, "there have always been floods and droughts." He just had some pretty serious fires in his section of the country. It makes no difference to him that the increased frequency, intensity and duration of these events are occurring already.

Chris: "The sources you give don't say global warming isn't occuring on Mars. It simply says it's too early to tell."

You didn't read the whole thing, or you're being dishonest, or you have a comprehension problem. But your statement is typical of your style of misrepresentation.

Chris: "These of course are the same wingnuts...."

Yes, we know you don't think much of science or scientists. But tell me, are you one of those guys, who think "free markets" should decide everything?

Chris: "I hope this issue is alive and well for the next election because it's going to fall on the global alarmists to explain what the impact of government mandates and taxes will have the economy."

It may be an issue in the coming election. But I don't know of any of the candidates that are denying the dangers. The debate is moving to solutions, with Reps wanting to push the nuclear solution and Dems wanting to push renewables. Maybe, when Thompson gets in, you'll have your candidate - we'll see. In any case, which Republican will want to explain why he's willing to risk much more serious damage to the economy by not addressing warming? Do you think the American people would prefer to continue fighting wars in the mideast to "protect our vital national interests in the region," or to build our own energy infrastructure so that we are no longer dependent on hostile nations for energy supply?

Chris: "The polls you mention are old news."

They're U.S. polls. The one you link is a UK poll.

Chris: "...tax breaks to unproven methods (wind, solar) while no breaks to proven electricity generators (nuclear)."

Wind and solar are anything but unproven. Nuclear has always had to be subsidized, and will always have to be subsidized. It doesn't draw investors the way wind and solar do. Renewables have potential to stand on their own and out-compete fossils. Nuclear does not. BTW, you've decided to allow the nuclear waste to be stored in your community? Or are you still wanting to push it on the folks in Nevada? Talk to me about NIMBY.

Chris: "Bottom line: climate realists - the true rationalist approach - is winning the debate..."

Yeah, I know..., "Mission Accomplished."

"...and the public is seeing the alarmists for what they are: scientists who simply exaggerate the problem for increased funding with a complicit radical left wing who wants to force massive government regulation and taxes on a populace."

I'm very happy for you to clearly acknowledge your disdain for scientists and the scientific method. At least you're honest about that.

Chris: "You know, the same argument leftists use on the Republicans for war on terror and the need for increased government surveillance."

Thanks for also clarifying that you come at this issue from a purely political ideology. That, with your disdain for science should put you in the good graces of Karl Rove..., no..., wait..., it can't be..., ...Karl?!?!?

Chris: "...it's going to fall on the global alarmists to explain what the impact of government mandates and taxes will have the economy."

Actually, that is a good point (not the global alarmists part). There is a healthy debate about how to make the transition over time to energy independence. Fighting resource wars in the mideast is not an option.

Try reading this article carefully. It takes your criticism of taxes and regulations seriously, and offers a different approach. Then, if you can put your political rhetoric aside, we might have a constructive conversation.

Global Warming in an Age of Energy Anxiety
Why progressives should shift the emphasis from regulation to investment in their political and policy approach.

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=global_warming_in_an_age_of_energy_anxiety

Chris: "'would you pay higher taxes to discourage greenhouse emissions?'"

Yes - absolutely! Also, see this:

http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/
esthag-w/2007/july/policy/ee_climate.html

Chris: "How much job loss is acceptable to prevent industry from emitting greenhouse gases?"

How much job gain, you mean?

http://home.apolloalliance.org/community-jobs-report/

Chris: "Are you willing to allow massive windmills and solar collection panels in your neighborhood?"

Yes - absolutely! If I had 5-10 acres, I'd have a wind turbine on my land. It would likely earn $6-8,000 annually, (tax free?). Of course, concentrated solar collectors could line our interstate highway system and roofs, providing 5+ times the electricity we need. Concentrated PVs:

http://www.stirlingenergy.com/whatisastirlingengine.htm

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/csp.html

To achieve the unrealistic goals set by Al Gore of 90% reduction of greenhouse gases (I believe the 90% is the figure used by most climate scientists) and using government-mandated schemes, such as cap-and-trade, forced ethanol, etc, as opposed to free-market solutions to achieve arbitrarily mandated solutions we would have to ground every flight, stop every car, shut down virtually all energy grids.

No A/C, no travel, no electricity, save that generated by dams, windmills, and nuclear power.

This is something no rational person would stand for.

The only viable solution is one that is clean and costs less than what is produced today while satisfying the increasing demand.

Once that is created, then, yes, I'm all for it.

Chris: "The only viable solution is one that is clean and costs less than what is produced today while satisfying the increasing demand."

Two books you should read:

"Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution," Hawken, Lovins and Lovins.

http://www.amazon.com/Natural-Capitalism-Creating-Industrial-Revolution/dp/0316353000/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b/103-5196657-3497410?ie=UTF8&qid=1183900805&sr=1-1

"Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things," McDonough and Braungart.

http://www.amazon.com/Cradle-Remaking-Way-Make-Things/dp/0865475873/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b/103-5196657-3497410?ie=UTF8&qid=1183900805&sr=1-1

Your insistence that we all have to return to caves and forests is ludicrous. Much of what you're demanding can be done by technologies that already exist. Do you realize how much waste currently exists in our economy? There is money to be made from deploying these technologies. The savings from changing our wasteful ways alone would be incredible.

Steve B and Clark Kent have proven nothing. They are using their double speak ways to prove that pink elephants walk the earth. There is no global warming caused by man. If you talk to any astronomer they will tell you the world is warming cause the sun is getting brighter. You two have proven nothing, Clark Kent makes crazy accusations that Chris is paid by oil companies because he won't bow down to man made global warming. Steve B. keeps beating a dead horse with the same articles that still haven't proven anything. Until we have a red parade in front of the white house, people like them will not be satisfied.